J Merrill Images wrote:
Dude! You are a trip! Ummmmmmm ..... which head were you thinking with when you took the nudes on your profile right here in MM?

Shhhhh. I don't think he knows those nudes are there. What he doesn't know won't hurt him.

J Merrill Images wrote:
Dude! You are a trip! Ummmmmmm ..... which head were you thinking with when you took the nudes on your profile right here in MM?

those are NOT third rate mag style nudes!!!

i know the images in my profile of the model scream SCREAM of Black Tail magazine.  and guess what?  GOOD, that was the precise purpose of the shoot.  that model is a dancer.  what really needs to be focused on is the fact that we are in america, and as long as no laws are being broken EVERYONE has the right to practice their liberties to the max.  it's ok to say you prefer to not participate in nudes, or what not.  but it is an attack on someone else's freedom to ridicule and attempt to belittle them because you are not of the same opinion...

ya heard!?

J Merrill Images wrote:
Dude! You are a trip! Ummmmmmm ..... which head were you thinking with when you took the nudes on your profile right here in MM?

Perfect. I wish I'd have said it.

J Merrill Images wrote:
Dude! You are a trip! Ummmmmmm ..... which head were you thinking with when you took the nudes on your profile right here in MM?

R0nni3 wrote:
Perfect. I wish I'd have said it.

Seriously- me, too.

markEdwardPhoto wrote:
I shoot a good amount of commercial photography for clients around the U.S.  I would with agency models mostly because that is where my clients prefer to have them from. This is not my call, but they are paying the bills.

Now, most of the top agencies as well as all my clients will not let me hire a model that has published in print or on the web any images of their that is nude, or sexual in nature.

It is not that they don't like it. Its because they don't want to have that type of model represent their product or service to their market. Why? Well, the client does not want to take a chance on having their market offended in anyway at all. To many people in the U.S. posing nude is offensive to them.

Agencies have the same issue with models they send to a client. They are hoping you don't have a 'Suicide Girl' spread somewhere that might offend the client or the parameters of the client. Too much money is spent on marketing, and advertising to take any chances at all.

Now if you are marketing yourself to a third rate magazine, or website then go butt nekid and have fun all over the place. But, if you are serious about you career in commercial work, I would not recommend it.

For those of you who say "that many successful models posed nude for French Vogue, or Elle and they still get contracts" Two things come into play here, one is that the Model is already a success compared to her peers, and second those are NOT third rate mags.


Most of the people here do not fall into the category of 'successful' models by the normal industry standards. So, be aware what you put out on the web, you don't know how it will effect you career.

Good luck and don't listen the the GWCs they are talking with there 'little' head and not their 'big' head.

M

Hmmm, I'm retired now, but that makes me wonder about the agencies I used to work with who sent their models to me when they wanted discrete nudes for their books.

Doug Lester wrote:
Hmmm, I'm retired now, but that makes me wonder about the agencies I used to work with who sent their models to me when they wanted discrete nudes for their books.

First of all what kind of agencies? Second of all the key word you used is discrete. That means they trusted you not to show or publish without approval. That means they could choose to show that work to specific clients as opposed to the work just floating out there for anyone to find. It means they are in control of the style, quality, and nature of the nudes to be shot and they'd be in control of judging whether any potential nude or partially nude assignment would be the kind that would hurt her career or not depending on the market, her potential and the specific plans and strategy they'd have for her.

markEdwardPhoto wrote:
Most of the people here do not fall into the category of 'successful' models by the normal industry standards.

If you look across the board at all professional models, you'll find that the majority of them work part time at modeling. So, by definition, a characteristic of models is that they make a moderate income from modeling. The few supermodels out there who make tons of money are not what the industry banks on and do not represent the face of the modeling industry as a whole. So, I bet there are quite a lot of models on MM who are successful at what they do.

markEdwardPhoto wrote:
Most of the people here do not fall into the category of 'successful' models by the normal industry standards.

Dark Matter Zone wrote:
If you look across the board at all professional models, you'll find that the majority of them work part time at modeling. So, by definition, a characteristic of models is that they make a moderate income from modeling. The few supermodels out there who make tons of money are not what the industry banks on and do not represent the face of the modeling industry as a whole. So, I bet there are quite a lot of models on MM who are successful at what they do.

