|
Forums >
General Industry >
100 signs you're a loser
1. You constantly feel the need to put down less-gifted, less-intelligent or less-experienced human beings -- labelling them with derogatory terms like "GWC" and "Internet Model," instead of just accepting the fact that in modeling and photography, just like any other discipline, there are successful players and bad ones, talented people and witless idiots. Why do we feel the need to put down people who aren't the best at what they do? I say, wish 'em luck and leave 'em alone, and concentrate on being the best human being I can be. For most of us, that's plenty of work by itself! Paul http://www.bangbangphoto.com Apr 07 06 09:12 am Link #2. You eat your boogerz  .... **Great post OP** Apr 07 06 09:13 am Link Amen. Apr 07 06 09:14 am Link #3 You have such a poor grasp of photography that in order to feel you have control you must tell models that you will manage them Apr 07 06 09:16 am Link bang bang photo wrote: 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". Apr 07 06 09:24 am Link #3. Some photographers feel as though they are holier than the models on MM and feel that models dont have any objective but to come in for a shoot look pretty and leave... WHEN IT ISNT THE CASE!!!! Apr 07 06 09:31 am Link UDor -- yeah -- I get that definition -- I guess my point is, that some people seem to enjoy putting down others -- I have many many times seen a model label a photog "just a GWC" when in fact, he's just a talentless idiot. In the same way, photogs and models alike seem to enjoy labeling less-than-gorgeous or less-than-business-like models "internet models." If somebody does something truly outrageous -- sure, call them on it. Otherwise, I encourage my peers in this business to just concentrate on the work, and leave the gossippy name-calling to somebody else. That was the point I'm trying to make. . . Later, Paul Apr 07 06 09:35 am Link bang bang photo wrote: Funny thing is, aren't they *all* Internet models? Apr 07 06 09:39 am Link UDoR, you posted that definition in a few different places and that's fine, but explain to me why "internet" models get constantly bashed by photographers...because they may be amateurs, just starting out, inexperienced, ignorant to the industry, wet behind the ears, learning the rules, honing their craft, building a wardrobe, networking...YET when the conversation turns to photographers...Oh my G-d, don't bash them...for photographers it's okay to be all of those things that I listed above. Don't call them a GWC, that would mean they're trying to get laid. I, sir, disagree with your defintion of GWC. A GWC may be a pervert trying to meet women or they may have no skills but want to call themselves a "photographer"....ohhhh....ahhhhh......to get the attention. Apr 07 06 09:43 am Link CristinaLex wrote: You eat other people's boogers. Apr 07 06 09:44 am Link bang bang photo wrote: You BETTER not be callin THE GWC a talentless idiot because if you are I gotta tell you that we'll have a photo-smackdown as to who can do the best photos and you're gonna be mowin' my lawn for a year. "JUST a GWC"?!!! Dude I have Angeline Jolie's cellphone number on my speed-dial. I've done TFP with Janet (that's "Janet Jackson" to you mortals). There is no such thing as "JUST" a GWC! Apr 07 06 09:46 am Link RudeFood wrote: Agreed, so as Bang Bang said, if people spent more time working on their skills and less time putting others down it would be better for everyone. Apr 07 06 09:46 am Link Is there really anything wrong with being a gwc? Realistically speaking I would be one. I have a camera and I am a guy. Further more I am married to a Swedish model. Does the fact that your ability behind the camera leading to romantic situations make you any less the photographer, or for that matter any less professional? People in all walks of life utilize their status to make connections, to nurture relationships... To meet people, why is it considered bad form for a photographer to do this? People without talent usually work with people without talent. Look at some portfolios on here and you will are what I mean. Oh btw #17 you make more money picking up cans than you do taking photographs, but since you had a paid gig once shooting your brothers dog you insist on calling yourself a pro. Apr 07 06 02:01 pm Link bang bang photo wrote: "We used to hate people Apr 07 06 02:05 pm Link #42--- you have trouble with the term ironic Apr 07 06 02:09 pm Link ***When you dont have a sense of humor and you take things too seriously. Apr 07 06 02:36 pm Link You Check your Toolbox.. And notice your out of Duckt Tape...... (:-------- Hj Apr 07 06 02:40 pm Link (#??) You can only talk about the new camera or lens your saving up for, and ask "How can you