mor4scott wrote:
This is a great post. I think that by informing models of the dangers they will be more aware of strange activity. I myself welcome escorts, in fact I require them. For my safety and theirs. I also have one of my own.. My girlfriend...lol I talk to a lot of women that I encourage to model. In doing so I am also responsible for helping them find safe work. But as it sounds you never can tell. I always meet in a public place first to review the release contract (I give full shared rights) and attached to my contract is a copy of my drivers license. All my personal info is also included. As far as references I have not been asked.. but I am sure that I have a great repore from what I call the Boden family...

I think I will post on top of my profile.. Escort Friendly... save the hassle of asking...

Good luck and be safe everybody.....

Good idea Scott. I thought about it, but it's never come up in conversation with anyone yet.
Do you know how many more models that makes available to us?

*hehehe*

Craig Thomson wrote:
Good idea Scott. I thought about it, but it's never come up in conversation with anyone yet.
Do you know how many more models that makes available to us?

*hehehe*

That has come up on this forum quite a number of times.  The pro-escort people get more models who look anxious and distracted in their photos.  If you want that then it's a win-win deal! 

Curt Burgess wrote:

The pro-escort people get more models who look anxious and distracted in their photos.  If you want that then it's a win-win deal! 

Really?  The majority of all my images are taken with someone near by ... an escort in many cases.  I doubt you can tell the difference.

Curt Burgess wrote:
The pro-escort people get more models who look anxious and distracted in their photos.  If you want that then it's a win-win deal! 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Really?  The majority of all my images are taken with someone near by ... an escort in many cases.  I doubt you can tell the difference.

That's great!

Most of mine were taken without escorts. They're all still alive.

Curt Burgess wrote:
The pro-escort people get more models who look anxious and distracted in their photos.  If you want that then it's a win-win deal! 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Really?  The majority of all my images are taken with someone near by ... an escort in many cases.  I doubt you can tell the difference.

For fun, I just checked the images I have posted here ... and there are exactly four out of forty that were shot with the model and no escort.  Can you tell me which ones?

Curt Burgess wrote:
That's great!

Most of mine were taken without escorts. They're all still alive.

Well the escorts that came with the models to my shoots wake up the next morning with hang overs! Free booze! They don't remember anything!  LOL  J/K! 

Remember what I said earlier?  It's a party when I pull out my camera! 

Craig Thomson wrote:
Good idea Scott. I thought about it, but it's never come up in conversation with anyone yet.
Do you know how many more models that makes available to us?

*hehehe*

Curt Burgess wrote:
That has come up on this forum quite a number of times.  The pro-escort people get more models who look anxious and distracted in their photos.  If you want that then it's a win-win deal! 

Of the 20 images I have posted, only two models did not have an escort present at the time I shot them, can you tell me which ones they are?

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
The last escort that accompanied a model to my studio left with a 4 GB flash card and a very nice lens. When I'm working with a model, I'm on a ladder, on the floor, moving lights, posing her, and I simply don't have time to watch her escort to make sure they don't steal anything.

Mike, you need to ask EVERYONE to leave their clothes and credit cards at the door. 

Craig Thomson wrote:
Good idea Scott. I thought about it, but it's never come up in conversation with anyone yet.
Do you know how many more models that makes available to us?

*hehehe*

Curt Burgess wrote:
That has come up on this forum quite a number of times.  The pro-escort people get more models who look anxious and distracted in their photos.  If you want that then it's a win-win deal! 

Craig Thomson wrote:
Of the 20 images I have posted, only two models did not have an escort present at the time I shot them, can you tell me which ones they are?

I have no idea.

Curt Burgess wrote:

Craig Thomson wrote:
Good idea Scott. I thought about it, but it's never come up in conversation with anyone yet.
Do you know how many more models that makes available to us?

*hehehe*

Curt Burgess wrote:
That has come up on this forum quite a number of times.  The pro-escort people get more models who look anxious and distracted in their photos.  If you want that then it's a win-win deal! 

I have no idea.

Curt, you are straying from the point. There is nothing wrong with photographers that allow escorts, not is there anything fundamentally wrong with models that want escorts. What is wrong is when we, as anti-escort photographers, are maligned and otherwise characterized as potential rapists and murderers.

There is NOTHING wrong with a live and let live attitude. As it has been said countless times by countless people, models who require escorts should stick to photographers that allow them, and photographers who do not like escorts should stick with models who do not require them.

But it's not a safety issue. It's a comfort issue. When we see comments like "he jsut wants to get in your pants", or "he wants to rape you", or "that's a big RED FLAG" with regards to our escort stance, we are being insulted and our integrity is being question without ANY attempt by the persons making those statements to ascertain our real motivations or our true character. And if they want to come in here and treat us in such a manner, we have no qualms about returning the favor.

