capturecharacter wrote:
I guess the old saying goes... you get what you pay for :-D

Seriously though. No. Anyone I've ever shot free or paid has been cool except one girl who just flat out dropped off the face of the earth for the 2nd day of a paid 2 day shoot with 2 other girls. I should have expected it though when she showed up on the first day over an hour late with all her wardrobe in a *hefty garbage bag* :-D

No joke.

Question:
What did they do to piss you off? How the possibly can? I mean they just pose. Or you are upset because they don't look like you want them to?

Garry k wrote:
You and your "photogpraphy "continues to disgust me

Fortunately for me, your opinion of my work and myself doesn't keep me from getting new shoots with models (though I've lately been on a self-imposed break) or making money.

Garry k wrote:
AS a photographer have you ever felt so frustrated by a models attitude or behavior that you have felt like handing her the camera and saying - take your own damn pictures

Nope, not ever, not even close. Obviously some are more pleasant to work with than others, but in my view it's all a question of professionalism, communication/interpersonal skills and the ability to direct.  One of the requirements for serious photography is the ability to control the shoot. Without that, no serious success is possible

Certainly I've had problems with models and problems models, just as models have had problems with photographers, but my background is commercial photography. Doing commercial shoot, there can be substantial money riding on a successful shoot. On occasion taking the model to the side for a quite conversation can make a world of difference.  A commercial photographer learns to solve problems, whether tchnical or interpersonal. If not, they just don't survive.

Tape Her Up wrote:

Fortunately for me, your opinion of my work and myself doesn't keep me from getting new shoots with models (though I've lately been on a self-imposed break) or making money.

Well , you stick to the models and I"ll stick to the Models

models literally meaning replicas , Models meaning what the average aspire to be

Madcitychel wrote:

Question:
What did they do to piss you off? How the possibly can? I mean they just pose. Or you are upset because they don't look like you want them to?

Uhhhh... did you read my post? As I said *she didn't show up* for a PAID shoot day that I was depending on for a project, and never answered her phone or replied to my emails again. Wouldn't THAT piss you off? It's nothing *I* did because the other 2 hired on the shoot showed up fine and never had any issues then or afterward. This 3rd "model" just went AWOL on me in perpetuity.

Tape Her Up wrote:
I'm sure that some of the MMers I've worked with and will work with appreciate your lowly opinion of them and your very high opinion of yourself.

As for me, I'm quite comfortable with my own accomplishments, which range outside of what people here see.  THIS is truly my "side business", not my career nor what I aspire to make as a career.  It is, however, a handy back-up in the event that the things I want to do most don't pan out.

None of which has a thing to do with the original question posed and answered by me.

YOU are the one who degrades the female subjects that you work with  ( and many of them are pretty ) How do think anyone in the mainstream is going them seriously if all they have to show is your work . I do not think myself as being great but I do try to elevate my subjects not devalue them

Tape Her Up wrote:
Mainly because quite often my work is not all that they have to show.  I am One Photographer they have shot with.  They have shot with others.  And I have yet to have one say she felt degraded.

Again, your moralistic view has no impact on what I do or who I work with.  It also doesn't impact the people who DO like my work.

However, if it means anything, I'll agree with you on one thing: you're not great.

Now how about you quit trying to pump yourself up by tearing me and my work down?

You're  too funny .

Iona Lynn wrote:
I know I have pissed off photographers to that point......but does it count if it at a shootout???

Actually I use my limited knowage of photogarphy as a litmus test. If photographer listens to what I say and do he is just a newbie and wants to learn, if he gets huffy he well.....the term GWC comes to mind but hey we are all perves underneith  it is just that some are better at hiding it than others.

Not quite sure how you reach the conclusion that if they don't listen they are pervs [GWCs]; my experience at group shoots is that EGO plays more a hand than pervy if they think they know it all.

