dee740 wrote:
I was recently contacted by a rather confusing photog. He said he wanted to shoot with me when i traveled this summer. I happened to look in his port and he damn near had all 18+ pics(not artistic nude) or tasteless shots with girls legs cocked open. I'm down for glamour and all, but he turned me off because he had no commercial shots, fashion, etc. When I turned down his offer to shoot he told me he had no intent on shooting me nude and implied that I was being silly for assuming so. How do the rest of you models think about a situation like this?

Lapis wrote:

IF you read her second post, I think it is clear that that is not what she means. I have a high number of nudes in MY book, and I specialize in modeling for nude photography, and most of my photographers are not GWC's. It is the contrast between his portfolio and what he is telling her that indicates he is a GWC.

Most of the photographers I work with make no bones (lol) about the fact that they want to do figure or erotic work. My personal issue with this 'photographer' she is talking about is his manipulative attitude, not his subject matter. As Krista is a good friend of mine, I am pretty sure she feels the same way.

My problem is that models and photographers both are very quick to slap the GWC label on anything that offends them.  Maybe that's what this guy is, hard to say without seeing the portfolio or communication.  Maybe not.  At the VERY least, he's got poor communication skills.  At the worst, yeah, he's a GWC.  He should have told her what he wanted to do up front.

dee740 wrote:
I was recently contacted by a rather confusing photog. He said he wanted to shoot with me when i traveled this summer. I happened to look in his port and he damn near had all 18+ pics(not artistic nude) or tasteless shots with girls legs cocked open. I'm down for glamour and all, but he turned me off because he had no commercial shots, fashion, etc. When I turned down his offer to shoot he told me he had no intent on shooting me nude and implied that I was being silly for assuming so. How do the rest of you models think about a situation like this?

pfffftttt, way back when i had started modeling years ago a photographer tried to pull that with me.  offered me $1,000 to take a picture of me all nude and on the floor with my legs wide open to the world.  did i take it? no. why? cause i have my own moral standards and so does everyone else and this did not fit mine at all. you were turned off because of the right reasons and your assumption was probably true. i had also just turned 18 when he contacted me, oh and i looked like a 12 year old then, seriously.  even now people sometimes confuse me with like a 15 year old and i'm only 20; one photographer told me i looked a lot younger than 14. :\

Photos by Jerry wrote:
Some Food For Thought:  Imagine a photographer has done many scenics, lots of sunsets, and numbers of flower closeups.  These are in his portfolio.  Then he contacts a model and says he would like to do glamour portraits, swimsuit pinups and the like.  Should the model say no because he posts no pictures of the type of picture he wants to do?  If all models do that how will he ever get to try them?
Now imagine a photographer who has done many erotic nudes, pornography, and BDSM.  He decides he is stuck in a rut and wants to do glamour portraits, etc.  However every model says no because he posts none like that. 
  The basic question is how can a photographer break out into new material if every model expects him to exhibit the very new stuff he wants to try?
  I have had the very experience suggested by these questions. I have done everything from portraits to pinup to artistic and erotic nudes but when I contacted a model who advertised she does BDSM, expecting the best way to begin was to work with an experienced model, she turned me down because the 200 images in my portfolio include no BDSM work!
  Models.  Don't look at the photographer's portfolio only in terms of what types of photo he has done.  Look also at the quality of workmanship, the lighting, etc.

That's my feeling.  I'm trying to do some varied things myself (and learn how to handle lighting better in the process - which I am slowly doing, go me).  I do shoot a lot of nudes.  It's not ALL I shoot but, with my last project for a book being very nude heavy, that's all I was shooting for awhile and my portfolio shows it.  I'd hate to try to find a model to shot say, more casual clothed images with, and have her see that and say "Oh no".  Of course, I'm very careful to make sure, when I'm contacting models who don't do nudity to let them know I do NOT expect them to take their clothes off for me.  Then again, I bother to read models profiles.

