How to differentiate a photographer from GWCs

[sprewell]

1: Never heard the term “GWC” before? Well, add it to your arsenal of model industry terminology. A GWC stands for “Guy With a Camera.” Simply put, the GWC is a guy who spends a lot of money on a professional camera and somehow thinks he now qualifies to shoot with models. In the majority of cases, the GWC has no experience or practical training and simply wants to entice young and naïve aspiring models into taking pictures that are normally for private use and involve nudity or semi-nudity.

2: Some GWCs specialize in glamour photography, which they feel entitles them to shoot models in various stages of undress, implied nudity and Playboy style nudity. However, the GWC usually produces work that looks cheesy, doesn’t utilize the true features of the camera, lighting, setup, etc. Be wary of a glamour photographer whose work mainly consists of models with backgrounds that are taken in a house/personal residence and not a studio or other professional quality background/setting.

Here for the entire article

 

[limwhow]

Very interesting article. Thank you for raising it. A good read and a thought-provoking one indeed.
But somehow I can't help but feel that many photographers start off as some kind of GWC.
It is not possible to leap-frog that beginner stage right into professional status. One has still got to shoot some models in various styles and gain that critical amount of experience.
The only possibility is that these young novice photographers do not participate in shooting models (esp young naive models) in states of undress, in order to avoid being labelled as GWC.
..
Of course there will always be those who only shoot nude/semi-nude shots of models. These we may really have no choice but to bestow upon them this notorious label, especially if they do not progress beyond this (to become professional nude photographers or develop professionally in other genres of photography) and forever stay on as novice nude photographers (a.k.a. GWC).

 

[night86mare]

i never felt the need to shoot just any random girl

i think, we need to shoot what we like, or have a feeling for. if not, you just end up shooting for the sake of collecting.

note that feeling does not include testosterone driven, or the feeling of having something hard in your pants.

people who have a true love for beauty of the female form/face/features, there are such people who exist. the pictures speak for themselves. but they should also be taken together with the photographer's behaviour. i know photographers with decent enough pictures, but what they do......

 

[sprewell]

One has still got to shoot some models in various styles and gain that critical amount of experience.

Good point.

But i would like to think that you don't have to shoot skin-baring models to gain that experience...

 

[night86mare]

Good point.

But i would like to think that you don't have to shoot skin-baring models to gain that experience...

not to mention, attend mass shots, where you have to squeeze with people, limit the angle you have to shoot...

most of the models are also not properly trained to pose..

well, but some people enjoy having comments like "nosebleed" on their thread, maybe they feel powerful, like happy that they have shot something that other similar types of people like to gian to shoot and cannot.. :bsmilie:

 

[peapilot]

You don't need to shoot partial nude girls to figure out how light falls on a subject.

Nor do they need to be in a state of undress for you to learn to pose them.

 

[confession]

More than that. I think the article only scratches the surface.

At this point, the difference between a GWC and a legit photographer has only come out based on a few points like viewing of portfolios. But it does not go forward enough to push real issues surrounding the issue of GWC vs Legit.

In truth, the term GWC while it aptly describes the behavioural issues, one factor that I think will truly determine a GWC vs Legit is not professionalism but ethics.

Bearing in mind that as a photographer (pro, amateur or hobbyist) ethics play an important part. If a so called GWC has ethics and know how to conduct himself, then will he be known as a GWC or photographer? Likewise, vice-versa a legit photographer. Ultimately, the distinction for us to determine which is which somehow draws a blank a lot of times. There are situations I know of has spheres of gray and confusion as to how do we determine one.

Mass shoots in itself are highly questionable as while yes, people jostling to get angles and trying to snap who knows what may lead one to think that, well, these guys are just trying to snap for the sake of snapping. Which was why DP questioned the shoot ratio before in the past.

The term GWC has been largely linked to portrait photographers, in which case, I will not deny and say that it is incorrect. But before we put everyone into the some categorisation of GWCs vs Legit, I think then the question here is not the conduct of the photographers only but at the same time, the ethics of these photographers collectively and as an individual.

On a much lighter note, in XX's dictionary, GWCs hold a completely different meaning. But that said, a lot of photographers here just starting out tend to think that the genre of glamour will be largely nude photography. I just wonder why.

 

[Youhong]

Got difference meh? :think:

I thought photographer is a subset of GWCs, just that they are a group that takes pictures that are slightly more pleasing.

Maybe this is one way to differentiate...
GWCs use compact/entry-level DSLR while PROfessional photographers use PROfessional bodies...

 

[confession]

Got difference meh? :think:

I thought photographer is a subset of GWCs, just that they are a group that takes pictures that are slightly more pleasing.

Maybe this is one way to differentiate...
GWCs use compact/entry-level DSLR while PROfessional photographers use PROfessional bodies...

Actually it is the other way round...GWCs are subset of photographers. They just exist on the other side of the same coin. Wayyyyyyyyyyyy on the other side of the same coin.

 

[sprewell]

That might have something to to with 'social role'. As the article has carefully pointed out, when equipped with expensive gear, GWCs take up the role of a 'photographer'.

'Social role' is the pattern of behavious that is expected of a person who is in a expected social position.

