Dea and the Beast wrote:
Me: sees Casting call for          Art Nudes/ Lingerie              *applies*
Them: What are your limits for Erotica?
Me: I am not sure I'll be shooting Erotica with you.
Them: But you have it listed in your genres.
Me: I also have Underwater listed, does not mean I will shoot it with everyone.
Them:
Me: I would not have applied to your casting if it had mentioned Erotica.
Them:   *deleted their casting*

I won't out anyone, but I will be transcribing a lot more from now on, seeing that the mods are too biased to do their jobs correctly.

Erotica
1
: literary or artistic works having an erotic theme or quality
2
: depictions of things erotic

So I would think that is fair game albeit poorly worded. Erotica is on YOUR menu and any casting call could be expanded to include it if you'd agree. Asking your definition of Erotica would be more appropriate first and then have a discussion after that.

j_francis_imagery wrote:
What are your limits for underwater?

40 meters, I don't think the human body would allow much deeper than that (using normal scuba gear) LOL

j_francis_imagery wrote:
What are your limits for underwater?

One foot underwater? Both feet?

Weldphoto wrote:
You can't get an answer unless you ask a question. I can't see any reason to be offended by being asked for clarification regarding any of the genre listed on MM. Swimsuit;  that can mean anything from skirted bottoms with  baggy tops to dental floss with postage stamp size cloth. So ask and if asked reply.  No offense either way. We need to say what me mean and mean what we say and stop assuming motives.

Thus why I have been attempting to help people communicate more clearly by posting >  https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post/983359  < about listening and comprehending for real.

For some people, English is not their native of first language.  That is an excuse that can only go so far.  However what happened to Dea And The Beast was an obvious "bait and switch" techniques used by car salesmen who I'd sometimes like to punch, but I instead walk out of the car showroom.  Yes, I am without a car after totalling mine out, but I wont be pushed into buying the first thing I come across.  We all have choices.

If you are looking for models for "erotic" then you damn well better specify it with WORDS in your casting!  It's not that hard to do. Then it would also be wise to ask/discuss limits before a shoot.  It's communication. Some folks will "hear" only what they want to, but not really listen. I can understand why it can drive some of the models here to be mad.

Model MoRina wrote:
Photographer says: "what are your limits?"

Model thinks: "there is no real 'concept' he just wants to know how much naughty stuff he can get for his money"

Even if a model wanted to outline her limits, it is impossible to give an answer without a basic goal or concept for the project. I wish photographers would understand what an idiotic question it is without any prior conversation.

If the concept was art nudes, a model might say her limits are no spreads, no pink, no ultra close ups...whatever. But then she shows up at the shoot and there are sex toys as props. When she protests, the photographer can say, "well, you didn't say 'no toys' - since you don't do spreads I thought you could just use your mouth on these."

Does anyone see how ridiculous the "what are your limits" question is? You should have an outline of what you want to shoot, and the model should know ahead of time and be able to say yes or no to any elements. It's all about information and consent, people.

No porn!  Toys mean porn to me.  The concept of a photo shoot should always be communicated even if the plan if for some candid and improvisation.

Dea and the Beast wrote:
You took a bait and switch/ grooming situation and wanted to turn it into a communications issue.


That's what *I* am reading here.

More men tend to do the bait and switch/ grooming technique of communication than women, and it is why I hold my nose when shopping for a car at a dealership.  I used to rent a room from one of the top salesmen of a dealership and found him unethical to the point where it made me disgusted and I had to move. It IS about communication techniques!  You see through it and kick him in the balls!

Liv Sage wrote:

This is why I never get mad at the question. I had a photographer in Paris request an erotic shoot once, and when I told him I don't shoot explicit, he said he just meant a black lingerie set with thigh high hosiery. I also tend to consider lingerie erotic, but I'm okay with it. But I've found over the years that this is a pretty European view when it comes to photography.

And for some photographers, they want POV porn.

I have a list on my website that I send photographers who ask about limits now. Made shoot discussions quite a bit easier.

Good for you!  It is about communication.

Model MoRina wrote:
Oh, so you think if a model checks the erotica box that she automatically has to agree with anything that any photographer terms as erotica? Let me tell you from many years of modeling experience... it can mean simply full nudes or tasteful bodyscapes to some photographers while to others it means full-on porn, or that they are free to ask the model all sorts of inappropriate questions during the shoot, like whether or not we want them to jerk off in front of us. Yes, that really happens. Or it makes them think they can touch us inappropriately.
Just because we check a box labeled fetish or erotica doesn't mean we agree to your version of it. I can't believe this needs explaining. You still need to confirm acceptance and consent for what you want to shoot... before the shoot is even scheduled.

