Visual E wrote:
What's the model equivalent for a GWC?

GWP Girl with pictures
but why not I can think of photographers who haven't been publish except on the internet who are a lot better than some that have seen print, same with models
I been published in print by the way

Collin J. Rae wrote:
ohhhhhh this promises to be a fun ride....= )

i know! and the best part is that i don't plan to make a scandal tonight..but you never know *plots something evil*

Visual E wrote:
You are not a REAL model or photographer if you've only been "published" on the internet.

Hmmm.  Many, if not most Fortune 100 corporate web sites (along with hundreds of others) utilize stock photography from the majors such as Getty and Corbis.  Perhaps you weren't thinking along those lines, but that is a form of legitimate published work on the 'net.

area291 wrote:
Hmmm.  Many, if not most Fortune 100 corporate web sites (along with hundreds of others) utilize stock photography from the majors such as Getty and Corbis.  Perhaps you weren't thinking along those lines, but that is a form of legitimate published work on the 'net.

Corporate web sites may have a bit of photography, but isn't it mostly illustration and graphics? Aren't corporate web photos still mostly copies of material shot for print?

There are the porn pay sites which are an internet photo market.  That counts as being published if your nudy pic has been sold.

Visual E wrote:
You are not a REAL model or photographer if you've only been "published" on the internet.

Such an ignorant statement.  In todays world, Internet has surpassed traditional advertisements.  Ask any MAJOR CORPORATION for a breakdown of there advertising budget, and at least 50% will be dedicated to internet related advertising.  The internet has become the cheapest, and most efficient way to advertise.  Internet Advertising allows a company to directly see the impact of their ads, by means of tracking, and website stats. A print magazine can't tell you how many people recognized your ad.  So why should being published on the internet mean any less than being published in print, obviously the major corporations don't see it that way. So if you were getting paid to do work that was to be published on the internet then its not a real job? BullSh1t, try telling that to the people that are making the money, or the people paying the money. Being published on the internet still takes the same resources, and effort it takes to make an Ad for print.  In print and web there are good images and bad ones.

Web Rage wrote:
In todays world, Internet has surpassed traditional advertisements...

Not talking about the advertising industry in general. 

Just talking about model photos (including if used in ads).

Web Rage wrote:
Being published on the internet still takes the same resources, and effort it takes to make an Ad for print.

this isn't quite true going to press takes a bit more work and a bit more financil resouces but the same amount of talent (or lack of )
thing is anybody with a little knowledge and access to the internet can publish
on the web
yes maybe there's more garbage but a lot of people get to have a chance to comunicate something that they never would have before
the web will eclipse printing because it gives everyone a voice

Visual E wrote:
You are not a REAL model or photographer if you've only been "published" on the internet.

What's the model equivalent for a GWC?

I prefer to say, "You're not a REAL model or photographer if your images suck."

Visual E wrote:
Corporate web sites may have a bit of photography, but isn't it mostly illustration and graphics? Aren't corporate web photos still mostly copies of material shot for print?

That's a good question and the answer is both yes and no.  Ad agencies pull stock that can be used for both and in many cases it is far cheaper to do so.  The agency is saving money and those creating worthy stock are bringing in buckets of money.

Most business level shots are very lifestyle oriented (the happy product users, Read: Models) and there is less effort and cost using stock as opposed to hiring all the parties to capture the same.  These (images) are seen in the headers of corporate web sites (virtually all national level real estate, financial, health care and technology sites) as well as marketing collateral, annual reports, packaging, the list goes on.  Where photographers are predominately hired is for product shooting, which may or may not involve models.

Probably the largest area of confusion by photographers at the 'net level is understanding where and how models are used.  While the sultry, sexy and uber cool portfolio shots are pretty and fun to create, those (Cosmo or Marie Claire or FHM) are a pinprick in the vast world of modeling and often effort missplaced...and that also goes to thinking that a 'net tear-sheet has no value or place.  It is a legitimate form of being published and the GWC tables are probably turned by those having the credit, toward those just lining up tfp after tfp shoots.

area291 wrote:
(virtually all national level real estate, financial, health care and technology sites) as well as marketing collateral, annual reports, packaging, the list goes on.  Where photographers are predominately hired is for product shooting, which may or may not involve models.

a lot of major corperations have either reduce the quanity of or stop printing a great deal of marketing material and annual reports, etc. opting instead to have the information as part of their website or downloadable as PDFs

Visual E wrote:
Not talking about the advertising industry in general. 

Just talking about model photos (including if used in ads).

Being published is being published, regardless of where, sheesh.

Visual E wrote:
But that's in a different league than being published in Cosmo or Marie Claire or FHM.

That is kinda like sayin AAA Baseball is not baseball, no?

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
That is kinda like sayin AAA Baseball is not baseball, no?

That depends on if you play for the Sacramento Rivercats!  Sorry, GB, couldn't help it!

area291 wrote:

That depends on if you play for the Sacramento Rivercats!  Sorry, GB, couldn't help it!

Talk about them and the Kings all you want. I am not really from here and do not claim to be a fan of either team or sport,lol.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

That is kinda like sayin AAA Baseball is not baseball, no?

I hear AA baseball players have a hard time finding, um, baseball bats...?

https://modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=46614

Visual E wrote:
Corporate web sites may have a bit of photography, but isn't it mostly illustration and graphics? Aren't corporate web photos still mostly copies of material shot for print?

area291 wrote:
That's a good question and the answer is both yes and no.  Ad agencies pull stock that can be used for both and in many cases it is far cheaper to do so.  The agency is saving money and those creating worthy stock are bringing in buckets of money.