Garry k wrote:

converselly , as a model have you ever worked with a photographer  who was so offensive you have felt like saying 'Give me the damn camera Mr photographer and I will take my own pictures '

Yes and no! Not offensive per say, but lacking in knowlege. It was my only bad TFP experience. As a model it's hard to tell what the photographer sees through their lense, but you can get a general idea of when something is going to work or not. I, 99.9% of the time, have complete faith in what the photographer is doing, or I would not be working with them.

I worked with one photographer awhile ago who came quite recommended that just didn't know what they were doing. I kept on feeling like I had to direct the shoot, and I've never had that experience before! The first half of the pics were throwaways due to bad angles, over exposure, lack of imagination. It can be quite frustrating to comment to photographers in this situation because you don't want to offend them, but whether shooting TFP or for a paid shoot, time is money, especially with how limited amount of free time I really have. When I started suggesting different angles and other advice the pictures came out substantially better. I really did want to grab the camera and do it myself though. Needless to say I never worked with them again.

Garry k wrote:

YOU are the one who degrades the female subjects that you work with  ( and many of them are pretty ) How do think anyone in the mainstream is going them seriously if all they have to show is your work . I do not think myself as being great but I do try to elevate my subjects not devalue them

There is obviously a lot about what Tape Her Up [as well as many other bondage/fetish photographers do] that you choose not to understand, which is fine.  It would sound better though if you dropped the snob/white knight routine and just said "I don't get it/it's not my thing" instead of trying to impose your personal morality on people [and art] that you've made a concious decision not to understand.

CareLyn Anita wrote:
Thank you Melvin...
you put that very fimly and eloquently right where it needed to be .. now wheres the chains, tape and meathooks ?

Ah lass...if only you could be in Michigan in October...I've got access to a forklift!

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

There is obviously a lot about what Tape Her Up [as well as many other bondage/fetish photographers do] that you choose not to understand, which is fine.  It would sound better though if you dropped the snob/white knight routine and just said "I don't get it/it's not my thing" instead of trying to impose your personal morality on people [and art] that you've made a concious decision not to understand.

Actually Melvin it isn't so much the subject matter as the style of the photos.  Honestly they just look like snapshots taken in someones home.  When someone refers to pictures as their "work" you sorta of expect to see something of a bit higher quality.

As far as the subject matter and an elitest attitude...  you have a right to your opinion and the right to say when someone criticizes bondage work that they don't "get" it.  But it sounds fairly defense to me... perhaps some of us do "get" it but prefer to depict women in a different manner.

Garry k wrote:
AS a photographer have you ever felt so frustrated by a models attitude or behavior that you have felt like handing her the camera and saying - take your own damn pictures

But of course if she /he has pissed you off this much you probably woulnt be handing over an expensive camera  -

I've only had one model start trying to direct me, and the funny thing she wasn't even the subject.  She was just tagging along while I worked with someone else.  I explained to her "once" that when she took pictures she should frame, choose angles etc that appeared appropriate to her.  We didn't have any further problems.

I am always open to suggestions and help in most any type of shoot.  It doesn't offend my ego in any manner if a model's suggestion results in a picture that is extraordinary... that's part of the collaborative process.  I encourage it; it never (with the one exception) ever crosses over to direction.

RStephenT wrote:

Actually Melvin it isn't so much the subject matter as the style of the photos.  Honestly they just look like snapshots taken in someones home.  When someone refers to pictures as their "work" you sorta of expect to see something of a bit higher quality.

You may not appreciate the style of the images, but the photographers of the DID school of bondage photography are working in a tradition that goes back to the 1950's [Irving Klaw + Bettie Page] through the 1970s [the "True Detective" type magazine covers which switched from illustrations on the cover to photographs in the mid 60s].  You may not like it, but it does in fact have roots, as well as an appreciative following of both men and women.

RStephenT wrote:
As far as the subject matter and an elitest attitude...  you have a right to your opinion and the right to say when someone criticizes bondage work that they don't "get" it.  But it sounds fairly defense to me... perhaps some of us do "get" it but prefer to depict women in a different manner.