PapaVic Photography wrote:
In other words, you are several times more likely to be assaulted by your escort than by the photographer who is a stranger to you.

Too true... Does anyone think to hire a professional bodyguard to protect them from their own amature escort.

ImMissKitty wrote:
Its easy for things to get out of hand if you aren't careful.

"Things"?  If you're trying to scare people, at least you can be specific while you're doing it.  Presicesly what "things" can "get out of hand" at a photoshoot?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
If a photographer has a problem with concentration while shooting, don't blame it on the model or escort.  Learn to focus in a crowd!  I love a party!    If more photographers enjoyed the people they photographed instead of thinking of models as subhuman manikins then the World would be a better place.

Patrick, this assertion really irritates me and I think a lot less of you when I read it. I HATE escorts. I refuse to work with a crowd for my personal work. 


Despite my delicate sensibilities, YEs I am fully capable of working in many situations that would not be a preference of mine. Capable, yes. Preference, no. The point here is that for me, I have found that the kind of work I do, is done better without extraneous influence of drama and extra people. Moreover, since I am an amateur photographer, I don't have to work with people I don't want to. As such why would I want to work with someone who sees me as a potential rapist? It doesn't make sense to me.

So, if after checking on my references, or even premeeting with me, a model still feels the need to bring and escort, I say pass. Trust between a model and myself is imperative. If her comfort level is still being challenged after checking on me, there's nothing that she can offer for me as a model, other than being a breathing piece of meat. And that's the furthest thing in the world I'm interested in exploring.


To make this sort of assumption that photographers who don't like working in crowds are somehow deficient, or that we only think of models as breathing blow up dolls is quite frankly, BS.

ImMissKitty wrote:
Its easy for things to get out of hand if you aren't careful.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
"Things"? If you're trying to scare people, at least you can be specific while you're doing it.  Presicesly what "things" can "get out of hand" at a photoshoot?

I think she means "things" such as :
Bad hair falls.
Cheesy backdrops.
Flat lighting.
Terrible styling.
Wronkled bedsheets.

Envy wrote:

ImMissKitty wrote:
Its easy for things to get out of hand if you aren't careful.

I think she means "things" such as :
Bad hair falls.
Cheesy backdrops.
Flat lighting.
Terrible styling.
Wronkled bedsheets.

Ouch.  You play rough in the morning!

John Carman wrote:
For me, the point of an escort is moot with the original poster. When she scheduled to shoot with me, she flaked.

Interesting... .. No call No show???

John Carman wrote:
For me, the point of an escort is moot with the original poster. When she scheduled to shoot with me, she flaked.

Good for her!  That high-quality portfolio of excellent commercial/fashion imagery you're showing here is obviously a cover for some nefarious scheme!  It's a good thing she had her "female intuition" to protect her from your evil clutches.

*end sarcasm*

EMG STUDIOS wrote:
I think I'm going to adopt the no escort rule myself.. Simply because, one too many times a "cool" escort has ruined a shoot.

Get dropped off at my studio, hell even carry the models bags into the studio for her. But when shooting starts, you stop sit and watch TV. I'm having a seperate room built onto the side of my studio will everyone will be, OUTSIDE of the shooting area. If your escort comes into the studio while we're shooting.. Game over.. everyone leaves.



I had a so called "cool" escort over my shoulders like a book bag during my last shoot... I would catch the model about to give me an expression or pose, then look at him, then not complete the pose or expression.. pretty much a waste of time.

It's ashame that some photographers can't control themselves, but it's not just photographers, it's people in general.

www.getemg.com

I personally think that many photographers who allow escorts in the shooting area (I'm not referring to you) are wimps.   They're just SO happy to be able to be shooting a "pretty girl" that they'd bend over and take anything the model threw at them, without asking for lube.

KM von Seidl wrote:
I personally think that many photographers who allow escorts in the shooting area (I'm not referring to you) are wimps.   They're just SO happy to be able to be shooting a "pretty girl" that they'd bend over and take anything the model threw at them, without asking for lube.

Nah.  I just don't care.  It hasn't impacted me negatively enough yet for me to develop a no-escort policy.

Craig Thomson wrote:
Good idea Scott. I thought about it, but it's never come up in conversation with anyone yet.
Do you know how many more models that makes available to us?

*hehehe*

Curt Burgess wrote:
That has come up on this forum quite a number of times.  The pro-escort people get more models who look anxious and distracted in their photos.  If you want that then it's a win-win deal! 

Curt Burgess wrote:
I have no idea.

Mikel Featherston wrote:
Curt, you are straying from the point. There is nothing wrong with photographers that allow escorts, not is there anything fundamentally wrong with models that want escorts. What is wrong is when we, as anti-escort photographers, are maligned and otherwise characterized as potential rapists and murderers.

There is NOTHING wrong with a live and let live attitude. As it has been said countless times by countless people, models who require escorts should stick to photographers that allow them, and photographers who do not like escorts should stick with models who do not require them.

