joey25 wrote:

True.  I've spoken with many female models.  Most tell me this:

The photogs who try to come across as "saints" are often the worst ones when it comes to crossing the line--making inappropriate sexual comments while shooting, touching inappropriately (not just positioning), etc., etc.  You know the ones--they make comments like this: "I never even notice that my models are nude"; "I find nothing sexual about my work" (despite all erotic poses) and these "saiints" usually follow the comment with a smiley face icon with a halo...

Generally, the photogs who simply state their position and stick with it are fine.  Photographers should stop pretending to be saints and simply be real.

Geez...

Damn... I've been found out...

Seriously, I've said a few of those things, and I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone I'm a perv other than my girlfriend.

KM von Seidl wrote:
Just popping in.

Looks like it's still a generic escort thread with no answers to Chris's question.

Well, what "rational" answer is there?  The only rational attitude in the situation is to work through it.  You're never going to convince some women that they are safe sans escort and you're never going to convince a pro photographer that an escort is a good thing.

There. Is. No. Middle. Ground.


Sorry.

Christopher Ambler wrote:
- or if the gap should be bridged at all?

Actually, this little piece was part of your original post, too.


The answer is no.  It should not be bridged.  Based solely on the fact that there's nothing to bridge. 

They either insist on having an escort or they don't. 
You either allow them to bring an escort or you don't. 


It's that simple...

James Jackson wrote:
. . . you're never going to convince a pro photographer that an escort is a good thing.

Please speak only for yourself.  I have no objections to models bringing chaperones to their shoots, and I think they are wise to do so under many circumstances.  On my modeling info page it says: Chaperones are welcome with new models, but they are asked to watch quietly from a distance and not be a distraction. A staff member is always on site to chaperone during studio shoots.

At the studio I use we are not allowed to shoot models without a chaperone.  That rule is for the safety of both the models and the photographers.

Brixton Burns wrote:
Sometimes they are honest people willing to help out, as an assistant.

Professionals and people who are serious about photography don't take good intentioned people off the street to assist.

Sorry, Art.

gr82bart wrote:

Professionals and people who are serious about photography don't take good intentioned people off the street to assist.

That is somewhat my position. I have assistants already, and a random escort doesn't know how to set up or position lights, much less build a simple softbox.

But I hear those of you saying that the bridge can not or should not be bridged. It is, indeed, the clash of two cultures. I just can't help but think that there is a middle-ground.

I'm seriously thinking about moving to a larger studio where I can have a separate room built-out as a lounge, out of sight of the studio proper. But this would only help in the studio - during the nice weather here in Seattle, I try to get out on location as often as possible, and the escort wouldn't agree to wait in the car...

Christopher Ambler wrote:
There must exist a solution whereby internet models can realize that  professional photographers have much more to risk than they do...

People tend to show more trust in "brick and mortar" studios than those without. Having trust in someone who works from their van or trunk and takes you to remote locations to strip naked on the railroad tracks... well, I can understand the models point of view. An escort would be appropriate.

So if your daughter came home and said "Dad! I just saw this guy on the street that says he's going to make me a Maxim model, and he works for some guy named B.J. on a radio show..."  Would let her to go the shoot alone?

Solution:
Be willing to meet the model at Starbuck's for coffee. Take your laptop, and show her what you have planned, make your appointment and go.

btw - Christopher, I love your work. You can photograph my daughter anytime... with or without clothes.

Sign me up as a Hot Shots photographer, damn it! 

James Jackson wrote:
. . . you're never going to convince a pro photographer that an escort is a good thing.

phcorcoran wrote:
Please speak only for yourself.  I have no objections to models bringing chaperones to their shoots, and I think they are wise to do so under many circumstances.  On my modeling info page it says: Chaperones are welcome with new models, but they are asked to watch quietly from a distance and not be a distraction. A staff member is always on site to chaperone during studio shoots.

At the studio I use we are not allowed to shoot models without a chaperone.  That rule is for the safety of both the models and the photographers.

Well said. I enjoy the company at times as well as more times then not, it helps put the model at ease during the shoot to have someone there that they know and trust.

Star wrote:
I love escorts, I can't afford assistants

I hear ya', bro... I ask them to bring their boyfriends... I need help. lol

Joe
www.downonthedeck.com

Craig Thomson wrote:
Well said. I enjoy the company at times as well as more times then not, it helps put the model at ease during the shoot to have someone there that they know and trust.