You are a favorite writer of mine on the forums. What I have bolded shocks me.  Who did you shoot with that would be so disgusting?  Terry Richardson?  Creepy AF!  :vomit:

Patrick Walberg wrote:

More men tend to do the bait and switch/ grooming technique of communication than women, and it is why I hold my nose when shopping for a car at a dealership.  I used to rent a room from one of the top salesmen of a dealership and found him unethical to the point where it made me disgusted and I had to move. It IS about communication techniques!  You see through it and kick him in the balls!

I thought you said in your other thread you were gonna stay out of model's threads and business.

You just can't help yourself.

Dea and the Beast wrote:
I thought you said in your other thread you were gonna stay out of model's threads and business.

You just can't help yourself.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I'll try to resist posting in Model Colloquy.

Go reread the thread. https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post/983359   I said I'll try, but except for you, Nat and other photographers there is little or no activity in Model Colloquy. Thank you for helping keep the forums interesting.  I appreciate you!

Shadow Dancer wrote:

"Erotica" could mean anything from "you have sexy toes" to "midget porn featuring opossums", it depends entirely on the observer, no?
It's not a definable category and probably not something that needs to be listed. Underwater is underwater, Pregnancy or swimwear are simple. Art, WTF is Art? Fetish could mean "wearing a gorilla mask and covered in chocolate syrup" or it could mean "dressed like a little church girl holding a teddy bear".

It is reasonable to discuss what is or is not specifically wanted from a photoshoot. There's really no other way to see if everybody is on the same page.

Maybe them deleting their post is a compliment, they wanted to work with you and nobody else perhaps.
I dunno, humans are intangible...

I find there are two very different groups of people on here- one is 100% cool with having a conversation to determine what each party actually wants and if their vision is similar enough to work together. The other seems to think everyone should just know what they want. Often they have a specific mindset that is a bit different than the average person and assume everone else thinks just like they do. I could not care less what someone asks me, including about something I may not want to shoot. As an adult with agency, I will just tell them what I am open to, what I am truly interested in and what this cat just won't do. No harm, no foul. The greatest part of life is learning about other people. At the end of the day though each of us has an absolute right to determine who we wish to associate with whether it be just the conversation or the actual work. I just think none of us should be scared of or offended by being asked a question-- "No, I am not interested in that style of shoot", "I'm looking to work with photographers whose work has a specific look" etc etc... Or "Heck yea that sounds like an amazing idea. I had never thought of it before but think it would be really cool"

That's my 2 cents

j_francis_imagery wrote:
What are your limits for underwater?

Snorkel depth, and water wings must be provided.

Lallure Photographic wrote:
That is not going to work for photographers. We make every effort to make sure the model KNOWS exactly what is expected on a shoot, and if they aren't interested, they should simply say so, as an offer was made.

Rick

The op's original post was about her applying for a casting for one genre, and the photographer assuming she would be shooting in a style that had not been applied for.

The Model's forum used to be filled with complaints from Models who, once at a shoot, would be pressured to shoot something that had not been originally discussed.

Many photographers don't seem to make sure the Model knows exactly what is expected, since they are attempting to change the parameters during the shoot.

j_francis_imagery wrote:
What are your limits for underwater?

Breathing is highly overrated . . .

JSouthworth wrote:
Erotica essentially means something with a sexual element, whether explicit or not, it doesn't necessarily imply nudity. It's a theme rather than a level.

In essence and in fact I whole Heartly agree with this statement... When dealing with models, I think most are a mind that erotica means exposed genitals.

JSouthworth wrote:
Erotica essentially means something with a sexual element, whether explicit or not, it doesn't necessarily imply nudity. It's a theme rather than a level.

It really is in the eye of the beholder. I've shot a lot nudes and fetish, much of which could likely be considered "erotica", and yet one of the images I consider most suggestive is a photo I've entitled, in my mind, "the decision".

As I've said earlier in the thread, however, just use mood boards so that everyone is on the same page.

