Christopher Ambler wrote:
Anyone can say, "Hi, I work with Playboy and Maxim and FHM and I can get you in." They'd also be lying.

Add this to the fact that you've paid for representation from "agencies" that nobody has heard of and you exhibit the very typical "stars in eyes" attitude and defensiveness, and I must say, with all honestly, that I think you're in for a rude awakening.

So yes, absolutely - DO NOT DO NUDES if you are at all uncomfortable, because you'll find that they're NOT in Playboy or Maxim or FHM and the people who told you that they would have lied to you. Those photos will likely be on some web site, somewhere, and I can only imagine how you'd feel then!

Couldn't agree more...A photographer at a convention saying he can get you into these magazines? Sounds like a GWC that will shoot you with the plash on his D50 in a hotel room. Run away fast!

There is a varied community of people on MM and most will give you sound advice. Improve your port, really you need to START you port, to reflect what you'd like to do.

Arguing with people who have A LOT more experience than you have is just a cry for attention. Take the advice and share the advice with your parents.

HotScot wrote:
"high fashion" doesn't necessarily mean fully clothed. The body is a canvas and sooner or later you'll have to do nudity or be shown the door. Models can't be picky, especially for what you want to go into.

Just a thought.

I agree on this. "Runway" more often than not means "hello nipples," and I have high level agents pushing me to put their 15 year olds into more and more revealing outfits during tests lately.

Kali Hyde wrote:
I haven't gotten charged anything and I've been with them since July.

You said Quickbook charged you $200...but keep convincing yourself they're a good agency despite what everyone's saying to the contrary...I'm sure that'll help you in the long run. Here's the deal...we're trying to help you...we're trying to bring you back to reality on this. If you don't want to be brought back to reality, then don't ask questions like this. BTW, I noticed you had no reply to my statement about me not being signed to an agency. Any particular reason you asked me that in the first place? Or were you just being defensive? That's a quality that'll really help you get far.

Kali Hyde wrote:
It actually was with Playboy.."natural beauties" was what it was called. I talked to a really nice guy from there that works with a lot of REALLY good magazines. Stuff, FHM, etc.

Kali Hyde wrote:
I don't have any nudes. That's the thing. I've never done it before, and I'm getting offers from good magazines.

Christopher Ambler wrote:
You say that Playboy wanted you, but then you say that it was a photographer who works with them as well as a few other magazines.

Those are two very mutually-exclusive statements unless that photographer was one of about three, possibly four that I can think of that MIGHT be working with Playboy as well as other magazines.

...

I seriously doubt that this was the case.

As they say in politics, my good friend Chris hit the nail on the head.  I actually went to post something on this earlier, but my computer had a wireless fart and I lost the post. 

Having worked a LOT with Playboy, the fact is, even if this guy shot with Playboy and all of these other magazines as a freelancer, he could do nothing more than submit you.  Only Jeff Cohen or one of his staff can actually book you and it would be unusual for them to book you for a specific flat such as "Natural Beauties."  The fact is, when they shoot you, they normally put you into three flats from a single shoot, not one.  So I suspect this was just someone who thinks you would look good in Playboy and wants to submit you. 

Beyond that, how could they possibly make you an offier without seeing you nude?  You just said you have never shot a nude.  I can tell you I have never had a model in Playboy that they hadn't seen nude first!  In ancy case, rather than speculating, if you send me his name, I will call my contacts at Playboy and find out in a second for you if they had really made you an offer.


What I am sensing though is that all of this indecision about doing nudes has to do with this photographer telling you that you should be in Playboy.  I have simple advice, if you want to do nudes, do nudes, if you don't, don't.  A single offer by one guy claiming to be with Playboy shouldn't govern a whole career.

This is all getting way too complicated.

Kali Hyde wrote:

It has already been pretty imature, I was the one that went to the convention that was a "scam" ..where I met "big" agents and got signed.

Victor's International doesn't charge anything. The photographers do.

And why shouldn't photographers charge???If it is for your portfolio - that is the biz!!!We are not a charity!!! jh

john hill wrote:

And why shouldn't photographers charge???If it is for your portfolio - that is the biz!!!We are not a charity!!! jh

Oh no...this thread has already gotten way out of hand...let's not make this into "MODELS SHOULD PAY PHOTOGRAPHERS ALL THE TIME!!!!!" for the 693,458,256,809th time.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
As they say in politics, my good friend Chris hit the nail on the head.

Does this mean you'll be voting for me when I run for President? :-)

Jason McKendricks wrote:
Kaitlin, your counting of paid photog threads is off. You must have forgotten that one thread this week...

