Following on from my other post re: looking for models etc,Am I right in my suspicions that a GWC (guy/girl with camera) is something to be avoided like the plague.I've seen on various other sites, most not half as friendly as Madcow that this is often used as a derogotary term for a photographer, usually male who simply has a camera, and not the full lighting and accessory kit to go with it.If so, this begs several questions:
* In order to avoid this term, do I assume that I'd fare better spending circa £10k on a Nikon D3X and the full accessory package.
* At what point can you be considered not to be a GWC? When you have accumulated a vast array of equipment or simply your first set of lighting?
* Are we to assume that the people quoting this term did just that and blew a small fortune on a complete studio and camera set up and went from there, thus avoiding this stigma?
*Is the term purely relative to equipment and not knowledge, experience and qualifications etc?

I'd love some feedback on this from all corners,photographers, models, make-up artists/stylists etc.I'm not looking for a heated debate,rather an informed opinion form a cross section of members.I have far too much respect for everyone here to engage in expletive ridden ranting.
Many thanks and I look forward to your comments
Regards Wayne.

TopMember

Hello Wayne, I would like to add a though about the subject.
As a newbie to modelling, I have read a tons of forum posts warning against GWC.
However, I have had three shoots with GWC, arranged on a different sites. I have found them to be lovely, professional (as the amateurs can be), and very respectful of my levels.
The photos were for their private collection, not that I am overly bothered , as I got paid as arranged.
Like everything else, it all boils down to common sense.
Pre shoot communication is a key, both sides need to know exactly what is expected, and if in any doubt, confirm.
Always check referencies, and if there isn't any (anyone has to start somewhere) than back to common sense and a gut instinct.

I don't think that just because the photographer has a nice flashy camera and a set of lights it gives him any more credibility.

Regards,
Poppyxx

Premium

Hi Wayne. As someone just venturing into this world I would hope that people respect that everyone has to start somewhere. I would always be upfront about my skills and wants so hopefully the model could make her own mind up. I am aware of at least one professional (and I use the term loosely) with studio etc who I would be wary of for a variety of reasons.

Hi Poppy...good comments from you I think.

Cheers, Paul

Premium

As far as I am aware, the term GWC has absolutely nothing to do with the level of kit that someone has but instead is a description of their motivation for taking pictures.

I think the pertinent part of the phrase is "Guy" as opposed to "with camera".

My understanding is that you have a photographer who is interested in photography ie. the mechanics and aesthetics of it and is constantly trying to improve their skills and their aim is to create the best images they can. Or you have a guy with a camera who is using the camera as an excuse to get close to models and really has no desire to improve their skills or to produce nice imagery.

Hi Poppy/Paul,
Thanks for your input,some good points raised by both of you,the core aspect here I'm feeling is comunication, which I always do in a polite and professional manner.I don't use text or "street" language and such like, and never use terms which would set the model on edge or make her feel uncomfortable.I'm going to play devils advocate and say that I'm sure more than one of the guys currently quoting this term, must have at one time been a "GWC", before upgrading and adding to their equipment collection, which I personally feel is very disrespectful to say the least.I know elitism exists in all walks of life, however it seems very prominent in this industry.There's nothing wrong with wanting to develop your skills etc and be the best that you can in your chosen field, whatever that may be, but surely you wouldn't step on the junior ranks on the way up,bearing in mind that was you once upon a time? I sincerely hope I haven't upset anyone with this thread, I have the utmost respect for everyone here, whatever their vocation and level of proficiency.
Regards Wayne.

TopMember

You are spot on PG... It doesn't matter how much people have spent on equipment, it is there attitude and motives towards models that is the problem.
Hugs xxx

Premium

Out of interest, how would you describe your main image, the aesthetics of it and the motivations behind it?

Hi PG and thanks for your post,
That's a very valid point and worth noting.I'm reading from your feedback that motivation and dare I say it "personal gratification" are the main reasons for their approaches to models.All the more interesting for me personally as being a novice I casted for a lingerie/topless home shoot and almost got hung,drwan and quartered, albeit on another site I hasten to add.Some very harsh and critical words spoken and borderline nasty to be honest.As a novice, I have to admit I questioned my future in photography as the implications raised did nothing for my confidence and will to carry on.I have however decided to pursue my goals,if only to prove to the "elite" and ultimately myself that "he who dares"...
Regards Wayne.