But it's not a safety issue. It's a comfort issue. When we see comments like "he jsut wants to get in your pants", or "he wants to rape you", or "that's a big RED FLAG" with regards to our escort stance, we are being insulted and our integrity is being question without ANY attempt by the persons making those statements to ascertain our real motivations or our true character. And if they want to come in here and treat us in such a manner, we have no qualms about returning the favor.

Now, Mikel, I don't think I was straying from the point. I focus like a laser on this issue. But you're quite right, it's a comfort issue not a bogus safety issue. As the analysis of the three murder the model cases I did earlier, which you would think would be a showcase for the pro-escort view, in very case the models committed very grievous judgments that got them killed.

The motivation behind the pro-escort view is insulting and needless since the best solution to the problem is due diligence, not an escort. Time after time we see this. NOBODY has presented a case that is a good example of how an excort would have helped overcome the stupidity of the model. If models checked things out and looked for red flags this wouldn't be a problem. Statisticly it's not a problem anyway, which is why so many models who don't check things out at all end up being fine.

Mikel - I suspect you comment about me "straying" was a response to my comment to the two who challenged me to pick out their escort photos from their non-escort photos. I was actually hoping that they might push me a little more on that because I wanted to point out the inherent sillyiness of such a test. There have been many first-hand accounts of how escorts can jamb up a set. Not to say that there aren't fine escorts, but is the photographer NOW supposed to do due diligence on the escort? Logically, yes. But what a waste of time over a more coherent policy. So two people challanged me to pick out the "bad" photos. First, I would avail myself to any test that was being judged by someone with a competing POV. That's not wise for me and presumptous for them. Secondly, and most importantly, an experienced photographer isn't going to put poor images on their port. So the "can you pick them out" idea isn't viable. I'll still maintain my belief that overall, images taken with an escort are not as good. But that's a belief. What are FACTS around here is the inability of the proescort types to come up with any credible cases that force a person to conclude that the escort would have trumped the murderer/rapist over due diligence of the model. In FACT, the amusing thing is that from my recall EVERY case that has been trotted out demonstrates that the model made VERY bad decisions and in some cases an "escort" being killed too!

Bottom line: stupidity kills and sometimes it will get an escort killed too. The best solution is due diligence. Like Mikel and many others have said, escorts are for the models comfort, they have nothing to do with safety.

ImMissKitty wrote:
My roommate and I ALWAYS leave the address, phone number, and name of the photographer we're going to work with with each other

Wise move.

ImMissKitty wrote:
and typically either go together or bring an escort if its a new photographer.

I assume by new you also mean that you weren't able to find anything about the person - that he has no verifiable experience, no references to check, nobody that you know that knows him/her.  In this case, I would caution you against working with him.  From my POV, if I was a model, let the newby photographer build a port up to some extent by shooting with relatives or friends. The model isn't likely to get great images from the total newby anyway. No escort needed if you don't go.

ImMissKitty wrote:
References are so important in this industry.

Yes they are!

ImMissKitty wrote:
Its easy for things to get out of hand if you aren't careful.

What are you talking about here?  I think this is another one of those fearmongering kinds of statements. If you have done your due diligence, that is you've talked to talent that has worked with him, he's he got good stuff on his port, he has good comments, and has worked with a variety of models, etc, do you seriously think "it's easy for things to get out of hand"!! I think in THESE CASES it actually very low probability of things getting out of hand. THAT'S WHY YOU DO IT!!

ImMissKitty wrote:
THINK before you do something.

Yes, please. Due diligence.

KM von Seidl wrote:
I personally think that many photographers who allow escorts in the shooting area (I'm not referring to you) are wimps.   They're just SO happy to be able to be shooting a "pretty girl" that they'd bend over and take anything the model threw at them, without asking for lube.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
Nah.  I just don't care.  It hasn't impacted me negatively enough yet for me to develop a no-escort policy.

I actually didn't evolve my "no escort" policy until these threads started popping up.  In a dark and ridiculous way, they've taught me a lot about the kind of people I don't want to work with.

lll wrote:

No, when things need to be trivialized, it should be.  Otherwise it leads to unjustified level of fear, which is fundamentally against living freely.  Safety is overrated.

And this is a "high risk" industry?  Give me a break.  It's more dangerous to be a bus driver.

There are different risks in every business class. Yes a bus driver is at higher risk for being involved in a traffic accident then a village person in the heart of the Amazon, but the Amazon villager is at a higher risk for snake bite. That being said is it OK to advise them to be careful? I agree with you not to raise the level of fear but should raising the level of awareness be acceptable?

When my son got on his bike to ride to school, I told him to be careful. I didn't micro mange and go into each and every thing that could go wrong. If I did he probably would have told me to drive him to school.

By doing that he probably would have been at a higher risk. - lol