Ames wrote:
OK here I go. Irritated as hell. Why in the hell do random jack asses send me emails offering bs invites to "model" for "fashion/glamour" "shoots" when it specifically STATES in my profile and interests that is exactly what I am NOT interested in? How trite.

>=/

My Most Recent Email "Offer":
Hello – my name is  and I am the Owner of Pink Diamond Modeling in Altoona, Iowa. I will be traveling to the Chicagoland area for business on Monday (6-12) and I would love to work with a talented, dedicated model. I will be available from approximately noon until 9:00 pm. I may also have some availability on Tuesday from 6:00 pm until 9:00 as well. I am looking for someone that is familiar with the area as I would prefer to shoot outdoors. I am thinking of a fashion/glamour shoot. I shoot exclusively with digital equipment and will provide you with copies of all images directly after the shoot on a CD. If interested in this offer, please shoot me an e-mail at @mchsi.com with your contact information and I will be in touch. I am sending this offer to several individuals so I will take the first serious response. Remember I do have two different times that we could potentially shoot (Monday or Tuesday). Thank you for your time and again please only serious inquiries.


Owner - Pink Diamond Modeling
A Division of Cline Technologies, LLC

Sorry... I'm a little confused here. It says in your portfolio that you are interested in fashion, but there is no mention made of glamour. You do say no nudes, but that isn't glamour and I doubt he'd want to shoot nudes with you out in a public area (assuming that's what he meant by outdoors). And he didn't mention he even wanted to photograph you nude anyway. So, I'm not seeing why this should upset you. Perhaps instead you may want to clarify with him what exactly he's looking for and take it from there. Also, I can't remember exactly the name, but on your list of credits there is a "glam..." event listed. That might imply you'd be interested in glamour photography of some type.

  It seems like something is missing from this story...

  -P-

  Edit: I just looked at his portfolio on OMP, and he doesn't even list "nude" as an interest. So, I'm really not sure why you're upset by his email to you. Can you clarify?

Pat Thielen wrote:
Sorry... I'm a little confused here. It says in your portfolio that you are interested in fashion, but there is no mention made of glamour. You do say no nudes, but that isn't glamour and I doubt he'd want to shoot nudes with you out in a public area (assuming that's what he meant by outdoors). And he didn't mention he even wanted to photograph you nude anyway. So, I'm not seeing why this should upset you. Perhaps instead you may want to clarify with him what exactly he's looking for and take it from there. Also, I can't remember exactly the name, but on your list of credits there is a "glam..." event listed. That might imply you'd be interested in glamour photography of some type.

  It seems like something is missing from this story...

  -P-

yes. i was waiting for someone to call me on this. but i feel i can argue that if you look at my profile and you'll notice yes, i do like fashion but not glamour, and i say no nudes, and last but not least the few pics i have are basic fashion that it is pretty obvious im not going to want to do what i see in this persons port. which is nothing but skin ... or girls hidding their pretty parts with their hands. so. it seems as clear as day to me. call me an a-hole but i think that's pretty exact.

i suppose like a spam filter on email, i have to maybe just cut my profile and say - yes to this, no no no and no to these precise things. maybe i shouldnt just expect people to note the obvious indicators.

angelinme wrote:
No kidding...your profile says specifically "I'm a seriously focused girl, interested in fashion"  and  "I need full body shots and headshots representing the style of fashion"

You state no where in your port that you aren't interested in glamour as well. You don't say anywhere that you're objected to any sort of shoot anddddd this e-mail was in no way rude, the photographer actually sounded really nice.

No clue what you're basing your complaint on.

it's just a frustration not really a true complaint that i wanted to share for opinion. input.

Ames wrote:
i suppose like a spam filter on email, i have to maybe just cut my profile and say - yes to this, no no no and no to these precise things. maybe i shouldnt just expect people to note the obvious indicators.

Never assume that other people will assume.  I've amended my profile here five or six times since I joined.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Never assume that other people will assume.  I've amended my profile here five or six times since I joined.

yea. =/
it's true. and i know what they say about assuming ... =p

Ames wrote:
it's just a frustration not really a true complaint that i wanted to share for opinion. input.

I understand how it can sometimes be frustrating, Especially if the photographer won't stop messaging you.  But reading these letters doesn't really take to much time, one 5 second look at their port is really all it takes for you to make up your mind if you'd like to work with them.  So really this isn't a huge issue and I'm sure a lot of people will use the "get over it" line.  Just be wary that a complaint as little as this can be translated into whining.