If you prefer to depict women in a different manner, that's fine.  When someone claims that what I [and other bondage/fetish photographers] do is "degrading" to my subjects, then that's an attack, not only on the charachter and intent of the photographer but on the decision-making ability of the models we work with.  The idea that my work "degrades" women is not only high-minded but simply false, as the people I work with are all hightly intelligent, creative individuals who have made a concious decision to work with me.  Further more, the fact that all my work is done TFP indicates that my subjects have no other reason to work with me other than they want to...Unless of course you think my mastery of Jedi Mind Tricks is so thorough that I can compel women from as far South as Florida and as far West as San Francisco to board planes and fly cross country to work with me...for nothing. 

You may call it "defensive" but I call it speaking up for both my art and the people who contribute to it...After all they give me, it's the least I can do for them.

RStephenT wrote:
Actually Melvin it isn't so much the subject matter as the style of the photos.  Honestly they just look like snapshots taken in someones home.  When someone refers to pictures as their "work" you sorta of expect to see something of a bit higher quality.

As far as the subject matter and an elitest attitude...  you have a right to your opinion and the right to say when someone criticizes bondage work that they don't "get" it.  But it sounds fairly defense to me... perhaps some of us do "get" it but prefer to depict women in a different manner.

Well, there's "work" and there's "Work".  As I've said before, what you see here in my port is something done as a mass market consumer product.  I've said repeatedly that this is not my "art" nor has it ever been intended to be my "art".  I save my artistic endeavors for other things.  I'm not really trying to "say" anything with my photos.  They are created as a means to an end.  By that I mean that the money I make off of these photos are pumped into my more artistic ideas, which is not in the field of photography at all but rather low budget filmmaking. 

What kills me about Garry is that he presumes to know me and my intentions in what I do and how I treat my models.  I once put forward the fact that I actually treat them with respect and he referred to me as "pathetic".

He puts on the front of being a great moralist and wanting to protect women from the evil Tape Her Up.  Please.  No model need be protected from me.  He makes it sound as though I force these models to pose for me and exploit their desperation.  No model is so desperate that she has to work for me.  And no model ever worked for me that didn't want to.  He also presumes to know that every model who has worked for me has hit rock bottom or has no hope of ever doing better than me.  Well, I have yet to meet or hear of the model who's entire career was wrecked by working for me.

In the end run, I really do think that Garry is simply more interested in pumping himself up by tearing others down, which is something that doesn't interest me in the least.  I'm comfortable enough with who I am and what I do and all his posturing really adds up to not a damn thing in the end.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
You may not appreciate the style of the images, but the photographers of the DID school of bondage photography are working in a tradition that goes back to the 1950's [Irving Klaw + Bettie Page] through the 1970s [the "True Detective" type magazine covers which switched from illustrations on the cover to photographs in the mid 60s].  You may not like it, but it does in fact have roots, as well as an appreciative following of both men and women.

I wasn't talking about your style Melvin, but the other individual.  I just don't see anything distinctive about it... at least not enough to call it "his work".  Whereas your lighting and style, does show distinction and quality.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
If you prefer to depict women in a different manner, that's fine.  When someone claims that what I [and other bondage/fetish photographers] do is "degrading" to my subjects, then that's an attack, not only on the charachter and intent of the photographer but on the decision-making ability of the models we work with.  The idea that my work "degrades" women is not only high-minded but simply false, as the people I work with are all hightly intelligent, creative individuals who have made a concious decision to work with me.  Further more, the fact that all my work is done TFP indicates that my subjects have no other reason to work with me other than they want to...Unless of course you think my mastery of Jedi Mind Tricks is so thorough that I can compel women from as far South as Florida and as far West as San Francisco to board planes and fly cross country to work with me...for nothing. 

You may call it "defensive" but I call it speaking up for both my art and the people who contribute to it...After all they give me, it's the least I can do for them.

Well to be honest I would say the both of you are exchanging "attacks".  For one to call something "degrading" and the other to refer to it as "elitist" really just represents two people's opinions. 