Hi PG,
That is my rebellious side and dare I say it very keen, sometimes too keen sense of humour kicking in.Nothing more, just me being me,
Regards Wayne.

Premium

Slightly confused. So was the last comment in reference to your comment before or in answer to question I raised about describing your main image?

Hi PG,
My last was in response to your question of my main image,slight overlap on the posting I suspect.
Regards Wayne.

As an interesting development, on another well known forum, my good lady informs me there is currently a debate ongoing about GWC and has the added flavour of the word "tog" being used in a similiarly derogotary fashion.
Regards Wayne.

Quoting @our man flint from post 5

+1

Premium

OK well from my own perspective if I had taken a similar image and been asked the same question my answers would probably have been more along the line;

I was trying to achieve a glamour style image where the breasts were the main focus of the image by placing them a third of the way down the image. This was further accentuated by the face being partly obscured hence removing the natural distraction of that and enforced by the bottom of the frame of the mirror at the same level. I then tried to tried get the sections of flooring pointing into each of the bottom corners to be more pleasing to the eye and mirroring the angle of the table and also of the models legs all combining together to create an arrow effect once again pushing the viewers attention back to the main focus of the breasts.

I'd probably also mention something about the lighting being intentionally flat to give a more fly on the wall/voyeuristic feel to the image.

But I guess that is how people perceive images differently.

Hi PG and many thanks for your feedback.I personally didn't see the various points you have raised, as a novice I very much took an opportunistic shot and left it at that, no particular attention to lighting, angles or rules of thirds etc.I hope that with practice and experience I will be able to "see" such attributes in both finalised images and potential photographs.As always I'm willing to listen and keen to learn,
Regards Wayne.

Premium

As you say, when you start off there is so much going on at the same time that a lot of things you wished you could take into account there just isn't capacity for them. As time goes by slowly some of the lower level functions become more second nature which then allows room for you to slowly add more in at the higher level if that makes sense.

What I would suggest is that even though currently you might not be able to take into account all of the compositional elements at the time of the shoot go back through the images you have taken, see where you've maybe fluked some things that you can take advantage of through careful cropping and eventually these things will start to flow through into the pictures you actually take.

Premium

Sorry to take this a little further away from the original and endless GWC question .

Peter I'm very interested as tohow you would decribe the aesthetics and your motivations for your main image ,the reason I ask is I have an almost identical shot from a while back ,never give it much thought as it's just a picture I took .

Wayne,
I toally agree with the comments made by "The View" I am also just venturing into the world of photography on an amateur basis and make it very clear to any models i have contact with that i am total newbie. These models are all very understanding when they realise that i am a newbie and are very helpful. As you stated "does it make you a photographer if you have 10k's worth of equipment" the answer to that is NO.
P.S. In the world we live in of computer graphics and the advances in photo editing is it necessary to spend a fortune on cameras,lighting...........etc?

Premium

OK so I am a newbie and just putting this out there:

1. GWC, I always understood this to be someone blindly taking shots (gratuitous or not) with no deeper thinking about composition, message, target audience etc. They might be well or lesser intentioned, who knows?

2. Photo editing. You can't polish a turd and good kit helps but you can still make a good photo with lower end kit. I am not saying my photo's are great, far from it in fact but up until this week I've been working with a reasonably good point and shoot. Now I have a DSLR I have 3 shoots planned for next week. I hope I have gained enough experience to outgrow the compact and deserve the DSLR.

3. As for going back through old images. Gahhhhh That's a double edged sword... On one hand you can see how far you've developed which is great but in doing so see how much you missed. I personally want to re-shoot just about everything .....