Wandering Eyebubble wrote:

It really is in the eye of the beholder. I've shot a lot nudes and fetish, much of which could likely be considered "erotica", and yet one of the images I consider most suggestive is a photo I've entitled, in my mind, "the decision".

As I've said earlier in the thread, however, just use mood boards so that everyone is on the same page.

Usually when I see this sort of thing I will ask (ESPECIALLY ON THIS SITE - NEVER GIVE YOUR EMAIL/NUMBER OUT while discussing themes) to define erotica. I will decide what the motive is. If it is an interpretation or a bait and switch which is what the OP is speaking of. Just in the past year I have gotten probably 3 or 4 profiles removed for doing this very thing. They especially usually want POV shots they believe to be artistic when it just is never the intention . They almost always want your number/email so it is not on record here. Apparently they don't understand you can send screencaps to the Mods . It is a very similar tactic Craigslist uses which seems to be what this site is coming to unfortunately.

Wandering Eyebubble wrote:
It really is in the eye of the beholder. I've shot a lot nudes and fetish, much of which could likely be considered "erotica", and yet one of the images I consider most suggestive is a photo I've entitled, in my mind, "the decision".

In my mind, I think of Chris Hansen.
Is this model over 16?

Mark Salo wrote:
In my mind, I think of Chris Hansen. Is this model over 16?

She was 23.

0951yxs wrote:
Photographers shouldn't assume that just because a model lists herself online as available for erotic photography, she should agree to work with you. If a model doesn't feel comfortable with you or doesn't trust your photography skills or character, they have every right to refuse.

+1
And the model need not explain her reason for declining a shoot of any genre.

Frederick C wrote:
I’m 29 going on 78........ I hate insinuations!
Tell the truth and be prepared to back it up.  Discuss genre before the shoot.  Also, models that say YES to nude, but have no nude images in their portfolio; so how is ANYONE supposed to evaluate them for requirements for an Art Nude Model.

If you are discussing the genre before the shoot, discuss the lack of nudes in her portfolio. MM allows models to have two portfolios for those wishing to use one for posting mature images. The model may have her nude portfolio located on another website, too. Some restrict access by using passwords, so you need a discussion first if you do not see examples of the genre you wish to shoot.

Model MoRina wrote:
Photographer says: "what are your limits?"

Model thinks: "there is no real 'concept' he just wants to know how much naughty stuff he can get for his money"

Even if a model wanted to outline her limits, it is impossible to give an answer without a basic goal or concept for the project. I wish photographers would understand what an idiotic question it is without any prior conversation.

If the concept was art nudes, a model might say her limits are no spreads, no pink, no ultra close ups...whatever. But then she shows up at the shoot and there are sex toys as props. When she protests, the photographer can say, "well, you didn't say 'no toys' - since you don't do spreads I thought you could just use your mouth on these."

Does anyone see how ridiculous the "what are your limits" question is? You should have an outline of what you want to shoot, and the model should know ahead of time and be able to say yes or no to any elements. It's all about information and consent, people.

Model MoRina wrote:
Photographer says: "what are your limits?"

Model thinks: "there is no real 'concept' he just wants to know how much naughty stuff he can get for his money"

Even if a model wanted to outline her limits, it is impossible to give an answer without a basic goal or concept for the project. I wish photographers would understand what an idiotic question it is without any prior conversation.

Those of us with a brain do.

Fred Ackerman wrote:
Perhaps a bit off discussion but.. When I book a nude session, I find clear communication a must. Many models here will not go further than "art nude", perfectly understandable. When I mention "not for publication", most are willing to pose intimate. There are so many models to chose from here, why play games? I pay extremely well, and offer long sessions, the models like that too.

i usually do the same ,  so many photographers have been  kicked off.

Lachance Photography wrote:
I recently contacted a model who said she was comfortable shooting up to nudes.  I told her I wanted to do a natural light glamour/swimwear shoot which she was very excited about. However, when I told her I wanted to shoot up to implied content she was no longer interested.  So yeah I understand your point.

Your entire portfolio is stuff shot outside. So, unless you were specific that you were shooting indoors in a private location she probably assumed you wanted her to do nudes in public. Most people are going to say no these days to this because of the risk of ending up on a sexual offender registry.

Lachance Photography wrote:
I've done several implied shoots on beaches here and no one has ever gotten in trouble.

You mean no one has gotten in trouble... yet.

And it isn't you that will be put on the sexual offender registry, it is the model.

