alias : pwd :       secure login | forgot pwd? ]
7 members online. 
1 user watching this topic.
[ Watch This Topic ]
Show Printer Friendly Message Reply To Topic
Author Topic : 'Work Types' And 'Levels' Instead Of 'Assignments Of Interest' 
racketear

Thread Starter / Photographer
City: Birmingham
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 1775
Views : 1899  Mar 19, 2010 9:45am

I know this topic has been addressed a million times plus, but in the light of recent experience I wondered if a straight forward change might be a really good idea?

Instead of checkboxes for 'assignments of interest' why not have two sets of checkboxes:
'Work Types' which would contain the types of photography of interest to the model / photographer.
'levels' that person is prepared to work up to (within their 'Work Types').

The text in brackets below is a guide as to what would appear when the mouse is held over the checkbox in question (title text).


WORK TYPES:

Runway (on the catwalk/runway as per fashion shows)
Tradeshow (on the stall/podium/catwalk/runway at trade shows)
Spokesmodel (multimedia work representing a cause or product)
Bodyparts (specialising in particular parts of the body e.g. hand modeling)
Catalog (clothes or with products for sales use)
Editorial (in abstract, lifestyle, concept or fashion/high fashion shoots)
Advertising (creating advertising or commercial media)
Fitness (health,fitness,sports or alternative therapy)
Lingerie (underwear which may well include see-through material)
Glamour (sexually provocative, emphasising the sexuality of the model)
Artistic / Figure Nudes (the naked body often showing breasts, genital area, pubic hair etc not usually explicitly sexual in context and usually artistically oriented)
Erotic (imagery designed to sexually stimulate or move the viewer)
Fetish (work involving highlighting sexual preoccupations such as smoking, leather-wear,cosplay,spanking,whips etc)


LEVELS

Strictly Clothed only (only face, hair, neck, arms and legs may be shown uncovered)
Relaxed Clothed (no breast or genital flesh visible at all but other parts of the body may be uncovered)
See-Through Top Only (semi-transparent material over breasts accepted)
See-Through Body (semi-transparent material over nipples / breasts or closed-legged genital area accepted)
Topless (nipples / breasts and other areas above the waist clearly on view and unclothed)
Nude (entire body unclothed, closed legs, genitals not on clear display or pubic hair / superficial genitals on display only)
Nude Open Leg (entire body unclothed, genitals clearly on display)
Insertions (sex toys etc shown entering the body)
Straight Sex (having or simulating sex with another model of the opposite gender)
Gay Sex (having or simulating sex with another model of the same gender)
Group Sex (having or simulating sex with models of the same or opposite genders)

I know that these suggestions and text to accompany them is not perfect, but I feel it would go some way to clarifying how people are prepared to work. It also covers all levels from Amish to the other extreme...

Call me over the top, but I like being able to see at a glance what people do without relying on an often missing text description of someone's practices...

Send Nm Mail to racketear Add racketear to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged | Edited by racketear at 03-19-2010 9:49 AM Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
Orsoncarter

Photographer
City: Bath
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jun 14, 2008
Posts: 8871

I see where you're coming from, but I reckon that the more boxes people have to tick, the less reliable the info will be.

Even with the current tick boxes there are frequent queries about 'does this fall into that category'. I reckon that keeping it simple is the best all round option; if a photographer or a model needs additional info, one can always PM the other.

(Having said all that, I reckon that the category of 'semi-nude' is ambiguous. Isn't 'topless' the most commonly used description?)

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck

Send Nm Mail to Orsoncarter Add Orsoncarter to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
racketear

Thread Starter / Photographer
City: Birmingham
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 1775

quoting post from Orsoncarter:

I see where you're coming from, but I reckon that the more boxes people have to tick, the less reliable the info will be.

Even with the current tick boxes there are frequent queries about 'does this fall into that category'. I reckon that keeping it simple is the best all round option; if a photographer or a model needs additional info, one can always PM the other.

(Having said all that, I reckon that the category of 'semi-nude' is ambiguous. Isn't 'topless' the most commonly used description?)

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck


I would agree with what you said but yes, there is the semi-nude issue and more importantly for me 'artistic-nude' which it seems causes mass confusion. I have encountered as many people who thought that (my least favourite phrase: ) 'implied nude' was the same as 'artistic-nude'. Which it clearly doesn't. And of course 'implied nude' is not a different level to clothed in many people's dialect.

The two confusions above make it worthwhile to me despite any other use. Of course the argument that pre-shoot communication is vital is 100% true, but I wouldn't even bother to contact a model who only worked up to clothed (or perhaps implied nude) levels if I wanted to shoot artistic nudes (nude)...

Send Nm Mail to racketear Add racketear to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged | Edited by racketear at 03-19-2010 10:14 AM Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
racketear

Thread Starter / Photographer
City: Birmingham
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 1775

I'd agree in principle. But then there would be come that might say "I know I say clothes off, but I mean with a curtain wrapped around me."