still stand to use that _____ camera?!? That things 2 years old now!" Apr 07 06 02:42 pm Link Oh,,,, I thought that was just for fun, both posts. I noticed that in the internet model thread, that some models were participating. I didn't realize I was making a personal statement of anyone. I am sorry if I offended anyone, I was just joking around, trying to have fun! I didn't mean anything personal  Mark Apr 07 06 02:45 pm Link Ben Allen wrote: Kinda like this one Apr 07 06 02:47 pm Link Lamar Scott wrote: Oh I can't stand that....the worst lol Apr 07 06 02:48 pm Link The whole "GWC" thing needs to go away. It's not cute, witty or funny. It never was. Apr 07 06 02:57 pm Link When a person has so much to say about what they know about the industry, who they know, who they don't like, etc... because ironically their photos DON'T speak for themselves. Apr 07 06 06:24 pm Link bang bang photo wrote: I don't consider "internet model" to be a derogatory term and I never use it to put anyone down. I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence, giftedness, or experience. Generally speaking internet models are the models I find on the internet whereas agency models which are found at brick and mortar agencies. There are also differences in the markets they operate in and the type of work they do (etc), but that says nothing about them in terms of the quality of human being they are. Apr 07 06 06:49 pm Link No, that's not being a loser. Only if the pun isn't a pun and it's really an intended putdown. On another note, here's a good example of being a loser, Writing a song for someone who probably isn't going to like it. Apr 07 06 06:55 pm Link When You refer to the people... that You feel... others are "putting down" as "less-gifted, less-intelligent or less-experienced human beings -- labelling them with derogatory terms like "GWC" and "Internet Model"..... As "really just Talent less, witless idiots". *steps off soap box and quietly walks back off into the dark* Apr 07 06 07:11 pm Link RudeFood wrote: No. Apr 07 06 07:17 pm Link You don't watch sports Apr 07 06 07:19 pm Link the thing is that its almost like its taboo to improve on your skill, and its almost as if models have a belief stuck in their head that a photographer can never improve on his craft (and they also think photographers never get new cameras), while a photographer has a forgone theory that a model is supposed to come out of nowhere for their first ever shoot and know their poses/body angles, etc and understand the intangibles that come along with knowing your body & facial expressions on camera. its stuff like that which is disturbing because its saying people arent accepting change and thats not a good look. Apr 07 06 07:29 pm Link Internet model?? What about someone who's signed to a "real" agency with "real" jobs, but whose portfolio and agency data mostly consist of electronic documents? Apr 07 06 08:12 pm Link So, GWC isn't "Gay White Couple"??? No wonder nobody ever responds to my emails here. Guess I'll go back to the personals ads. Apr 07 06 08:22 pm Link you watch sports. Apr 07 06 09:12 pm Link William Kious wrote: We humans like to form in-crowds and then look down on outsiders. Derogatory names are needed for that system. It's done in high school a lot. Some of us grow out of it. Some don't. Apr 07 06 09:14 pm Link #? While shooting you whip out your pecker. The model freaks out and a chase throughout the house ensues. She escapes but in the process she slams your pecker in the sliding glass door. #?? Your pecker is so small that you have to stick your thumb up your ass to make it pop out. Apr 07 06 10:55 pm Link John Jebbia wrote: OMG OMG~~~~ do you have to cover your ears and blow at the same time too? Was the model laughing as she ran????? LOLOL Apr 07 06 10:59 pm Link Jessica Jill wrote: HEY! IT DIDN'T HAPPEN TO ME!!! Apr 07 06 11:02 pm Link HEY! IT DIDN'T HAPPEN TO ME!!! Riiigghtt! LOL.....and I wasn't laughing...Muahahahahahaaha! #??? To cure yourself of crabs you shave off one half of your pubies. Then you light the other side on fire. Then as the crabs come out to the other side you stab them with a pencil. Ouch! Was it at least a #2? #???? You choke to death while trying to gargle peanut butter. and your best friend is laughing at you like we laugh at our dogs, lol Apr 07 06 11:07 pm Link Jessica Jill wrote: No. It was a mechanical. They are much more precise. Apr 07 06 11:10 pm Link John Jebbia wrote: Well I hope the lead broke off fast then...bet the little boogers got away, LOL Apr 07 06 11:13 pm Link 99, your momma photo shops your images for you, while bringing the hot chocolate and bunny slippers to your crib. [ mom, mom, where are my slippers? ] Apr 08 06 03:27 am Link |
muahahahahaha, LOL J/K
