Steve Roark wrote:
I'm not sure that you disproved my post. Is it really a coincidence that of the endless throng of people who try to become llamas, only a relative few can turn it into a full-time career...and agencies only advance money to SOME llamas? Could it be that they know 95% of the people beating on their door will want to be race car drivers next week? So why not make them cover their portfolio costs and make little extra for some new office furniture?

You have just defined the way scams and portfolio mills operate.  To be sure, there are such things, but to lump them in with real agencies which do not advance money to llamas does a great disservice to the readership.  The vast majority of llamas will never have anyone pay for their expenses; the vast majority of real agencies do not ever pay for llama expenses like pictures and comp cards.

Steve Roark wrote:
I'm not saying the supermodels of tomorrow shouldn't expect to have some expenses in the beginning,

That sure is what the statement you made that I objected to sounded like.  If you are going to say such things (and you should not), at a minimum you need to put a very strong qualifier on when you do it.

Steve Roark wrote:
but if you find that after you pay the initial fees, they come back a few days later with some other fees that you have no memory of them mentioning, and it happens again, then that's a big ol' red flag. Every con starts out with someone gaining your confidence (with llamas it probably would involve telling you how special you look and you're sure to go far), then they need a little money up front to get things going. Then, something came up and they need a little more, a month later you realize you've paid $2000 and whatever they promised, never happens. Its happened to lawyers, doctors, congressmen, etc...young, desperate llamas would be like shooting fish for these guys.

All of that is true . . . but it says nothing at all about the way real agencies operate.  You have reasoned backwards to the wrong conclusion.

Yes, scams make llamas pay for things.  But also yes, real agencies (for the most part) also make llamas pay for things.  Please do not tell people that is not true.

richard boswell wrote:
the editorial print fashion communities are so small that they may see llamas often enough to cast them without seeing them first, since they saw them 2 days before in a show.

This is wrong in several respects:

1.  Shows attended by the people who cast llamas happen twice a year.  Casting for editorials happens all the time.

2.  For the most part, the llamas in the shows are not the same as the llamas booked for editorials.  There is some crossover between runway girls and editorial girls, but most editorial llamas spend little or no time in runway shows.

3.  When editors attend fashion shows it isn't to see the llamas, it's to see the clothes.  They don't get a cheat sheet telling them who the llama is and how to book her.

4.  The real money of an "editorial fashion llama" isn't in booking editorials, it's in booking commercial fashion jobs.  Those ad agencies, photographers and clients don't go to shows to find llamas.

Although it's true that new llamas sometimes get booked for editorials right from Polaroids, the portfolio is very important (crucial) to the career of an editorial fashion llama.

richard boswell wrote:
cards are good to have, but as with the portfolio, the impression you make will be your greatest asset.  most of the time comp cards get stapled to the back of the casting sheet and the polaroid or print that is taken of you at the casting is on the front.

so yes those photos you take at the casting do matter, make em good!

The card is crucial.  Many llamas are "direct booked" from their card alone, especially when the client isn't where the agency (or llama) is.  To get into many of the more important castings (in fact, nearly all of the important, high money castings) you have to be picked to attend from your card.

richard boswell wrote:
you really do like to leap from what someone types to something completely different

in an attempt to appear to make some sort of relevant counter-point don't ya tex ...

feel free to avoid my posts if you can't restrain yourself to commenting on what they actually say.

Ok, what does this "actually say" that is true:

richard boswell wrote:
the editorial print fashion communities are so small that they may see llamas often enough to cast them without seeing them first, since they saw them 2 days before in a show.

Please point out where I misquoted you.  Or where what you said is different from what I took issue with.  Or how what you said is true.

Yes, it's true that the way a llama presents themselves in person is very important in being hired.  However, you don't have to say things that are misleading to get to that point.  And if your underlying message was that the contents of the book, and especially the card, are not important (that did seem to be what you were implying), that sends a very wrong message to llamas.

Julia wrote:
In fact some agencies wouldn't talk to you if they don't like your book.  They meet your book first, then yourself.