Hi PG and many thanks for your sound advice,I have downloaded a photographic tutorial and will scroll through it over the weekend.
Can we assume then that attitude,approach,motivation and an overall professional approach no matter what kit etc you have sets you aside from the GWC brigade.
As a foot-note I have just had a text message stating "that an amatuer photographer is more than capable of producing professional quality images,the fact he may not make his living from photography does not necessarily infer his quality of work is poor,in much the same way as a professional in the industry may occasionaly produce work of a standard below par".
A very valid point.
Regards Wayne.

Hi cfcp,thanks for posting, as per yourself, I always make models aware of my somewhat novice status, and would welcome more feedback from models on this thread.Are they more likely to work with you based on kit or experience etc,would they be swayed by your £10k worth of kit, what the shoot was worth in terms of compensation or your initial approach be it very professional or otherwise.
Come on ladies and indeed gents, models input most welcome,
Regards Wayne.

Premium

Let's see.

The motivation pretty much came from two things. One was a memory of what I'm sure was a James Bond poster from the 80's looking through a models legs to a scene beyond and the fact I had done my first outdoor shoot a few weeks before but it had rained the whole day. One shot I had in my mind but never got the chance to take was of the umbrella obscuring most of the model with just the naked bum and legs showing below it. So I started following the original idea but the shots didn't quite have what I was looking for so decided to bring in the umbrella as a prop.

Aesthetically speaking, although I wanted the form and shape of the umbrella I didn't want it to detract from the model so the silhouette effect lighting achieved this and also by having this as far down as the models face gave an interesting combination of anonymity as further suggested by the fact that it is the models back that is mainly displayed to the viewer but also a feeling of intimacy as the silhouette of the face is framed within a fairly tight area made by the shoulder and the umbrella.

The positioning of the feet are done so that along with the shadow there is a nice flow to the left hand corner which to me balances the slight offset S shape flowing from the bottom left corner, up the left leg, through the body and out through the umbrella towards the top right corner. With the offset of the umbrella at the top being similar to the offset of the left leg at the bottom.

The model is placed roughly using thirds to the left with g-string at half way down the image. This seemed strong enough that the horizon didn't feel out of place where it was.

Again the placement of the umbrella with more gap on the right than the top was supposed to mirror the feet being closer to the bottom with more gap to the left.

There may have been more but off the top of my head that's what spring to mind.

Hi Craig, point 1 you made is very valid,only the person with the camera in hand would know this, lack of forethought etc maybe down to experience or lack of it or something overlooked in their haste to get up close and personal with a model.2,another good pointer, even free software can offer basic fixes and manipulation so something of a get out of jail free card in some circumstances.Point 3, I haven't got that much in my archive yet, would take me 5 minutes to browse,form a very limited opinion and then exit the folder.Maybe this time next year....
Regards Wayne.

Premium

Thanks Peter, thats amazing information from a picture .now it looks like I'll have to dig out the shot I'm thinking about and see how I did it ,pretty sure I didn't plan it though cheers Peter .

Wayne sorry for taking off topic .

Premium

Oh and another motivation was for the overall shoot I was trying to do it with a more glamoury feel as I had never really done glamour which being me probably explains why it ended up being a black and white with the face silhouetted.

Hi Paul,
No worries,I've just read the reply and I need an aspirin now.Lots to learn from looking at that response but all helps the learning curve.God forbid any should ever ask me for a breakdown of such detail..I suspect my first word would be "TAXI!"
Regards Wayne.

Premium

In some ways Paul probably asked about the wrong image but everyone is different. Some people naturally see great images but can't explain why, some people emulate pictures they have seen and so may know nothing of balance etc. but create great images because someone before them did while others may sit there for hours with a ruler. None of them necessarily produce better images than the others.

Premium

Just curious on this. My profile pic is just me, no frills. It's meant to portray just a relaxed, chilled out, casual, easy going me. I don't even think it's well shot, just some natural lighting and a PnS on a tripod and timer. Why would I choose my favourite shot of someone else? Ok I get that it's an example of my work but I think that I am the brand so to speak and my output varies on what I am trying to achieve. I have the same profile pic across all forums I participate on as I believe that recognition and networking is vital to getting on and addressing the challenges already raised in this thread. It's just a hobby for me but that's no reason for not addressing it as a professional business.

