|
Forums >
General Industry >
What if a GWC was the best photographer around?
OK. One more GWC situation for you. Lets say you have seen the photographers work and checked his references. The references advise that the photographer brilliant but does date models and often tries to talk models into nude work they often don't do, but has never stepped over the line into scaring a model into not shooting. The photographer offers paid work for nude and fantastic final images on top of it. Would you still shoot with this person? Now this is not me so no funny ideas about that. I started to wonder that if you have what many would consider a "GWC", but they have an amazing port would that make a difference? The photographer IS using the camera to get close to the hot models but has top notch work. What are your thoughts? Aaron Jun 05 06 12:33 am Link I think I'd still shoot... I would just give a firm "no" when asked to do something I didn't want. Only you can let yourself be pressured by a GWC... Jun 05 06 12:35 am Link I would hope he had a camera!  What is all this GWC talk....such nonesense.Jun 05 06 12:37 am Link Diana Moffitt wrote: I know Diana. I hate this term. Jun 05 06 12:43 am Link There are a few bullsh*t filter tests for GWCs: mention money and paying assignments - letting him know you are a serious professional, looking to make a living. Since, he, as a GWC, on the other hand, is in it for selfish, self-gratifying reasons - will leave skid marks. GWCs never think of the economic aspects of photography. It's super easy to catch them at their game. They are a pure time wasters. They will never help a model make a living - because that's not where their tiny minds are.... Jun 05 06 12:44 am Link But as I indicated the photographer has top notch skill and also pays for nude work. Would it be worth getting hit on during the shoot to get some of the best images you have ever had of yourself? Jun 05 06 12:52 am Link But as I indicated the photographer has top notch skill and also pays for nude work. Would it be worth getting hit on during the shoot to get some of the best images you have ever had of yourself? Well, first we shouldn't confuse the two - a paying professional photographer and a GWC. A GWC rarely pays and is about a step above a perv hanging out in the bushes at the park. A professional photographer - or one on his way to being a professional - has invested in equipment and loves what he is doing. He is good at it and pours his heart into it. The opportunity may arise that he likes his subject and might want to date her. He can try to proceed. There is nothing wrong with that. But if she says no - or gives signals otherwise, he should forget his romantic interest. She will smear him dearly if he persists. That really will get him a GWC label - and will screw up his business. Keep it professional at all times, then the reputation will proceed you. Jun 05 06 12:58 am Link Natashka wrote: I've was called a GWC by by another photographer but never by a model. But to be honest I heard that term for the first time here on MM and I'm a new member. I guess I'll give it more time! LOL! But my Mama likes my work! Jun 05 06 01:00 am Link I'm starting to think that the term GWC is created by professional photographers and business/website owners to scare the shit out of models with the very good intention of protecting them and their business. its like a ghost story. its like NYC subway is very dangerous at nights. I see lots of guys in bars and clubs trying to impress girls somehow. I'm sure some has business cards that say "professional photographer". I see crappy musicians trying to to talk to girls after a bar show. almost all conversations come to the point of "so what do you do?" and as far as I know no conscious person would sleep or (shoot) with another unless they want to. consciousness it is and it will be Jun 05 06 01:01 am Link no you're wrong, they are out there. in my area models need to beware because there is a GWC here that only takes "crotch" shots of models and tries to sleep with them. That's all he wants, is for females to be completely nude and spread their legs for him. He is an old man, with money, doesn't have any talent in his little pinky. Tried to pay me $500 to $1,000 to do that and sleep with him when I was 18. He put money down but I refused because of my morals. There is no way that I would do that or sleep with that man for that much. He got in contact with me from none other than my modeling portfolio online. He's done this to many desperate college girls in my city because they hit a hard place and needed money fast, he's probably the source of all the STDs here. Texas has the highest STD rate and Lubbock is the highest in Texas, so it's the highest