True of model clients also in the fashion industry.  Cards are followed by a request for books to be couriered to the client, and only then are specific models chosen for jobs or request go-sees.  That's not by any means the only way it works, but it's a very common way.

richard boswell wrote:
i don't remember ever booking a model for a job through any other process than a physical casting.  portfolios are nice but incidental in my experience. 
the editorial print fashion communities are so small that they may see models often enough to cast them without seeing them first, since they saw them 2 days before in a show.
i cannot recall that ever happening for any advertising or corporate job i have been involved with. 
yes if you bring a portfolio to a casting the photographer and or client rep will look at it.
it rarely(never) has taken priority over the impression the model makes herself. 
also castings are for the most part open these days, so an agents greatest benefit imo is more in their ability to handle the business side of things for you.  they may have a better handle on the opportunities out there, but their superior access to that information is less and less these days. 
cards are good to have, but as with the portfolio, the impression you make will be your greatest asset.  most of the time comp cards get stapled to the back of the casting sheet and the polaroid or print that is taken of you at the casting is on the front.

so yes those photos you take at the casting do matter, make em good!

your reply ...

TXPhotog wrote:

richard boswell wrote:
the editorial print fashion communities are so small that they may see models often enough to cast them without seeing them first, since they saw them 2 days before in a show.

This is wrong in several respects:

1.  Shows attended by the people who cast models happen twice a year.  Casting for editorials happens all the time.

2.  For the most part, the models in the shows are not the same as the models booked for editorials.  There is some crossover between runway girls and editorial girls, but most editorial models spend little or no time in runway shows.

3.  When editors attend fashion shows it isn't to see the models, it's to see the clothes.  They don't get a cheat sheet telling them who the model is and how to book her.

4.  The real money of an "editorial fashion model" isn't in booking editorials, it's in booking commercial fashion jobs.  Those ad agencies, photographers and clients don't go to shows to find models.

Although it's true that new models sometimes get booked for editorials right from Polaroids, the portfolio is very important (crucial) to the career of an editorial fashion model.


The card is crucial.  Many models are "direct booked" from their card alone, especially when the client isn't where the agency (or model) is.  To get into many of the more important castings (in fact, nearly all of the important, high money castings) you have to be picked to attend from your card.

your points ...

point #1 has no point i said something "may" happen, but my point was that almost all jobs (every one) have a casting.

point #2 also pointless because of my "may" qualification.

point #3 off topic ... however i guarantee if a person who has the authority to spend money on a model wants information on a model they see in a show, the effort needed to find out who the model is, and how to book said model at a fashion show where that model is ... well it would be a matter of asking a question, and chances are they already know anyway. 
the fashion world is a small one.

point #4 also off topic and a stretch beyond what i have stated.  also the vast majority of those jobs have live castings, if not all.

also this quote ...

"i cannot recall that ever happening for any advertising or corporate job i have been involved with."

and my previously mentioned "may" qualification showed anyone who was paying attention
which part of the industry i was primarily referring to.

clarification(maybe) ...

nobody books a model for a 6-7 figure ad campaign off a comp card, or a portfolio, unless they are booking someone who is well known to them, one way or another, and in that case once again the card and book are incidental.

a card may get you into a closed door, but probably not.
more likely a card will be used to request your presence in a room with an open door.
(that is the best you can expect from a card) 

a job may be precast off of portfolios, but i have never seen one that was.  a trusted agent can usually get a new face into a physical casting, portfolio or not,
that is part of their job after all.

a client who is investing so much, in my experience, will always need to see the talent
in person or by representative, before they commit to booking them. 

most of models comp cards will end up in the trash as unwanted direct mail. 

when a client needs a model they far more often skip the book process all together, call in their resources, and hold a casting. 

lots of models get jobs who do not bring "books" to the casting.

no "portfolio" trumps your presence at a casting.

the fashion industry is likely more book dependent than other industries, however the fashion industry is a very small part of the advertising world.

if you are in the last 6 issues of every fashion magazine then you may be booked from your card/portfolio, but then are you really being booked that way?  more likely you have reached
the level in your profession where you are a known commodity. 

if you are not a know commodity then you will need to go to the casting.  if you need to go to the casting, your portfolio and comp card are not nearly as important as you are. 

now how am i misleading people tex? do tell?

rich

richard boswell wrote:
lets review ...

my post.