It is really annoying when it is clearly stated "No nudes" and they e-mail, "how about a nude shoot?"  I think about every Model on MM Will agree with that.  But you encouraged fashion and said nothing against glamour at all and he didn't mention anything at all your profile disagreed with.  His portfolio may have displayed otherwise, but his e-mail was respectable.

angelinme wrote:
I understand how it can sometimes be frustrating, Especially if the photographer won't stop messaging you.  But reading these letters doesn't really take to much time, one 5 second look at their port is really all it takes for you to make up your mind if you'd like to work with them.  So really this isn't a huge issue and I'm sure a lot of people will use the "get over it" line.  Just be wary that a complaint as little as this can be translated into whining.

It is really annoying when it is clearly stated "No nudes" and they e-mail, "how about a nude shoot?"  But you encouraged fashion and said nothing against glamour at all so that's perhaps why I think you're complaint is a little stretched.

agreed. thanks for the input. this will help me rewrite and be better at the rewrite.

Rob Hunter wrote:
The beautiful thing about email is the delete button.  If its something you're not interested in, delete it and forget it.  Now - that being said - if he had continually pestered you about the shoot and you continually turned him down, that would be reason to complain.

Yeah! What Rob said.

Ames wrote:

agreed. thanks for the input. this will help me rewrite and be better at the rewrite.

Yup   Just a little clarity can go a lonnnng way.  You're very lovely by the way.  Good luck to you!

angelinme wrote:
Yup   Just a little clarity can go a lonnnng way.  You're very lovely by the way.  Good luck to you!

thank you. (blush)

you are too.

Pat Thielen wrote:
You might consider making a list of what you're interested in and make it very obvious (I do this in my port). You may feel people should be able to "get" what you're into by looking at your portfolio, but this isn't really the case. People may not post everything, especially when you're limited to twenty photos. By looking at your port, it's rather obvious (to me) that you're into fashion and possible would be interested in glamour (because of your Glamlive credit) and lifestyle. While I wouldn't ask you to do nude, as you mention that directly, I may have not felt it a problem to bring up glamour with you (if I shot glamour). It's very difficult to guess exactly what a model or photographer is interested in just by looking at their port. For instance, by looking at my portfolio would you have any idea that I'm very interested in macro photography?

  Don't get mad or anything. Communicate your interests clearly and concisely and you won't have these kinds of problems. And I agree that the person writing you was in no way out of line. Methinks you over-react just a bit.

  -P-

over react yes. it's more or less from a cumulation of emails like that. this time i wanted the communities idea of what to think and where to curb it. thank you indeed. i didn't realize the glam live thingy drew attn. for my own peace of mind, it was make-up and hair and a fashion photoshoot at a club. nothing glammy about it. to be honest, i don't know why they called it glam live ... maybe i should just remove it. btw, i'm going to study your profile for mm lessons in precision. hehe.

Ames wrote:
speaking of glam and fashion ...
maybe you all can help me figure this one out ....

the difference between fashion and glam?

in my mind as well as in a lot of my other model friends (represented and unrepresented) minds, it's two seperate things. however i see a lot of emails, casting and posts about combination glam/fashion photo shoots online and think, "ooo this can be good?" then i view their port and it's nothing but glam which, in the end, makes me feel like this ---> =/

what do you say?

Excuse me, but after having been recently examined under a microsope by the MM elite for having posted an un-positive idea,  I can offer you a suggestion.  If you don't want this thread to turn into a group therapy session at your expense, stop answering the posts.  If you enjoy the attention and want to argue/discuss your points with everyone that feels they need to criticize you, answer everyone with a counterpoint.

It can be a learning experience but you'll need to have a thick skin.  And since I know that every MM model is absolutely gorgeous, I suspect that thick skin is not one of  of your requisite characteristics.

Good luck.

Ames wrote:
speaking of glam and fashion ...
maybe you all can help me figure this one out ....

the difference between fashion and glam?

in my mind as well as in a lot of my other model friends (represented and unrepresented) minds, it's two seperate things. however i see a lot of emails, casting and posts about combination glam/fashion photo shoots online and think, "ooo this can be good?" then i view their port and it's nothing but glam which, in the end, makes me feel like this ---> =/

what do you say?

There was a thread on "what is glamour" a while back --> https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=50970

Most of it goes off topic like a lot of these threads do.  But it may give you some opinions.

Ames wrote:
speaking of glam and fashion ...
maybe you all can help me figure this one out ....

the difference between fashion and glam?

in my mind as well as in a lot of my other model friends (represented and unrepresented) minds, it's two seperate things. however i see a lot of emails, casting and posts about combination glam/fashion photo shoots online and think, "ooo this can be good?" then i view their port and it's nothing but glam which, in the end, makes me feel like this ---> =/

what do you say?

