olegvolk wrote:

I think you mis-read those suggestions. The suggestion on being armed and trained isn't limited to models nor limited to them going to meet new photographers. It is the way normal people plan against certain eventualities of life.

Besides, having models show up with their own sidearms simply adds to the available pool of props.

olegvolk wrote:

I think you mis-read those suggestions. The suggestion on being armed and trained isn't limited to models nor limited to them going to meet new photographers. It is the way normal people plan against certain eventualities of life.

Besides, having models show up with their own sidearms simply adds to the available pool of props.

Glock, When you really have to get their attention!

MaryPetiteModel wrote:
Tony: you always bring up the best topics!  I notice no one has commented on the fact that a lot of these photographers who *play* the nice guy are *themselves* the predators. 

I was very saddened recently to hear of a photographer with whom I worked (and whom I will not name, as my experience with this person was excellent) accused of some pretty heinous stuff during a shoot.  More than just the "laying on of hands".  I then looked through some other ports of people I had heard negative things about and - wouldn't ya know it - some of their profiles were filled with "warnings" about GWCs. 

The one time I wanted to shoot with someone whose reputations wasn't stellar, I decided to get a little creative.  I took the biggest, baddest friend I had with me, just to drop me off at the shoot.  Just brought him in to say 'hi' and make sure the photographer knew that although this guy wasn't going to be at the shoot, he would be "in the neighborhood" (i.e., "on call") and was going to be my ride home.  Mess with me...and ya mess with him.  Shoot went fine :-).

I wouldn't recommend it for everyone; but if you're only slightly worried about someone...it's better than packing a pistol!

Thanks, Mary.  I often wonder about the photographers who provide all those
safety tips and warnings about other photographers.  Maybe they feel they
are providing a public service but in many cases I think its self serving.  Its
like their saying; shoot with me my works good plus I won't rape you.  After a
few hundred post like those I became angry.  Look if someone is really a danger
call the police on them or encourage the models too.  If they won't maybe
its not as serious as you've been told.   Now here's the intresting part.  Lets
say you worked with someone and things were cool.  You were alone but
no problems.  Another model shoots and she says something happened.  Maybe
it did.  Maybe it didn't but you know, things were okay with this person.
People take things from how they have been raised and personal expirence.
A friendly joke or comment or a photographer adjusting a leg or hair would be
considered a assault if you have had some problems in the past.  I understand
a model making a negative comment about a photographer but we as readers have
no ideal if its true or not but you can bet no matter what some photographer will
chime in with the usual bashing.

Taray Jennings wrote:
We should all note one other thing John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahmer called themselves "photographers" to get their victims. Where do you remember these names from: both are serial killers.

You make a great point. There was also that photographer who killed a model in California. And these are just examples.

I always encourage models and friends to be smart when shooting with other people. Recently, I had a model volunteer for a shoot 3 hours outside of town, she originally stated she was going to come alone. This was our first shoot together and I flat out told her that I wasn't comfortable with that. For my protection as much as for hers. I don't want her to trust just anyone. Even though the shoot did go great, and would have gone great if she had someone there or not, I don't want her to think it's okay to trust everyone the same.

That stuff scares me. Maybe I'm being paranoid but too many people trust too easily and end up victims in this world.

-G

Taray Jennings wrote:
We should all note one other thing John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahmer called themselves "photographers" to get their victims. Where do you remember these names from: both are serial killers.

Okay, Rambo.  I'm not a big beliver in guns.  All we need is a few models shooting
photographers.  If a photographer is shooting a model in a strange or secluded
area then it might be prudent to have some sort of protection but in most
city locations or in a studio I don't think so.  Once again I'm all for model safety
but a lot of this is overkill (pardon the pun) In both of the men you mentioned
cases they were killing gay men and boys not models.  However this thread is more
about our roles as photographers and how so many us are so quick to bash each
other.  Recently a model started a thread  about a photographer who does
short non sexual films.  He wanted to use her.  She asked for refrences and
before he could give them had a family emergency.  This model then came here
with some bulls$% about was he a scam.  Yep, you guessed it there were his
fellow photographers calling him a scam and insulting him.  He responded to
the thread after somone who knew him alerted him.  He cleared the air but what
if he had NOT seen the  thread.  I know none of this means anything because as soon as a model makes any kind of negative comment about a photographer no
matter how it sounds.  No matter if its true or not there will be the usual suspects
ready to go on the attack.