Lol...sorry...I was away from my computer for 20 minutes and I forgot to take into account that probably about 6,000 extras showed up while I was gone

By the way...had you ever noticed that the majority of those threads seem to contain WAY more exclamation points than are necessary (like that post does)? Apparently the gene that makes photographers whine too much also controls their reasonable number of exclamation points filter.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

Lol...sorry...I was away from my computer for 20 minutes and I forgot to take into account that probably about 6,000 extras showed up while I was gone

By the way...had you ever noticed that the majority of those threads seem to contain WAY more exclamation points than are necessary (like that post does)? Apparently the gene that makes photographers whine too much also controls their reasonable number of exclamation points filter.

I've noticed that!!!!!

lol, and I type like Oscar Madison from the Odd Couple, so I use it as shorthand way of saying I type like crap, or I'd write more...

john hill wrote:

And why shouldn't photographers charge???If it is for your portfolio - that is the biz!!!We are not a charity!!! jh

and not to get sidetracked, but I know models that get a lot more business than I'll ever see from photos I've shot of them, and I have to assume that's true for most of us...

PDXImaging wrote:
and not to get sidetracked, but I know models that get a lot more business than I'll ever see from photos I've shot of them, and I have to assume that's true for most of us...

Not really, no.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

Oh no...this thread has already gotten way out of hand...let's not make this into "MODELS SHOULD PAY PHOTOGRAPHERS ALL THE TIME!!!!!" for the 693,458,256,809th time.

And which agency are you with and how many paid advertising jobs have you gotten hired for?? jh

Christopher Ambler wrote:
Not really, no.

You're better at this than I am...

Kali Hyde wrote:

Thank you. It just seems that magazines like Stuff, Maxim and Playboy have more interest in me.

Doesn't matter who has or doesn't have interest.  If you want to do it, do it.  If not, say no.  It is like getting asked to go on a date.  If ya don't wanna go out with the guy, say no.  If you wanna be in Maxim, etc., just do it.  You are wasting time!

PDXImaging wrote:
Your better at this than I am...

It's not a question of that - if you're taking pictures good enough for a model to negotiate paid work as a result, they should also be good enough for you to use them to that end, too.

At that point it's not about the images, it's about the marketing.

I'm hardly a great photographer. Perhaps I suck a little less than someone else, but I'm surely not at the level where I could walk into a major agency and say, "start sending me paid tests, please." But I do understand marketing and how it works in the genres and niches where I do play.

You can do that, too.

But now we're REALLY off the original topic here :-)

Christopher Ambler wrote:

It's not a question of that - if you're taking pictures good enough for a model to negotiate paid work as a result, they should also be good enough for you to use them to that end, too.

At that point it's not about the images, it's about the marketing.

I'm hardly a great photographer. Perhaps I suck a little less than someone else, but I'm surely not at the level where I could walk into a major agency and say, "start sending me paid tests, please." But I do understand marketing and how it works in the genres and niches where I do play.

You can do that, too.

But now we're REALLY off the original topic here :-)

Marketing eh?  hmmmm  what a concept!!  And seriously, Christopher, you have some exceptional images, now if only Kali Hyde could get you to shoot her...

lame attempt at dragging it back on point, but...  lol

PDXImaging wrote:
Marketing eh?  hmmmm  what a concept!!  And seriously, Christopher, you have some exceptional images, now if only Kali Hyde could get you to shoot her...

lame attempt at dragging it back on point, but...  lol

Marketing is really the thing that a lot of exceptional photographers are missing, and many models, too. You can't excel in a vacuum.

And, to be honest, I don't think I'd shoot with her until she grew up a little bit and lost the attitude. But then, for me, (and with obvious exceptions of necessity) I don't do anything that I don't enjoy.

Kali Hyde wrote:
I want to be a high fashion model.

You don't have zero chance, but you have damn close to zero. That's just reality. You are a bit too heavy, a bit too short, and you don't leap off the page when you're photographed. You're also not in NYC, Milan, or Paris - but don't move there because I don't think you've got what it takes to win against the competition you'd face there. I suppose I should sugar-coat that a little bit, but maybe you've gotten the idea of doing high fashion because you're a pretty girl and a lot of people have told you that and they don't know what they're talking about.

As far as getting naked or not, that's entirely your business. Why should we care? You either do or you don't and depending on whether you do or you don't some photographers will or won't pay you. If you're expecting to make money, though, you'd be able to make $$ from getting naked for internet photographers. If you're expecting to get paid big $$ modelling and not getting naked then, well, see my comments above about the "high fashion" modelling. You'll work for free more often than you work for $$ and that's not a "career" either - that's a hobby.

mjr.