Premium

I can never understand why people put labels on things. I am a guy who takes photos, and don't call myself a photographer as it isn't my main source of income. I am still, for many reasons; an amateur when it comes to shoots, and though I have the poise to relax and communicate with a model, I do often rush in to the deep end and take far to many photos (partly down to the advice of a friend who is an award winning photographer for the glossy's saying shoot often).

I shoot with high(ish) end equipment (Nikon D90) and don't over edit my images at all (apart from borders and my watermark), so does this make me a GWC?

Premium

This could get quite deep but you say you don't understand why people put labels on things then go out of your way to avoid being labelled a photographer but classify yourself as an amateur with high end (ish) equipment who sticks a watermark on your images....

A GWC? not from what you've said but a labeller? Hmmmmm I think so People need to categorise and sort things for filing in their heads. Labelling helps and it's useful to be on the same page as everyone else.

Hi Craig/Sunny,Slightly off topic but worthy of a reply nonethless,I'm guessing choice of profile pic is purely personal.Whilst one person maybe entirely comfortable with their own photo,the next might not for a multitude of reasons.Some people, both male and female are naturally photogenic,whilst others lend themselves less favourably to this fine art, myself included.It's extremely important to approach things in a professional manner, I thinks that's a golden rule.If you offer respect and courtesy I suspect you'll reap the same.However, at the risk of making a rod for my own back, I wouldn't use an image of myself for my profile photo due to me having a somewhat "unconventional/undesirable" appearance, to elaborate, shaved head, heavily scarred from a skin complaint, extremely heavily tattooed,neck, hands, arms etc which on first glance can draw sharp intakes of breath and raised eyebrows etc.I struggle to book models as it is, let alone with my artwork and scars putting people off.I'd only need a number board under my chin and it's hello Crimewatch.All that said, I'll always approach people professionally and politely,hopefully they'll see beyond the skin.
I don't think you have to earn a living from what you do in order to justify it's title,in much the same was as for example a birdwatcher may not be employed as such but it doesn't make him any less a birdwatcher.You could argue the point that a professional photographer earns his living from his work, whilst a hobbyist is just that, a person who's hobby happens to be photography, but still a photographer nonetheless.I think the overriding opinion of all who have posted is that your approach and attitude and motivation are the factors that decide who's a GWC or not,not what kit you shoot with.
Regards Wayne.

Hi Wayne,

Myself and Jim (Bluephin) were only having a chat about this the other day over coffee.

It is a difficult question because, as someone already pointed out, all photographers start somewhere. Some of the more famous togs I know, such as Dan Reid and Paul Underhill who both now shoot for major international magazines and brands, they started out like I did taking pictures in nightclubs for fun.

As far as equipment is concerned, it really doesn't matter a whole lot. I know a chap who works at a radio station I helped setup, he went off and decided to become a wedding photographer. He bought himself a Nikon D700, which in the hands of a talented person is a bloody fantastic camera, but sadly in the hands of this radio presenter turned wedding photographer it wasn't. His pictures of an important dinner event last year looked, for want of a better description, worst than those taken on a camera phone.

The best advice I've received about equipment came from a friend and professional photographer, he once said when asked what is the best camera to use, "the one you feel most comfortable using".

I've personally evolved in my cameras, from a Minolta Dimage 7 to a Nikon D70, and now the Nikon D200 I use today. Admittedly I've got the battery grip, SB800 flash, and a fisheye lens among the 4 lenses I own, but it is the camera that makes the difference, and knowing how to get the best out of it and yourself, that's what's important.

My one last comment is this, a good photographer will know and plan a shoot before they walk in the door. They will know what they want to achieve, and have the images mapped out in their head. And above all they will act professionally, both in communication with the model, and on the day of the shoot.

For me that is what separates a GWC, from someone who is serious about what they do.

Oh and that is my picture on my profile Wayne, taken by Bluephin in a shoot we did this year. But I agree, not every tog likes to use their own mug as a profile picture. Besides that, using a picture you took on a shoot is a cheeky way of getting around the 5 picture limit for free users.