DMZ- you are awesome... and 100% right. Also, some of us are getting to be pretty damn successful (like myself- I support myself 100% on modeling, actually) and don't want agency representation.
I shudder at the thought of going 'exclusive' with anybody- I'd much rather manage myself and keep 100% of the pay for the jobs I do, even if that means doing all the promotional work, myself.
I'm sure it would be nice to lay around all day and not have to actively seek work (though now more and more comes to me) but hey, I want to keep my money, I want to be open to work with whomever I choose, and I want this to be fun at all costs

Dark Matter Zone wrote:

If you look across the board at all professional models, you'll find that the majority of them work part time at modeling. So, by definition, a characteristic of models is that they make a moderate income from modeling. The few supermodels out there who make tons of money are not what the industry banks on and do not represent the face of the modeling industry as a whole. So, I bet there are quite a lot of models on MM who are successful at what they do.

First of all what you're saying doesn't contradict or conflict with what he's saying. I don't know why you're all arguing with him, he's trying to make a specific point that's for the most part inarguable. You don't have to like it, and not all models have to have mainstream commercial aspirations.

Some of you seem to be defensive about your own choices if you have no interest in commercial modeling, no reason to be, he's not attacking you. Some of you may or not be arguing because you want to shoot nude or topless girls in a GWC way, or more artistic ways, but I don't think you'll run out of girls willing to pose that don't have any interest in commercial modeling. So few in the vast sea who claim commercial  aspirations will even listen to this advice, and so many more don't give a shit so there's nothing to be afraid of. But if any of you are arguing this or trying to slam this guy just because you don't like the message, and you are only concerned with keeping as large a pool of potential posers for your own purposes as possible, even if it actually hurts the chances of many who actually have serious aspirations then you're true assholes of high order!

As far as the money goes, you're right on average, but on the other hand there are lots of models you've never heard of that make pretty damn serious money doing commercial work, including making more on a single job than they might make in a year of waiting tables or working at a pet store. So even if they don't do that every day or even that often, if it's a career or serious sideline that they want to pursue then they should be aware of these issues and make informed decisions about what they want to do and why.

Star wrote:
ok, but what about fine art nude photography, not fine ass p*ssy magazines?

Well your definition, lots of people’s definitions, of fine art, might not, or probably won't (depending) jibe with a mainstream client or agencies definition, or their perception of certain segments of the public's definitions. And even if they did agree with your opinion they still might not approve depending on so many factors.

So the best thing for an aspiring commercial model would be to be very damn careful until they have the opinions of good, experienced agencies about what their potential really is, and the prudence of doing any particular shoots depending on their nature, the model, the stage of model's career etc., etc. Or until they've attained that experience and judgment for themselves.

Aaron_H wrote:
First of all what you're saying doesn't contradict or conflict with what he's saying. I don't know why you're all arguing with him, he's trying to make a specific point that's for the most part inarguable. You don't have to like it, and not all models have to have mainstream commercial aspirations.

Some of you seem to be defensive about your own choices if you have no interest in commercial modeling, no reason to be, he's not attacking you. Some of you may or not be arguing because you want to shoot nude or topless girls in a GWC way, or more artistic ways, but I don't think you'll run out of girls willing to pose that don't have any interest in commercial modeling. So few in the vast sea who claim commercial  aspirations will even listen to this advice, and so many more don't give a shit so there's nothing to be afraid of. But if any of you are arguing this or trying to slam this guy just because you don't like the message, and you are only concerned with keeping as large a pool of potential posers for your own purposes as possible, even if it actually hurts the chances of many who actually have serious aspirations then you're true assholes of high order!

As far as the money goes, you're right on average, but on the other hand there are lots of models you've never heard of that make pretty damn serious money doing commercial work, including making more on a single job than they might make in a year of waiting tables or working at a pet store. So even if they don't do that every day or even that often, if it's a career or serious sideline that they want to pursue then they should be aware of these issues and make informed decisions about what they want to do and why.

