~Krista~ wrote:
58# You think there is nothing wrong with videotaping (without knowledge) underage models in the changing rooms.

Yikes, I'd say that extends beyond the realm of GWC!

Hoohaw wrote:

Yikes, I'd say that extends beyond the realm of GWC!

Even scarier because it is true.....

Jose- JoseOnline wrote:
#62  You do headshots in bikinis

I would *never* wear a bikini.

Hoohaw wrote:
11. Shows up at a shoot wearing nothing but moose antlers and bowling shoes, claiming it's a religious holiday.

"i know we agreed not to do lingerie, but this is more like 'bedroom swimwear' really"

*snicker*
let's be friends.

Photos2amaze wrote:
74.  " I used to shoot fashion and super bowls back in the 1980's with my 6x6"

I don't get this one.... I *did* shoot fashion, art and insurance/accidents, and the occasional pro-sports event in the 80's with my 645.  Models during the day, mayhem at night.

But then, I guess I was a guy with a camera, and pretty much we all are.  After all, the *REAL* GWC's forget to bring their camera's, or to put film in them.  At least the digitals complain.

Koray wrote:
97- you shoot yes...but you miss the model

*this* was funny.  Very.  Should be #1

Abdiel Urcull wrote:
as of right know i think i'm kind of a GWC.. specially cause of the light..everything else.. i'm good.. but i think i can pull it off with my walmart chicken warming lights.. can't i?

i'm 20 years old, in college.. own 2 cameras 20D and Elan 7N..i'm looking into buying some lighting but untili can afford it i can do decent work with my warming lights (i keep spending money ina  darkroom, and shit i want a medium format all manual camera from the 70s)..i think, if i am not, please kick my butt to let me know, i don't mind critizism,,

Anha Nguyen wrote:
56- making the model drive you to the location shoot, and while shes driving, asking her to stop at a one hour photo to dropp off some film of the last model he took!!


still pissed about that

Ok,

While I can understand some of this, the driving part would piss you off, maybe.  But, I learned early on, for shooting, (this was 10 years ago, 15 maybe) that 1-hour labs often had *better* developing and fresher chemicals than "pro" labs, especially for print film.   *AND*, since negatives scanned just as nicely into PCD's, which was the "state of the art" back then, *and* models wanted pics to bring home, a 1-hour lab with double prints was a *great* deal.  And if you had a relationship with the lab even better.

Shooting slides was great for publications, but if your goal was the web, slides were actually a pain.  Slide scanners were slow and expensive.  Print scanners were very good, and the GIF format was only 256 colors anyway. JPG was just starting out, and most people weren't running 32m color monitors.

I've been shooting for web-release for a long, long time, but only switched to digital cameras in the last few months, and I'm having real issues with them.  They are *not* as good as film cameras in 99% of what I want them to do, other than they are *cheap* by comparison, and IMHO so are the results.

So, before knocking some of this, think about the history, and how 1-hour labs, if any survive outside of walmart, used to be part and parcel of the photographer's bag of tools.  Especially if you were testing something out, you could shoot a roll, get it developed while you were grabbing a snack, and see if the whole idea worked before you invested hundreds of dollars in film and processing in the idea.

Not everything is about digital. 

Aren't there any "old guys" around who remember the way it was, before instant gratification, and having to wait for your batteries to recycle before you could take another picture?   It used to be only your flash you had problems with, now with e- batteries they're ready all the time, but it's waiting for your CAMERA to *ALLOW* you to take another photo.

Daria Walsh wrote:
54. Got into photography because you realized its cheaper to buy a camera then to keep dropping all that cash at your local strip club.

Hilarious!!!

N8R Photography wrote:
#????   You've never heard of the inverse square law and draw a total blank when asked about guide numbers or bellows compensation????

Huh????

UdoR wrote:
There is really only ONE sign for a GWC... and that is objective!

The GWC acronym describes a person that owns a camera, but the main objective is not to create photos, which would warrant the term "photographer".

The GWC's ("Guy With Camera") objective is to get laid, or at least to get dates, by using his camera.

Please make a note of that difference!

The distinction between most professional photographers and many amateur photographers is not the quality of their work, but the source of income... both should be expected to conduct their photoshoots in a "professional" manner.

UdoR
Moderator

The dictionary definition between an Amature and a Professional is that a Professional gets paid for their service.

Nothing to do with quality or skill of work whatsoever.

UdoR wrote:
There is really only ONE sign for a GWC... and that is objective!

The GWC acronym describes a person that owns a camera, but the main objective is not to create photos, which would warrant the term "photographer".

The GWC's ("Guy With Camera") objective is to get laid, or at least to get dates, by using his camera.

Please make a note of that difference!

The distinction between most professional photographers and many amateur photographers is not the quality of their work, but the source of income... both should be expected to conduct their photoshoots in a "professional" manner.

UdoR
Moderator

Bang on!

Darren Green wrote:

The dictionary definition between an Amature and a Professional is that a Professional gets paid for their service.

Nothing to do with quality or skill of work whatsoever.

Maybe you want to read my last paragraph again... it's just what I said!

N8R Photography wrote:
#????   You've never heard of the inverse square law and draw a total blank when asked about guide numbers or bellows compensation????

I HATE BELLOWS COMPENSATION! I always forget about reciprocity too if I am in the middle of a shoot.

Scott Einuis wrote:
#52 Adds /BJ to TFP/CD

I have to clean up the coffee that just spewed out of my nose.

UdoR wrote:
There is really only ONE sign for a GWC... and that is objective!

The GWC acronym describes a person that owns a camera, but the main objective is not to create photos, which would warrant the term "photographer".

The GWC's ("Guy With Camera") objective is to get laid, or at least to get dates, by using his camera.

Please make a note of that difference!

The distinction between most professional photographers and many amateur photographers is not the quality of their work, but the source of income... both should be expected to conduct their photoshoots in a "professional" manner.

UdoR
Moderator

Points well presented and true, but I think and hope this thread was for a good old fashion laugh!!!!

adrienne of Zswana wrote:
You keep the light meter around your neck and test the light in 5 different places before each shot. By model's nose, hair, boobs, the wall, model's ass, floor. *sigh*

LMAO- ok Adrienne- that's it- your holding the meter and your gonna read the numbers back to me.