e-string wrote:
Nope, not true.

MM's definition has nothing to do with wealth, skill level, or anything else. Only intent. And I've heard of photographers considered to be pretty high-level called GWCs.

If he's doing it to try to get something other than images, he's a GWC. $ doesn't matter.

What intent amounts to someone being a GWC?  Depending on what your definition is, most of the photographers on this site could be considered GWCs...Myself included.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

What intent amounts to someone being a GWC?  Depending on what your definition is, most of the photographers on this site could be considered GWCs...Myself included.

MM's definition is "only interested in photography to get hot ladies to get nekkid for him." Other people add that they're trying to get dates or sex.

I would also add that there's an additional/alternate definition that it's someone whose pictures look like bad snapshots.

Yeah, it does apply to a lot of MM photographers. But there are plenty who are serious about what they do, too.

lotusphoto wrote:
all nipples look the same.. basically

ditto genitalia..

Oh, you poor man.

Picture This wrote:
So if I buy myself a set of surgical instruments can I be a surgeon?

No but I bet someone somewhere would let you operate on them.

e-string wrote:
MM's definition is "only interested in photography to get hot ladies to get nekkid for him."

So does that make me a GWC?  It would be rather disigenuous for me to claim I didn't enjoy photographing naked women.

e-string wrote:
Other people add that they're trying to get dates or sex.

Does it have to be actual sex or merely the discussion of sexuality? 

e-string wrote:
I would also add that there's an additional/alternate definition that it's someone whose pictures look like bad snapshots.

My favorite camera to use cost me $20 and has a plastic lens.  Many people have dismissed my toycamera work as the product of ineptitude.

e-string wrote:
Yeah, it does apply to a lot of MM photographers. But there are plenty who are serious about what they do, too.

Does mere intent pull one back from the brink of GWC-ness?

I'm not trying to be difficult...just point out that who's a GWC and who isn't is more an opinion than a fact

Carpe Imago Photography wrote:
Hogwash.  Money and perverse intent can go hand in hand as easily as money and poverty.  True, a model might be more willing to shoot the "GWC content shoot" in the Ritz Carlton as opposed to the Super 8, but the intent is the same.  If the motivation for the shoot is more personal gratification than capturing great images you are a GWC. 

Just my two cents.

Edit:  Scratch that...the really good models that I know wouldn't fall for it regardless of the setting.  If they found themselves in that situation, they would walk as soon as they figured it out.  My apologies to them for not giving them enough credit!

I agree with you on this, though your edit is a little general. I'll shoot with those types of people because they've got plenty of money. I'm not in this to be some top model, I couldn't handle the other girls! I'm here to do something fun that I enjoy and make money while I'm at it.

What amuses me the MOST is that pretty much every GWC that I have met doesn't realize that they are a gwc, and will talk for ever about all these other guys that are gwc's. It makes me laugh sooo much.

As for what seperates most of the photographers here (hobbists) from the GWC's its usually the attitude and intent. The gwc's are often shooting in the cheesy sets (hotel rooms) have POS cameras (both meanings apply) and on camera flashes. The quality of their equipment is usually a dead giveaway. However, that isn't to say that there aren't fantastic photographers that have done stellar work with that type of a setting and equipment. Yes, it does happen, its just rare.

Some GWC's actually manage to start taking good images and buy a lot of equipement if they've got enough money. The attitude still remains, and often times they rarely know how to creatively and effectively use the equipement.

Just my thoughts.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
What intent amounts to someone being a GWC?  Depending on what your definition is, most of the photographers on this site could be considered GWCs...Myself included.

e-string wrote:
MM's definition is "only interested in photography to get hot ladies to get nekkid for him."

So does that make me a GWC?  It would be rather disigenuous for me to claim I didn't enjoy photographing naked women.

e-string wrote:
Other people add that they're trying to get dates or sex.

Does it have to be actual sex or merely the discussion of sexuality? 

e-string wrote:
I would also add that there's an additional/alternate definition that it's someone whose pictures look like bad snapshots.

My favorite camera to use cost me $20 and has a plastic lens.  Many people have dismissed my toycamera work as the product of ineptitude.


Does mere intent pull one back from the brink of GWC-ness?

I'm not trying to be difficult...just point out that who's a GWC and who isn't is more an opinion than a fact

Enjoying it, and it being your whole goal are two totally different things.

Actual sex, I think. But that could be a gray area.

"Toy" cameras can be used to make good art if you're a good artist. There's a big difference between that and a shitty snapshot of a naked girl on your couch with a used glass on the coffee table next to it, with lighting that came from Home Depot.

If you mean intent to make art or good images (and it's backed up by some actual effort), I would say that pulls one back from the brink of GWC-ness.

Sarah Ellis wrote:

Oh, you poor man.

not really... experienced free love 60's style in san francisco..


there's really not that much that's new under the sun..

e-string wrote:
"Toy" cameras can be used to make good art if you're a good artist. There's a big difference between that and a shitty snapshot of a naked girl on your couch with a used glass on the coffee table next to it, with lighting that came from Home Depot.

Actually, a lot of my lightset comes from Home Depot.  Light is light if you know what you're doing.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Actually, a lot of my lightset comes from Home Depot.  Light is light if you know what you're doing.