I understand that he is right, and nudes in model's+serious big agency with rich clients=no go, but the main reason people are being confrontational is this:

"Now if you are marketing yourself to a third rate magazine, or website then go butt nekid and have fun all over the place. But, if you are serious about you career in commercial work, I would not recommend it." just feels abrasive and kind of condescending.
It can be taken as either
1) Models who pose nude are in 3rd rate magazines and not successful
or
2) If you have commercial agency aspirations nudes will screw you out of that career.
There's also the "do as I say, not as I do" vibe from the fact he has nudes in his port, which struck me as humorous.
It may not be the additude he was trying to convey, but hey, the mayhem is losing it's sense of humor, and alot of us who aren't interested in agencies and pose nude are getting slammed by the new wave of people telling us we "do porn" or that we suck because we aren't "industry standard". I know I have been on edge for it lately, and I apologize if I came off as seeming to be rude. And I felt the need to argue for "the other side", or rather, those of us who, like me, don't want agencies and enjoy doing nudes.

On the other hand, however, I understand and can argue 100% for what he is saying. He's right, and I think he made this post as a warning for models and as a means of being helpful, which kicks ass

Oh, and I worked at a pet shop for about a year... my total income that fiscal year from petco was $4500.
hahaha
(and I've made more than that for one project without an agency Doesn't happen alot, but when it does- it's nice.)

Chaotika wrote:
Oh, and I worked at a pet shop for about a year... my total income that fiscal year from petco was $4500.
hahaha

That's humanal abuse!

Chaotika wrote:
I understand that he is right, and nudes in model's+serious big agency with rich clients=no go, but the main reason people are being confrontational is this:

"Now if you are marketing yourself to a third rate magazine, or website then go butt nekid and have fun all over the place. But, if you are serious about you career in commercial work, I would not recommend it." just feels abrasive and kind of condescending.
It can be taken as either
1) Models who pose nude are in 3rd rate magazines and not successful

I can see your point, and he could have been more careful to acknowledge other shades of gray between the poles, but I think his intent was just to make his point and also to allow for those that don't care or have other aims.

Chaotika wrote:
or
2) If you have commercial agency aspirations nudes will screw you out of that career.

Well I think that was the point! But I'd replace "will" with "might"

Chaotika wrote:
There's also the "do as I say, not as I do" vibe from the fact he has nudes in his port, which struck me as humorous.

Well like I said, you have to draw a distinction because he's not a model and the same rules don't always apply in the same ways. Yet there's some truth to it, a photographer usually does have to watch what kind of work he shows to what clients if he has commercial aspirations. But it's different, and if he's not showing the wrong kind of work in a real book that he's showing the wrong clients, and doesn't have it on his professional site then it's probably not an issue. And he's not going to have to sign a morals clause on his jobs pertaining to other work he's done or does.

Chaotika wrote:
It may not be the additude he was trying to convey, but hey, the mayhem is losing it's sense of humor, and alot of us who aren't interested in agencies and pose nude are getting slammed by the new wave of people telling us we "do porn" or that we suck because we aren't "industry standard". I know I have been on edge for it lately, and I apologize if I came off as seeming to be rude. And I felt the need to argue for "the other side", or rather, those of us who, like me, don't want agencies and enjoy doing nudes.

No problem, you shouldn't be getting shit.

Chaotika wrote:
On the other hand, however, I understand and can argue 100% for what he is saying. He's right, and I think he made this post as a warning for models and as a means of being helpful, which kicks ass

Exactly!

Chaotika wrote:
There's also the "do as I say, not as I do" vibe from the fact he has nudes in his port, which struck me as humorous.

Aaron_H wrote:
Well like I said, you have to draw a distinction because he's not a model and the same rules don't always apply in the same ways. Yet there's some truth to it, a photographer usually does have to watch what kind of work he shows to what clients if he has commercial aspirations. But it's different, and if he's not showing the wrong kind of work in a real book that he's showing the wrong clients, and doesn't have it on his professional site then it's probably not an issue. And he's not going to have to sign a morals clause on his jobs pertaining to other work he's done or does.

Wow- you took the time to listen I thought that was becoming passe around these parts haha I joke... (sort of)
Thanks for pointing this out- I failed to clarify that at all. Can you tell I'm tired? lol
What I should have said was, that reaction to this post was what made me want to reply in the first place.
While I understand that a photographer's port vs. a model's port are 2 very different things, and looked at in different ways, not everyone recognises that, or really understands it. I am totally aware of that fact, but the overall abrasive tone of parts of the post makes the fact that him saying "nudes are bad" and yet has nudes in his port look especially bad.

If a photographer with a port full of plus sized models came on here and said "If you want to be in an agency you need alot of diet and exercise. They like 34" hips and no flab- definition and the right amount of muscle tone is what you need.", he'd get slammed the same way, because, although he'd be 100% right, it only invites drama when you say something that seems to go against your own work.
C'est la vive.

