Doug Vosler wrote:
I believe the point of the original poster had something to do with insufficinet experience and training, which also eliminates two other things... a track record, and references...  and again, maybe I'm wrong, but if someone has a client, or is doing a personal projhect they would like to make money on, and thus is paying the model, I think they care about both the track record and references...

In fact, that's part of the reasons their are agencies... otherwise there would just be the model yellow pages... the agencies serve as a reference for the model, because if she's a flakey bitch, they'd stop representing her.

yes the OP's point was that if you dont have experience and "credits" you shouldnt ask for pay..my point experience doesnt enter into the equation in the real world..where having a look does...there are bunches NYC models that have realized their biggest payday in modeling on thier first professional shoot..and have done nothing since..its almost common...

and with that..i give up....(doug waves white flag)

studio36uk wrote:

You miss the small point that most [nearly ALL] of the models here and doing this are NOT represented by agencies. So what an agency will or won't allow in the normal course of agency business, or why, or being on or off an agency's testing photographer's list, doesn't make a damn bit of difference in Internet la-la land modelling. Not a fig's worth of difference.

As to the photographer making money from unreleased images? They certainly can make money on those... just perhaps not in the broadest possible choice of ways... but there are ways to do it and quite legally.

Studio36

That's got a bit to do with why I asked a couple of the participants if they did shoot with agency girls.  You're right - I forgot for a moment that we are dealing with MM World.  This explains why a couple of the people I know here are going back to dealing with models who are signed, rather than the lovely ModelMayhem Supermodels . . .

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Tony Lawrence wrote:
What some models don't know is that agency models Test shoot all the time.
They shoot with new photographers as well as well known photographers.
These may be people known to agencies and sometimes some not known but
up and coming.  Trying to make a living or enough money to live on by charging
photographers you might meet on-line is a serious hustle.  It can be done but
as we've seen in past threads models have stated they have problems with
last minute cancellations and people not paying.

Many of the better photographers won't pay you and those that do are often
looking for erotic nudes.  Most photographers with decent skills and good work
can find enough models to practice with.  This is if they live or are near some
of the larger cities.  In fact more photographers might try the agency route then
looking on line for models.  Some of you have said it so well.  If you can pay
and don't mind do so.  If not then don't.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I know you are very knowledgable. But here's the thing. Yes, agency models test all the time. With very accomplished and often well known photographers. A model has a lot to gain by this experience. I never have a problem with "test" shoots.

However, often times the photogrpahers on here and other internet sites are not as accomplished and experienced. I feel that it is mostly a waste of time to do TFP with someone who will give me images below what I already have in my port. Not to say I will not shoot with these photographers, but as I will not use the finished product, I do believe I am owed some comensation for my time and experience. Just as  photographer that is has top notch pics in their portfolio and would not be using my pics as they would be a lesser quality would expect compensation on my part. But most people are not realistic enough to gage their own portfolio when it is lacking and therefor we get all the people thinking they are "entitled" to TFP.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
i was trying to keep my comments (which i should have disclaimed) in the professional arena. cause everyone knows, anything goes with the gwcs and netmodels...(the real world ceases to exist online).

i was talking more about the real world of modeling..the land based world..

*sigh*
And this's one of the types of comments I was refering to in my earlier posts.
There are some of us here, particularly some of us who work in the arts (who even sometimes have day jobs where we hire agency models for commercila work), who use the net & things like TFP in a fair and professional manner but not in the traditional modeling realm.
Disclaiming anything online in this fashion makes it sound like everyone who uses sites like this s a GWC.

Doug Swinskey wrote:

yes the OP's point was that if you dont have experience and "credits" you shouldnt ask for pay..my point experience doesnt enter into the equation in the real world..where having a look does...there are bunches NYC models that have realized their biggest payday in modeling on thier first professional shoot..and have done nothing since..its almost common...

and with that..i give up....(doug waves white flag)

I know you raised the white flag... but i still have to comment... I thinkt he only time that's true, with the first shoot being the biggest payday, is for nudity... and for someone that doesn't actually make a career of it.

MrE Creations wrote:
Help me understand this here. Models do TFP/TFCD till they get some good shots in their portfolio and then start charging? I dont get this. They shoot with 3 good photographers and all the sudden they think they are skilled and experienced enough to start charging what more experienced models with credits do? Doesnt make any sense to me and I (and most others) will take a model with a list of solid credits over some girl who got some nice shots with a good photographer and thinks she is now a star.

To the models who do this. Why dont you try getting some credits and a good year or two experience under your belt before you start charging what the big girls do.

The question would be what if Photographers said no TFP and charged the rates we should be charging for the work. Models the bottom line is it cost money for us to work with you on TFP/CD, and time. We do this to help you out a Photographer has no need to pay unless the Model is helping the Photographer on a Project ETC. I know this will upset someone but it is true we help you; you help us if it was the other way around and we started Charging Then What?

Becky wrote:
I try to find girls who are passionate enough about it that they do it as hobby or simply for fun. They also tend to have less of an ego than those who think they're "high-fashion-model-material" and can charge an arm and a leg. Therefore the majority of my models have been friends, relatives, and/or random people I meet who just do it for fun.

(You're also more apt to find more models willing to do TFP if you have something different to offer than the trite portrait/swimsuit/blahblahblah shots.)

Yeah, I pretty much jump at TFPs. Mostly because I am not trying to make a living at it, but because I think its incredibly FUN! I dont want to be a high fashion model making thousands of dollars. (Of course if someone offered Im not going to argue- haha) I also agree that if the photographer has something unique and different in their port, Im most likely going to want to shoot with them.
Hooray for TFP!

MrE Creations wrote:
To the models who do this. Why dont you try getting some credits and a good year or two experience under your belt before you start charging what the big girls do.

Because unfortuantely, GWC's will pay for them to get all naked...and odds are they are cheaper than those of us with a lot of experience and credits...ironically enough, those of us that have strong ports usually have them (myself included) because we DO do TFP...because that's the smart thing to do.

Daniela V wrote:
Because unfortuantely, GWC's will pay for them to get all naked...and odds are they are cheaper than those of us with a lot of experience and credits...ironically enough, those of us that have strong ports usually have them (myself included) because we DO do TFP...because that's the smart thing to do.

Hmph.  I offered to buy you & Samantha a trip to Florida & new swimwear over in the nudity thread & got no response.  I guess I'm just not good enough 
LOL

SLE Photography wrote:

Hmph.  I offered to buy you & Samantha a trip to Florida & new swimwear over in the nudity thread & got no response.  I guess I'm just not good enough 
LOL

Where was this? I didn't see that offer!!

Doug Swinskey wrote:
i was talking more about the real world of modeling..the land based world..

Doug Vosler wrote:
In fact, that's part of the reasons their are agencies... otherwise there would just be the model yellow pages...

THERE IS...... nowadays it's called the Internet and it seems that anyone can play!

If agencies were willing to play, and they are definately not in some cases, then the world would be a better place.

And I am not speaking to testing for agencies either... I speak to actual paid project work [mainly editorial] within a world of budgets that I and the publishers have to live in.

Studio36

SLE Photography wrote:
Hmph.  I offered to buy you & Samantha a trip to Florida & new swimwear over in the nudity thread & got no response.  I guess I'm just not good enough 
LOL

Daniela V wrote:
Where was this? I didn't see that offer!!

https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?t … 769&page=3
4th post up from the bottom

MrE Creations wrote:

Oh yea? I know some newer actors and actresses who do pretty good work. Why arent they being paid $20 million a movie like their EXPERIENCED counterparts? Maybe because they need some more work on a few things and dont have any big credits? They should be charging just as much per movie as all the EXPERINCED actors and actresses just because they had a few minor roles right? Hmmm...

dude you are being rediculous its not the experience its the demand. if a person chooses not to shoot free and folks want to work with them enough they will get paid if there is no demand then they will not be paid and will not improve their port or their craft

Carrie_K wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you say. I know you are very delegable. But here's the thing. Yes, agency models test all the time. With very accomplished and often well known photographers. A model has a lot to gain by this experience. I never have a problem with "test" shoots.

However, often times the photogrpahers on here and other internet sites are not as accomplished and experienced. I feel that it is mostly a waste of time to do TFP with someone who will give me images below what I already have in my port. Not to say I will not shoot with these photographers, but as I will not use the finished product, I do believe I am owed some comensation for my time and experience. Just as  photographer that is has top notch pics in their portfolio and would not be using my pics as they would be a lesser quality would expect compensation on my part. But most people are not realistic enough to gage their own portfolio when it is lacking and therefor we get all the people thinking they are "entitled" to TFP.

You have some very valid points and I agree with you.  We as photographers think
our work no matter what others may think is valuable and is too us but it may
not be a valuable or good to others.  Many models don't always know what works
for their market and I based this on the endless thong and booty shots that almost
no agency could or would ever use.  So the only reason to have it here is to
attract the GWC'S or the glamor guys that shoot that type of work. 

Part of the problem is that many models have little real education and information
about modeling in general.  Just wait for example you'll read a thread where a
5'2" model will ask is she able to do fashion or another model will ask about getting
lots of paid work while living in Nomodelingworkhere, AL.  There is nothing wrong
with models seeking paid shoots, there is nothing wrong with photographers
who won't pay.  Neither concept is wrong but for me to pay a model she's got
to offer more then big tits and or nice figure.

I want a model who brings both energy and fun to a shoot.  One who may even
have her own ideals and is willing to share them.  One who is or seems less
concerned with how much I'm paying but wants me to get better images because
of her.  That also means having a value for my work beyond a paycheck. It
means having a interest in my project no matter how silly it might be.  See I
think thats whats missing with many of the MM models in general.  Those who
want cash seem quite often like greedy harpies.  Some seem to have so
many rules about shooting that I fear we will have way too much drama and
I will take a pass. 

Here's a hint for models seeking $$$.  Be friendly as its photographers who are
your clients.  Seem interested in the project, ask questions and pretend even if
untrue to want to do the project.  Write back and or return calls quickly.  Get
all the details before meeting and of course agree on payment.  In other words
even if you have little paid shoots as experience.  If you have no tear sheets
still bring energy, professional behavior and fun to the shoot.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
yes the OP's point was that if you dont have experience and "credits" you shouldnt ask for pay..my point experience doesnt enter into the equation in the real world..where having a look does...there are bunches NYC models that have realized their biggest payday in modeling on thier first professional shoot..and have done nothing since..its almost common...

and with that..i give up....(doug waves white flag)

Doug Vosler wrote:
I know you raised the white flag... but i still have to comment... I thinkt he only time that's true, with the first shoot being the biggest payday, is for nudity... and for someone that doesn't actually make a career of it.

Since Mr. Swinskey has left the stage, let me answer for him.  No, that is not what he meant.  Fashion models who win one campaign, commercial models who get one good paid print job or SAG national commercial.  Nothing at all involving nudity.  That kind of "it must be nude to be paid well" bias is an Internet thing, having nothing at all to do with mainstream modeling.

The average professional lifespan of a signed NYC agency fashion model is six weeks.  That doesn't make for a lot of time to get "experience", but sometimes in that period a good job or two comes along.

SLE Photography wrote:

SLE Photography wrote:
Hmph.  I offered to buy you & Samantha a trip to Florida & new swimwear over in the nudity thread & got no response.  I guess I'm just not good enough 
LOL

https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?t … 769&page=3
4th post up from the bottom

i'm in. ask samantha.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

You have some very valid points and I agree with you.  We as photographers think
our work no matter what others may think is valuable and is too us but it may
not be a valuable or good to others.  Many models don't always know what works
for their market and I based this on the endless thong and booty shots that almost
no agency could or would ever use.  So the only reason to have it here is to
attract the GWC'S or the glamor guys that shoot that type of work. 

Part of the problem is that many models have little real education and information
about modeling in general.  Just wait for example you'll read a thread where a
5'2" model will ask is she able to do fashion or another model will ask about getting
lots of paid work while living in Nomodelingworkhere, AL.  There is nothing wrong
with models seeking paid shoots, there is nothing wrong with photographers
who won't pay.  Neither concept is wrong but for me to pay a model she's got
to offer more then big tits and or nice figure.

I want a model who brings both energy and fun to a shoot.  One who may even
have her own ideals and is willing to share them.  One who is or seems less
concerned with how much I'm paying but wants me to get better images because
of her.  That also means having a value for my work beyond a paycheck. It
means having a interest in my project no matter how silly it might be.  See I
think thats whats missing with many of the MM models in general.  Those who
want cash seem quite often like greedy harpies.  Some seem to have so
many rules about shooting that I fear we will have way too much drama and
I will take a pass. 

Here's a hint for models seeking $$$.  Be friendly as its photographers who are
your clients.  Seem interested in the project, ask questions and pretend even if
untrue to want to do the project.  Write back and or return calls quickly.  Get
all the details before meeting and of course agree on payment.  In other words
even if you have little paid shoots as experience.  If you have no tear sheets
still bring energy, professional behavior and fun to the shoot.

*sigh* If only everyone on here was so professional. ............

JAY carreon wrote:
That's got a bit to do with why I asked a couple of the participants if they did shoot with agency girls.  You're right - I forgot for a moment that we are dealing with MM World.  This explains why a couple of the people I know here are going back to dealing with models who are signed, rather than the lovely ModelMayhem Supermodels . . .

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Lets not be catty and limit this to MM. It is the MM world all right... but it is also the OMP, MySpace, Craig's List, and other player's world too. Whatever this thing called "Internet modelling" is it is definitely not the real world. But at least there is choice in what you can get.

I would guess that 99.999% of those who call themselves "models" here, there and everywhere are not represented at all, and never will be, and no matter how good and gorgeous they THINK they are, couldn't even make into the waiting room for an agency open call.

OTOH, agencies are seemingly so selective, because they have a very narrow industry focus, that they simply don't have the breath and depth of what can be found elsewhere. If all I ever wanted to shoot was a size zero in designer gear agencies would be the ideal choice... but go out there in the agency world and try to hire a different kind of model for a different kind of work.

Call them and ask them if they can supply some kind of model out of the "fashion" cookie cutter mold. They fall over laughing just before they slam the phone down.

I don't hire, or suggest my clients do, off the Internet OR from agencies [unless they are in fact looking for the skinny giraffes that the fashion world prefers]... I go out and find what I need in dozens of other places [colleges, arts schools, acting schools, dance academies, Starbucks, off the literal street] and street cast for virtually everything. Alternately, I occasionally work through theatrical/film extras agents. If I want a 35 y/o housewife in a size 16; or a 20 y/o blonde with long hair; or a friggen dwarf... they will generally have a selection, not just one, to choose from... and even if I pay scale "whole day" rates it's a mere fraction of what "model agents" want... and I get them free, clear and fully released.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
OTOH, agencies are seemingly so selective, because they have a very narrow industry focus, that they simply don't have the breath and depth of what can be found elsewhere. If all I ever wanted to shoot was a size zero in designer gear agencies would be the ideal choice... but go out there in the agency world and try to hire a different kind of model for a different kind of work.

Call them and ask them if they can supply some kind of model out of the "fashion" cookie cutter mold. They fall over laughing just before they slam the phone down.

That is true of editorial fashion agencies, but hardly true of all model agencies.  Commercial print agencies have a very wide variety of people to choose from, in all ages, ethnicities and body types.  You are just looking in the wrong places.  You can't find a new Ford at the Chevy dealership, but that doesn't mean that car dealers don't sell Fords.

TXPhotog wrote:
The average professional lifespan of a signed NYC agency fashion model is six weeks.  That doesn't make for a lot of time to get "experience", but sometimes in that period a good job or two comes along.

The figures from London are a bit better in that it is considered to be a whole career for a model IF they last 3 years in the business. An awful lot of that time is obviously not working time. The average per assignment fee is said, by the industry itself, to yield the model £350 [eq to $350 in US terms] from which the agency claws off their 20 pc.
What's left wouldn't even pay a weeks rent on a London flat.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
As I do work in video and radio production, and obviously stray sounds are more than a mere distraction they are expensive in production terms. I can safely say that there are certain rules that absolutely apply in many circumstances. No cell phones on-set AT ALL is one of them. It's a rule that would be right up there with... like...  no smoking around the SFX explosives. They are left somewhere else... in your car or at home.

Picture this... a six or seven person paid crew, on a rented set, with rented lighting, sound gear and camera, with 3 principal paid actors and 25 paid background extras... in the middle of a scene one of the extras has their cell phone go off, or better yet decides to make a call to their sweetie just to chat about going to the club that night.

Guess what the reaction would be. You get three guesses and the first two don't count.

So why the hell does anyone even begin to put up with it from models on a location or in the studio? No, no, no, no, absolutely no! If they are that friggen important that they can't be out of touch with the world, or the world out of touch with them, for a couple of hours then they are probably too damn important to be there in the first place. Bye, Bye... and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!

Studio36

I'm talking photo shoot. I'm not sure where you got the video and radio production idea from. Aside from that, if the phone is on silent... Then you wouldnt be hearing anything anyways, no need to leave it in the car or at home. You simply see that the call was made (on silent), and phone back after shooting is done - how difficult is that?

And if you aren't understanding that some people need to have their phones for work reasons or family issues, then I have no clue how you do any work at all.

Carrie_K wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you say. I know you are very knowledgable. But here's the thing. Yes, agency models test all the time. With very accomplished and often well known photographers. A model has a lot to gain by this experience. I never have a problem with "test" shoots.

However, often times the photogrpahers on here and other internet sites are not as accomplished and experienced. I feel that it is mostly a waste of time to do TFP with someone who will give me images below what I already have in my port. Not to say I will not shoot with these photographers, but as I will not use the finished product, I do believe I am owed some comensation for my time and experience. Just as  photographer that is has top notch pics in their portfolio and would not be using my pics as they would be a lesser quality would expect compensation on my part. But most people are not realistic enough to gage their own portfolio when it is lacking and therefor we get all the people thinking they are "entitled" to TFP.

Amen!  I have only paid one photographer in my six years and it was my last shoot about a month ago.  He is extremely talented and it was obvious that he didn't need anything from me for his portfolio.  He charges ALOT, but it was money well spent.  I'm still going through our frames from a month ago!  I totally agree with what you are saying here.....most of the photographers who do and used to contact me for TFP just aren't up to par, as far as my taste goes for what I think my portfolio needs.  I feel badly all the time when I have to turn these photographers down, but I'm not going to work for free for a product that is useless to me.  Alot of times I have offered fifty percent off my regular rates because I hate to tell someone no.  Like I said previously, it still costs the model money to get prepared for a TFP shoot.  For me it's usually 100-200 dollars, and that is just to make myself presentable and have all of the outfits or props necessary for the shoot.

TXPhotog wrote:
That is true of editorial fashion agencies, but hardly true of all model agencies.  Commercial print agencies have a very wide variety of people to choose from, in all ages, ethnicities and body types.  You are just looking in the wrong places.  You can't find a new Ford at the Chevy dealership, but that doesn't mean that car dealers don't sell Fords.

Bizarrely, in my part of England there was a "fashion" agency operating several years ago, but they packed up because, they claimed, there wasn't enough work for their models and that side of the business tends to be entirely London-centric. Bizarre I think, because if they broadened their talent and customer base the might still be here competing with the 3 still operating glamour, commercial print and promotional agencies. The had a good potential market but a too narrow focus.

So the problem now is not finding the Ford or the Chevy it's getting the BMW when you want one.

Now, also consider, that for various reasons, including the fact that there are several design schools in the city, we also have about 20 or so fashion designers based here as well. Guess where they get their models? The same places I do - colleges, acting schools, dance academies, Starbucks, and off the literal street.

I'm not looking in the wrong places, if I were doing the actual work any more, which, since I retired I am not, I could have talent coming out of my ears... just not agency talent.

Studio36

Julia B wrote:

Amen!  I totally agree with what you are saying here.....most of the photographers who do and used to contact me for TFP just aren't up to par, as far as my taste goes for what I think my portfolio needs.  I feel badly all the time when I have to turn these photographers down, but I'm not going to work for free for a product that is useless to me.

Exactly.  This is the same view I have.  I do mostly TFP work and I also hate having to say "no", makes me feel bad.  A good chunk of the time it's not even so much that the photogs work isn't good enough but that I get contacted by photogs that just don't share the same interests as I do when it comes to the type of images *I* want to be in.  I'm happy that you want me for a glam or fine art nude shoot but that's just not my thing.

Laveena wrote:
first off..models are not doctors. If a doctor messes up then someone dies! If a model sucks then she probably wont get work anyway, whats the big deal what she decides to charge? If you dont like her prices dont hire her. There are still amazing models on here who will still do select tfp work even though they definitely dont have to. It all depends on the girl:) Its not brain surgery.

What Laveena said... I completely agree...

*Also note... some may say they only do paid... you have to have the balls to ask anyways... = D

Adam Evans wrote:
I'm talking photo shoot. I'm not sure where you got the video and radio production idea from. Aside from that, if the phone is on silent... Then you wouldnt be hearing anything anyways, no need to leave it in the car or at home. You simply see that the call was made (on silent), and phone back after shooting is done - how difficult is that?

And if you aren't understanding that some people need to have their phones for work reasons or family issues, then I have no clue how you do any work at all.

I get that because that is a part of what my consulting business does, in addition to stills work. Nobody, but nobody is that important that they have to be tied to their cell phone like a Siamese twin. NOBODY! Insecure pretentious affectation and childishness maybe. But important? No. If they think they are the can go elsewhere and find work.

Now that rule also applies to the world of real work. How long would you think any other employer would stand for it? Not a shop worker, or an office worker or a restaurant worker would keep their job if they insisted that they had to be in virtual contact with all of their personal contacts, and talking or texting while they were at work. Why should photographers put up with it? If a model has "family issues" they should stay home and take care of them, not show up on a job and intend to do it on someone else's dime. I don't buy it for one minute. If they have "work issues" they can take care of that, too, on their own time... not on MY job. Even with the damn thing on silent, or more likely on vibro, if it rings it is a distraction and breaks the mood of the moment and concentration on whatever the hell it is they're supposed to be doing.

Come to think of it........ if they were THAT important they would have a PA to mind the phone for them. I work with people that make a hell of a lot more money than I do and don't take calls during meetings. I owe them the same courtesy. And so does a model when they are on the job. That's what fucking voice mail is for. Is that too simple for a simple mind to grasp?

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
I get that because that is a part of what my consulting business does, in addition to stills work. Nobody, but nobody is that important that they have to be tied to their cell phone like a Siamese twin. NOBODY! Insecure pretentious affectation and childishness maybe. But important? No. If they think they are the can go elsewhere and find work.

Now that rule also applies to the world of real work. How long would you think any other employer would stand for it? Not a shop worker, or an office worker or a restaurant worker would keep their job if they insisted that they had to be in virtual contact with all of their personal contacts, and talking or texting while they were at work. Why should photographers put up with it? If a model has "family issues" they should stay home and take care of them, not show up on a job and intend to do it on someone else's dime. I don't buy it for one minute. If they have "work issues" they can take care of that, too, on their own time... not on MY job. Even with the damn thing on silent, or more likely on vibro, if it rings it is a distraction and breaks the mood of the moment and concentration on whatever the hell it is they're supposed to be doing.

Come to think of it........ if they were THAT important they would have a PA to mind the phone for them. I work with people that make a hell of a lot more money than I do and don't take calls during meetings. I owe them the same courtesy. And so does a model when they are on the job. That's what fucking voice mail is for. Is that too simple for a simple mind to grasp?

Studio36

Silent causes a destraction? ....right, speak of a simple mind. Won't bother discussing this anymore, waste of time. Good luck to you and your shooting of fruits and beer cans

Adam Evans wrote:

Silent causes a destraction? ....right, speak of a simple mind. Won't bother discussing this anymore, waste of time. Good luck to you and your shooting of fruits and beer cans

I'm with Studio36 on this one Adam.  Cell phones, pager, etc. need to be
turned off.  Models need to treat unpaid and paid shoots with the same
respect.  If you have a family issue or something else that requires your constant
attention then why are you shooting.  I've never had a job where I was free
to just answer personal calls.