True. But the only guy I've ever seen use it was definitely a GWC.

Frog516 wrote:
is he trying to sleep with all the models?

don't know

Doug Sampson wrote:
True or false?

I know of a man that flies models to NY, puts them up in a hotel with all expenses plus pays them their model rates just because he enjoys it. Yes he does nudes.

I will bet he will never be accused of being a GWC and I'll bet most models would jump at the chance.

Doug... it's the INTENT that makes the GWC, nothing else... NOTHING!

If he does it with the intend to also get laid... then he is a GWC, if he does NOT have that intent, he is simply a rich photographer who can afford to fly in models, all expenses paid.

e-string wrote:
True. But the only guy I've ever seen use it was definitely a GWC.

the plastic you need to made a diffuser costs $7.50 at tap plastic.. plus it's fun to do on a cloudy day..

UdoR wrote:

Doug... it's the INTENT that makes the GWC, nothing else... NOTHING!

If he does it with the intend to also get laid... then he is a GWC, if he does NOT have that intent, he is simply a rich photographer who can afford to fly in models, all expenses paid.

a horndog is a horndog, how much he paid for his leash doesn't matter..

Frog516 wrote:
is he trying to sleep with all the models?

If he's rich he won’t have to try

C R Photography wrote:

If he's rich he won’t have to try

Good point. Money makes men real sexy don't it?

Doug Sampson wrote:

Good point. Money makes men real sexy don't it?

My lawyer advises me that I do not recall.

Vibe N Vision wrote:
So then should I assume that "professional" photographers don't wanna get laid?

Yes this is true. "Professional photographers" that shoot sexy women all day long, have absolutely no interest in woman at all.

Frog516 wrote:

Yes this is true. "Professional photographers" that shoot sexy women all day long, have absolutely no interest in woman at all.

That's what I thought...thanks for clearing it up.

Doug Sampson wrote:

Good point. Money makes men real sexy don't it?

Maybe for some women, but not for all of us.

lotusphoto wrote:

Sarah Ellis wrote:
Oh, you poor man.

not really... experienced free love 60's style in san francisco..


there's really not that much that's new under the sun..

Umm... yes there is something new under the sun from what you saw in the 60's. 
Today it's hairless!  You can actually see what you're eating!

Creative Image wrote:
What would it be if a really rich guy flew a model to New York, paid her well, shot her nude, came on to her, and produced REALLY great images?

OMG, I think I just described a bunch of famous NYC shooters.

Ron

See this is the irony of the situation.  I completely agree with Udor that being a GWC is simply about intent, and yet if most of us MEN went back in our personal histories we would likely all hold the title of GWC at some point.  I've loved shooting as long as I can remember, but there was a time from when I was 16-18 that my camera became a tool to help approach women (I was a bit self conscious and it helped break the ice).

Then at about 19 I pretty much stopped photographing women entirely, and then picked it up again about a year ago.  My motivation is entirely different now than it was twenty years ago.  Was I a GWC then...yeah, I was.  Am I now?  I don't believe that I am.  My first rule of photography is to be passionate about what you shoot.  I think it's a whole lot easier to devote the time and resources to improving your skills (like the NY shooters referenced above) when you love what you shoot.

But if you're ONLY shooting to see women partially clothed or nude, it doesn't matter how much you love them or what your skill level is...you're a GWC.

lotusphoto wrote:



guy goes up to a woman,


'would you sleep with me for $100,000?'

'sure'

'how about $10?'

'what kind of woman do you think i am?'

'we already know what kind of woman you are, we're just haggling over the price.."

This quote is generally attributed to Winston Churchill.

Frog516 wrote:
Yes this is true. "Professional photographers" that shoot sexy women all day long, have absolutely no interest in woman at all.

Vibe N Vision wrote:
That's what I thought...thanks for clearing it up.

True true true - for at last - from the closet - I can reveal - my true identity!

SuperMonk


That's how I do it. Ayuup.



bt

Doug Sampson wrote:
True or false?

I know of a man that flies models to NY, puts them up in a hotel with all expenses plus pays them their model rates just because he enjoys it. Yes he does nudes.

I will bet he will never be accused of being a GWC and I'll bet most models would jump at the chance.

Well instead of making assumptions, let me ask this:  do you know at all if he gets these models simply to salivate over a naked woman on picture paper?  Or does he produce quality work?  Do you know any models that have taken him up on his offer?  Is he sadly voyeuristic, or just rich with nothing to spend money on but beautiful women?

There actually ARE people who spend money on hobbies, or even habits.

Vibe N Vision wrote:
So then should I assume that "professional" photographers don't wanna get laid?

Don't ever assume that!  Professional photographers are just like any other man, always looking to get laid.  So we do what we do professionally, I'd bet my left arm that 99.99% of professional photographers would not turn down a good piece of ass from a model...

e-string wrote:
Nope, not true.

MM's definition has nothing to do with wealth, skill level, or anything else. Only intent. And I've heard of photographers considered to be pretty high-level called GWCs.

If he's doing it to try to get something other than images, he's a GWC. $ doesn't matter.

Completely agree.