Sascha wrote:
Perhaps it's just my fault that I do post on forums and that's why I just notice such generalizations, but it sometimes makes me wonder, if some (and may I stress SOME because there are many pros on MM that don't do this) land-based "pros" look down on MMers as "web-based" dreamers that much, why exactly do they care to keep an account on MM themselves or even have the time to bother to shoot others down in the forum as "web-based"? 

Sometimes this seems to be a little much.  Anyone else feel that way?

Personally, I categorize both models and photographers as "hobbist" or "professional" and that's all.

Some "hobbists" aspire to become "professionals" and that's cool. But in my mind, people can pretty much be lumped into those 2 categories. Neither one is better than the other (some "professionals" don't posses half the talent of some "hobbists") and neither one has anything to do with ones skills, ability, or diversity.

"Web" and "land-based" aren't really valid ways to categorize people because there is too much crossover.

Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
Some "hobbists" aspire to become "professionals" and that's cool. But in my mind, people can pretty much be lumped into those 2 categories. "Web" and "land-based" aren't really valid ways to categorize people because there is too much crossover.

EXACTLY.  I totally agree with you.

DeBoer Photography wrote:
Does it really matter?

Do what you do.  If you enjoy it and it makes $$$ for you (if $$$ is your goal), then it doesn't matter if you are "web-based" or not.

Who cares?

If you are doing it just for "fun" then this shouldn't even be an issue.  And even if this is your source of income...why is it even an issue?

lol

Just ignore/don't work with those who "look down" on you.  Who cares...they are not in the same market as you.

DeBoir... I don't think you really understood the point of the thread.  I never said anyone looks down on me specifically, and yes, some of us do work land-based while we have profiles here on Model Mayhem.... and I said there are professionals that are online for fun, not members that model/photograph for fun in general.

Although I do agree with you that it shouldn't matter whether you make your money on the web or land... and yet it seems like the general nature is that the term "web-based" is inferior to "land-based".  And you're right, nobody should care which market others choose to belong to and it really shouldn't be something that they'd look down on.

Vance wrote:
Bottom line, all these definitions aside...iIt's truly going to be one world, and those that are not ready...POOF! It will pass you by.

Very cool way to put it, Vance! : D

Sascha wrote:
I often run across some MMers commenting on this forum as if the rest of the MMers are "web-based".  I find this misleading, and in many cases derogatory.

I don't think it's derogatory, but I'd say it does recognize that there's a difference between the most of the folks on here and most of the folks who work in the mainstream brick and mortar modeling/advertising world.  When people acknowledge the difference, they are not saying that every single person on here fits the same mold.  They are speaking in general terms.

Sascha wrote:
I know dozens of land-based pros on this site.

Out of how many total?

I think it's great that pros hang out here.  It's nice to read comments from people whose knowledge and experience goes beyond what they read on internet forums.  But the vast majority of folks on here just do photography and modeling as the  hobby level.  If they had o do i for a living, they'd starve.  And that includes me.

Steven Bigler wrote:
Sascha.... what your photographer failed to tell you was that he "would not" rather "could not"... as I too could not have to explain to a client why I did not book an agency girl.

It was not a personal thing... it is a professional thing... it's what we do.

To the actual biz as a whole... anything web based is 'less' or a joke.

Yes we could do the "but she / he is here .... and said _____ to me..." all day.  But in the end... real jobs go to real models.

Yes for personal things or projects there are options (as well as nudes.)... but that is the balance of it.

Yes you will find SOME photographer and working models also 'on the web'... but chances are they are 'on the web' for other reasons than for ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL MONEY MAKING MATTERS.
They rely on there actual agents for that.

-SB

Dave Krueger wrote:
I think it's great that pros hang out here.  It's nice to read comments from people whose knowledge and experience goes beyond what they read on internet forums.  But the vast majority of folks on here just do photography and modeling as the  hobby level.  If they had o do i for a living, they'd starve.  And that includes me.

I think that's why one of us mentioned that he categorizes them as hobbyists vs. pros instead of web vs. land... you can be modeling or photographing as a hobby even when land-based, and you can be modeling or photographing as a profession even when you're web-based.

Sascha wrote:
I often run across some MMers commenting on this forum as if the rest of the MMers are "web-based".  I find this misleading, and in many cases derogatory.

Well... I think that the term web-based is not necessarily negativ.

Many people, even agencies must have a webpresence nowadays, and landbased agencies are checking industry sites such as models.com for talent.

So, having a webpresence is nothing more than an extension of land based business.

Where it gets tricky is when models or photographers, for whom the net is the ONLY source of "industry contacts", coming up with expectations, demands and wannabe attitudes that tries to immitate landbased industry habits...

Going further out, and are completely unrealistic about the whole industry... and those people are the ones that "the others" look down at.

Why? Because the typical internet model has often a series of handheld webcam pix, out of shape, no experience and demand paid assignments only in pay ranges that landbased agencies are asking for their highly selected models and which even includes the agency cut.

To summarize... I see the distinction here really in an unrealistic assessment of someones own skills and demands which would just not fly in the landbased industry.

Am I clear? I am too tired.

Hope you do understand what I am rambling about.