Of course people who do something will come to defend it...  but to make it sound like a cherished endeavor may be stretching things a bit. When folks do something they often hold very strong opinions about it and with the relative anonymous nature of the net it allows them the space to do what is important to them.

Tape Her Up wrote:

Well, there's "work" and there's "Work".  As I've said before, what you see here in my port is something done as a mass market consumer product.  I've said repeatedly that this is not my "art" nor has it ever been intended to be my "art".  I save my artistic endeavors for other things.  I'm not really trying to "say" anything with my photos.  They are created as a means to an end.  By that I mean that the money I make off of these photos are pumped into my more artistic ideas, which is not in the field of photography at all but rather low budget filmmaking. 

What kills me about Garry is that he presumes to know me and my intentions in what I do and how I treat my models.  I once put forward the fact that I actually treat them with respect and he referred to me as "pathetic".

He puts on the front of being a great moralist and wanting to protect women from the evil Tape Her Up.  Please.  No model need be protected from me.  He makes it sound as though I force these models to pose for me and exploit their desperation.  No model is so desperate that she has to work for me.  And no model ever worked for me that didn't want to.  He also presumes to know that every model who has worked for me has hit rock bottom or has no hope of ever doing better than me.  Well, I have yet to meet or hear of the model who's entire career was wrecked by working for me.

In the end run, I really do think that Garry is simply more interested in pumping himself up by tearing others down, which is something that doesn't interest me in the least.  I'm comfortable enough with who I am and what I do and all his posturing really adds up to not a damn thing in the end.

Well when viewed "as a means to an end", i.e. mass market consumer product rather than "your work" I will take your word for it that it works for you, but then I would also take you to task for providing the product.  I think we do have the responsibility to conduct ourselves in a manner that lifts mankind up and not simply providing stuff because you can and you make money at it.  But there are many, many consumer products that are far worse then your pictures so there's no point in anyone going ballistic over them.

RStephenT wrote:
I wasn't talking about your style Melvin, but the other individual.  I just don't see anything distinctive about it... at least not enough to call it "his work".  Whereas your lighting and style, does show distinction and quality.

The "other individual" does work that is every bit as valid as mine.  The root idea of what he does is different, but for me to hold my work apart from his because of certain stylistic differences would be totally dishonest.  I've already mentioned the tradition "the other idndividual" works in, so I can only assume you've decided to ignore the fact that said tradition exists...But it still does.

RStephenT wrote:
Of course people who do something will come to defend it...  but to make it sound like a cherished endeavor may be stretching things a bit.

This statement tells me that you really don't understand the forces and motivations that lie behind BDSM, either in artistic depitictions or in real life.  For the people that willingly engage in it, BDSM is as important [ie: "cherished"] as anything that's important in your life.  How would you feel if somenone described your relationship as something not to be cherished?

Iona Lynn wrote:
I relize many poeple can't stomach this type of work, that is why it is so rare and sells for such a high price.

Is it even really that rare?  We even have multiple DID shooters here in Pittsburgh Pensyltucky...It does make money though, way more than I'll ever make doing what I do.

If you ask me, what's becoming a rarity is the work of people like Barbara Nitke, Michael A. Rosen and the late Tee Corine,  people using the artist's eye to discuss and depict human sexualness in all its' permutations...The reason it's so rare is because there's no money in it.

RStephenT wrote:

Actually Melvin it isn't so much the subject matter as the style of the photos.  Honestly they just look like snapshots taken in someones home.  When someone refers to pictures as their "work" you sorta of expect to see something of a bit higher quality.

As far as the subject matter and an elitest attitude...  you have a right to your opinion and the right to say when someone criticizes bondage work that they don't "get" it.  But it sounds fairly defense to me... perhaps some of us do "get" it but prefer to depict women in a different manner.

Face Arts wrote:
Can we all say GWC?  I think we can!  Isn't that speeeeccccial?

"GWC" is a title that fits a lot more people than anyone would like to admit.