Yes, let's.

richard boswell wrote:
your points ...

point #1 has no point i said something "may" happen, but my point was that almost all jobs (every one) have a casting.

In fact, you implied that cards or pictures were not necessary because that "may" happen.  You suggested no alternative process, and in fact it pretty much never does happen.  You just made something up that isn't true.

richard boswell wrote:
point #2 also pointless because of my "may" qualification.

Again, you attempt to draw a conclusion over something that "may" happen, but does not.  Putting in a qualifier simply means your conclusion is unwarranted to the degree that your premise is false.  Since it is false, your conclusion is unwarranted.  You provide no alternative to your "may".

You can't go around giving advice to people about "how the fashion industry works" based on what "may" happen, and then say things that do not happen.  All that does is mislead the reader.

richard boswell wrote:
point #3 off topic ... however i guarantee if a person who has the authority to spend money on a model wants information on a model they see in a show, the effort needed to find out who the model is, and how to book said model at a fashion show where that model is ... well it would be a matter of asking a question, and chances are they already know anyway. 
the fashion world is a small one.

None of which matters, since you are still in "mayneverland".  That's not how the process works.  Seeing models at shows is not in any meaningful way part of the casting process, and to imply anything at all about the need for pictures because of some "may" that is false is wrong.

richard boswell wrote:
point #4 also off topic and a stretch beyond what i have stated.  also the vast majority of those jobs have live castings, if not all.

I've booked a lot of models on commercial and editorial jobs based on nothing but pictures.  It's quite common, even though you "may" want to deny it.  You are wrong.

richard boswell wrote:
also this quote ...

"i cannot recall that ever happening for any advertising or corporate job i have been involved with."

Yeah, that one is a real doozy.  "Cards aren't very important because something "may" happen so they won't be needed but I don't recall that ever happening".  If something does not happen in any significant way, what in the world is the point of claiming that it "may", and that it might have a significant effect on the casting of jobs?

richard boswell wrote:
and my previously mentioned "may" qualification showed anyone who was paying attention
which part of the industry i was primarily referring to.

Yes, it does.  It clearly means the "editorial" part of casting, not commercial.  Which means your "may" is inoperative, and has nothing to do with the way fashion models actually make a living.  But never mind those comp cards . . . .

richard boswell wrote:
clarification(maybe) ...

nobody books a model for a 6-7 figure ad campaign off a comp card, or a portfolio, unless they are booking someone who is well known to them, one way or another, and in that case once again the card and book are incidental.

That is false.  I have personally booked lots of people into commercial print jobs based on pictures alone - people that were not known to the client.

richard boswell wrote:
a card may get you into a closed door, but probably not.
more likely a card will be used to request your presence in a room with an open door.
(that is the best you can expect from a card)

And what does this mean?  Cards are used to generate requests for closed "request only" go-sees all the time.  That's the only "door" there is in a casting. 

The whole point is that you are trying to minimize the importance of the card.  If you don't have a good card, you don't get past those doors, open or closed.  The card is a vital first step and requirement for professional models.  Only AFTER the card has worked does the model have a chance to make any kind of personal impression.

richard boswell wrote:
a job may be precast off of portfolios, but i have never seen one that was.  a trusted agent can usually get a new face into a physical casting, portfolio or not,
that is part of their job after all.

On an exception basis, yes.  But that's not the way the vast majority of models get into castings.  Whether you have seen people being "precast" or cast from cards or books or not, I certainly have.  It's very common.

richard boswell wrote:
a client who is investing so much, in my experience, will always need to see the talent
in person or by representative, before they commit to booking them.