J Merrill Images wrote:
Dude! You are a trip! Ummmmmmm ..... which head were you thinking with when you took the nudes on your profile right here in MM?

If you read my post, I never said not to put nudes in your portfolio. The premise is that if you are a model trying to make it in the commercial world clients don't want a model to represent their goods/services if you are on the net or in print already in the nude. I never said that you could do it.

Those nudes where done by models who are models in the adult and fetish industries. They don't seek out work, it comes to them. We did those images with their husbands in the same room. Both have posed nude in film and print long before I ever worked for them.

Besides the portfolio of a photographer and the portfolio of a model are reviewed totally differently by agencies and clients.

So before you open your ignorant mouth again, read the passage first.

M

Jeff Cohn :: X-pose.net :: wrote:
Ive worked in several different industries and never before have i found one so driven by sex and sexuality yet so uptight and "old man's network" as this one at the same time. its actually really shocking how conservative something so creative as fashion is. its time for a major overhaul and rebellion, so i'd love to see people just break down those doors and change the way it works instead of just conforming to current standards, but thats just me, i didnt get into this to blend in or be like the next guy.

Jeff

B R A V O

Studio36

Aaron_H wrote:
So you can think whatever you want about the messenger, but his message is the truth in the real world commercial modeling field, so if you have aspirations to work as a commercial model in the hopes of getting any major ads or accounts than you might just want to listen.

So, if you want to be a commercial model, the price you must pay is to let your temporary employer decide for you what's right and wrong for your entire career and control the career decisions you make both before and after you work for them.  Sounds an awful lot like indentured servitude to me, unless they're going to give you a regular paycheck for the rest of your life for adhearing to their conditions.  Again, he may be 110% correct for all I know, but if so it's really, really sad state of affairs.

Jeff Cohn :: X-pose.net :: wrote:
I think you just need to do what you want to do to fit you're own goals and aspirations. I dont think the original post was wrong in anyway, nor was it geared to half the models out there.

Let's use music as an example industry...

If i record a marilyn manson or eminem album that pretty much assures me that disney's record lables wont pay any attention to me, does that mean my career as a musician is over? no, it just means i need to look for something that fits what im doing, what im good at, what im comfortable with and how i want to make myself seen by the world.

The same applies to modeling agencies, theres a million out there and for every one that doesnt accept nude work for fear of turning off conservative clients theres just as many that look for more edgey and risque talent for their more edgey and risque clients.

You just have to find what fits you and what you're personally comfortable with and then direct yourself that way. if you dont like nudes, dont do nudes, if you like nudes and are afraid of what an agency may say then play it safe if you want to be with them and dont do nudes.

Ive worked in several different industries and never before have i found one so driven by sex and sexuality yet so uptight and "old man's network" as this one at the same time. its actually really shocking how conservative something so creative as fashion is. its time for a major overhaul and rebellion, so i'd love to see people just break down those doors and change the way it works instead of just conforming to current standards, but thats just me, i didnt get into this to blend in or be like the next guy.

Jeff

Very well said!

Aaron_H wrote:
We need more federal funding for the clue bus so it'll come by more often!

In case anyone hasn't noticed he's not a model! He's not saying he's against it on so called "moral" grounds, or that he's against it personally at all. 

Those same commercial clients he's talking about don't reject photographers just because they've shot nudes. The photographer isn't seen as a representative or "the face of" the brand or the product. 99.75% of the time the photographer doesn't even get a photo credit, byline, or © notice on an advertising photo so nobody in the public knows who they are (nor do they care).

But the model can be recognized, and they are afraid that if "the face of" "America's Best Apple Pies" is also seen in "Big Ass Booty" magazine, or any other photo that might cause the more conservative and prudish grandmothers or others among us to look askance, that it will damage their reputation, cause them ridicule, lead to public condemnation from some group, organization or public leader or politician, lead to a boycott or in any way hurt business.

It doesn't matter how well founded those concerns are or if you agree with them or not, what matters is that this is something they worry about and they see no reason to take any risks with it so they try not to. They will probably also have a "morals clause" somewhere in the paperwork that will allow them to break your contract or even sue you if they find you've violated it.

So you can think whatever you want about the messenger, but his message is the truth in the real world commercial modeling field, so if you have aspirations to work as a commercial model in the hopes of getting any major ads or accounts than you might just want to listen.