James Jackson wrote:

Well if that was the point then the point is false.

The greater percentage of models who are/were successful did nudes before, during, and after the time that they were "popular"

Point isn't false.  There are many successful models out there who don't do nude.

As for your claim to have a percentage figure of greater than half, back it up with a reference - it looks like an opinion to me.

UIPHOTOS wrote:

Hatcher was nude on a balcony in a movie where she played a mobsters wife.. I think Alec Baldwin was the mob boss.. Aniston has done implied nudes (nude with her legs crossed and arms over her boobs) for a magazine shoot I saw.. So BOTH have been nude.. Hatcher was full frontal in the movie.. that is when I realized her boobs sagged before she was on Seinfeld saying they were real and spectacular.. LOL

EDIT: and to the OP.. I dont want to see you naked.. Unless you learn not to smirk in your pics, I dont think that dream has legs to stand on..

Both examples (if true) came after they had reached significant success, and implied nude isn't nude according to most.  Therefore, modeling nude did not get them to where they were, it was a choice made from strength.

HotScot wrote:
I could go for some wine. -lament-

I think everyone has now established the same point.

OH MY GOD- COME OVER RIGHT NOW AND DRINK WITH ME

john hill wrote:

And which agency are you with and how many paid advertising jobs have you gotten hired for?? jh

Why does everyone insist on asking me that question in this thread? I answered it before and I will again. I am not signed to an agency, nor do I do advertising because I am a 5'7", 28-23-33 weird looking full time music student who does art modeling as a hobby on the side solely because I enjoy creating art. But feel free to keep asking me questions that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said OR the topic of this post.

Daniela V wrote:
And yet none of the "real" agencies signed you.

Convention? That's like saying: scam.

I'm not trying to fight with you or hijack your thread- please refer to my first post where I told you where you should live if you're serious about high fashion...

Kali Hyde wrote:
I would go to New York..but I don't fit into the 5'9-5'11 size 0-2 category. I'm almost 5'9..and nowhere near a size 0, or 2. Going to New York would be a waste of time, and money I think.

Okay, so you've basically admitted that you don't have the skillset to be a "high fashion" model.  Now what?

PS:  Please don't think I'm trying to get you to do nudes for me...I don't work with newbies anymore.

Kali Hyde wrote:
Well if Playboy wanted to use me, I must have something.

I smell a rat.

There are many guys out there who claim to work for Playboy or claim to have some sort of inside track with them.  They tell you they need to shoot you naked so you'll have the "right" portfolio or some other B.S.

If you want to be in Playboy, send nude photos of yourself directly to the magazine.  It doesn't have to be professionally shot.   You don't need a professionally printed model card.  It doesn't have to go through an agency or a official rep.  And anybody (besides the actual editor of Playboy) who claims that they can get you into Playboy is full of prunes. 

There are no official reps or scouts for Playboy.  (They have all the girls they need already submitting their photos by mail.)  There are however "finder fee's" paid to 3rd parties (photographers) who submit photos of girls that are selected for the magazine.  I suspect the individual photographer who told you he works with Playboy may at best plan to shoot you nude and submit your photos in the hope that he will get paid.  But he is only working on speculation and is no way an official rep.  If he wants money for this service, think carefully.  He'd better supply you with killer shots for your portfolio, because he probably doesn't have anything else to concrete to offer.

If Playboy is interested they will contact you and arrange a test shot (at their expense, not yours.)



EDIT   ----  here's the info straight from www.Playboy.com  's FAQ page

"Applicants for Playmate must send us only recent nude photographs of themselves. The photographs can be either prints, Polaroids or transparencies and show a variety of poses, including full figure and face shots. We do not accept these photos in any computer form nor do we visit websites. Please do not send us CDs, discs, e-mails or undeveloped film since we will be unable to review your submission with these contents. The editors would also like information on the applicant, such as height, weight, measurements, occupation, awards and hobbies. Please include a brief bio as well. No photos will be returned.

Playmate applicants must be at least 18 years old and proof of this must be included with the photo submission. This should be in the form of photocopies of two pieces of personal identification. Only the following will be accepted: driver's license, passport, birth certificate, school identification, voter registration, Social Security, employee ID, or identification issued by the state of residence. Both pieces of identification must clearly show the applicantís name. One of these must have a current photograph and list her date of birth or we cannot accept the photos.

The individual submitting the pictures to Playboy, if other than the Playmate candidate herself, may be eligible to receive a finder's fee of $5,000 upon publication of the feature. A finder's fee is paid at Playboy's discretion."