Can it possibly be true that you have never heard of the concept of "direct booking"?  How is that possible?  Clients would prefer to see models first, but that isn't always possible, and castings take place nonetheless, based on cards (or their electronic equivalent).

richard boswell wrote:
most of models comp cards will end up in the trash as unwanted direct mail.

And most models who attend a go-see, even if requested, will be rejected.  So what?  If you don't play the game, you don't win.  If you don't have a good card, most of the time you can't play.

richard boswell wrote:
when a client needs a model they far more often skip the book process all together, call in their resources, and hold a casting. 

lots of models get jobs who do not bring "books" to the casting.

In fact, at 95% of commercial castings (non fashion) in New York, nobody ever looks at the model's book.  They most certainly DO look at the card, however.

richard boswell wrote:
no "portfolio" trumps your presence at a casting.

Again, so what?  All the "personal presence" in the world won't do a model any good if they can't get to the castings, and the vast majority of the time a good card is how they get there.

richard boswell wrote:
the fashion industry is likely more book dependent than other industries, however the fashion industry is a very small part of the advertising world.

In dollar terms that's not true.  In number of jobs terms it is.  However, that is irrelevant.  You chose to set the "community" that was under discussion.  You did call out "the editorial print fashion communities", and never mentioned any others.

richard boswell wrote:
the editorial print fashion communities if you are in the last 6 issues of every fashion magazine then you may be booked from your card/portfolio, but then are you really being booked that way?  more likely you have reached
the level in your profession where you are a known commodity.

Right.  So all together now, all you MM readers who have been in the last 6 issues of every fashion magazine", raise your hands!  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?

Nobody reading your post is in that category, and it is irrelevant to the readers.  What counts is how models in the trenches get hired, and you misrepresented it.

richard boswell wrote:
the editorial print fashion communities if you are not a know commodity then you will need to go to the casting.  if you need to go to the casting, your portfolio and comp card are not nearly as important as you are.

If you are not a known commodity then you will indeed need to go to the casting.  But for the vast majority of models, the way you get to request castings is through your card.  Once there, you are more important than the card.  But first you have to get there.  And a good card is a primary way to make that happen.

richard boswell wrote:
i posted your reply in its entirety, but i am not trying to misrepresent your thoughts am i?

Other than complain that I have not properly reflected yours, you have not "represented" my thoughts at all.

richard boswell wrote:
what does the first sentience in my original post say?

you know, the one you conviently left out twice now?

start there and re read it again, for the first time.

The first sentence says this:

"i don't remember ever booking a model for a job through any other process than a physical casting."

I understand, your experience is limited to physical castings, so you don't know that they take place in other ways with considerable frequency.  You also don't seem to understand the process that generally takes place before you ever get to the point of a "physical casting".  Consequently you invent a process that "may" (but does not) occur, all so you can put emphasis on physical presence and deny the importance of books and cards.

OK, I understand that you don't know how the process works.  Your first sentence admits to your limitations, your next paragraph creates a fairy tale to replace actual knowledge.  (All qualified by "may", of course.)  I understood that all along.

Happy now?

Matt_582 wrote:
An agency (veloccimodels.com) offered me a contract,
but it involves a bunch of fees including comp card fees (90 something for infinite comps), and an initial test shoot (4 looks) for my port/comp card
that'll cost between 200-400

This sounds standard,
correct me if I'm wrong?






Matt

this same just happened to me tonight.
I got offered a contract, not being charged for comp cards tho, but i had to pay 350 for an initial shoot, photographer, make up and hair artists included tho.

I'm just happy i finally got a contract tho.

TXPhotog wrote:

Other than complain that I have not properly reflected yours, you have not "represented" my thoughts at all.


The first sentence says this:

"i don't remember ever booking a llama for a job through any other process than a physical casting."

I understand, your experience is limited to physical castings, so you don't know that they take place in other ways with considerable frequency.  You also don't seem to understand the process that generally takes place before you ever get to the point of a "physical casting".  Consequently you invent a process that "may" (but does not) occur, all so you can put emphasis on physical presence and deny the importance of books and cards.

