DJ Larose Photography wrote:
How would one become a pro without first being a GWC?  If no one ever worked with a GWC, then photography would go extinct as all current photographers retired and the world would go into a completly anarchaic state much like the Bush administration is trying so hard to do currently.  I think that everyone should get a chance to work with anyone as long as the proper precautions have been taken to ensure safety on everyones part.

Your expression of your point of view worries me (The parts that I understood anyway)...

DJ Larose Photography wrote:
How would one become a pro without first being a GWC?  If no one ever worked with a GWC, then photography would go extinct as all current photographers retired and the world would go into a completly anarchaic state much like the Bush administration is trying so hard to do currently.  I think that everyone should get a chance to work with anyone as long as the proper precautions have been taken to ensure safety on everyones part.

1. Earn a degree in photography.

2. Or assist a reputable photographer who you can list on your resume as a reference.

If you start out as a GWC, i dont hink that you are a pro!

Britni Hall wrote:
Embarrasing question = what is a GWC? (or whatever that is you guys keep referring to)

I am a GWC in that I earn my money through another career path not photography.  Does that make me a serial killer?

Gary

Britni Hall wrote:
Embarrasing question = what is a GWC? (or whatever that is you guys keep referring to)

Guy with camera, or Geek with camera

DJ Larose Photography wrote:
It was sort of a rant.  But from what I have picked up from this site is that there is a natural progression in the stages of becoming a full fledged professional photographer.  First step would be to to just have an interest in basic photography with a bottom line cheap camera and just do basic shots.  This would make you a GWC correct?  Just a basic average person with a camera.  Then once you have outgrown a point and shoot and can take above average shots with it and done minor stuff with friends and family, you go out and get a basic SLR camera and go on a quest for entry level models seeking TFP or you would get an apprenticeship if available.  Once you have proven yourself and your work ethic, you then attempt to do some more paying jobs on your own and build the contacts needed to branch out on your own and become a full fledged professional right?  Now, the way I read the message above was that it was implied to only work with professional photographers.  If that were the case, then there would be no way to become a professional without the learning curves you get from working your way up to it.

Something like that. In the future, please break up your sentances onto seperate lines. :-)

warrenlee wrote:
1. Earn a degree in photography.

2. Or assist a reputable photographer who you can list on your resume as a reference.

If you start out as a GWC, i dont hink that you are a pro!

Aside from the knowledge, neither of these will really help you (Edit: Most of the time)... Most art buyers and clients don't care where you got your education and whose lights you positioned for 5 years.
They care about the images you can provide for them, the services you can provide for them, staying within budget, etc.


I just ask that you guys please stop perpetuating the use of the stupid acronym 'GWC' which is a derogatory term that originated from the internet which carries a connotation similar to 'pervert', ‘deviant’, or something along those lines.
There are amateurs, pros, artists, hacks, and everything in between. So rather than trying to create a clear definition for an acronym that is maybe 1-2 years old (which most likely was originally slang of some sort) just use words that are already defined.
I personally enjoy hack and social deviant myself. :-)

That’s the end of my (air quotes) ”rant”.
Thank you for reading and tune in next week when I defame other stupid phrases and/or acronyms.

gdsandy wrote:

I am a GWC in that I earn my money through another career path not photography.  Does that make me a serial killer?

Gary

guess that depends do you eat cereal? sorry, had to do it...
um on a more serious note, not everyone can survive by being an artist comming from an artsist, i paint, draw, and i have sold a few things, but it is no where near enough to survive, and so my main idea of what i want to do is sound board tech. for you n00bs thats the ppl that run the concerts make it sound good lol. and no "Gary" that doesnt make you a killer. and if you want people to continue to respect you and go to you for photos i would watch out with the smart mouth it might get you in to trouble.

sincerly, "Kitty"

gdsandy wrote:

Kitty, sorry, i just couldn't resist.  The OP seemed to suggest that if you didn't want to end up the victime of a serial killer (btw I live in Switzerland so mine is muesli), avoid people like me who do not have a degree in photography or who are not professional.  I realise now reading back that this was possibly my inference not his implication.

warrenlee wrote:
Forgive me if im wrong this whole time i thought GWC= Perv !