Sascha wrote:
Yes Udo, I know what you mean ; ) however, that makes me further agree with Eric's categorization of Hobbyists vs. Pros... seems like it's way more appropriate than web vs. land : )

Again definitions aside...

One must look to the future of marketing and promotion. Let's face it. MOST of what we as photgraphers do is is either marketing (commercial) or purely art for arts sake.

Let's put art on the back burner. Many of us wish to be published in one form or another. I myself have photos as well as advertisments published because of work I was contracted to do.

The internet will become another "mainstream" source as the big companies expand out into the internet. Go to www.nikeid.com or adidas or anty of the major company websites. They all have commercial artwork aon them. Ten go look at some corporate websites. Not major companies, but corporations non the less. they sink a ton of money into their marketing and promotions, and often purcase space in the major magazines for placing their promotional materials. These companies dont always call up Tyra banks or Mr. Jordon. They call production companies like me, who then put a quote and concept together. We then go out and put the marketing material together.

This is happening more and more in the industry. More channels, more opportunities because the cost to advertise has come down and the cost to produce quality work has come down.

the question is, who will you affiliate yourself with. When it all washes out, being on the internet wont be the issue. the issue will be are you affiliated with entities that are perceived as PROFESSIONAL. Peole can argue this point all day long, in the end when it all washes out, proffessional affiliation will always go a long way.

In terms of Myspace, MM and the likes..Once you are big enough to be visible, you then go under the microscope. Happens all the time. Once under the microscope you will be labled and defined by the industry which you are in. That is where reputation comes into play.

This is getting too long...
But I am sure you get my meaning...

vance

Sascha wrote:
you can be modeling or photographing as a hobby even when land-based, and you can be modeling or photographing as a profession even when you're web-based.

Yes, but the chances are much greater that web based folks are doing it as a hobby and land based folks are doing it professionally. Saying there are exceptions doesn't disprove the generalization.  Saying you know a short guy who is popular with the women doesn't mean that women don't usually go for tall guys.

Sascha wrote:
I often run across some MMers commenting on this forum as if the rest of the MMers are "web-based".  I find this misleading, and in many cases derogatory.

first off, it makes that person sound extremely obnoxious, and secondly, unless a model/photographer/stylist SOLELY or PRIMARILY depends on online gigs for their income, IMO that person is not really "web-based".  For example, if a model has her own paysite and that is her main source of income, yes, I consider her a web-based model.  However, if a model does not have paysites or anything, has had land-based gigs or a land-based agency, and is here just for fun and meet interesting people, that model, to me, is not a "web-based" model.  Or, suppose that model got a few paying gigs that were posted on online castings... so what?  Even casting agents go look up LA Castings for gigs to send their models to.  Would that make her a WEB model?

I know dozens of land-based pros on this site.  More often than not they are professional, friendly, and are just on MM for fun.  But I noticed that some (and it's SOME, not all) land-based professionals on MM say things like "in the REAL industry..." or "that's how things are outside the web..." to members that do not necessarily seem to be "web-based", as if they ARE web-based and solely operate on the web. 

Just to name a few of the many MMers that IMO shouldn't be generalized as WEB-based as an example:
Roberto aka Fotorat is NOT a web-based photographer
Ron Goldstein is NOT a web-based photographer
Sophia Bui is NOT a web-based model
Seby is NOT a web-based model
Diana Moffitt is NOT a web-based model
LAMua is NOT a web-based Makeup Artist
Donna Mae is NOT a web-based Makeup Artist...
the list goes on and on.

In fact those that I correspond with on MM are almost always NOT web-based.

Perhaps it's just my fault that I do post on forums and that's why I just notice such generalizations, but it sometimes makes me wonder, if some (and may I stress SOME because there are many pros on MM that don't do this) land-based "pros" look down on MMers as "web-based" dreamers that much, why exactly do they care to keep an account on MM themselves or even have the time to bother to shoot others down in the forum as "web-based"? 

Sometimes this seems to be a little much.  Anyone else feel that way?

For me and many others who are actually doing land based things as well.  I think that MM is a matter of getting yourself out there even more than you already are and also seeing what other things you can do or what other assignments you might get into.  There are so many great people on and offline. 

No matter what...people are going to judge...it always happens.  You can't make everyone happy.  If being a part of MM helps boost your modeling....then go for it! 

xoxoxoxo
McKenzie

Dave Krueger wrote:
There is nothing low class about being a hobbyist, nor is there anything wrong with socializing on MM if you're a pro.  But, if you're looking to get into mainstream modeling, you need to go to an agency, preferably in a big city.

I would say that many of those that you call hobbyists on the net, call themself professionals.

Where more hobbyists/amateur photographers are willing to say that they are not professionals and love to do it for the art and not for income, there are probably more models who are below amateur level, who call themself a professional model because they have a payrate (often exorbitantly high) on their profiles.

UdoR wrote:

I would say that many of those that you call hobbyists on the net, call themself professionals.

Where more hobbyists/amateur photographers are willing to say that they are not professionals and love to do it for the art and not for income, there are probably more models who are below amateur level, who call themself a professional model because they have a payrate (often exorbitantly high) on their profiles.

Good point,,,,