OK, I understand that you don't know how the process works.  Your first sentence admits to your limitations, your next paragraph creates a fairy tale to replace actual knowledge.  (All qualified by "may", of course.)  I understood that all along.

Happy now?

richard boswell wrote:
nice little digs tex ...

my second sentience ...

"the editorial print fashion communities are so small that they may see models often enough to cast them without seeing them first, since they saw them 2 days before in a show." 

was a qualification of the first, because every season some new model (or 4),
is elevated from a small runway show to the "next big thing" and because she is so suddenly busy, and since everyone has already seen her, she may be able to be booked on reputation like an actual supermodel. who rarely if ever (never) have to go to a casting.

None of that is true.

Your first sentence amounted to an admission that you had only seen one type of casting, when in fact there are many other very common (even predominant) types.

Your second sentence was not what you claim at all, and was a conclusion about your first, not a qualification of it:  "portfolios are nice but incidental in my experience.  So right out of the box you tell us how limited your experience is and then tell us that portfolios (later in your exposition, cards) are of little importance.

That is very, very wrong. 

I understand - you have said it often enough, and even complained because I didn't dwell on it - that you have limited experience in how casting works.  I understand that your limited experience causes you to make up fairy tales about the process you don't understand.

richard boswell wrote:
i don't like to leave always and never statements hanging around because there are usually exceptions in every situation. 

i never meant to imply that comp cards and portfolios are useless, but in the casting process
i think their importance is often overestimated, since most of the time the client/rep does not see them before the casting. 
if portfolio review were usually required before being sent to a casting, models would need to invest in many copies, not one or two

In fact, many fashion models with big agencies do just that.  However, your experience is so limited that you don't know it.

In commercial print work they do not, because the comp card is used in lieu of the portfolio.  And of course they do make many copies, which in most castings are used to get them in the door, or reviewed as part of the in-person casting process.  That is very far from making them "incidental" to the process.

Yes, again, we can come back to "your experience".  You don't have enough experience to understand why what you said is wrong.  You keep telling us that.

richard boswell wrote:
i am sure some jobs have "closed" castings, but once again it is rare, and getting more so, in my experience.  also "closed" is usually not completely closed, i.e. if Ford says ...
"i think you should look at this new model we have" ...
the client/rep, photographer most often listens, never having seen her book or card.

And once again you descend into very exceptional cases, as though that had something to do with the day-to-day way that most models get into most castings.  It's like you said "once in a long while something happens so you don't need a comp card to get in, so cards are 'incidental' to the process."  That is a gross misstatement of the way the predominant casting process works.

Agencies put a great deal of emphasis on pictures of models.  Pictures for their website, pictures for the comp card, (in fashion) pictures for the portfolio.  They are vital to the marketing of a model, despite the fact that there are some exceptional cases when a model can get seen, even hired, without them.  For you to claim that they are "incidental" to the casting process does a great disservice to aspiring professional models who are questioning the necessity of paying for pictures and cards.

And that is what this thread is about.

richard boswell wrote:
ok 3 questions tex ...

1) do most jobs have a casting?

2) how do most models find out about a casting?

3) at the casting what is most important, the card, the portfolio, or the model?

don't "flat leave" this thread now like you did the last time i made you face my points.

rich

1.  Yes, most jobs have a casting.  Many do not, however.  They are cast entirely from pictures.  On those jobs, pictures are not in any sense "incidental", they are vital.

2.  On most jobs, the model's agent sends pictures to the casting director (comp cards, perhaps followed by a portfolio on request based on the card), modelwire package, whatever), the casting director chooses who he wants to see, informs the agency, and then, after the model is selected on the basis of pictures, they tell the model.  Yes, there are also cases when the model is chosen directly by the agency to go to the casting, and the first time the casting director sees her or her pictures is when she shows up.  But to make it sound like that is the only, or predominant case, is flat wrong.