Iona Lynn wrote:
I think Gary has some very valid points here.
it is all about a fetish and if the fetish is snapshots in a hotel room then the person who purchases these images will NOT buy them if the are shot with a five light set up, tons of eyeliner, and airbrushed to perfection.

No one is being hurt it is a type of entertainment.

It is what the buyers want.

If I have a nail biters fetish then I don't want to look at manicured nails on a model....

In many cases the cheeply produced shlock pays and sells very very well.
Some of us are happy to produce it  take the money and buy a new cannon 1 D.


No one gets hurt it is just buisness.

I relize many poeple can't stomach this type of work, that is why it is so rare and sells for such a high price.

I know a lot of people feel that if the public want something, and are willingly to pay for it then why not give it to them?  Perhaps this is why.  Maybe the product is wrong and establishs a mindset about women that is inappropriate...  you are then associated with providing the product and people form an opinion about you and your work from the product you make and provide.

I would submit that the statement "No one gets hurt, it is just business" is at the core of what is really wrong with how "we" go about business in this country and most of the world.  For a long time the mantra has been "It's all about the bottom line" with little regard for the results and there effects upon individuals and society. It certainly isn't only about these silly bondage pics but it is very much about core values and how little they seem to matter to many.

RStephenT wrote:
It certainly isn't only about these silly bondage pics but it is very much about core values and how little they seem to matter to many.

Okay, I'll bite:  Whose "core values" are we talking about here?  Yours?  Mine?  The President's?  The Pope's?  Warren Jeffs'?  Pat Robertson's?  Oosama Bin Laden's?  John Brown's?  John Birch's?

Whose values should matter more?

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

"GWC" is a title that fits a lot more people than anyone would like to admit.

I am a GUY and I always WITH CAMERA...therefore I am the definition of GWC...in more ways then one...*Collin steps out of closet*

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
The "other individual" does work that is every bit as valid as mine.  The root idea of what he does is different, but for me to hold my work apart from his because of certain stylistic differences would be totally dishonest.  I've already mentioned the tradition "the other idndividual" works in, so I can only assume you've decided to ignore the fact that said tradition exists...But it still does.

Well it's always interesting to see someone else defending another's work when they don't try themselves and admit what it represents...

"Well, there's "work" and there's "Work".  As I've said before, what you see here in my port is something done as a mass market consumer product.  I've said repeatedly that this is not my "art" nor has it ever been intended to be my "art".  I save my artistic endeavors for other things.  I'm not really trying to "say" anything with my photos.  They are created as a means to an end.  By that I mean that the money I make off of these photos are pumped into my more artistic ideas, which is not in the field of photography at all but rather low budget filmmaking."

He said it better than I did... and I would submit he is being honest about it.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
This statement tells me that you really don't understand the forces and motivations that lie behind BDSM, either in artistic depitictions or in real life.  For the people that willingly engage in it, BDSM is as important [ie: "cherished"] as anything that's important in your life.  How would you feel if somenone described your relationship as something not to be cherished?

Melvin you need to stop.  You like BDSM, and anybody else who doesn't, either doesn't understand it (very common defense and very wrong), or is an elitist.  Ok I know your opinion, let's move on.

Face Arts wrote:
bumping back to ORIGINAL TOPIC before Hijacking occurred.....

There was an original topic????

Nope out of the hundreds of models I've shot through the years I've NEVER been that pissed off at a single of them well uhh maybe just one......wow...boring I am.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Okay, I'll bite:  Whose "core values" are we talking about here?  Yours?  Mine?  The President's?  The Pope's?  Warren Jeffs'?  Pat Robertson's?  Oosama Bin Laden's?  John Brown's?  John Birch's?

Whose values should matter more?

You are a big boy Melvin you figure it out.

Collin J. Rae wrote:

There was an original topic????

Nope out of the hundreds of models I've shot through the years I've NEVER been that pissed off at a single of them well uhh maybe just one......wow...boring I am.

RStephenT wrote:

You are a big boy Melvin you figure it out.

Now who's defensive?