Perfect I wish i'd said it.

markEdwardPhoto wrote:
I shoot a good amount of commercial photography for clients around the U.S.  I would with agency models mostly because that is where my clients prefer to have them from. This is not my call, but they are paying the bills.

Now, most of the top agencies as well as all my clients will not let me hire a model that has published in print or on the web any images of their that is nude, or sexual in nature.

It is not that they don't like it. Its because they don't want to have that type of model represent their product or service to their market. Why? Well, the client does not want to take a chance on having their market offended in anyway at all. To many people in the U.S. posing nude is offensive to them.

Agencies have the same issue with models they send to a client. They are hoping you don't have a 'Suicide Girl' spread somewhere that might offend the client or the parameters of the client. Too much money is spent on marketing, and advertising to take any chances at all.

Now if you are marketing yourself to a third rate magazine, or website then go butt nekid and have fun all over the place. But, if you are serious about you career in commercial work, I would not recommend it.

For those of you who say "that many successful models posed nude for French Vogue, or Elle and they still get contracts" Two things come into play here, one is that the Model is already a success compared to her peers, and second those are NOT third rate mags.


Most of the people here do not fall into the category of 'successful' models by the normal industry standards. So, be aware what you put out on the web, you don't know how it will effect you career.

Good luck and don't listen the the GWCs they are talking with there 'little' head and not their 'big' head.

M

You are 100% correct, I have seen a few models lose major ad campaigns because nudes were found on a google search.  Can you imagine shopping at  Office Depot, checking out the photo paper and seeing some family photo and then recalling that you saw this "mom" in the picture naked and tied up on Model Mayhem?    LOL! 

If you do not think that ad execs on big ad campaigns do not google the models name before spending half a million on an ad campaign think again.... Maybe nobody here is concerned about ever doing a major ad campaign but it goes deeper then that.  A photographer I know got a call from a girl cying her eyes out because  a nude he shot was popping up on the search engines...shes now a realator, in a conservative area....you might think this would be good for her business...it's not, most home buying decision makers are actually the wives not husbands of the household. 

I recall another instance when a model friend of mine was getting married...she asked me to help her persuade a few photographers in town into taking her semi nude photos off the web.... one of her future inlaws found them doing a google search, all hell broke loose in the family.... did she think years ago that she would marry a prominent Doctor? probably not...they are paying a few of the photographers to take her stuff down, a few can not be bought.


In this age of instant information, google etc everything we do now will be around forever for the generations behind us view.  Something to think about.

Star wrote:
ok, but what about fine art nude photography, not fine ass p*ssy magazines?

Not allowed according to the right wing puritanistic government we have presently.

BTW... Would someone please tell me what happened to the sexual revolution?!?

Chaotika wrote:
I understand that he is right, and nudes in model's+serious big agency with rich clients=no go, but the main reason people are being confrontational is this:

"Now if you are marketing yourself to a third rate magazine, or website then go butt nekid and have fun all over the place. But, if you are serious about you career in commercial work, I would not recommend it." just feels abrasive and kind of condescending.
It can be taken as either
1) Models who pose nude are in 3rd rate magazines and not successful
or
2) If you have commercial agency aspirations nudes will screw you out of that career.
There's also the "do as I say, not as I do" vibe from the fact he has nudes in his port, which struck me as humorous.
It may not be the additude he was trying to convey, but hey, the mayhem is losing it's sense of humor, and alot of us who aren't interested in agencies and pose nude are getting slammed by the new wave of people telling us we "do porn" or that we suck because we aren't "industry standard". I know I have been on edge for it lately, and I apologize if I came off as seeming to be rude. And I felt the need to argue for "the other side", or rather, those of us who, like me, don't want agencies and enjoy doing nudes.

On the other hand, however, I understand and can argue 100% for what he is saying. He's right, and I think he made this post as a warning for models and as a means of being helpful, which kicks ass

Oh, and I worked at a pet shop for about a year... my total income that fiscal year from petco was $4500.
hahaha
(and I've made more than that for one project without an agency Doesn't happen alot, but when it does- it's nice.)

Well then I guess he shold word his post so perfectly as to not give out any sort do as I say vibe or so that it doesn't feel abrasive.  Or people could read it with a grain of salt, use there head and think a little harder about what he's really trying to say before they start crapping on him.  It seems to many people jumped the gun here and weren't really thinking about what he was trying to say they just got all pissy and started typing.

