Larry Brown Camera wrote:
No......... I am not saying that models willing to pose nude are not models.....
I am just saying that out of the total number of "so called models", so many want to "break into the field" when in fact all they have to offer is a nakkid body. Beyond that, there is very little in the way of real fashionable beauty for the photographer to work with. Ok so perhaps I am being a little critical, but I personally would like to work with a very attractive and glamourous modes..... wheather they are willing to pose nude or not!

Well, suit yourself, no one has ever said you 'have to' photograph nudes. However it seems to me that this and your original post are more than a little condescending toward the models and photographers who choose to do nudes.  For what it's worth, there are many areas of pro work which are not "fashion" and a couple of those include actual clothing. Oh, for what it's worth, before I retired, a couple of very legitimate agency bookers used to refer their pro models to me when they wanted discrete nudes for their books. Those were agency reped, working commercial and fashion models. So I guess there are actual models who choose to pose nude.

StarlaMeris wrote:
I think the point is that there are a lot of girls out there now who think that just because they're WILLING to get naked, they can be a model, regardless of appearance or talent or commitment etc.  Every girl has boobies, but not every girl can be a model.  However, this fact seems to be lost on most girls in the MySpace era.

Just because you're willing to get naked, doesn't mean anyone necessarily *wants* to see you naked...

Larry Brown Camera wrote:
"I am willing to get "nakkid" therefore I can call myself a model!"
As a professional photographer this appears to be the new crop of models today. No, don't get me wrong...... nothing wrong with nude photography...... it's just that there are in face very few real models to choose from ......once we wade through all the nakkid bodies! Please show me what you can do with cloths....... ya know....they once called it "fashion" / am I getting old or what?
(Real) Models and (Real) photographers any responce?

We don't all shoot or model fashion here.   The idea that the people that work with me aren't "real" models is both condesending and incorrect.

Larry Brown Camera wrote:
Please show me what you can do with cloths....... ya know....they once called it "fashion" / am I getting old or what?
(Real) Models and (Real) photographers any responce?

So are you wanting to begin a fashion portfolio? If so I'd suggest agency models. Help you get going in the right direction quickly.
Mike

StarlaMeris wrote:
Every girl has boobies, but not every girl can be a model.  However, this fact seems to be lost on most girls in the MySpace era.

If somebody wants a "girl" [sic] to model, they can, by definition be a model.  Whether or not they can be a professional model is another matter that's not really relevant here.

StarlaMeris wrote:
Just because you're willing to get naked, doesn't mean anyone necessarily *wants* to see you naked...

Just because you may not want to photograph someone "naked" [sic] dosen't mean that nobody else wants to.  I'll thank you in advance to stop trying to decide who I should and shouldn't work with.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
So your point is that you consider many people here too ugly to model..

What a lovely way to introduce yourself..

True, but on the other hand, I'm not ugly enough to be a photographer.

StarlaMeris wrote:
I think the point is that there are a lot of girls out there now who think that just because they're WILLING to get naked, they can be a model, regardless of appearance or talent or commitment etc.  Every girl has boobies, but not every girl can be a model.  However, this fact seems to be lost on most girls in the MySpace era.

Just because you're willing to get naked, doesn't mean anyone necessarily *wants* to see you naked...

I want to photograph EVERYONE who wants to get naked. I can find beauty and art in everyone who is excited to work with me. Looks are VERY secondairy to attitude.
Mike

Kevin Bargeron wrote:

True, but on the other hand, I'm not ugly enough to be a photographer.

Well, if you're using me as a benchmark, none of you have any business being photographers..

Meehan wrote:
I want nekkid cloths models to remove they cloth so picture to be on my eye then camera too!

I believe he was complaining about the "nakkid" models.. 

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

StarlaMeris wrote:
Every girl has boobies, but not every girl can be a model.  However, this fact seems to be lost on most girls in the MySpace era.

If somebody wants a "girl" [sic] to model, they can, by definition be a model.  Whether or not they can be a professional model is another matter that's not really relevant here.


Just because you may not want to photograph someone "naked" [sic] dosen't mean that nobody else wants to.  I'll thank you in advance to stop trying to decide who I should and shouldn't work with.

Wow, somebody's touchy.  I just saw a bunch of people misinterpreting the OP's words and wanted to restate what he actually meant.  The fact that I happen to agree in no way dictates what I think YOU should think.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Just because you may not want to photograph someone "naked" [sic] dosen't mean that nobody else wants to.  I'll thank you in advance to stop trying to decide who I should and shouldn't work with.

And furthermore, why do so many artists get up in arms about the word NAKED?  Naked=Nude=No Freaking Clothes.  Calling it a "nude" doesn't make it any more tasteful than calling it "some picture of a chick who's naked".  If the work is good, the work is good, it doesn't need a special term to make people think it's better than it is.  It's the same thing as pretentious "filmmakers" getting up in arms when you call them "movies" instead of "films".

And since you seem to like misinterpreting my words, I'll clarify: I have no problem with nudes.  Nudes are great...when they're well done.  Just like pictures with clothes are great when they're well done.  I just think the distinction is retarded.

StarlaMeris wrote:
Nudes are great...when they're well done.  Just like pictures with clothes are great when they're well done.

