SLE Photography wrote:
Photos get stolen

Collwyn wrote:
That's logic right there. But the girls seem to think that it's gonna happen to them too. They don't know that it's a lot of work.

I tell them that there's really know benefit in someone doing this to their photos, since they aren't a celeb. That convinces some.

Yep.  I've also pulled up MM or omp on my laptop sometimes to SHOW them how many girls out there that look just as good as them would come be naked free, and/or called llamas I know who'll get naked for me any time.  That generally convinces them I have no reason for it.

Of course, this's less of a problem for me as I increasingly simply won't WORK with a girl who says "no nudes."
Plust this lack of reasoning usually also means they want escorts, which is a veto for me.

*EDIT: Both come down to the same lack of trust issue..,if you distrust me that much, why're you working with me?

Collwyn wrote:
I think they aren't so concerned that I'm going to alter their photos, as they are that someone else will.

Of course, if someone else did alter their photo, I don't see how I can prove that I wasn't the one who did it.

Ah, my response to that is #1 NO one can gaurantee no one else will, but by working with a reputable photographer who defends his copyrights you can be assured of having someone who'll go AFTER such alter-ers.

Collwyn wrote:
I usually tell them that unless they're someone famous, it's unlikely anyone would go through the trouble of 'shopping their head onto a porn actress's body.

True enough because that actually does happen to the famous.

rajan patel wrote:
why would someone waste time adding someone else's face on someone else body..

you'd me surprised at why people do the things that they do. It does happen.

when I was in highschool, there was a teacher that some of the students did't like, Someone took and pasted her face onto a x-rated picture from a book of a lady sitting on top of a man's face getting eaten out. The lady on the original picture had her head leaning back having a orgasim, but the teacher's face had that highschool year brook profile smile. Someone had posted the image in the hallway for all to see. I laughed to I had cied.

lotusphoto wrote:
point is, here you can see why i went to the trouble, i hate bush..

Actually all you bush haters sure spend a lot of time doing disgusting photoshop joke pics.  A lot.  One thing about the Clinton haters .... they had a life ....

Collwyn wrote:
Can't tell you how many times I've heard this concern from newbie model's, from newbie model's friends giving them advice on why not to do the shoot, and from model's parents.

OMG- my mom still says this. She just doesnt get it. Its actually pretty funny.

lotusphoto wrote:
this took all of 30 seconds... in fact it took more time to find the pictures i used than to do the work..



point is, here you can see why i went to the trouble, i hate bush.. in your case.. who are you? you're a nice person and all, but you aren't a celebrity that someone would want to screw around with..

there's no motive..

Okay, so it took you some time to find a shot of Bush and block in a fake background.  Now if you had had to PS his head onto someone else's body, that might have taken some work.

Collwyn wrote:
Can't tell you how many times I've heard this concern from newbie model's, from newbie model's friends giving them advice on why not to do the shoot, and from model's parents.

I usually tell them that unless they're someone famous, it's unlikely anyone would go through the trouble of 'shopping their head onto a porn actress's body. 

Any photogs ever had this happen to their photos?

It's been an URBAN LEGEND amongst the non photogapher / non PRO model community for a LONG TIME.  There was an episode of the 1960s television show "THAT GIRL" with Marlowe Thomas where she modeled for some sort of Sears Catalogue ad and her head ended up in on the body of a centerfold in some sort of Men's magazine.  Her boyfriend ends up seeing it when a passenger is reading it in the subway.  Hilarity ensues.......

People for a while have thought that it was easy and COMMON for photographers to swap the heads off of people and put them onto other bodies.  And in the days before photoshop IT WAS NARY NEAR IMPOSSIBLE.  This has been an urban legend by the 'ignorant' that refuses to die.  That ... and the myth that photographers will SELL some unknown newbie model's TFP pics OVERSEAS and make millions of dollars off of them ....

Remember how obvious and SLOPPY 'doctored photos' were in the days before Photoshop?  And it took a really LONG time. 

I have a series of doctored photos by the Soviet Union that are a hoot.  They used to regularly 'erase' people who fell out of favor out of official group pictures (very 1984 stuff).  I have a shot of nine Russian scientists, a really crappy removal of one of the guys in the back (which looks like they smear liquid paper on the photo!) but the official soviet censor forgot to remove the guy's LEGS.  There are nine torsos in the pic but TEN sets of legs and shoes in the shot! LOL!

If snopes doesn't have this in their urban myth section, I'm gonna campaign for them to do so.

Luminos wrote:
Okay, so it took you some time to find a shot of Bush and block in a fake background.  Now if you had had to PS his head onto someone else's body, that might have taken some work.

It also wasn't very good.  Most of the posters to this thread were pointing out how hard it was to make it look real, not an obvious insulting parody.  Any kid can do that, and judging by the internet, often do.

SLE Photography wrote:
Yep.  I've also pulled up MM or OMP on my laptop sometimes to SHOW them how many girls out there that look just as good as them would come be naked free, and/or called models I know who'll get naked for me any time.  That generally convinces them I have no reason for it.

Of course, this's less of a problem for me as I increasingly simply won't WORK with a girl who says "no nudes."
Plust this lack of reasoning usually also means they want escorts, which is a veto for me.

*EDIT: Both come down to the same lack of trust issue..,if you distrust me that much, why're you working with me?

The more I read from you the more I like you. I too am starting to only shoot models who are open to nudity. Mind you, not because I only want to shoot nudes. But because when I do want to, it's not an issue with them.

Back on topic. It's paranoia. There was a thread a couple months ago on this topic where people were pointing out to the model that no one would go through all of this trouble for a non-celebrity. She got offended. WTF?

Collwyn wrote:
I think they aren't so concerned that I'm going to alter their photos, as they are that someone else will.

Of course, if someone else did alter their photo, I don't see how I can prove that I wasn't the one who did it.

In a court of law, you don't have to prove you didn't do it. They have to prove that you did. Burden of proof.

Paz Crystal wrote:
some people are messed up in the head and they will do it

Do you use ordinary aluminum foil on your windows, or do you find that only the heavy duty stuff blocks the alien thought beams?

Len Cook Photographer wrote:
One terrific model I had -- who was having a BALL doing the pictures -- abruptly quit when her mother went ballistic.

The argument?  "What happens if someday when your husband is a Senator and somebody brings out those pictures?"

its all your own fault really....i always have all my models sigh a release stating that they will never join the senate or congressional dating services