Aaron_H wrote:
But the model can be recognized, and they are afraid that if "the face of" "America's Best Apple Pies" is also seen in "Big Ass Booty" magazine, or any other photo that might cause the more conservative and prudish grandmothers or others among us to look askance, that it will damage their reputation, cause them ridicule, lead to public condemnation from some group, organization or public leader or politician, lead to a boycott or in any way hurt business.

I dont know WHAT the big agencies want or dont want. Maybe they
keep changing their little minds every few years (P.C.?)?

What I want to know is .... which "grandmothers" go around reading
"Big Ass Booty" magazine (or anything similar??  Just does NOT seem
the thing for conservatives to be looking at!

Harry Young wrote:

I dont know WHAT the big agencies want or dont want. Maybe they
keep changing their little minds every few years (P.C.?)?

What I want to know is .... which "grandmothers" go around reading
"Big Ass Booty" magazine (or anything similar??  Just does NOT seem
the thing for conservatives to be looking at!

scenerio....

I'm an agent and I have a model up against another agency model for a major campagin.  I stand to make a lot of money.  Because I keep my finger on the pulse of the industry and I do my homework I know that the other model has some cheesy nude stuff on the internet....I decide to inform the client that this other model wouldnt be a good choice because of her public internet persona.  I may be sneaky about how I get this info to the client, but I get it to them.  I just made this clients decision a lot easier.

J Merrill Images wrote:
Dude! You are a trip! Ummmmmmm ..... which head were you thinking with when you took the nudes on your profile right here in MM?

He's not saying that he DOESN'T shoot nudes, he's explaining to him why agencies/clients prefer to book models who don't pose nude to represent their product(s).

Aaron_H wrote:
We need more federal funding for the clue bus so it'll come by more often!

In case anyone hasn't noticed he's not a model! He's not saying he's against it on so called "moral" grounds, or that he's against it personally at all. 

Those same commercial clients he's talking about don't reject photographers just because they've shot nudes. The photographer isn't seen as a representative or "the face of" the brand or the product. 99.75% of the time the photographer doesn't even get a photo credit, byline, or © notice on an advertising photo so nobody in the public knows who they are (nor do they care).

But the model can be recognized, and they are afraid that if "the face of" "America's Best Apple Pies" is also seen in "Big Ass Booty" magazine, or any other photo that might cause the more conservative and prudish grandmothers or others among us to look askance, that it will damage their reputation, cause them ridicule, lead to public condemnation from some group, organization or public leader or politician, lead to a boycott or in any way hurt business.

It doesn't matter how well founded those concerns are or if you agree with them or not, what matters is that this is something they worry about and they see no reason to take any risks with it so they try not to. They will probably also have a "morals clause" somewhere in the paperwork that will allow them to break your contract or even sue you if they find you've violated it.

So you can think whatever you want about the messenger, but his message is the truth in the real world commercial modeling field, so if you have aspirations to work as a commercial model in the hopes of getting any major ads or accounts than you might just want to listen.

Well said.

Aaron_H wrote:

First of all what kind of agencies? Second of all the key word you used is discrete. That means they trusted you not to show or publish without approval. That means they could choose to show that work to specific clients as opposed to the work just floating out there for anyone to find. It means they are in control of the style, quality, and nature of the nudes to be shot and they'd be in control of judging whether any potential nude or partially nude assignment would be the kind that would hurt her career or not depending on the market, her potential and the specific plans and strategy they'd have for her.

Without going into specific names, I'm talking about legitimate agencies whose models do both commercial and fashion work. And no, sorry but the agencies controlled nothing. They knew my work and I had good relationships with some of the bookers. They knew I would not and did not shoot content for adult sites or submit to men's magazines and that my work was quality. The agencies acted only as referal points with the model making her own 'deal' with me. Some were private sessions in which I had no use rights, but others signed essentially unlimited releases. In fact years later, I still have some of the photos on my web site and they still sell.

Now, if the original poster had not included all nudes in the post, I would have been in agreement, but we all know there is nude and there is 'nekid'! The agencies and clients. There IS a difference. Certainly most commercial clients do not  want to use models with a bunch of raunchy nudes floating around, they don't want another Ivory Snow situation.  But quality nudes? No problem with any but the most conservative type client.