Garald Todd wrote:
Recently, I had a model volunteer for a shoot 3 hours outside of town, she originally stated she was going to come alone. This was our first shoot together and I flat out told her that I wasn't comfortable with that. For my protection as much as for hers. I don't want her to trust just anyone.

It's really hard for me to see this as helpful.  Prudence is good, but telling a model that you refuse to ride in a car with her alone and preaching that she should not go on shoots without an escort just adds to the enormous paranoia that we have in this culture.

I always prefer to meet first to discuss an upcoming shoot, both to get comfortable with what we want to do, and to get comfortable with the personality of the other. I don't make it a requirement, just a preference.  A month or so ago I was talking to a model about a shoot she said she wanted to do.  She agreed to the meeting, picked the place (a Starbucks about ten miles from me) and we started negotiating on time.  Turns out that was a problem.  She had to choose a time for our meeting in the middle of the day at Starbucks when both she and her "escort" were available.  She wouldn't meet me alone!

So we found that time, I went to Starbucks, and she no-showed for the meeting.  I have to believe it had something to do with the paranoia that required "protection" to sit across a coffee table from me in a very public, upscale neighborhood.  And this over-emphasis on "safety" seems to me to blame.

TXPhotog wrote:

It's really hard for me to see this as helpful.  Prudence is good, but telling a model that you refuse to ride in a car with her alone and preaching that she should not go on shoots without an escort just adds to the enormous paranoia that we have in this culture.

I always prefer to meet first to discuss an upcoming shoot, both to get comfortable with what we want to do, and to get comfortable with the personality of the other. I don't make it a requirement, just a preference.  A month or so ago I was talking to a model about a shoot she said she wanted to do.  She agreed to the meeting, picked the place (a Starbucks about ten miles from me) and we started negotiating on time.  Turns out that was a problem.  She had to choose a time for our meeting in the middle of the day at Starbucks when both she and her "escort" were available.  She wouldn't meet me alone!

So we found that time, I went to Starbucks, and she no-showed for the meeting.  I have to believe it had something to do with the paranoia that required "protection" to sit across a coffee table from me in a very public, upscale neighborhood.  And this over-emphasis on "safety" seems to me to blame.

Yes, it may be paranoia, but would you say it's reasonably justified paranoia? Of course, talent isn't being knocked off on a daily basis by people posing as photographers, but it certains does and has happened. And maybe Vegas is particularly bad. I can't count the amount of times I've heard guys use the "I'm a photographer" line to get women.

Let me put it another way - If the model was your daughter, would you want her to travel alone out into the middle of the desert with someone she met from the internet? I don't know about you but I sure as hell wouldn't.

I provide plenty of refrences when asked, but the fact is, I'm rarely ever asked. And when I am asked, my refrences rarely ever get a phone call.

So I do think I'm being helpful by cautioning people to think more about their safety. Paranoid? You know that saying... Just because your paranoid...

-G

Garald Todd wrote:
Yes, it may be paranoia, but would you say it's reasonably justified paranoia?

There is no such thing as "reasonably justified paranoia".  By definition, paranoia is a pathology not based on reason.  Prudence is reasonable.

Garald Todd wrote:
Let me put it another way - If the model was your daughter, would you want her to travel alone out into the middle of the desert with someone she met from the internet?

My daughter is a makeup artist (a very good one) and she has in fact travelled out in the middle of the Nevada desert with a photographer (and model) that she met on the Internet.  More than once.  And everything went fine because she was smart enough to be selective in who she chose to work with.

Garald Todd wrote:
I provide plenty of refrences when asked, but the fact is, I'm rarely ever asked. And when I am asked, my refrences rarely ever get a phone call.

And your point is?

References are a blunt instrument.  It's wishful thinking to believe that a photographer will provide references to people who will say bad things about him.  Photographer-supplied references may be useful, but they really don't say much except that somebody (or several somebodies) didn't have a problem with him.

Garald Todd wrote:
So I do think I'm being helpful by cautioning people to think more about their safety.