Also I call myself an Amateur, Experienced photographer on my profile. I say that because even though I've been doing this for a long while now, been paid on many occasions, and have indeed been in print often (this week my work is in the Southampton Daily Echo), I don't earn a living from it. I run my own business for the last 7 years, working in media and IT among others. Those are my professions, but I enjoy photography.

Premium

Quoting PGPhotographic from post 4

I think PG Summed it up right there,

As Matt mentioned we were only toalking about this other day, Kit means nothing as Matt also mentioned your camera / kit should be what you most happy shooting with.
if it was not for the ease of the digital age what with uploading / image share and instantly having a display of your images on your DSLR I would still be shooting with the old 35 mm film SLR.

Although I have a far bit of kit when it comes to studio items and DSLR cameras,
Im also not afraid to pull out work lights that Builders use or if outdoors turn the my Cars head lights on to get some interesting effects.
And im also a big fan Of Holga lomo cameras (that are Seen as Toy cameras no matter how pro the Tog is that uses them) I even have some Holga lens for my Nikon DSLR


just to be clear on my take of a "GWC" guy/girl with camera is someone that snaps pics for his or her own use "at home" or to flash to there friends to boast about the hotties they have pics of!

photographer is someone that takes pic's to express their art, improve there skills and to promote them selfs as a photographer and most of the time is shooting for or with a project in mind that they are paid to work on.

Im another one like Matt in the that I call myself a Experienced Amateur, Photographer even though I have been woring with my camera for a number of years off n On and getting paid.

It was only this Year that I made the step into it full time. in the eyes of the Inland revenue Im a professional Photographer as my only income is from my photographic work, But Im still picking things up and as people tell me "I always under sell myself" lol

Hi Matt/James,
Many thanks for your input, some very good points and comments posted,I think I'll leave any paid shoots for the time being,I suspect the way forward for myself is maybe some studio time or a group shoot to secure a least a couple of decent references, then hopefully progress from there.
Regards Wayne.

Premium

Quoting @our man flint from post 9

Quoting @our man flint from post 9

I've had this sort of reaction too...just pisses me off now, but at the time a so-called 'critique' from a professional really screwed my confidence up, and I stopped taking photographs for a while. Now, I'm afraid, I just plough my own furrow in as capable and polite way as I am able, and if it's OK with the models I shoot, that's fine by me. If it's not, then I wouldn't expect them to work with me again.

I could go out and spend money I haven't got on top-of-the-range kit, but it wouldn't automatically make me a great photographer...it would still be Me but with expensive kit!

Premium

I feel the need to very strongly agree with 2 posts here:

PGPhotographic:
"My understanding is that you have a photographer who is interested in photography ie. the mechanics and aesthetics of it and is constantly trying to improve their skills and their aim is to create the best images they can. Or you have a guy with a camera who is using the camera as an excuse to get close to models and really has no desire to improve their skills or to produce nice imagery."

Bluephin:
"just to be clear on my take of a "GWC" guy/girl with camera is someone that snaps pics for his or her own use "at home" or to flash to there friends to boast about the hotties they have pics of!"

From my experience, GWCs will spend money (that they sometimes don't really have) just to impress people into thinking they're something they're not, and that their motivation is something it isn't.

And because of this they'll often have the loudest mouths and the least talent. I've had better experiences with a few outdoor pics with a cheap camera than some of the full-studio-expensive-kit-all-the-bells-and-whistles shoots I've done.

I personally feel that the term GWC has nothing whatsoever to do with the money spent on kit, and everything to do with the actual person taking the photos.

Quoting @the abbot from post 36

That's my approach to most aspects of life, whether it be work, social etc, I'll always be me.In a slightly twisted approach, I'd much rather someone not like me as "me" than take a shine if I were operating under a different persona if that makes sense?
Regards Wayne.

Premium

As has already been said, and i can only echo the comments of others.

A "GWC" has absolutely nothing to do with equipment (Photographic Equipment), or an ability/inability to turn out very high quality, technically perfect images.

It is the reason for working with/hiring a Model (in the "Old" days, a GWC often had a camera but no film in it).