Hey I'm a perv and a GWC ;-)  they are not necessarily linked though

warrenlee wrote:
Forgive me if im wrong this whole time i thought GWC= Perv !

Whats somewhat disturbing is the often eliteist attitudes on MM.  We
all started somewhere and their are lots of beginners with considerable talent.
Lets not insult them.  You don't need to go to school.  You don't need to
intern with anyone.

gdsandy wrote:

gdsandy wrote:
Kitty, sorry, i just couldn't resist.  The OP seemed to suggest that if you didn't want to end up the victime of a serial killer (btw I live in Switzerland so mine is muesli), avoid people like me who do not have a degree in photography or who are not professional.  I realise now reading back that this was possibly my inference not his implication.

Hey I'm a perv and a GWC ;-)  they are not necessarily linked though

lol....arent we all?

Tony Lawrence wrote:

Whats somewhat disturbing is the often eliteist attitudes on MM.  We
all started somewhere and their are lots of beginners with considerable talent.
Lets not insult them.  You don't need to go to school.  You don't need to
intern with anyone.

I agree completely Tony, I also find the elite attitude of many of the "pros" on here to be disturbing at the very least.  Ironically, in most cases, those that are the most outspoken are not necessarily the best photographers.  There are a handful of photographers who are truly exceptional on here and I have yet to see them get their knickers in a twist over some "GWC shooting TFP and ruining the industry".  I just laugh at the "GWC bashers" now and recognize that it is what is...people who are insecure and threatened.  Let's face it, serious models aren't stupid.  If your work stands up and justifies you collecting a fee they will pay it.  Stop worrying about everyone else and just run your business.

I'd be the first to admit that my work leaves a great deal to be desired, but if I had as much free time to sit in the forum section and discuss meaningless topics I just might be the next Robert Sanders. 


(And before someone bashes me for comparing myself to Robert Sanders, that comment is made out of pure unadulterated respect for his mad skills.  Yeah, like I think I'm the next Robert Sanders.  HA!)

warrenlee wrote:
now im an elitist and your all pervs! thats not where i thought this thread was headed! but what the hell , so be it.

Hey Warren,

Wasn't meaning to pile on you specifically.  Just a general comment and you happened to light the fire.

Don't worry about calling me a perv...I've been called worse.  :>

warrenlee wrote:
1. Earn a degree in photography.

2. Or assist a reputable photographer who you can list on your resume as a reference.

I know lots of guys who have followed your two steps and are still GWCs.  They just use their degree and ther "experience" to justify the worst aspects of their behavior.  You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

"If you feel it necessary to start threads complaining about GWCs...you may just be a GWC."

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

I know lots of guys who have followed your two steps and are still GWCs.  They just use their degree and ther "experience" to justify the worst aspects of their behavior.  You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

ah good point!

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

I know lots of guys who have followed your two steps and are still GWCs.  They just use their degree and ther "experience" to justify the worst aspects of their behavior.  You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

"If you feel it necessary to start threads complaining about GWCs...you may just be a GWC."

Yeah, like he said!

Britni Hall wrote:
Embarrasing question = what is a GWC? (or whatever that is you guys keep referring to)

From the MM info link..F&Q
What is a GWC?

GWC is an acronym for "Guy With Camera." It's a derogatory term for amateur photographer that's taken the interweb by storm. It usually implies that said guy is only interested in photography to get hot ladies to get nekkid for him.

What is the equivalent term for models?

There isn't one, but every couple of weeks, someone tries to invent one. So far, we've had CWS (Chick With Snapshots), CWA (Chick With Aspirations) and a few others, but none of them seem to stick.

warrenlee wrote:
What if people were able to call themselves professional surgeons just by going out and buying a scapal, no, people go to school for this sort of thing.

I am sorry, this made me chuckle.   I have found that people who work decades in a profession, without a degree, are looked down on those who spent 2 years getting a degree.  It is like a big club.  Imagine, you walk of your college and tell someone with three decades of actually doing it, who has invented new techniques, equipment,  that he is a GWC, just because he has no "college" training? *LOL*

Oh, and I heard that PWC was Pervert With Camera.  And couldn't GWC mean Gal With Camera?  Or is this a sexist slogan meaning only men do model photography? *LOL*

Sorry, I couldn't resist ...

warrenlee wrote:
now im an elitist and your all pervs! thats not where i thought this thread was headed! but what the hell , so be it.

