Bias against model shooters?

[richardsfault]

I've gotten the feeling more than once that photographers who work with models aren't the kinds most welcome here.

I sense that the bias is subtle and perhaps not intended, but I'm also curious if there have been any negative experiences either on TPF or in the real world that may contribute to such bias.

[danchez]

very intriguing.... I might just have to get my popcorn for this one. What makes you feel or think that?

[richardsfault]

Originally Posted by danchez

very intriguing.... I might just have to get my popcorn for this one. What makes you feel or think that?

Most recently, the response to this thread imploring me not to "mess it up for others":

http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...43#post1001343

I'm very aware that people photographers can be some of rudest and least considerate (perhaps the root cause of any bias), but I take pride in not being that way.

[danchez]

that is a rather interesting response.....

[richardsfault]

Originally Posted by danchez

that is a rather interesting response.....

But I do understand his concern.

Before I shoot a model anywhere, I visit the location by myself and take plenty of pictures.

Besides providing example images of the location, it gives me a chance to sense "vibes", which being a photographer has made me good at.

And as I mentioned, I sensed a "vibe" today that the staff is protective.

[Sweet Caroline]

This doesn't sound directed just at photographers who work with models, but at photographers who use a location as a backdrop for any kind of portrait work that results in their professional or financial gain.

I haven't noticed a bias on this forum, in general, against photographers who work with models. Of course, I don't spend a tremendous amount of time here, and don't often post my work.

Caroline

[richardsfault]

Originally Posted by Sweet Caroline

This doesn't sound directed just at photographers who work with models, but at photographers who use a location as a backdrop for any kind of portrait work that results in their professional or financial gain.

I fall squarely into the awkward "Looking professional but not being so category", making me the kind most vulnerable to being misunderstood.

[danchez]

Originally Posted by Sweet Caroline

This doesn't sound directed just at photographers who work with models, but at photographers who use a location as a backdrop for any kind of portrait work that results in their professional or financial gain. Caroline

This isn't directed at you SC, just how the comment you made struck me:
What are we supposed to do, use ugly backdrops for our professional/financial gain?

[ldelacruz]

I didn't click the link but a lot of the flack against model photogs I am sure is because of a few. GWC is the term the models use. You don't want to be a GWC.

[richardsfault]

Originally Posted by danchez

This isn't directed at you SC, just how the comment you made struck me:
What are we supposed to do, use ugly backdrops for our professional/financial gain?

And might I add, what difference does it make if there's gain or not, as long as the impact on the location is no greater than other customary activities?

Is an amateur who stomps in plant beds preferable to someone who watches their step but charges $500 per session?

richardsfault added 1 Minutes and 45 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Originally Posted by ldelacruz

The reason is because of GWC.

In my world, GWC is a derogatory meaning for someone who shoots models in order to get close to them.

Is the term also popular in the photography field at large?

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by richardsfault

I fall squarely into the awkward "Looking professional but not being so category", making me the kind most vulnerable to being misunderstood.

The thing is, if the staff has decided not to allow professional portrait photography at a location (and I have no idea if that's the case for Klebb), there's absolutely no way for them to tell a hobbiest portrait photographer from a pro. So it's easier for them to just disallow it. What's worse, sometimes they may decide it's easier to just disallow any "professional-looking" cameras regardless of what they're shooting, which could be the concern behind the "ruin it" comment.

As for the original question I don't think there's any bias on this site towards model shooters. Model, portrait, and wedding photographers combined seem to outnumber photographers from other genres (maybe bird photogs are close). I think if you had posted that you were wanting to do "portrait shoots", "engagement shoots", etc the same concern would have been raised; it's not about models per-se.

jeffkohn added 4 Minutes and 54 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

And might I add, what difference does it make if there's gain or not, as long as the impact on the location is no greater than other customary activities?

But it's up to the management to make that call. Part of the problem is that if word gets out that a location is open to portrait pro's, it can end up being overrun with portrait sessions on the weekend, which does impact the location.

[ldelacruz]

Originally Posted by richardsfault

I've gotten the feeling more than once that photographers who work with models aren't the kinds most welcome here.

I sense that the bias is subtle and perhaps not intended, but I'm also curious if there have been any negative experiences either on TPF or in the real world that may contribute to such bias.

I was just answering your question as to why you may feel this way. A lot of people look at model photogs as GWC's.

[richardsfault]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

The thing is, if the staff has decided not to allow professional portrait photography at a location (and I have no idea if that's the case for Klebb), there's absolutely no way for them to tell a hobbiest portrait photographer from a pro. So it's easier for them to just disallow it. What's worse, sometimes they

The way I decide if it is OK to shoot at a given park is to check their rules online and observe all posted signs and notices on location.

For Klebb, the same standard Harris County park rules are listed as for other parks where I have shot multiple times such as Mercer, Meyer, Cypress Top, Hershey, Bear Creek, and George Bush.

That being said, I sensed that there may be something different about Klebb.

It may sound silly, but I believe that "needless asking" is not always a good thing, and can lead to inaccurate advice.

richardsfault added 3 Minutes and 44 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

But it's up to the management to make that call. Part of the problem is that if word gets out that a location is open to portrait pro's, it can end up being overrun with portrait sessions on the weekend, which does impact the location.

Mercer and Oyster Creek are probably the two most popular parks for amateurs and pros alike, but the rules are fair and things run smoothly.

At my last Oyster Creek shoot I did notice "no wading" signs that hadn't been there before.

[wclavey]

Last winter, the members here on TPF who shoot LF decided we should have a get together that was intended to have shooting tips for experienced LF'ers and some "how to" for new people interested in LF but were not yet using it. We were looking for a place to meet for a session that would last most of the day on Saturday.

I have been to Kleb Woods individually and together with Wayne (Venchka) several times and we thought it might be a good place to have our session. But whenever we are planning to descend on someplace with more than 2 people, with large tripods, etc., I always try to clear it in advance.

I contacted the people that run Kleb Woods. It took me about 3-4 phone calls and a brief visit to the Park Manager to arrange what we wanted to do.

This is how it was explained to me: I can't speak for the other Harrris County parks, but Kleb Woods believes that they have a specific charter in the community - - and that charter has several missions, including education and historical preservation. While anyone can come into the park and take advantage of the park services, see the sights, etc., anything that is different from what the usual park goer wants to do needs to fit, they belive, into that charter.

When I described what we were trying to do (photographic educational activities) they agreed... and subsequently opened other services to us as well. The fact that we were using what they considered anachonistic equipment & processes to do it was the icing on the cake, as far as they were concerned. It played into both missions.

Too much asking gets you in trouble, for sure - - it raises the likelihood that someone will say 'No' to something that they previously would not even have thought about. On the other hand, we wanted to establish an on-going relationship with the park manager to be able to have other TPF LF activities there. I suspect it is that relationship that there was concern about damaging.

They were specific about a few things that we had to agree to, but it is probably the same list that the other parks have... The one they kept coming back to was that none of the things we did could be part of a money-making venture (portraits, weddings, engagements, etc.). But once I took the LF camera up, showed them some of my (poor) landscape and historical architecture work, they were fine with what we were doing.

BTW, Richard, I like your avatar...