Amount and price of Equipment (Nikon, Canon or Kodak) does not a "Photographer" make, neither does the label.... Professional, Amateur, Enthusiast, Hobbyist... etc

My view is... If you do what you do for love, enthusiasm, a desire to improve your creativity and talent, art and/or money.. those are all good enough reasons.

The only person you should allow to be your judge...is you...not some Gear/Art snob.
Remember... an blurred image to one person, is creative/imaginative focusing to another.

Enjoy what you do, and do it as long as you enjoy it.

Mattaukland said "...a good photographer will know and plan a shoot before they walk in the door."

I'm not sure I agree with that. What happened to spontaneity? Some of the pictures I've been most proud of have been a combination of events that happened in the moment.

My profile picture was purely spontaneous. A burst of strong sunlight contributing as much to the final image as the model's pose or my direction.

There is a difference between shoots where you pay the model and where you get paid for the shoot. If I were ever in the enviable, latter position I would take a totally different approach than when I am paying for the model's time.

I'm definitely not a GWC. I have a tripod as well

Paul

Quoting @our man flint from post 21

I'd be more than happy to shoot with you, subject to the following conditions, studio based shoot, full cctv monitoring, 2 burly chaperones,all fees including travel paid in advance in sterling, full unedited cd of ALL images provided within 24 hours (non watermarked) plus anything else that springs to mind in the meantime!!
Best wishes....your Mrs!! xx

Premium

Quoting Chippguy from post 40

I know I always plan my shoots and what I want to get from them, even if its just me testing out lighting ideas to trying out artistic ideas for my own portfolio.

Sometimes you have to plan them and plan them very well as your working on very limited time scale and for a very fussy client who will throw the set back at you and tell you to shoot it again at your own costs as its not what they had in mind.

very much the same as shooting live events you plan where the best place to be to capture the stage or the crowd from you go over all the places people will be all before they even get there.
But you can never plan the in the moment shots of people having a good time dancing that kinda just hapens and you hope your in the right place at the right time.


But I do also totaly agree with you Paul, that sometimes its the spontaneous Snap or 3 that you take when your models taking a break leaning on a wall smoking a cigarette telling you she or he is getting their dog neutered after the shoot....

That are the images that take your breath away, and those you just can not plan.


James.

Quoting @Naomi Elizabeth from post 41

Oh you're way too kind....please let me have your rates and availabiity.

Premium

Hmmm...would you like us to leave you two alone?!

I've got no chance..she's on the couch with the other male in her life....our 5 stone american pitbull terrier, he's way above me in the ranks, and the food chain come to that!!

Quoting Chippguy from post 40

Quoting Bluephin from post 42

Hi Paul/James,
Two schools of thought there and I'd be tempted to say both are very valid and indeed have a place on shoots.I to would approach different shoots in slightly different ways, depending on the nature of the assignment,be it commissioned work or otherwise.I know all about the ("P's) preventing a p--s poor performance etc, yet the candid, spontaneous type of shots have often been responsible for some great work and neither should be ruled out.
Regards Wayne.

Was reading this thread this evening with a close friend who is an professional international photographer. He mentions this topic comes up alot on many forums and it upsets him that there is this school of thought that top camera = best pictures! so i thought i would write and mention some of the things he said in conversation.

His advice to the new photographers out there is not to get stuck in the thought that you need top end kit to be a good photographer, its all about vision being able to see a good frame/angles and dedication to the art. Anyone can pick up a top of the range canon or nikon etc and point and click and take a picture but doesnt mean to say because its top end kit that its going to be a better picture than someone who has the eye and belief and knows what to look for and uses a very cheap camera.

Remember a camera is a tool thats all it is, just like a formula 1 car is a tool for a driver doesnt mean everyone can jump in that and be on pole position, it takes skill and hard work and of course dedication and practice. So little steps.

Then once you have the skills behind you then treat yourself to a good camera it will then enhance what you do. He also mentioned that a camera alone is nothing, to get the best out of any shot you need to understand lighting conditions, shadows etc etc so not only do you need to learn the skills of camera play you also need to understand the other aspects too so you need good lighting rigs, off camera flashes, screens, beauty dishes etc.