in the nation here. I wouldn't doubt that they all came from him -_- Jun 05 06 06:12 am Link please - everyone wake up - us models are so full of self importance sometimes and i would suspect all photographers are gwc in the final outcome. it doesnt matter if its paid or unpaid , some flashy set up with lights and expensive sets or just a beach and a digital camera. as in life you just have to be sensible , take precautions and stay safe sarah j Jun 05 06 06:21 am Link I am a photographer w/ a day job, just trying to get my portfolio up to par to get paying work. I am not able to pay models at this time other than TFCD, I travel to them, gas at 3.00 bucks a gal, and my time spent shooting and editing...I don't do nudes, but will do implied...I do shoot glamour and swimsuit, because i like it. I own studio gear, a digital camera, good lenses, but...... Does that make me a "GWC"??? Matt Studio M Photography Jun 05 06 06:26 am Link A TRUE GWC by definition is a Guy With A camera out to get in your pants orincrease his nude collection. Some of tem are talented and will provide yu with awesome images. It seems this is rare. And no..ALL photgraphers are not GWC's that is an insult to those of us thake this business very seriously. Jun 05 06 06:27 am Link Sorry, but I could not get past your first two sentences... please go back to school and study grammar and spelling if you would like to communicate a thought to people out in the world. Jun 05 06 06:33 am Link Studio M Photography wrote: Are you trying to get into your model's pants? If no then you're not a GWC. Jun 05 06 06:34 am Link If there's milk and cookies at the shoot, i'd do it. Jun 05 06 06:36 am Link ADGibson wrote: In a land far far away and a long time ago........I was that GWC....and my work was crap....but I couldn't afford or didn't know how to improve it..... Jun 05 06 07:54 am Link ADGibson wrote: This post does not even remotely fit the definition of a GWC. Just because he wants to go out with a beautiful woman, please⦠Jun 05 06 08:13 am Link Natashka wrote: Wow...you nailed it. Jun 05 06 08:19 am Link Totally sick and tired of GWC talk - Let's get over it already and move on to something more interesting - Nuclear physics anyone??? JN Jun 05 06 08:22 am Link There was a LONG very boring period several months ago with a zillion threads about GWCs, all sorts of definitions (which all seem to boil down to: I am not one, you might be) and then it stopped. All of MM seemed to get tired of the issue at once. Ah! What a relief. Now, it is all coming back. I guess a new crop has to get it out of their system. But, I agree, nuclear physics is MUCH more interesting. This discussion leads nowhere, offends many people pointlessly because soon it gets to the amateur/pro debate, artist/commercial debate, beginner/experienced debate, expensive camera/cheap camera debate, I am a SERIOUS photographer/you are a hack debate and what is the point? The term is pretty meaningless. Here is the test: if you could accurately define GWC would it make any difference in your actions in your life? Didn't think so. Give it a rest. Go take photographs. Jun 05 06 08:35 am Link Natashka wrote: This is a perfect example of one type of confusion. The GWC/professional confusion. Have I invested in my equipment? By this poster's standards, almost certainly not. I use old Pentax K-1000s with broken light meters. I do own digital equipment but I don't use it for serious work. I like film. And real film, not film to be scanned, but film that is used to make prints in a darkroom on silver paper. I show and sell prints in galleries but, obviously, I am not a "professional" and I am not on my way to becoming one since this is how I have been shooting for 30 years and I like it. I take picture of, among other things, naked women because I think they are pretty. So by all these measures I will be a "GWC." (Well, I often pay my models, so maybe I get some credit there.) So how has this thread advanced anyone's understanding? Jun 05 06 08:56 am Link ADGibson wrote: I had to read this four times before it became something other than gibberish. Maybe some punctuation would have helped. But what with the price of commas these days... Jun 05 06 08:58 am Link Ivan123 wrote: Hear hear. Jun 05 06 09:00 am Link *Start Slow clap*.. AMEN said the choir.. sarahjane2 wrote: Jun 05 06 09:01 am Link ADGibson wrote: I thought GWC's were usually not very good......... Jun 05 06 09:02 am Link I am confused. It doesn't sound like you are talking about a GWC. Sounds like you are describing a great photographer....who just so happens to also be a hound-dog. Just because the guy tries to sleep with his models, doesn't mean he is a GWC. If he takes so-so images and pretends to be a