The problem is this term "GWC."  It always adds more heat than light to a discussion.  The definition depends on intent and mental state, hard things to know.  I can judge whether someone is a crappy photographer but I can't judge whether he is pure of heart.  What I find, based on how the term is used, the best definition of "GWC" is "You're probably one, I'm definitely not."  It is used by "professional" photographers, both good and awful, to disparage amateurs.  Amateurs, like me, take offense, especially when I think I am a better photographer that most self-proclaimed professionals. Finally, those most enthusiastic about GWC pogroms I suspect protest too much.  They would have us all believe that when they take pictures of beautiful women it is a hard, dirty job, but somebody has to do it.  While when the GWC takes pictures of beautiful women, they do it only to get aroused.  Just avoid trite phrases and say what you mean and many problems are avoided.

Ivan123 wrote:
I can judge whether someone is a crappy photographer but I can't judge whether he is pure of heart.

Exactly .... each artist has their own style. Each sees beauty and art through a different set of eyes.  When someone creates something beautiful we can all see the beauty.  So the photographers work should be judged by their finished product, as should models, not by who people "think" they are.

It is to easy for people to become the "thought police", thinking that everyone is the same as them.  If that was true there would be only one style of everything, no art, no individualism, nothing new ever.

warrenlee wrote:

1. Earn a degree in photography.

2. Or assist a reputable photographer who you can list on your resume as a reference.

If you start out as a GWC, i dont hink that you are a pro!

---------------

while Im not really trying to argue, here

I really really disagree with the above.  I agree in with your options #1 and #2.

But, photography and modeling are really only used for 2 things...
1. ART
2. commercial/marketing

It pays to get to school for accredition and maybe some thorough detail or new technology

It pays to work beneath an experienced professional for hands on applied knowledge and expertise

BUT BUT BUT
I come from those people that believe anything, especially related to ART, has special  quality when ORGANIC

some of the best painter, shoe designers, fashion designers, movie makers, you name it... ARE THE BEST IN HISTORY simply because they took their unique perspective and MADE it work.

Not because they painted they way they were told is the way to paint
or danced the way previous ballet dancers taught them
or made something OLD into something new

I JUST THINK... the GWC is necessary to CREATIVE EVOLUTION... that's it
Doing things unique, new, or different than the standard is what makes STARS

You don't want to stunt innate creativity by covering in the same blank white sheet as everyone else.  We can't all start from the same palette... limits your options.

warrenlee wrote:
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/police-make-headway-identifying/20060725120209990005

Came upon this article, was wondering your thoughts?

IMHO Avoid the GWC! Go with an established pro!

My thoughts are that scare tactics involving crimes that occured in the late seventies and early eighties, before most models on this site where even born, indicates you're compensating for something else.   Penis size, portfolio quality, who knows. 

Carry on with your "Shoot with an established pro like myself or you could DIE" thread. :-)

Vance wrote:
Many here truly miss the point of a TRUE GWC..

Even our MM member in SATIRE "GWC" isnt truly a GWC...

A TRUE GWC can be very talented, however they truly get off on getting women naked, also..The True and I mean TRUE GWC, is ususally very unprofessional in his or HER approach to models as well as being unprofessional during a shoot.

Thankfully they get weeded out pretty soon, but there are a lot of models to scam out there, so they will never go away.

The term has become too broad IMHO, thus all the banter about it.

If it isn't in the Oxford Unabridged, then we can all make up definitions of a "true" GWC.  Your definition is still muddled.  If I am an amateur, how can I possibly, by definition, treat my models "professionally"?  I suppose I treat my models amateurishly but no one is more polite to or more respectful of his models than I am.  [And please, let's not start yet another thread on the definition of "professional."]  And unless you define "get off on" to mean orgasms in the studio, then we have to define "get off on" quite broadly to include "I am liking this" so that most photographers who photograph women will be included.  Otherwise, why are there so many photos of attractive women on this site?  Is that a coincidence?  Any discussion about anything that uses the term GWC would be clearer and more pointed if the term were banned.

And are you telling me that "the" GWC is a satire???  Damn, I didn't realize!