Photos by Jerry wrote:
Some Food For Thought:  Imagine a photographer has done many scenics, lots of sunsets, and numbers of flower closeups.  These are in his portfolio.  Then he contacts a model and says he would like to do glamour portraits, swimsuit pinups and the like.  Should the model say no because he posts no pictures of the type of picture he wants to do?  If all models do that how will he ever get to try them?
Now imagine a photographer who has done many erotic nudes, pornography, and BDSM.  He decides he is stuck in a rut and wants to do glamour portraits, etc.  However every model says no because he posts none like that. 
  The basic question is how can a photographer break out into new material if every model expects him to exhibit the very new stuff he wants to try?
  I have had the very experience suggested by these questions. I have done everything from portraits to pinup to artistic and erotic nudes but when I contacted a model who advertised she does BDSM, expecting the best way to begin was to work with an experienced model, she turned me down because the 200 images in my portfolio include no BDSM work!
  Models.  Don't look at the photographer's portfolio only in terms of what types of photo he has done.  Look also at the quality of workmanship, the lighting, etc.

I agree with this 100%.

I first started out shooting college bands, and weddings. Models were nowhere near where I was going at the time, but my work there was solid. I decided to try shooting models (around 2000), and two of the MM models were my first online subjects (THANKS honeypot and Vickie!). I only had a few pics of girls, but I had lots of other work that showed that I had the skills to pull it off, but no one to help me make that switch.

Once I did, I started to become better in those areas. Now, I'm trying to do more nudes, but I don't have as much experience in this area as I have in others. My "thinking" is that my other work should give the model an idea about the "quality" of my work FIRST, before they question my ability to pull off a certain type of image.

If a photographer's overall work is good, then he/she should be considered when doing something outside of their "norm."

Not all photographers like to shoot the same thing all the time. Some of us like to experiment with different types, just like models do.

MadamePsychosis wrote:
if its good porn i turn down the lights and jack off.

Why must you turn the lights down? What if you pick up the remote instead of... you know.

I guess my question would be rather WHEN than WHY. LOL

KM von Seidl wrote:

No wonder the popcorn tastes funky.

Somehow just not a good combination.. I'm guessing..

dee740 wrote:
I'm down for glamour and all, but he turned me off because he had no commercial shots, fashion, etc. When I turned down his offer to shoot he told me he had no intent on shooting me nude and implied that I was being silly for assuming so. How do the rest of you models think about a situation like this?

I do think you were being silly. Assuming he wanted to shoot you that way just because that is what he has in his portfolio. Did you not give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he understood your limitations as to what you will and will not do?
Maybe he did not have any Glamour, Commercial, Fashion and wated you to help him change that?

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
I do think you were being silly. Assuming he wanted to shoot you that way just because that is what he has in his portfolio. Did you not give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he understood your limitations as to what you will and will not do?
Maybe he did not have any Glamour, Commercial, Fashion and wated you to help him change that?

After thinking about it, I KNOW i wasn't being silly. Sometimes I think men should step outside of the box and think of their daughters in these situations. Obviously, I wasn't going to give him the benefit of the doubt because he had no variety in his pictures at all. As a man to a woman, I would never direct a model to pictures that could be viewed by some as degrading when that model has already stated she doesn't do nudes on her page. It just doesn't make any sense. Who starts out shooting stuff like that? Someone can't help but to think that that's what on the photog's mind when that's all his has to show.

I know this is a different situation than agency/model relations but bear with me. Imagine that I went to an agency with those three swimsuit shots I have in my port and no commercial  or fashion shots, they would reject me altogether because they would think I was a tramp and I wasn't serious about my work. when you come to someone and show them your work, you want to show variety and your best work.When the agency rejects me should I ask them for the benefit of the doubt and tell them I can do other stuff. No!

Jay Dezelic wrote:
It amazes my how easily offended people get over such issues.  The great thing is that you got to see first hand example of the photog's work (or at least a project he is working on at the moment) before making a commitment.  On a long boring plane ride back from Boston last night, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal about the difficult task that web sites like MySpace.com and Photobucket.com are having in identifying pornography.  As a society, we are so easily offended by what we see as if we did not have the choice to look elswhere.

