ChristianBehr wrote:
I wouldn't think it was right for Helmut Newton to manage models.  It's a bad idea.  One of my friends does it... and knows full well that I resent that he does it.  We can talk personally - but I can't touch him with a 10 foot pole in the business world.

And it's not just fashion - it's everything.  Didn't you read my whole post?  Go back and read it again.

After you've addressed ALL the concerns I issued... we'll continue.

I thought I did.  Well, I didn't address the conflict issue, that's true.  I guess it's because none of the models I've dealt with who had a photographer listed on their OMP page ever directed me to their manager, well, one did, but we got along fine.  But yes, I suppose you are right on that issue.

I'm not trying to be argumentative for arguments sake, by the way, I'm honestly curious. 

But what about my point?  Most of the models I see having a photographer listed as a manager are doing work that is not going to get them agency representation.  Johnny Crosslin is a good example.  He is not shooting agency girls.  The girls he "represents" (and again, really he doesn't represent them, as best I can tell, he simply helps them out with getting gigs within his sphere) are not agency girls, they never would be agency girls.  Most probably have true representation in LA (even if in the adult industry).  If a new girl wants to do "flesh work" as you call it, whether glamour or adult, and she can't get agency representation, but she is able to hook up with a shooter like Johnny and he can help to advance her career, how is she hurt?  Most of the shooters for the Lad mags seem to have a stable of models as well.  If a model's sole ambition is to get into those magazines (and again, that is the dream of many on the internet) how is she hurt by hooking up with a shooter that can make that happen (disregarding for the moment if that is a good dream to have or not)?

Paramour Productions wrote:

But what about my point?  Most of the models I see having a photographer listed as a manager are doing work that is not going to get them agency representation.  Johnny Crosslin is a good example.  He is not shooting agency girls.  The girls he "represents" (and again, really he doesn't represent them, as best I can tell, he simply helps them out with getting gigs within his sphere) are not agency girls, they never would be agency girls.  Most probably have true representation in LA (even if in the adult industry).  If a new girl wants to do "flesh work" as you call it, whether glamour or adult, and she can't get agency representation, but she is able to hook up with a shooter like Johnny and he can help to advance her career, how is she hurt?  Most of the shooters for the Lad mags seem to have a stable of models as well.  If a model's sole ambition is to get into those magazines (and again, that is the dream of many on the internet) how is she hurt by hooking up with a shooter that can make that happen (disregarding for the moment if that is a good dream to have or not)?

This is where another problem arises.  He, the manager is in a position to guide her to the adult work or glam or whatever.  What does he know what would work in a commercial agency?  Has he worked with good ones?  Has he checked?  Or did he just guide the pretty face in the direction he's most likely to get paid for?  See what I mean?  They do what serves their own interests.  They're not trying to get the model with a good commercial agency to end up with $100,000 for a verizon ad - instead, they use the girl to shoot a freebie ( hot dates/hometown hottie ) maxim or playboy.com for a few hundred bucks... to make a name for themselves.

Managers should have ONE interest... the success of the talent they supposedly represent. 

Since you choose to speak for these individuals - ask them where they learned to be a booker.  How do they know what's in the best interest of the model?  I think you chose to ignore those things in my original reply to you.

ChristianBehr wrote:
Since you choose to speak for these individuals - ask them where they learned to be a booker.  How do they know what's in the best interest of the model?  I think you chose to ignore those things in my original reply to you.

LMAO! Dude, I'm not speaking for anyone, I'm trying to understand, which you are helping with, so don't jump down my throat.

I have no idea what these folks do or what they know about what is in the best interest of the model.  I've never spoken to them.  My only original point was that many on this board will call "them" sluggos or GWC's or worse and then go on to praise the very photographers who do this - just seems a bit weird to me. 

I did address your point in my last post by agreeing with you.  If it wasn't clear I'll do it again now.  BUT, you are still not addressing my point... perhaps because you don't believe there are models out there that want to do that kind of work?  When I had a bunch of glamour nudes in my port, I would get contacted about twice a week to shoot adult content, and I got offered everything under the sun to do it - believe me, managing them was the least of it (which is why I removed those shots)...  That is how that industry appears to work.  You may not like it, you may look down on it, but it is a segment of the modeling industry.  My question for you is (again), for that segment of the industry, if that is how it is done, why do you have a problem with it.  If model A wants to get into playboy or even on playboy.com (and for many this would be their life's dream, worth more than money) why is it wrong for them to hook up with a shooter who can do that for them?  The only answer out of you so far is, "well, they should go somewhere else where they could do 'better' work".  But that response assumes they WANT that....  That is my point.

ChristianBehr wrote:
Well.. if a girl wants to do the adult/nude/etc... she doesn't need them anyway.  Why not go to the source?  If she wants to shoot Playboy - find people that Playboy hires to shoot.  Someone who's been published and can speak for the magazine.  Same with LFP or anything.  If she wants to shoot for Maxim - why not find someone who shoots spreads rather than freebies?

My point is this:  A model doesn't NEED a photographer/manager for those types of jobs.  If anything, the photographer/manager is a negative for those wanting to get into adult/nude/glam work.  I wouldn't discuss projects with some wanker who pretends to know what I'm talking about - nor would I give that person client info.  It's simple.  The second I run into someone claiming to represent - I say " Bye bye."  If another photographer is dumb enough to disclose that info - they deserve for some snake to come in and underbid him/her.

Also, as far as swimwear and glam looks - there are agencies for that.  Reputable ones. 

... and that's all folks.

exactly...these donkey "photographers" find girls who are new to modeling or don't understand things and basically take advantage of them. it is really sad because these girls think they are being helped but in reality they are getting hurt overall. as for the so called photographer, it is usually someone who can't cut it shooting photos or just a guy who is trying to find a way to hang out with pretty girls, probably why he started shooting to begin with. hopefully some models out there read this post and learn that they can do things on their own and don't need a "manager/photographer" to screw them up.

LarryB wrote:
You know, you never see talented photographers doing this sort of shit.  It's always the guys who manage to make a 30D shoot cell-phone quality images.

Apfel Photography wrote:
I wasn't aware that there were actually any "Real" photographers that even considered managing models?

Either you are a photographer or a modeling agent.....or I guess you could be a GWC/Sluggo

Paramour Productions wrote:
So I guess "Superman" sucks or is just a GWC?

http://member.onemodelplace.com/member.cfm?P_ID=25180

Super GWC actually.

......yet the online presentation is always in order with informative tid bits.

Look in 'General Information' pertaining to 'managed models'.

bt

Bruce Talbot wrote:

LarryB wrote:
You know, you never see talented photographers doing this sort of shit.  It's always the guys who manage to make a 30D shoot cell-phone quality images.

Apfel Photography wrote:
I wasn't aware that there were actually any "Real" photographers that even considered managing models?

Either you are a photographer or a modeling agent.....or I guess you could be a GWC/Sluggo

Super GWC actually.

......yet the online presentation is always in order with informative tid bits.

Look in 'General Information' pertaining to 'managed models'.

bt

This is what I thought all photographers who had those links were doing.  I didn't think anyone actually "managed" the models.  I guess I was wrong.