Yes, you do think that, or you wouldn't do it.  But by your own statements you are doing more than "cautioning people to think more about their safety".  And is "more" the right answer?  Is there such a thing as "enough"?

TXPhotog wrote:

It's really hard for me to see this as helpful.  Prudence is good, but telling a model that you refuse to ride in a car with her alone and preaching that she should not go on shoots without an escort just adds to the enormous paranoia that we have in this culture.

I always prefer to meet first to discuss an upcoming shoot, both to get comfortable with what we want to do, and to get comfortable with the personality of the other. I don't make it a requirement, just a preference.  A month or so ago I was talking to a model about a shoot she said she wanted to do.  She agreed to the meeting, picked the place (a Starbucks about ten miles from me) and we started negotiating on time.  Turns out that was a problem.  She had to choose a time for our meeting in the middle of the day at Starbucks when both she and her "escort" were available.  She wouldn't meet me alone!

So we found that time, I went to Starbucks, and she no-showed for the meeting.  I have to believe it had something to do with the paranoia that required "protection" to sit across a coffee table from me in a very public, upscale neighborhood.  And this over-emphasis on "safety" seems to me to blame.

Wow.

TXPhotog wrote:
There is no such thing as "reasonably justified paranoia".  By definition, paranoia is a pathology not based on reason.  Prudence is reasonable.

Fair enough, I use the word paranoia losely. Semantics, but that's fine.

TXPhotog wrote:
My dauther is a makeup artist (a very good one) and she has in fact travelled out in the middle of the Nevada desert with a photographer (and model) that she met on the Internet.  More than once.  And everything went fine because she was smart enough to be selective in who she chose to work with.

I'm glad your daughter is smart and does a good job of choosing who she works with. Perhaps my example wasn't the best because of course our daughters would be smart, but the simple fact is, there are people out there that take risks that your daughter wouldn't take. Not everyone is street smart and savvy about these things so of course, blanket statements never work out well, do they? But it is prudent to be cautious, no?

TXPhotog wrote:

Garald Todd wrote:
I provide plenty of refrences when asked, but the fact is, I'm rarely ever asked. And when I am asked, my refrences rarely ever get a phone call.

And your point is?

People should do their homework more carefully, but since you say the following...

TXPhotog wrote:
References are a blunt instrument.  It's wishful thinking to believe that a photographer will provide references to people who will say bad things about him.  Photographer-supplied references may be useful, but they really don't say much except that somebody (or several somebodies) didn't have a problem with him.

Finding out that somebody, or several sombodies, have had successful working relationships with person is a far sight better then just blindly believing their nice people. Of course nothing is certain, Priests can turn out to be bad people in the end, but it's prudent to do some homework rather then none at all, wouldn't you agree?

TXPhotog wrote:

Yes, you do think that, or you wouldn't do it.  But by your own statements you are doing more than "cautioning people to think more about their safety".  And is "more" the right answer?  Is there such a thing as "enough"?

More = amatuer 18 year old model going blindly into the desert alone with someone who she has no idea if is legit or not. If she had been in the industry and has heard of me through reputation or had mutual friends, or checked refrences (at the very least), it would be one thing, but it wasn't.

Yes, there was a pre-shoot meeting, and this is where she told me she was going alone in the first five minutes of the conversation. It was a forgone conclusion, she never had any intention of taking someone, asking for refrences, anything. The pre-shoot meeting was my idea, not hers. She was literally going to go out in the desert blindly.

I'm sorry but that's just not a good idea.

Garald Todd wrote:

Yes, it may be paranoia, but would you say it's reasonably justified paranoia? Of course, talent isn't being knocked off on a daily basis by people posing as photographers, but it certains does and has happened. And maybe Vegas is particularly bad. I can't count the amount of times I've heard guys use the "I'm a photographer" line to get women.

Let me put it another way - If the model was your daughter, would you want her to travel alone out into the middle of the desert with someone she met from the internet? I don't know about you but I sure as hell wouldn't.

I provide plenty of refrences when asked, but the fact is, I'm rarely ever asked. And when I am asked, my refrences rarely ever get a phone call.

So I do think I'm being helpful by cautioning people to think more about their safety. Paranoid? You know that saying... Just because your paranoid...