Anyways i hope i have not derailed the thread, just thought i would mention what he said and i know he is right because of the work he does and most of the photographers i have worked with all seem to follow the same line of thought when i watch them on set or on location.

Dawn
xxx

Premium

Hi Dawn.

Thanks for posting the above. I shall certainly take some comfort from what you say and continue in 2012 to try and transfer what I see in my head to something tangible for all to see. It's going to be a long year!!

Cheers

Paul

Morning everyone,
An interesting take on the GWC topic from a guy on another forum,

"Then there is the GWC market where photographers don't really care what the model looks like so long as they are naked. A lot of the BBW type of model will attract this type of photographer and being large and having big boobs will definitely get you more work in this sector."

I'm not entirely sure that's true in all honesty, prior to losing one and a half stone stone in under 10 weeks, my good lady always considered herself to be a curvy mature amateur model and had completed assignments for the Walpole group amongst others, along with of course the guys from Madcow and other sites she is a member of.Neither the Walpole group or indeed anyone she has worked with to date are or have presented themselves as being part of the GWC brigade.
It may be me but it seems to be suggesting that plus sized models are only worthy of attracting the GWC ranks, when I know for a fact this is far from the case.I understand their is a growing marker for plus sized models in both fashion and other genres.
Regards Wayne.

Premium

Hi Wayne,

I think that guy making thoes coment on the other site is hitting a low blow,
Models work to make a living and if they are happy to work with someone for the rate they fixed then size means nothing all models attract GWC's more so if they work in the topless and nude levels or higher big or small.

Models just look into as much as they can about the photographers they get messages from and talk with them before setting up any shoots and if they are happy with how it feels then they just have to hope that its what it seams hence why models should and do take a chaperone to shoots.

If a model is wanting to make money then they work with as many photographers they can and they weather it be a photographer that is known and will bring them that big modeling job that sets them up for life,
or if its just honest photographers with good ideas and willing to pay the models rate in the hope that having the model in his or her portfolio will being them that big photography job that will set them up for life.



GWC can be a term that is thrown around a little to lightly.

and its true term can be lost.


GWC -Guy With Camera

Commonly used in the modeling/photographer biz, 'GWC' is any poser/creep with a digital camera pretending to be a pro/semi-pro photographer to get close to women in the hope of getting closer or getting more than there camera out.

GWC's typically steal the work of others to help them book shoots they have little or no intention on taking photo's other than for there own use "spank bank" don't have any references or have very loose references that lead no where if you look into them.





James.

Premium

Quoting Dawnsdreams from post 47

Some good points Dawn,

and getting back to Kit side of things.

we also have to look at the images that have become well known in resent years the galleries that have displied work of known and unknown photographers that have shot eye catching and iconic images using camera phones , toy cameras , pinhole cameras made from wheelie bins and beer cans.

many many very good images of models and landscapes that have been shot with very basic kit!


James.

Quoting Chippguy from post 40

- I was referring to when you pay for a shoot. Basically you're not likely to turn up to a shoot where you are paying £40 per/hr for a model, and spend time working out what you want.

Oh and I also have a tripod or two, and it extends...ohh err But seriously, I trained in video/film production and editing, before getting into photography.

Like Bluephin said, every time I shoot at a club I tend to get there before doors open, mainly to work out shooting positions on and off stage, ways to get from one room to another via the backstage, and also to work out where the bar and loos are

I haven't put any club images up on here because I didn't think they suited the type of site this is, but when I upgrade in the new year, I might put a few up.

By the way, I'm always happy to meet up with togs and exchange tips, or do a shoot session.

Evening Folks,
Again,confirms my initial thoughts,by all means have a few ideas, but always keep an eye out for the unexpected...has a habit of creeping up on you...hence it's called unexpected.
As per Matt's post,I be more than happy to meet up with local photographers and indeed anyone else from within the industry,my motive is somewhat brash and not ulterior in any way..I make no excuses..I want to learn from those that know,
Regards Wayne.

Happy to hook up and share what I've learnt in the past 8 years. I've done a fare few portfolio shoots for DJs, but haven't worked with any models just yet.