photographer just to try and get the models naked and in bed....then they are a GWC. But if they take fantastic images....and do pay models for nude modeling sessions, then I tend to think they are actually a photographer.....they might be a pig, but not necessarily a GWC. Jun 05 06 09:02 am Link Claire Elizabeth wrote: Actually, some of the best photographic technicians I know fall under the description of GWC...as do some of the most intense, creative artists I know. Jun 05 06 10:03 am Link Marcus Ranum is a self-proclaimed GWC because (although he doesn't ever try to coerce anyone into anything they're not comfortable with) part of the reason he takes pictures is because he finds women attractive and he likes seeing naked girls. He's a great guy though, he's never tried to make me do anything I didn't want to, and he takes fabulous pictures. So yes...I would (and have and plan to again as soon as I can) work with a talented GWC. Jun 05 06 10:07 am Link Thuy Anh wrote: If I'm photographing a nude model in the desert her pants are tossed aside and I don't want to get into them!! Jun 05 06 10:12 am Link J. Newton wrote: now we're talking Jun 05 06 10:25 am Link What you describe is not a GWC. You stated he's a skilled photographer. Okay, he likes shooting nudes and glamour. That doesn't make him a GWC. The whole point of the GWC label is that one just uses a camera to see boobies and does not produce valuable work. This fictious photographer is obviously producing valuable work. What you describe is just a pushy photographer. Jun 05 06 10:27 am Link Off Minor Media wrote: So I guess you have nothing constructive to contribute. If not then don't post. The post was for models to reply not photographers anyways, but I do welcome thoughtful replies. Jun 05 06 11:07 pm Link --------------------------------------- This is a perfect example of one type of confusion. The GWC/professional confusion. Have I invested in my equipment? By this poster's standards, almost certainly not. I use old Pentax K-1000s with broken light meters. I do own digital equipment but I don't use it for serious work. I like film. And real film, not film to be scanned, but film that is used to make prints in a darkroom on silver paper. I show and sell prints in galleries but, obviously, I am not a "professional" and I am not on my way to becoming one since this is how I have been shooting for 30 years and I like it. I take picture of, among other things, naked women because I think they are pretty. So by all these measures I will be a "GWC." (Well, I often pay my models, so maybe I get some credit there.) So how has this thread advanced anyone's understanding? --------------------------------------- Jun 06 06 12:16 am Link I've always figured I'm a GWC because I have no resources other than my camera equipment and my eye and little to no technical training on the camera. I didn't know sexual urges were part of the definition. For the record, I have never intended, nor do I ever intend, to have any form of intimate contact with the models with whom I work. Does that make me simply an "amateur," then? (I had a couple people offer to pay me, but I felt too guilty.) GWC=Guy With Camera. I guess all the baggage that is put on the definition past that acronym is up to the individual. I don't think that fusion power will be within our grasp anytime soon. There's no way that's figured out to contain the reaction, and although proponents say that the process can be accomplished without nuclear waste, I'm skeptical. We're talking about molecules that generate nuclear reactions and all kinds of high-EM-spectrum radioactivity. Some waste seems inevitable. Jun 06 06 04:57 pm Link BCI Photo wrote: are they chocolate chip?? Jun 06 06 05:09 pm Link Sinsazia wrote: For you I would make sure of it. Jun 06 06 09:22 pm Link Koray wrote: The first instance of the use of "Guy With Camera" that I've been able to find was by Leland Ray (MM1893), a fine Mississippi photographer, in 1998 to describe himself on the Fashion Only Forum. Jun 06 06 09:57 pm Link Outside of this MM forum melieu, there is no such thing as a "GWC." You've made him into a Boogeyman. Most of the people here *ARE* GWC's calling each other GWS's. GWC is defined by MM threads and the MM FAQ page. Just like they tried to do with GWB or GWT or GWP etc What do you think? ... maybe 90% of the photographers here do it as a hobby? Or flip it around .. how many people here earn their main income as photographers? 5%? On the other hand, we are all artists, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Jun 07 06 12:10 am Link Chili wrote: ... and of course the angle of the dangle is inversely proportional to the heat of the meat, with the ass held constant Jun 07 06 12:17 am Link |