-G

Safety should always be a concern for everyone but isn't this getting out of hand?
We aren't reading about mass attacks on models.  When we have to start having
escorts to meet people at public places somethings very wrong.  Next it will be
model ecsorts will need escorts.  Get a bigger studio because she's coming with
her escorts her parents and the family dog.  Maybe we should all stop.  No more shoots with models.  Just shoot products, landscapes or pets.  Well maybe not
the pets unless they have a escort.

Garald Todd wrote:
Not everyone is street smart and savvy about these things so of course, blanket statements never work out well, do they? But it is prudent to be cautious, no?

It is prudent to be prudent.  There is such a thing as an excess of caution, and we see it here all the time.  Photographers who add to that do not, in my view, help things.

Garald Todd wrote:
Finding out that somebody, or several sombodies, have had successful working relationships with person is a far sight better then just blindly believing their nice people. Of course nothing is certain, Priests can turn out to be bad people in the end, but it's prudent to do some homework rather then none at all, wouldn't you agree?

It's good to do some homework, yes.  But it's bad to do the wrong kind of homework and, having done it, feeling that you have accomplished something useful.

Every real photographer who has worked with a large number of models has some models who have had good experiences with him.  Every real photographer who has ever killed a model had plenty of models who would vouch for him.  Seeking advice from the people the photographer chooses to give him a good recommendation is simply false security.  And that leads to problems.

Garald Todd wrote:
More = amatuer 18 year old model going blindly into the desert alone with someone who she has no idea if is legit or not. If she had been in the industry and has heard of me through reputation or had mutual friends, or checked refrences (at the very least), it would be one thing, but it wasn't.

It seems to me that she has access to some useful information.  You have a portfolio of pictures online.  She can judge from that if you are serious about photography.  You have a gallery in your city, which suggests that you are serious about art and photography.

It's one thing to suggest to her that she should check on things like that, and seek out your reputation in the industry.  That might be a useful message to pass on at the pre-shoot meeting.  But you said in effect: "Later (after you would have had a chance to check me out, if you want to) we will be driving into the desert, and because you have not, as of yet, checked me out, I refuse to drive alone with you then just to teach you a lesson."  That is not a helpful message.  That is incitement to paranoia.

TXPhotog wrote:
That is not a helpful message.  That is incitement to paranoia.

Meh, I disagree (obviously). It was also for my own protection as well. But hey, we'll agree to disagree.

Btw, you've got some real stunners in your port. Nice work .

-G

Garald Todd wrote:
Btw, you've got some real stunners in your port.

Thanks.  I need to point out that not one of them ever asked for or received references from me, and in several cases I drove in the car with them . . . Somehow it all worked out OK.

TXPhotog wrote:

Thanks.  I need to point out that not one of them ever asked for or received references from me, and in several cases I drove in the car with them . . . Somehow it all worked out OK.

Hah, that seems like a bit of a cheap shot to me but meh.  I'm sure you're a great guy and are an obviously talented photographer, and I apologize if I've somehow offended you but, well... I guess I just don't understand what's so objectionable about someone being concerned about their safety. We are all different people with different boundaries.

Can't we just leave it at that? And by me asking a model to bring a friend, what's the worst thing you'll have to deal with if you happen to shoot with that model, an escort?

It really isn't like I started screaming at her manically, telling her she needs to pack heat and bring a football team with her, with bats and hand grenades. I politely asked if she had an escort available, and explained that by going to such a remote location, not only would she likely be more comfortable if she had a friend along, but that I would be as well.

Anywho... moving right along! Next, we should argue religion! YEAH!! It'll be FUN!

Meh.

-G

Garald Todd wrote:
I guess I just don't understand what's so objectionable about someone being concerned about their safety.