Most business level shots are very lifestyle oriented (the happy product users, Read: Models) and there is less effort and cost using stock as opposed to hiring all the parties to capture the same.  These (images) are seen in the headers of corporate web sites (virtually all national level real estate, financial, health care and technology sites) as well as marketing collateral, annual reports, packaging, the list goes on.  Where photographers are predominately hired is for product shooting, which may or may not involve models.

Probably the largest area of confusion by photographers at the 'net level is understanding where and how models are used.  While the sultry, sexy and uber cool portfolio shots are pretty and fun to create, those (Cosmo or Marie Claire or FHM) are a pinprick in the vast world of modeling and often effort missplaced...and that also goes to thinking that a 'net tear-sheet has no value or place.  It is a legitimate form of being published and the GWC tables are probably turned by those having the credit, toward those just lining up tfp after tfp shoots.

Would be very interested to hear more from those with first hand experience in "legitimate publishing in the vaste world of modeling at the net level".  Not the porn, but the other commercial work you talk about on the internet.

The stock issue has been talked to death in other threads. Is there a better way of targetting to this market?

Andrea-Anderson wrote:
I am baffled that anyone could think that being published in a highly reputable online magazine like ZooZoom (www.zoozoom.com) does not count as being published.

Getting a tear from ZooZoom looks like getting published to me. As would getting into Lucire, etc. Reasonable sized and quality images. At least the models are recognisable.

http://www.lucire.com/

So it's clear that there's a major difference from being "self-published" on the net (ie., postings), and getting independently published (ie., being published) through the normal commercial channels via agencies into the ads & editorials in eMags.

But after you've gotten a few tear sheets from Zink, what's the point of continuing if you're not getting paid? Isn't the whole point of being a commercial model (after the novelty wears off) to get paid? That's just the equivalent of TFP.

Let's take ZooZoom as a case study.  Look at the following photo set. Not sure how long the link will live for.

http://www.zoozoom.com/magazine.aspx?type=story&id=188

Credits are given:
PHOTOGRAPHY
Sinden Collier
sindencollier.com

FASHION EDITOR
Rhett Collier

HAIR
Kali
Bumble & Bumble NY
celestineagency.com

MAKE UP
Geoffrey Rodriguez
for Stila Cosmetics
celestineagency.com

MODELS
Sarah Deanna
Photogenics Media
Aleksandra Pavlenko
L.A. Models

Some relevant questions (maybe slightly outside the scope of this thread) would be how did this photoset come to be? It looks like it was commissioned. Was the process handled any differently from a similar job in the print media? I think not. Were the participants paid?  Probably.

This is "being published".

DigitalCMH wrote:

I prefer to say, "You're not a REAL model or photographer if your images suck."

Amen

Brian Diaz wrote:

I hear AA baseball players have a hard time finding, um, baseball bats...?

https://modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=46614

lol

Visual E wrote:
You are not a REAL model or photographer if you've only been "published" on the internet.

Contained within that are at least three different notions:

1.  "Real photographers" vs. the other kind

2.  Whether or not publishing on the net is "publishing"

3.  Whether or not publication (in any form) is the indicia of a "real photographer" (or real model, for that matter).

Then there are a whole host of contained sub-ideas:

1.  Are all "publications" of equal value? (monetary or in terms of signifying "realness")?

2.  In the eyes of which viewer or judge does "realness" or value of a publication matter?  (If your models and your family think it's cool, and a commercial client doesn't, does it count?)

3.  Is "realness" in one genre transmissable to others?  (Does multiple publications in a printed men's magazine make one a "real photographer" in the eyes of a fashion client?)

. . . .

All of these and more became the subject of responses, and we are in large measure talking past each other.

Visual E wrote:
You are not a REAL model or photographer if you've only been "published" on the internet.

First.. your statement is nothing but BS. Others here have made that very clear.

In part of my "photographic" work, on an almost daily basis, I shoot images of houses. There homes are being put up for sale. I take pictures of them for the WEB. I do stills and Virtual tours. They also publish them in a monthly or bi-Monthly (I am not totally sure how often it come out in different areas).

Even thought not all of my images go into the published (read PRINTED) book, Those images a definately "published" on the web sites of the people that use my images.

So.. In reference to your comment.. Being published on the web is a tear. And because of some of them.. I have gotten other work.

Chili wrote:
i once shot a elephant in my pajamas, doesnt make me...nevermind

just my opinion

ok, just how did an elephant get into your pajamas?

or should I ask why you asked the elephant to wear your pajamas?

or where did you leave your pajamas, so that the elephant found them to get in them?

(sorry.. I couldnt resist.. these were in the big fat elephant joke book edition #3)

studio36uk wrote:
Try getting to the ROOT of what "publishing" anything is... it is settled law that "publishing" is accomplished by making something [writing; graphics; photographs; designs; ect] available to the public.

Interesting point.  By "being published" we are not referring here to the legality of the term publishing, and whether posting photos on the internet is publishing. That's been well covered in other threads.

We're specifically talking about the use of the term "being published", which is industry jargon for presentation of work in a credible media by third parties, ie., not portfolios or "self-posted".

The sole question of this post is whether the internet is yet such a credible media.  Some have argued (so far in this thread) that commercial photos appearing in certain eMags such as ZooZoom are credible forms of being published, as are some lifestyle photos which appear in corporate web sites, and the fashion/accessory eStores.  Are there any other examples of credible forms of publishing on the internet?

Chili wrote:
AAA baseball is not real baseball,...

You would do well to not write about things you know nothing about.  Triple A and to a great extent Double A is the farm system platform from where players rise to the Major League.  Rarely does a player just land in the Major Leagues without "professional" Minor League experience.  Even A level carries great credibility, A-Rod's first assignment was with the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers, a single A ballclub.  As well, many that go on the DL do their rehab at that level before returning to the show.

Carry on...