A model who is not at ease working with a professional photographer is, likely, in the wrong business.

Note that I'm speaking of professional models, not Internet models, or hobbyists.

Professionals don't bring escorts. Only the amateurs seem to feel that they need to, because they're working with other amateurs. But when an amateur model goes to work with a professional photographer, the concept of an escort creates a culture gap that's causing (at least me) some consternation.

That's the gap here that I feel needs to be bridged.

Christopher Ambler wrote:

A model who is not at ease working with a professional photographer is, likely, in the wrong business.

Note that I'm speaking of professional models, not Internet models, or hobbyists.

Professionals don't bring escorts. Only the amateurs seem to feel that they need to, because they're working with other amateurs. But when an amateur model goes to work with a professional photographer, the concept of an escort creates a culture gap that's causing (at least me) some consternation.

That's the gap here that I feel needs to be bridged.

Chris.  It's NOT just a culture gap.   Yes it is that for sure.  But what you are ignoring is FEAR.

If you do not address the fear in the equation then no gap can be bridged.   Fear is the elephant in the room you're not wanting to address.

KM von Seidl wrote:

Well tell us how you bridge the gap between a woman who is convinced she needs an escort for her safety with those that say they don't.

In other words if you have either a rational approach or a magic wand to remove fear I'm all ears.

I think the only reasonable approach for a professional is "just say no".
Trying to coddle to this unprofessional behavior just perpetuates it.
It was decided in the industry long ago, that this was inappropriate and wouldn't be tolerated. Internet models, if they want to work with industry level people, will just have to function as an industry professional. Period. End-of-story.

John

KM von Seidl wrote:
Chris.  It's NOT just a culture gap.   Yes it is that for sure.  But what you are ignoring is FEAR.

If you do not address the fear in the equation then no gap can be bridged.   Fear is the elephant in the room you're not wanting to address.

With all due respect - as a photographer, their irrational fears are not my problem. Those prone to that nonsense can play their mind game somewhere (and with someone) else....

John

P.S. KM - Because the quote you were answering is not included - it makes it look like I'm shouting at you - sorry - I'm not.

John Allan wrote:

With all due respect - as a photographer, their irrational fears are not my problem. Those prone to that nonsense can play their mind game somewhere (and with someone) else....

John

P.S. KM - Because the quote you were answering is not included - it makes it look like I'm shouting at you - sorry - I'm not.

John,  I didn't think you were shouting. : )

And, I'm not sure you read through the thread, but I was of the opinion the gap can't be bridged.   I don't deal escorts therefore I don't deal with models who need escorts.  I don't want to be part of the mindset at all, so we agree.

Chris thinks there can be a bridge and that it's a cultural issue.

I don't think there can be a bridge because it's not really a cultural issue, it's an emotional one, fear to be exact, and fear isn't something people easily let go of.

KM von Seidl wrote:
Chris.  It's NOT just a culture gap.   Yes it is that for sure.  But what you are ignoring is FEAR.

If you do not address the fear in the equation then no gap can be bridged.   Fear is the elephant in the room you're not wanting to address.

Okay, let's address it. I'll presume that you mean that the model is afraid. Why? Because she's going to interact with a professional in a private setting? If so, why don't people bring escorts when they go to see their doctor or dentist?

Why don't people bring escorts when they go to see a massage therapist?

When I'm shooting, I have one, sometimes two assistants. Often there's a makeup artist. So surely it can't be fear of being alone with me.

When was the last time you saw a photographer/model horror story where the photographer was a known professional? Can you think of one or two? Because I can name you five medical doctors in the Seattle area alone who have been brought up on charges for molesting patients, yet, as I said, nobody brings escorts to the doctor.

I think the fear may be understandable when an amateur model is dealing with an amateur photographer. So to bridge the gap, one must ask, how do you draw the distinction, and put that fear at ease?

In other words, if models were made to understand the difference between a professional who has more to lose by untoward behavior, and an amateur who does not, perhaps that gap could be bridged?

I think we agree on the premise, and I think we also agree on the realities - you don't seem to think that there is room to resolve the issue, and I'm still not convinced; I think there might be. Maybe. I'm losing hope, though :-)

Ferrell McCollough wrote:
If a model wants to bring an escort simply tell her that the escort needs to wait in the other room during the shoot. Prepare her with this info long before the shoot. During breaks the model can check in with the escort. If you don't have an extra room then they wait in the car.

It's no different than the doctor/patient relationship. Non-essential people are not allowed, they wait in the waiting room. Why? Interference.