There's nothing "so objectionable about someone being concerned about their safety."  When you phrase it so as to minimize it like that, nobody could possibly be against it.  However, "being concerned about safety" can be - is - taken much too far sometimes.  That is what I object to.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I'm confused about why instead of supporting each other as photographers.  Many of us seem so ready to put each other down.  A
model makes a complaint about a photographer and its usually other
photographers who go on the attack.  Before we know the whole story
before we know if its the truth or if it is more a case of sour grapes. You
can count on another photographer to bash you.  Models stick up for
each other as they should.  They offer helpfull advice for the most part.
Take model safety for example.  Its usually a photographer who is giving all those helpfull tips on models carrying guns(someone actually said that) or that they should learn martial arts or carry some sort of weapons to shoots.  If its coming to that then we all need to stop shooting.  Another example is the vague general warning;  A photographer starts a thread about a unnamed photographer who is acting in a unproffesional fashion.  It may be touching models are other things.  These posts are at times in my view self serving. They only help
to frighten models and in a way the photographer posting is hinting that
he is one of the 'safe' ones.  To be clear I am all for models being safe
bring a escort to my shoots just be on time, return calls and have your
make-up done.  I'm not saying we all have to like each other over the months I've been here I've posted views that some don't like over race,
faith and modeling but lets try and be fair to each other don't start bashing to impress models.  Don't be so ready to go on the attack.  Treat your fellow photographers with dignity and respect.  Give them
the same level of fairness you give these beautifull and handsome models.

Respect is good -- and overall, I agree that photographers would do well to treat each other with more respect and dignity. The name calling and put-downs don't really help, and I think we make ourselves look a little foolish sometimes (myself included!).

At the same time, just because we are "brother" photographers doesn't mean that criticism isn't warranted sometimes. I think truth is truth, and if somebody does or says something really stupid, they can expect to be called on it, whether they are a photog, model, or whatever. Sometimes a reality check is the right thing to give.

Overall, I'd like to see a little more common courtesy and respect in our industry -- but I'm not holding my breath!

TXPhotog wrote:

There's nothing "so objectionable about someone being concerned about their safety."  When you phrase it so as to minimize it like that, nobody could possibly be against it.  However, "being concerned about safety" can be - is - taken much too far sometimes.  That is what I object to.

I agree with that 100%.

Bangerman wrote:
I think MM is about bragging for many photographers.

In other forums (e.g. photosig) its about the images, they post the images and get critiques. You get goods ones and bad ones but its about the images, no one says "your not a real photographer". Even the GWC will get useful comments to improve. The only thing they frown on is people who ask for comments and who never give them.

Here, it feels like many of those who earn a living from photography feel that this fact alone gives them the right to put everyone else down, regardless of their images, simply because they dont earn any money from it. "I'm sh*t hot because I earned $$$$ last year and shot for such and such magazine, you didnt earn diddly squat and arnt published so by inference you are not a photographer".

It would be nice if it were the images that counted rather than the $$$$. Be nice to each other, it makes life more enjoyable and you will live longer.

Interesting points. I never really looked at it that way, but I understand where you're coming from.

Bangerman wrote:
In other forums (e.g. photosig) its about the images, they post the images and get critiques. You get goods ones and bad ones but its about the images, no one says "your not a real photographer".

But this site isn't "about the images".  Certainly pictures are an important component of what we do (a really important component for photographers) but there is much more to it than that.

Here we have lots of photographers of no particular skill.  That's fine - this is an inclusive site.  If they simply put up a picture in the critique section and honestly ask for advice on getting better they may very well get just that.  But that's not primarily what this place is about.

Those same photographers of no particular skill (some, not all, falling into the GWC camp) also feel the need to do more than ask about photography.  This site also has some skilled photographers with unfortunate practices.  They have profiles here that say they "specialize in models' portfolios" and claim that what they produce is what a model needs to be successful.  They tell models that they cannot ever charge for their services without being "experienced" - which is code for "shoot with me for free or you will never have a modeling career".  They tell them of a "revolution" available to them if only they will follow their very bad advice (which, no surprise, happens to be self-serving).  They tell models to take guns and large, ugly guys with tattoos to all their model shoots, because if they don't the photographer probably will do terrible things to them.

And more.

And it is these things that cause a reaction, not the photos themselves. 

Everyone takes bad photos.  I've heard it said that the definition of a "pro" is that he chooses only to show his good stuff.  "Takes bad photos" isn't the issue.

Bangerman wrote:
In other forums (e.g. photosig) its about the images, they post the images and get critiques. You get goods ones and bad ones but its about the images, no one says "your not a real photographer".

TXPhotog wrote:
But this site isn't "about the images".