But as to why the GWC effect only happens within the portraiture circle, i cannot explain. One possibility is the fact that exposure to the glamorous lifestyle of being a fashion photographer, the likes of Geoff Ang, Chuando and Frey getting famous for shooting beautiful women, could suggest why it only happens to portraiture.

So the sequence of event is like this:
guy -> buy camera -> feels like a fashion photog -> photograph women

Sounds absurd. I know too. But i am merely basing my theory on this famous psychology experiment in 1971 called 'The Stanford Experiment'.

More info here.

 

[LenzLaw]

Don't think its possible to differentiate between the two man......

Cos I happen to personally know quite a few professional photographers but who are self-admittedly GWCs at heart............:devil:

 

[Evilchaosz]

Got difference meh? :think:

I thought photographer is a subset of GWCs, just that they are a group that takes pictures that are slightly more pleasing.

Maybe this is one way to differentiate...
GWCs use compact/entry-level DSLR while PROfessional photographers use PROfessional bodies...

With such a naive method of determining GWCs and photographers, you're insulting all photographers with a tight budget who are unable to afford "PROfessional" bodies. That does NOT differentiate GWCs and true photographers, as GWCs are able to spend money on "PROfessional" bodies.

In other words, the equipment does not determine the skills, or in this case, the intentions of the photographer. The photographer does.

How naive. :nono:

One plausible way of differentiating between these two types of men is to look at their portfolio. AFAIK, GWCs would try to capture angles that enhances the raunchiness of the photograph or have the model pose in suggestive positions without a true purpose in capturing a good photograph. It's very obvious actually. Look at the portrait gallery in CS and you'll be able to tell the GWCs.

 

[night86mare]

Sounds absurd. I know too. But i am merely basing my theory on this famous psychology experiment in 1971 called 'The Stanford Experiment'.

sorry, i know the stanford prison experiment pretty well

das experimente is based on it.

but how is this theory related, can you elaborate, i don't really see a link. :think:

 

[baggiolee]

GWC are sith hidding among the jedi....

 

[confession]

One plausible way of differentiating between these two types of men is to look at their portfolio. AFAIK, GWCs would try to capture angles that enhances the raunchiness of the photograph or have the model pose in suggestive positions without a true purpose in capturing a good photograph. It's very obvious actually. Look at the portrait gallery in CS and you'll be able to tell the GWCs.

Plausible, yes but even this method is very much primitive and blase.

There is unfortunately no fixed way of differentiating a GWC vs a Legit based on the portfolio. Some legits has angles that GWCs will have in their port, probably with better lighting. So that basically kills the portfolio argument quite a bit. Unfortunately, the portfolio is no sure-fire of distinguishing the two. It may come off as a first line of info, but beyond that it is very much weak. I guess while the works of the photographer does imply something but that in itself falls into a grey area.

 

[night86mare]

One plausible way of differentiating between these two types of men is to look at their portfolio. AFAIK, GWCs would try to capture angles that enhances the raunchiness of the photograph or have the model pose in suggestive positions without a true purpose in capturing a good photograph. It's very obvious actually. Look at the portrait gallery in CS and you'll be able to tell the GWCs.

i think gwcs basically just want to w*** in one way or another.

so doesn't matter if they take good pictures. you can have beautiful pictures, but if your behaviour is crass and vulgar, it doesn't matter what beauty you capture; in your mind it is no doubt warped, and you are still a gwc. :bsmilie:

i like to see gwc as a mentality. it is so many things, a lack of self-restraint, making photography into less than it is because of primitive urges, thinking with the wrong head.. the list goes on. basically it's just everything that an upright, ethical and professional (in terms of behaviour, not in terms of manner of photography being a main source of income or not) portrait photographer should aim NOT to be, in short.

to be fair, there are gwcs, and there are gwcs. there are some that just like to fantasize and don't do anything; there are those who like to fantasize and try to do something, and there are those who like to fantasize and do something. the first i can still tolerate; the second and third should be cast out.

 

[Picory0]

I feel that SLR camera price has drop so much till a point that many, including young kid own a personal SLR. Not like those day, a SLR was shared within the family.

This created a group of GWCs with SLR mincing like a professional photographer, but they tend not to improve their skills in photography but a crazy skirt chasing.

About mass shot like whatever shows, I never attended any after the car show in 2003 or 2004 (I can't even remember which year). That is the only set of photo I had with some model as my main purpose then was to take car photos to brush up my skill with film SLR.

Reason been, I feel so "disgraced" by some of the GWDSLR. I remember once at the IT show, while I was there with my friend to look for a printer, there came a group of GWDSLR requesting other to give way to them in order for them to shoot the models at the next booth:angry:

Final note, maybe I'm a rare breed in this guy dominated hobby. Thus I don't have the urge to take cheesy photos of my same breed.

 

[Sion]

GWC are sith hidding among the jedi....

Real photographers hide inside a Chewbecca suit? :bsmilie:

 

[night86mare]

Real photographers hide inside a Chebecca suit? :bsmilie:

real photographers hide in a xiaxue suit. :bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[Sion]

to be fair, there are gwcs, and there are gwcs. there are some that just like to fantasize and don't do anything; there are those who like to fantasize and try to do something, and there are those who like to fantasize and do something. the first i can still tolerate; the second and third should be cast out.

What about those who don't like to fantasize and do something? :bsmilie: