Art of the nude wrote:

If a model wants to be paid even though there is no buyer / client, and no need for the images for portfolio purposes, then the photographer is taking a business risk that they can recover the cost of the model, the team (if it applies), the studio and so forth.  When the economy is good, that risk is both smaller and easier to absorb.  For many photographers, it's just not practical right now.  To do the same shoot and agree to split any revenue / profit may be much easier to justify.  But it tends to frequently be dismissed as unreasonable.

That's not true all the time of course, most of the work I do is on that basis; but I've seen the attitude more than once in this thread, and I think it's unfortunate.

I have nothing to do with whether or not a photographer has an intended use for the images, or whether or not their intended use pans out.

When paid, I agree to help produce powerful and amazing images.  I promise to do a fantastic job on my end.

If the photographer really sucks at matters of business and marketing, perhaps they need a new "business".  Or, need to realize that perhaps this is only a hobby, at best.

I do understand what you're saying; just thought I'd change the perspective.

Art of the nude wrote:
If a model wants to be paid even though there is no buyer / client, and no need for the images for portfolio purposes, then the photographer is taking a business risk that they can recover the cost of the model, the team (if it applies), the studio and so forth.  When the economy is good, that risk is both smaller and easier to absorb.  For many photographers, it's just not practical right now.  To do the same shoot and agree to split any revenue / profit may be much easier to justify.  But it tends to frequently be dismissed as unreasonable.

That's not true all the time of course, most of the work I do is on that basis; but I've seen the attitude more than once in this thread, and I think it's unfortunate.

Art is not something, to the best of my knowledge, that is usually monetarily profitable.  Shandra and I are both art models.

I shoot film photography.  My goal is a beautiful image, not profit.  Like most of us do with hobbies, I put time and money into it because I love it and the process/result is its own reward.  I know that the money I spend on film and chemicals and such will never be financially recovered, but the images are, personally, to me, of much greater value than the money I spent.  I buy supplies when I can afford it and barter my time for them, too.  I've never gotten pissed at my rolls of Tri-X for making me poorer instead of richer.

Art of the nude wrote:
If a model wants to be paid even though there is no buyer / client, and no need for the images for portfolio purposes, then the photographer is taking a business risk that they can recover the cost of the model, the team (if it applies), the studio and so forth.  When the economy is good, that risk is both smaller and easier to absorb.  For many photographers, it's just not practical right now.  To do the same shoot and agree to split any revenue / profit may be much easier to justify.  But it tends to frequently be dismissed as unreasonable.

That's not true all the time of course, most of the work I do is on that basis; but I've seen the attitude more than once in this thread, and I think it's unfortunate.

Shandra Stark wrote:
I have nothing to do with whether or not a photographer has an intended use for the images, or whether or not their intended use pans out.

When paid, I agree to help produce powerful and amazing images.  I promise to do a fantastic job on my end.

If the photographer really sucks at matters of business and marketing, perhaps they need a new "business".  Or, need to realize that perhaps this is only a hobby, at best.

I do understand what you're saying; just thought I'd change the perspective.

Now Mike, I even told you this when you hired me. I said hiring a professional model is completely different than hiring an amateur. You know that for a fact and have vocally stated that in the forums. Complaining about costs well....

Art, generally speaking, isn't isnt profitable at least financially.  It's usually a hobby and certain hobbies cost more than others. Like Shandra is saying, if you arent good at business with this, then perhaps you need a new hobby.

This is my living. I love what I do and I do it because i'm an artist. I am also a photographer and realize shooting film costs money. You'll never hear me bitching about the cost of film or developer.

Model Sarah wrote:
This is my living. I love what I do and I do it because i'm an artist. I am also a photographer and realize shooting film costs money. You'll never hear me bitching about the cost of film or developer.

FUCK YOU, TMAX 3200!  WHY DID I PURCHASE YOU!?  I'LL NEVER GET THAT MONEY BACK, YOU STUPID HIGH SPEED FILM!  ALL I HAVE NOW IS WORTHLESS CRAP LIKE THIS:

Art of the nude wrote:
If a model wants to be paid even though there is no buyer / client, and no need for the images for portfolio purposes, then the photographer is taking a business risk that they can recover the cost of the model, the team (if it applies), the studio and so forth.  When the economy is good, that risk is both smaller and easier to absorb.  For many photographers, it's just not practical right now.  To do the same shoot and agree to split any revenue / profit may be much easier to justify.  But it tends to frequently be dismissed as unreasonable.

That's not true all the time of course, most of the work I do is on that basis; but I've seen the attitude more than once in this thread, and I think it's unfortunate.

Shandra Stark wrote:
I have nothing to do with whether or not a photographer has an intended use for the images, or whether or not their intended use pans out.

When paid, I agree to help produce powerful and amazing images.  I promise to do a fantastic job on my end.

If the photographer really sucks at matters of business and marketing, perhaps they need a new "business".  Or, need to realize that perhaps this is only a hobby, at best.

I do understand what you're saying; just thought I'd change the perspective.

Model Sarah wrote:
Now Mike, I even told you this when you hired me. I said hiring a professional model is completely different than hiring an amateur. You know that for a fact and have vocally stated that in the forums. Complaining about costs well....

Art, generally speaking, isn't isnt profitable at least financially.  It's usually a hobby and certain hobbies cost more than others. Like Shandra is saying, if you arent good at business with this, then perhaps you need a new hobby.

This is my living. I love what I do and I do it because i'm an artist. I am also a photographer and realize shooting film costs money. You'll never hear me bitching about the cost of film or developer.

I'm not complaining about costs; and you are an example of the many cases where it was well worth it for me to pay.  I don't argue that models shouldn't be paid, now or ever.  Hiring you was one of the most expensive things I've done in photography, and one of the wisest.

My point, which I tried to be clear about, is that at times it might well be worthwhile for a model, professional or otherwise, to consider compensation arrangements other than exclusively cash at the time of the shoot.  If a model is getting $100+ an hour for 50 hours a week; well, more power to them.  If, however, there aren't as many clients as desired, it seems very reasonable to think that doing a shoot for potential income is more productive than sitting at home (or wherever they might be). 

Whether professional, hobbyist, or somewhere in between, the current economy means many photographers have had to make major changes in how they do things; I'm merely offering the idea that there may be occasions where the same is true for models.  I thought the theme of the thread was creativity in reaching one's goals.  The same theme of creativity would apply to a photographer potentially offering arrangements other than what they might desire if the right opportunity occurred.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I think you missed the most important tip:  Learn How To Negotiate! 
(...)

Full ack - but...

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Be prepared to identify the problems with the offer/product/service:  "Yes, I like that used car, but those tires look really old & worn".  If you find a little fault, you might be able to talk the price down a bit.

Models are no used cars...

And it would not be such a good idea to support negotiations by telling a model something about her (or his) physical disadvantages.

"Hey, you should be satisfied with X $/hour - think of that hint of cellulite you have to struggle with..." is clearly not the way to motivate a model and get gorgeous pictures... ;-)

("Hey, I really want to shoot with you but your disadvantage is living 500 miles northwest of nowhere. So we would have to find a deal..." may work.)

At least it is quite simple... (as always)

1. There is a point where you start to subsidize the photographer (or the model). You have to ask yourself: am I able to do that? And if you are able: am I willing to do so?

2. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." (Or as the Germans say: "The sparrow in your hand is better than the pigeon on the roof"...)

As long as you have no better alternative $30/hour you get paid are much more worth than $100/hour you won't get paid. Truism.

As long as we are into a recession prices fall. Prices for models (and photographers) too. But how much you get paid assembling BigMacs at McDonald's?

Kymberly Jane wrote:
i have yet to install a credit card slide apparatus into my thigh

Get a Paypal Business account and acept credit cards... easy fix and less painfull and will give them frequent flyer miles 

XP

Essence of Cassie wrote:
Perhaps services too... lately I have been doing some model for massage (with certified therapists with a real office, of course). To me that is gold!

I have done that as well with some models, the only problem is... they Love the Massage and the pics... and want to keep the pics as well... so I had to explain that the payment was the massage per our agreement lol and if my customers ended up using the image for an add then they would het a "Tear Sheet" but if I give them the images to use then what was the point in giving them the massage in exchange for her time? lol

Cant have your cake and eat it too

XP

XposurePhoto wrote:
Cant have your cake and eat it too

... especially if you're on a diet.

D M M  wrote:
I. Love. You.


Shandra, you are as intelligent as you are beautiful.

^^^^


(sad that I didn't see this thread until now!)

Go Shandra!!

XposurePhoto wrote:
Cant have your cake and eat it too

XP

Except on your birthday

Shandra Stark wrote:
bump.

bumping shit?

iMonstrosity wrote:
The economy sucks so I can't pay you." messages suck, because it assumes that the person that they are talking to doesn't experience the effects too - we all do.

Thats exactly the same as "I and officially going to school full time now to be a pharmacy tech, so my shooting is more limited. and sadly enough, I didnt qualify for financial aid, or a grant, so I have to pay the cost of the class. which is $13,000." which I saw on a profile and lolled and moved on.

Though theyre in another country, I wouldn't hire them if I was looking for a paid model, I just find it lame to put that on a profile.

There's the counter argument of "well my gear costs x, i need to fund that so i dont lose money" from a photographers perspective, which people consider lame, its a few steps less lame.

It's at least related expense to the shoot (and shooting in general) you organise with x person.

Having something like that and stating the cost on the profile is ridiculously lame imho, expecting people to fund something unrelated of your own choosing to the expenses of the shoot with them.

XposurePhoto wrote:
I have seen many times when Models claims that they have no $$$... but yet, they show up in new Beemers and lexus.... not to mention they go eat Sushi after and get drunk ($150.00 + tag), and just came from vacation in Maui and have the pics of the luxury life... yet, with out asking for rates or offering trades they ask for a TFP for Their portfolio... it maysound extreme...but I seen it happend.

Well its like having $x, but not all of its expendable there's weekly food, rent, and other things you have consider before you think I have $x, you then see you have $x-$necessities/etc

An alcoholic has no money cause they spend all their money on booze, income - booze money = 0 expendable income lol

XposurePhoto wrote:
I have seen many times when Models claims that they have no $$$... but yet, they show up in new Beemers and lexus.... not to mention they go eat Sushi after and get drunk ($150.00 + tag), and just came from vacation in Maui and have the pics of the luxury life... yet, with out asking for rates or offering trades they ask for a TFP for Their portfolio... it maysound extreme...but I seen it happend.

I have never seen or heard of a MM model in this situation. Sounds like an agency model or porn star. I for one stay in budget motels, don't own a car, and never pay more than 6 dollars for a meal. I highly doubt there are really model mayhem models that are high rollers like this. Most of them are the type to post looking for the cheapest hotel possible.