Or "I do nude, but don't show my nipples or pubic hair." I know it sounds silly, but I've had it said before now.

Send Nm Mail to racketear Add racketear to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged | Edited by racketear at 03-19-2010 10:32 AM Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
Orsoncarter

Photographer
City: Bath
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jun 14, 2008
Posts: 8871

Take your point, but for a system to work properly it would need people to tick the correct boxes. I come back to my earlier point... the existing set of boxes seems to cause a lot of confusion to some, so if there were more boxes there would just be more scope for inaccuracies. So I'll stick with my 'the simpler the better' argument.

The original posting got me thinking about a certain model from somewhere in Wales... She was advertising for 'Playboy nude' work and had that box ticked in her folio, but in her notes she stated that she didn't do nude 'as it is better to leave something to the imagination'. I asked her about the inconsistency. Her reply was "I don't even know what Playboy nude is". For some people, even the utmost simplicity isn't simple enough.


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck

Send Nm Mail to Orsoncarter Add Orsoncarter to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged | Edited by Orsoncarter at 03-19-2010 10:57 AM Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
racketear

Thread Starter / Photographer
City: Birmingham
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 1775

quoting post from Orsoncarter:

Take your point, but for a system to work properly it would need people to tick the correct boxes. I come back to my earlier point... the existing set of boxes seems to cause a lot of confusion to some, so if there were more boxes there would just be more scope for inaccuracies. So I'll stick with my 'the simpler the better' argument.

The original thread got me thinking about a certain model from somewhere in Wales... She was advertising for 'Playboy nude' work and had that box ticked in her folio, but in her notes she stated that she didn't do nude 'as it is better to leave something to the imagination'. I asked her about the inconsistency. Her reply was "I don't even know what Playboy nude is". For some people, even the utmost simplicity isn't simple enough.


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck


Yeah I have a lot of sympathy for your argument, but I feel strongly that it's easier to understand a box that says nude (without clothes and showing nipples/breasts and pubic hair) than to guess what artistic-nude means. Its a matter of being explicit, or not... In all senses

I must say that I'd rather have Kittiy's solution (which I suggest is in line with yours orson) than the current one. It's admittedly hard to say 'I ticked nude meaning I didn't want to show my body'. But my experience shows that it happens. Good job it wasn't for a paid job.

Send Nm Mail to racketear Add racketear to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged | Edited by racketear at 03-19-2010 10:44 AM Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
Anochecer_Fashion

Photographer
City: Bristol
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Oct 13, 2007
Posts: 1287

I agree with Kittiy here. As Runway and Fashion could involve see-thru clothes being worn

Kevin
---------
http://www.anochecer.co.uk
http://www.kevinjamesphotography.net
http://www.theretrostudio.com

Life can begin at any age… It's your choice…



Send Nm Mail to Anochecer_Fashion Add Anochecer_Fashion to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
racketear

Thread Starter / Photographer
City: Birmingham
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 1775

That's exactly why I am separating styles from levels in my idea. That way someone can say "I am up for doing catwalk stuff, but I won't be going for the see-through items at all/without a bra..." It makes sense to say how far you'll go AND what styles you like separately.

Of course someone could still enter 'artistic nude' as a style and 'strictly clothed' as a level, but it would be more obvious from the level boxes which styles you would/wouldn't book them for.

Don't get me wrong, I would hope someone interested in being a supermodel would get what is required of them from the outset, but since you don't always get what you expect, I think it might save some people some time.

(I also fancied a bit of a discussion as I am on strong painkillers and manually cutting out figures that I should have shot against a green screen) Yawn...

Send Nm Mail to racketear Add racketear to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged | Edited by racketear at 03-19-2010 11:59 AM Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
racketear

Thread Starter / Photographer
City: Birmingham
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 1775

Well, that's a majority in disagreement with me and in favour of simplified levels.

I could live with that - if it had pop-up info which explained in details what the words meant

Send Nm Mail to racketear Add racketear to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
racketear

Thread Starter / Photographer
City: Birmingham
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 1775

I worked with a great looking model last week who told me about a 'fashion' shoot he was booked to attend in Japan. He checked for details before confirming and sorting out travel etc what sort of thing he would be required to do.

"Clothes to no clothes and erect" came the reply. As they used to say in the papers 'our reporter made his excuses and left' heh heh heh...

Send Nm Mail to racketear Add racketear to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
racketear

Thread Starter / Photographer
City: Birmingham
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 1775

The irony I was expressing is that explicit means: expressed or shown clearly and openly!

Jim

Send Nm Mail to racketear Add racketear to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
< Previous Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Settings : [ Open Forum ]

You may post topics
You may post replies
You may post images
You may delete your posts