So who gets to decide when a nude [or clothed] image is "well done"?  You?  Me?  Who?  Basically you're talking about opinion, which can't be standardized.

StarlaMeris wrote:
I just think the distinction is retarded.

I agree...Trying to make a distinction between who is and isn't a model purely on personal fiat is retarded.

StarlaMeris wrote:
Wow, somebody's touchy.  I just saw a bunch of people misinterpreting the OP's words and wanted to restate what he actually meant.  The fact that I happen to agree in no way dictates what I think YOU should think.

The fact that so many people heard the same condesending tone in the OP's words should tell you something.  Call me touchy, Sirley or late for dinner if you want, but working in the genre that I do has made me pretty attuned to high-minded moralizing.

Frank McAdam wrote:
There is no reason an art model who wishes to post on this site to do nude work must also qualify as a fashion or beauty model.  It denigrates the models to suggest this.  Most of the nude art models I've worked with are artists in their own right, whether visual or performing arts.

Exactly.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
So who gets to decide when a nude [or clothed] image is "well done"?  You?  Me?  Who?  Basically you're talking about opinion, which can't be standardized.

I agree...Trying to make a distinction between who is and isn't a model purely on personal fiat is retarded.

Good lord.  Where are you getting this stuff?  Nothing you're accusing me of has anything to do with what I'm saying.  Did I ever assert what makes a good photo?  No, I didn't.  And did I ever say that amateurs as models can't produce good work?  No, certainly not.  I've never worked with a pro model and have only worked with 3 that had any previous experience with the camera whatsoever.  Amateurs can be an absolute joy to work with.

Just because I understand and sympathize with the OP doesn't make me this demonic person who's trying to moralize and pass judgement.

What I DO have a problem with is the politically correct crap you were trying to apply to my response.  And I have a SERIOUS problem with people who love to twist the words of others to demonize them.

Nobody was moralizing at any point on this thread.   I believe it was simply an observation + attempt at provoking discussion of the phenomenon of nude amateur models on the internet.

I apologize profusely for agreeing that it's peculiar that so many GIRLS [not sic] actively advertise themselves as models with no reference to what they can bring to a shoot besides themselves without clothes.  Note that the word "peculiar" does not equal "wrong" or "bad".

Now I'm going to abandon this thread which I'd hoped might be an interesting conversation/debate rather than a string of misunderstandings and misdirected political correctness.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

The fact that so many people heard the same condesending tone in the OP's words should tell you something.  Call me touchy, Sirley or late for dinner if you want, but working in the genre that I do has made me pretty attuned to high-minded moralizing.

Very true.  There seems to be a rather high brow attitude when dealing with ANYTHING nude related on this site.  people always make posts bitching and whining and complaining about it for whatever reason, rather than just doing the sensible thing and SHOOT WHAT THEY LIKE.

Then they try to make their demoralizing and judgemental comments acceptable with disingenous statements like "no, no, sometimes I shoot it too" and "I just don't like the badly done nudes"  Yet you never see 67783917489217849321 posts a day about the gaggle of shitty ass clothed photos on this site.  As much as they try to mask it as a crusade against bad photgraphy and modeling, they only seem to concentrate on the nudity.

Personally I think it says more about the person "uncomfortable" with the nudes that searches them out and chooses to make mundane post after mundane post about them, than it doesn about the nude shooter/model, who normally shoots what they like and go on about their merry way.

but THAT'S just my opinion.  not like it ever meant anything.

Larry Brown Camera wrote:
it's just that there are in face very few real models to choose from ......once we wade through all the nakkid bodies!
(Real) Models and (Real) photographers any responce?

Well I for one love wading through nakkid bodies...

StarlaMeris wrote:
Now I'm going to abandon this thread which I'd hoped might be an interesting conversation/debate rather than a string of misunderstandings and misdirected political correctness.

I think the problem is that I [along with almost everyone else in the thread] understand you perfectly well. 

Oh and just for the record, it's not a "debate" if you're actually waiting for everyone to agree with you.

Shyly wrote:
So I still don't understand what criteria the OP is using to define "real" models and photographers, and I'm curious to know.  Is it shooting and qualifying to model for fashion only?  Why is that all that's real?  More models make a living in their 30's doing commercial modeling than 14 year olds do walking the runway.  There are more photographers supporting themselves doing weddings and family portraits than there are Steven Miesels running around.  There are more art models and photographers selling their work in galleries and seeing it hung in museums than any other kind of model and photographer.  Nevermind all the great glamour, and beauty, and fetish work out there.

What qualifies as "real," exactly?  It all seems pretty real to me.

Real is anything with clothes on.  Cause clothing validates it.  if you're naked then you're either an attention whore, have nothing better to offer other than your body, have no morals or a GWC  trying to fuck everything that will get naked for your camera.

The more clothes the better.  Pictures of models in snowsuits with scarves and ski gloves on are so real they are holographic images by default.  photoshop won't even open them.

Ransom J wrote:

Real is anything with clothes on.  Cause clothing validates it.  if you're naked then you're either an attention whore, have nothing better to offer other than your body, have no morals or a GWC  trying to fuck everything that will get naked for your camera.

The more clothes the better.  Pictures of models in snowsuits with scarves and ski gloves on are so real they are holographic images by default.  photoshop won't even open them.

Ooooh...good sarcasm makes me hot.