I shot with a photographer several months back who was previously a hard core porno producer.  It didn't bother me a bit.  He knew his stuff with regards to photography and the pics turned out great (I was of course fully clothed). I have no interest in pornography.  If everyone were like me, there would be no porno industry because I would never pay a dime to look at pics of naked people doing sexual acts. It just does not interest me.  But everyone is not like you or me.  It's a huge industry and there obviously must be a lot of people willing to pay the bill. - And a lot of photogs and models willing to fill the demand.  So what?  Just accept it.  You don't have to participate in that kind of work.

The real question is: Does the photographer know how to take technically great pics? As long as the photog is professional, you should ignore the content and focus on the composition and lighting skills. If both you and the photog are in agreement of the type of photography needed, then they should be able to get what you want.

I think I would rather shoot with a photog that worked full time in photography (even if some of it was legal pornography), than a part time photog who did not have the same lighting and composition experience.

As they say, don't always judge a book by its cover.  MM ports are not used by everyone in the same manor.  Some (like me) post experimental images that would never go into a sales portfolio.

The photog directed me to his MM account. It wasn 't like he emailed me here and I just clicked on his name and saw the pictures. So I have to think that's his best work, since he wanted me to see it.

There's a slight difference between the two of us. I am a woman traveling out of town in an unfamiliar area. I have no escort to bring. I can't necessarily take the same chances with my body as you can. You are a man.
Better yet, If I did agree to shoot with him and he told me he wanted commercial  and fashion shots, and he  consequently asked me to pose naked when I arrived, I couldn't be mad because he had the word commercial next to three shots that were 18 + in his port. He had  the word "commercial" next to a shot of a woman with her ass so far in the air that I could see her pubic hairs  and labia. I can't trust that his decison making skills along with his representation of what a commercial or fashion shoot is.


By the way, the photography wasn't good quality either.

INever wrote:
what is GWC?

It stands for "Guy With a Camera."  It usually used derogatorily by those who have read "Photography Made Easy," to refer to those who haven't.  :-)

GW Burns wrote:
I believe there is an old addage about "When you assume, you make......"  Ask and you shall receive the answer...actually pretty easy philosophy if ya think about it.
GW

I agree with you GW. I have a very limited portfolio here right now and for a model to assume that I want a certain type pic just based on what I have here is not a good thing. Communication and trust are the keys.

Mark Reese Photography wrote:

I agree with you GW. I have a very limited portfolio here right now and for a model to assume that I want a certain type pic just based on what I have here is not a good thing. Communication and trust are the keys.

1. why would I trust someone I don't know. Just cause he said he wanted to shoot with me I should trust him?

2. The photog emailed me at home, not from mm. So if he had another site and directed me to it, I would've never seen his pics from here.we all have  several other sites that we all have pictures on, if he wanted me to see something else, then he would've shown it. So it's not  just about the pictures you have on MM.
If a photog and says he can shoot my wedding pictures and he shows me porn, what sense does that make? Should he then say "Oh, I have more pictures! Pay more attention to the lighting than what's going on in the pictures. I can definitely do your wedding pictures." I'm not going to ask him more questions. For a photog, his pictures are like your resume. He's toast simple as that. Aside from his lack of professionalism, he's lacking tacky and lacks good judgement.

3. I'm going to state this one more time. When you go to a model's page, READ IT. If I state that I don't do nudity or erotic work, then you can probably bet that when you direct me to your mm page and it has sexually explicit material that I'm going to be suspicious. Period. If I were a photog, I would try to keep sexually explicit material (aside from artistic nude) out of any potential models view so they don't get that  perception.  They will definitely get that perception if that's the only website you offer. Once that perception is there, you may not be able to shake it. Perception is reality.Obviously if a model doesn't do that type of work, there's a reason, whether it be moral obligation, money/career goals, etc. As a photog you have no idea what the reason and should always play it safe.