As a professional, why fuck with it at all - it's just a slippery slope.

John

KM von Seidl wrote:
John,  I didn't think you were shouting. : )

And, I'm not sure you read through the thread, but I was of the opinion the gap can't be bridged.   I don't deal escorts therefore I don't deal with models who need escorts.  I don't want to be part of the mindset at all, so we agree.

Chris thinks there can be a bridge and that it's a cultural issue.

I don't think there can be a bridge because it's not really a cultural issue, it's an emotional one, fear to be exact, and fear isn't something people easily let go of.

I don't deal escorts therefore I don't deal with models who need escorts.  I don't want to be part of the mindset at all, so we agree.
Exactly. I strongly feel that's the best approach. Everytime a professional permits models to "get away with" this unprofessional behavior it just perpetuates its legitimacy in the "net" model's brain.

For me, there's little that more clearly identifies an unprofessonal/unreliable/wanna-be model, than a demand to use an escort for her "modeling" ventures.

John

Christopher Ambler wrote:
As a postscript, perhaps if I state it this way, my thought process might make more sense.

I don't want to say to an amateur model, "you can't have an escort."

I want to say, "you do not need an escort, and I don't work with them present because..."

I'm willing to do the "because..." - I think there's a way to explain it in such terms that might work.

On the other hand, I'm tempered by pessimism by the realization that the very amateurs who give the market a bad name will start to use that very "because..." and we're back to the fear, as you put it.

I do appreciate the reasoned discussion here on this dead-horse of a topic. At a minimum, I believe the thought process has been clarified, even if no resolution is, indeed, possible.

I think it's admirable that you are willing to take the time to enlighten, rather than just throwing them to the wind - as I would. I think I'd suggest though a written "whitepaper" or "position statement", so that you don't have to go through an exhaustive dissertation each time with the silly girl.

John

P.S. Hey thanks Chris!

John Allan wrote:
I think it's admirable that you are willing to take the time to enlighten, rather than just throwing them to the wind - as I would.

It's in my best interest. I'm doing four shoots a week right now for the radio station gig. 100% Internet models and amateurs who want the exposure, or just the fun. That's what the client wants, and that's what they get - but it means that I'm playing squarely in this sandbox. So it's in my best interest to keep it as unstressful for me as I can.

Curiously, just about every second-time shoot, they show up alone, completely at-ease (or, you might say, without the fear). Go figure.

Christopher Ambler wrote:

Okay, let's address it. I'll presume that you mean that the model is afraid. Why? Because she's going to interact with a professional in a private setting? If so, why don't people bring escorts when they go to see their doctor or dentist?

Why don't people bring escorts when they go to see a massage therapist?

When I'm shooting, I have one, sometimes two assistants. Often there's a makeup artist. So surely it can't be fear of being alone with me.

When was the last time you saw a photographer/model horror story where the photographer was a known professional? Can you think of one or two? Because I can name you five medical doctors in the Seattle area alone who have been brought up on charges for molesting patients, yet, as I said, nobody brings escorts to the doctor.

I think the fear may be understandable when an amateur model is dealing with an amateur photographer. So to bridge the gap, one must ask, how do you draw the distinction, and put that fear at ease?

In other words, if models were made to understand the difference between a professional who has more to lose by untoward behavior, and an amateur who does not, perhaps that gap could be bridged?

I think we agree on the premise, and I think we also agree on the realities - you don't seem to think that there is room to resolve the issue, and I'm still not convinced; I think there might be. Maybe. I'm losing hope, though :-)

Fear of flying.  I have it.  Is it rational?   Not really.  Oh sure, shit happens in the air, but the chances are greater of getting slaughtered on a highway than 40,000 feet.  That fact doesn't stop my fear of flying. 

But more than just a phobia, if I dare borrow a concept from Barry Glassner's "Culture of Fear" is the observation that our society is prone to hysterical panic that is based on a narrow set of facts or situations, and that we take that hysteria and apply it to whole sets or groups of people.

Example--you are probably too young to remember but there was an incident of alleged child molestation at a preschool called McMartin.  A simple claim of touching morphed into claims of child sacrifice, cults, devil worship.  It started with one child, then many, then branched out to other child care centers, schools, throughout the US.  It was an honest to god panic, that dominated the news and quite frankly ruined hundreds of lives before level heads concluded that the alleged incidents never occured...