I think people are rather confused by the two, and I also think glamour can get shoved into the realm of softcore porn (which it isn't). While I'm not sure how to clearly define the two terms (I'm sure someone here would be much better at it than I) in my opinion fashion is about the clothes. You're selling a product, and the product is what the photograph is about; not the model. And in fashion, it isn't necessarily about clothes or product -- it can be about attitude. Ambercrombie and Fitch did this with their "nude" catalogs; the photography was arguable fashion because it was designed to sell a product, but they sold the product via an attitude. I'm not sure if that makes sense... Words are sometimes very inadequate. Here's a forum discussion on fashion photography over at www.photo.net:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fet … 0EAlo&tag=

  Glamour is very confusing. I think glamour can be similar to beauty and even lifestyle photography, with the exception of the makeup and styling. It aims to capture beauty, and can be clothed or implied nude. Glamour (and fashion) can cross into the realm of fine art and even nude photography at times as well. I guess for me, about as close to glamour as I get would be my "old fashioned" looking photos. I'm not sure if they'd really be considered glamour, but they come close.

  I know this is confusing, but I still haven't figured it out myself yet. What you may want to consider is talking in depth to the photographers interested in working with you and let them know exactly what your boundaries and comfort level is. You can do this in a very diplomatic way, and people will appreciate your honesty. I also recommend an in-person meeting before you work with a new person so you can get a feeling for the photographer and ask any questions you might have. Because the genres overlap somewhat, and because some people have different definitions for different genres, you need to clarify this up front. For instance, I believe in England they think of "glamour" as porn. While here in the U.S. it can mean anything from lingerie to Playboy-style nudes. Communication is the key. Communication is good.

  I hope I helped at least somewhat. And anyone else -- fell free to correct me or add to this description. Maybe I can learn something here as well.

  -P-

Ames wrote:
Uh WTF - Can they not read?!?!

In a word. . .no.

Pat Thielen wrote:
I think people are rather confused by the two, and I also think glamour can get shoved into the realm of softcore porn (which it isn't). While I'm not sure how to clearly define the two terms (I'm sure someone here would be much better at it than I) in my opinion fashion is about the clothes. You're selling a product, and the product is what the photograph is about; not the model. And in fashion, it isn't necessarily about clothes or product -- it can be about attitude. Ambercrombie and Fitch did this with their "nude" catalogs; the photography was arguable fashion because it was designed to sell a product, but they sold the product via an attitude. I'm not sure if that makes sense... Words are sometimes very inadequate. Here's a forum discussion on fashion photography over at www.photo.net:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fet … 0EAlo&tag=

  Glamour is very confusing. I think glamour can be similar to beauty and even lifestyle photography, with the exception of the makeup and styling. It aims to capture beauty, and can be clothed or implied nude. Glamour (and fashion) can cross into the realm of fine art and even nude photography at times as well. I guess for me, about as close to glamour as I get would be my "old fashioned" looking photos. I'm not sure if they'd really be considered glamour, but they come close.

  I know this is confusing, but I still haven't figured it out myself yet. What you may want to consider is talking in depth to the photographers interested in working with you and let them know exactly what your boundaries and comfort level is. You can do this in a very diplomatic way, and people will appreciate your honesty. I also recommend an in-person meeting before you work with a new person so you can get a feeling for the photographer and ask any questions you might have. Because the genres overlap somewhat, and because some people have different definitions for different genres, you need to clarify this up front. For instance, I believe in England they think of "glamour" as porn. While here in the U.S. it can mean anything from lingerie to Playboy-style nudes. Communication is the key. Communication is good.

  I hope I helped at least somewhat. And anyone else -- fell free to correct me or add to this description. Maybe I can learn something here as well.

  -P-

i liked the abercrombie and fitch mention. it is confusing but i can still see difference in a&c and playboy.

Josue Pena wrote:
of course they dont read!!!!!
everybody mail me to shoot them for free..... hehehehe and if they dont fit in any project I am doing and tell them I can not shoot them for free..... they get ofended........
but everything because (you are right) they dont read!!!!!!
; )

it's kind of insulting, like they didn't really look at my photos or info and just clicked send in hopes and ...
sometimes I think they are hoping I am foolish enough to reply with a 'heck ya ill glam it up for you for free.' like i feel like they aren't into this for any benefit other than being surrounded by pretty girls ... and that persona grosses me out ... like the dudes who fondle themselves on the train in front of girls (this happened a few times to me). which i suppose is where another part of where the frustration comes from ... womanizing under the pseudo "photog" by blending the lines of fashion and soft core freaks me out. womanizing in general freaks me out. 

anyway, like Pat say's, it's confusing ... but it does make for a good discussion.