There is no such thing as "implied nudity" in public. Implied nudity is a term used in photography where the model is nude but you don't see any nipples or genitalia. The model herself has to be nude for an implied nude shoot. So it is disingenuous to call a nude shoot in public an "mplied nude shoot." It makes light of the risk to the model.

Model MoRina wrote:
... There is no such thing as "implied nudity" in public. Implied nudity is a term used in photography where the model is nude but you don't see any nipples or genitalia. The model herself has to be nude for an implied nude shoot. ...

While virtually everything I've seen from you is very accurate, insightful, etc... (and thank you for that), I think there's potential for definition-related hair-splitting of relevance going on in this specific situation.  It's not something I, personally, would seek to shoot, but there are a number of poses and setting combinations that come to mind where a model in a strapless bikini could be shot in such a way as to appear nude to the camera.  To the best of my understanding, that would be broadly understood to be implying nudity.

Now, given how Lachance has discussed their shoot plans here, I would default to joining you in reproach, but there is a possibility that they've taken such an approach in the past situations that they reference and meant to do so again.  If that's the case, I sure wish they'd clarify on that point.

Mike And Me Photography wrote:
While virtually everything I've seen from you is very accurate, insightful, etc... (and thank you for that), I think there's potential for definition-related hair-splitting of relevance going on in this specific situation.  It's not something I, personally, would seek to shoot, but there are a number of poses and setting combinations that come to mind where a model in a strapless bikini could be shot in such a way as to appear nude to the camera.  To the best of my understanding, that would be broadly understood to be implying nudity.

Now, given how Lachance has discussed their shoot plans here, I would default to joining you in reproach, but there is a possibility that they've taken such an approach in the past situations that they reference and meant to do so again.  If that's the case, I sure wish they'd clarify on that point.

I did many outdoor nude shoots when I was booking shoots with photographers and honestly I didn't take the risk seriously. it is easy to get caught up in the excitement of creating beautiful images! But times have changed, and so have laws and enforcement.
Here's a brief Ai summary for Florida, which is specifically what I was referring to, since I lived there for over 10 years and that's where the photographer I was referring to is from as well.

"Florida Public Nudity & Indecent Exposure Laws

Indecent exposure is generally a misdemeanor, but it can escalate to a felony if it occurs in front of a minor (under age 16) and is done in a lewd manner—for example, intended to sexually arouse or shock.

If a nude photoshoot occurs on a public beach without any legal designation, such as a clothing-optional area, it could indeed be considered criminal. Even if it stays a misdemeanor, that alone may result in arrest.

If minors are present—or could reasonably see—the nude shoot, the behavior could be charged as a felony, and in Florida, that can trigger requirements to register as a sexual offender"

There is no way a photographer can guarantee a minor won't be able to see the person posing nude. Therefore, my opinion still stands. Modeling nude in public can get you on a sexual offender registry. Yes, it is open to interpretation, but common sense doesn't always prevail.

Model MoRina wrote:
I did many outdoor nude shoots when I was booking shoots with photographers and honestly I didn't take the risk seriously. it is easy to get caught up in the excitement of creating beautiful images! But times have changed, and so have laws and enforcement.
Here's a brief Ai summary for Florida, which is specifically what I was referring to, since I lived there for over 10 years and that's where the photographer I was referring to is from as well.

"Florida Public Nudity & Indecent Exposure Laws

Indecent exposure is generally a misdemeanor, but it can escalate to a felony if it occurs in front of a minor (under age 16) and is done in a lewd manner—for example, intended to sexually arouse or shock.

If a nude photoshoot occurs on a public beach without any legal designation, such as a clothing-optional area, it could indeed be considered criminal. Even if it stays a misdemeanor, that alone may result in arrest.

If minors are present—or could reasonably see—the nude shoot, the behavior could be charged as a felony, and in Florida, that can trigger requirements to register as a sexual offender"

There is no way a photographer can guarantee a minor won't be able to see the person posing nude. Therefore, my opinion still stands. Modeling nude in public can get you on a sexual offender registry. Yes, it is open to interpretation, but common sense doesn't always prevail.

EDIT - since the system doesn't handle nested quotes in the manner I'd hoped, let me note (immediately after my initial response) that MoRina had quoted my comment in her reply.

Either you didn't read what I wrote, or quoted the wrong person.
I'd like to think it's the latter.