I agree with you that within the internet model culture there is a belief in needing to use escorts.  That comes from a fear, which in part is part of the culture of the internet, that bad things overwhelmingly happen.  It is enforced by models warning other models, website warnings in bold letters, fatherly photographers who warn of the rampently bad things OTHER photographers do, its part of the internet model indoctrination.  Is the fear legitimate?  On some level, yes, some things have happened to models by people posing as or actually being photographers.   Is it particularly high as opposed to other situations?  Not really.  FACTS say that women are much more likely to be raped by a significant other, a relative, a lover, a spouse.   FACTS say that women are much more likely to be assulted or murdered by a significant other, a relative, a spouse.  A rational person asks where are the escorts in those situations?  Internet culture and media focuses on the "other" which in this case, is the class known as "photographer."

Agency models are told no escorts.  Need an escort, you can't be with agency.  A model makes  the choice.  A non-agency model, an internet model, who is concerned about safety, might take a rational middle ground that says, okay, given my legitimate safety concerns, I'll check out a photographer, ask for references, premeet and that's sufficient because, after all there are no guarantees in life.   But a paranoid model, will still demand an escort even with pre-meets and investigation or even someone else on the set because they are living in a world of fear which is supported in many ways by the internet photography/model culture .

Christopher Ambler wrote:
Note that I'm speaking of professional models, not Internet models, or hobbyists.
Professionals don't bring escorts. Only the amateurs seem to feel that they need to...

I don't understand your rant. If this is such a big deal to you, why bother with Internet models at all? With your talent, I'm sure your client can't tell who's pro and who's not.

Richard Wheelock wrote:

I don't understand your rant. If this is such a big deal to you, why bother with Internet models at all? With your talent, I'm sure your client can't tell who's pro and who's not.

A couple reasons. First, let's be honest, most agency models don't want to be bothered doing very mundane Maxim-style for a male-market morning radio show, even if it's in their own market. That's exposure they don't need. Second, they would likely want to be paid, and we're getting more Internet and amateurs who will do the project in trade that they could never drum up the budget.

And don't get me wrong. This isn't a rant. I'm trying to examine the issue rationally. You want a rant, I'll go off on no-shows and managers :-)

Christopher Ambler wrote:

A model who is not at ease working with a professional photographer is, likely, in the wrong business.

Note that I'm speaking of professional models, not Internet models, or hobbyists.

Professionals don't bring escorts. Only the amateurs seem to feel that they need to, because they're working with other amateurs. But when an amateur model goes to work with a professional photographer, the concept of an escort creates a culture gap that's causing (at least me) some consternation.

That's the gap here that I feel needs to be bridged.

Sorry, are we talking about a TFP/CD shoot?  I thought an escort would be an option for one of these style of shoots.

Craig Thomson wrote:

Christopher Ambler wrote:
Sorry, are we talking about a TFP/CD shoot?  I thought an escort would be an option for one of these style of shoots.

No, we're not. We're talking a trade shoot. Not TFP.

Christopher Ambler wrote:

Craig Thomson wrote:

Christopher Ambler wrote:
Sorry, are we talking about a TFP/CD shoot?  I thought an escort would be an option for one of these style of shoots.

No, we're not. We're talking a trade shoot. Not TFP.

Ooo a new term (to me).

What's a trade vs. trade for print/photo?

Craig Thomson wrote:
Ooo a new term (to me).

What's a trade vs. trade for print/photo?

In short, I'm trading them exposure for modeling. Not prints. I suppose you could abbreviate it TFE, if you want, since everything needs an acronym these days :-)

The radio station pays me to shoot content for their web site. I offer models (and non-model amateurs) the opportunity to have a shoot, at no cost to them, and they receive the exposure of being featured on the site. For local Internet models, they find that the exposure is of value, and for non-models, they do it for the fun of the shoot.

Now I do give them copies of edited photos, but not under any TFP arrangement, but more because I can, so I do. But I'm quite clear that it's a trade shoot and their value and consideration is the exposure (or thrill) of being featured on the site.

At this point the backlog is 15 models waiting to shoot, and the other photographers that I've asked to also shoot for this report the same - Internet models and non-models are lining up to be involved, so apparently the value being offered is, indeed, seen as value to them. Frankly, I'm shocked at the response, to be honest.

This sounds like a f'ing advertisement, and I didn't intend it to - but now you see why we're playing in this sandbox. But make no mistake, they're getting a shoot, for free, that normally I would charge for, and getting what they see to be a value, in trade.