Excellent point.  If you want photographic critique, you go to photosig or photo.net, but this is modelmayhem.com.  In the context of this website, the photography is arguably secondary.

TXPhotog wrote:

But this site isn't "about the images".  Certainly pictures are an important component of what we do (a really important component for photographers) but there is much more to it than that.

Here we have lots of photographers of no particular skill.  That's fine - this is an inclusive site.  If they simply put up a picture in the critique section and honestly ask for advice on getting better they may very well get just that.  But that's not primarily what this place is about.

Those same photographers of no particular skill (some, not all, falling into the GWC camp) also feel the need to do more than ask about photography.  This site also has some skilled photographers with unfortunate practices.  They have profiles here that say they "specialize in models' portfolios" and claim that what they produce is what a model needs to be successful.  They tell models that they cannot ever charge for their services without being "experienced" - which is code for "shoot with me for free or you will never have a modeling career".  They tell them of a "revolution" available to them if only they will follow their very bad advice (which, no surprise, happens to be self-serving).  They tell models to take guns and large, ugly guys with tattoos to all their model shoots, because if they don't the photographer probably will do terrible things to them.

And more.

And it is these things that cause a reaction, not the photos themselves. 

Everyone takes bad photos.  I've heard it said that the definition of a "pro" is that he chooses only to show his good stuff.  "Takes bad photos" isn't the issue.

This is good and I would add its one thing if photographers are honest in their
concern and care but as  I've said many times its somewhat self serving; shoot
with me I'm safe and plus I won't rape you is a underlying message some give
with their safety tips.  Another thing that happens is all the career tips offered.
I've never worked in N.Y. as a fashion photographer so when you talk I listen.
When Christian B. talks I listen.  How can I argue with someone who's been there
and done that?  We often let our egos get in the way of learning new things and
that same ego often makes us refuse to admit were wrong.  I also have to laugh
at the part about expirenced models.  Look this isn't Jedi Knight training where
a model must learn from a sage master.  This is being attractive knowing how to
move and being comfortable with yourself.  One of the worse parts about what
we do however is this constant bashing of each other.  Models come here and
tell a story, lately with names or account numbers and e-mail address.  Some of
these stories have been a bit suspect.  Some seem to be true but you can bet
here comes the Justice Leaque saying they should be banned, call the police you should carry a gun or have five escorts.  In one thread a model told a story about
a photographer having the same name as a sex offender and how could she check
if it was him? Another wondered if a photographer who offered her a job was a
scam she even mentioned him by name.  Both were wrong and both had the usual
suspects bashing the photographers.  There was a intresting thread about someone claiming to be a agent asking models to do a web cam interview by
taking off their clothes when one of the photographers  simply said why didn't
you just hang up the phone?  The usual suspects and several models came on
to bash him (the photographer who said hang up the phone.) and say he's approaching underaged models never mind that none
of them are underaged.  I don't really expect any of this to get any better because
many here are full of sh$% but Iwould just hope that before we go on the attack
we pause for a moment and think what if that was me who's name and reputation
thats being trashed.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
[snip]Most of the photographers mean well I really think they do but they need to remember that model you plan to shoot drives, pays bills and is usually an adult.  She did fine before you met her she'll do fine after your gone. [snip]

Tony...I love this!  I can admit to having been something of a FemiNazi early on in life and seeing this Paglian view as letting guys off with a free pass.  As (dare I say it) a grown up, my view has changed completely. 

I think we as models (esp. the females) need to start taking a bit more personal resonsibility.  I would never excuse the legitimate bad deeds of a photographer; but I do think that many models simply don't use their heads.  We hear of warning signs left and right in the recounts of their stories.  Few among us would even let the negotiation get past Step 2.  But here they are, talking about ALL the e-mails, IMs and phone calls filled with sexual innuendo...and they show up to the shoot...and they guy's a scumbag. Who'da thunk it? 

At some point, I just can't give ya my pity.  Know what I mean?

At any rate, I appreciate your viewpoint, and hope to see more models spending time educating themselves as to the rudimentary basics of this business.  After all...it *is* a business for many...and I never brought a Glock to an office job.

mikell wrote:

How did you get my picture?  There's a reason why I stay behind the camera.  I don't photograph well...