4.  Once you have gotten to the casting, which often requires a good card or book, then the model is very important.  Most important.  No question.  However, especially for fashion, the portfolio is very important also.

To take the fact that, at the very end of the process the model's personal presentation is very important and turn that into a claim that portfolios and cards are "incidental" to the process is ludicrous, and a disservice to aspiring professional models who are trying to make decisions about paying for a comp card.

One more time, that is what this thread is about.

TXPhotog wrote:
1.  Yes, most jobs have a casting.  Many do not, however.  They are cast entirely from pictures.  On those jobs, pictures are not in any sense "incidental", they are vital.

2.  On most jobs, the model's agent sends pictures to the casting director (comp cards, perhaps followed by a portfolio on request based on the card), modelwire package, whatever), the casting director chooses who he wants to see, informs the agency, and then, after the model is selected on the basis of pictures, they tell the model.  Yes, there are also cases when the model is chosen directly by the agency to go to the casting, and the first time the casting director sees her or her pictures is when she shows up.  But to make it sound like that is the only, or predominant case, is flat wrong.

4.  Once you have gotten to the casting, which often requires a good card or book, then the model is very important.  Most important.  No question.  However, especially for fashion, the portfolio is very important also.

To take the fact that, at the very end of the process the model's personal presentation is very important and turn that into a claim that portfolios and cards are "incidental" to the process is ludicrous, and a disservice to aspiring professional models who are trying to make decisions about paying for a comp card.

One more time, that is what this thread is about.

What TXPhotog says is true if proven by nothing else than the rise in services such as modelwire.com which allows clients to research models from among modelwire's many many client agencies remotely/electronically, request portfolios/image "packages", etc. - all based on the models' portfolio pictures / cards, albeit in electronic form.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

TXPhotog wrote:

1.  Yes, most jobs have a casting.  Many do not, however.  They are cast entirely from pictures.  On those jobs, pictures are not in any sense "incidental", they are vital.

2.  On most jobs, the model's agent sends pictures to the casting director (comp cards, perhaps followed by a portfolio on request based on the card), modelwire package, whatever), the casting director chooses who he wants to see, informs the agency, and then, after the model is selected on the basis of pictures, they tell the model.  Yes, there are also cases when the model is chosen directly by the agency to go to the casting, and the first time the casting director sees her or her pictures is when she shows up.  But to make it sound like that is the only, or predominant case, is flat wrong.

4.  Once you have gotten to the casting, which often requires a good card or book, then the model is very important.  Most important.  No question.  However, especially for fashion, the portfolio is very important also.

To take the fact that, at the very end of the process the model's personal presentation is very important and turn that into a claim that portfolios and cards are "incidental" to the process is ludicrous, and a disservice to aspiring professional models who are trying to make decisions about paying for a comp card.

One more time, that is what this thread is about.

richard boswell wrote:
i suspect direct booking could be common for smaller jobs that do not have the budget for a casting.  admittedly i do not have as much experience as you seem to with them, since it i have never been in a market so small that a paying job did not generate enough interest to fill a casting.

This is such a thorough misstatement of what the issue is that it deserves fuller treatment.

Let me give you a single example of one of the many direct bookings from pictures that I was involved in:

An ad agency in Los Angeles has the Varig Airlines account.  They wanted to do a shoot at JFK airport of some models for a print at for Varig.  They contacted me, I sent them pictures (scanned comp cards) by email.  From those they selected the people they wanted for the job and booked them.  Thousands of dollars in models' fees.  Each.

Here's another example:

The photo editor of Newsweek wanted a cover shot of a businessman.  She called me up, asked me for recommendations.  I sent her a few pictures, and she chose a model.  The next morning he showed up for the shoot.  It wasn't a matter of "don't care" or "smaller budget for casting" - in fact, for three of the other Newsweek covers I have put models on, there was an in-person casting process after the models had been selected from pictures.  In this case, production deadlines did not allow for such a process.

richard boswell wrote:
ok, maybe it's a market difference, but in my experience the comp card part of your step 2 is usually omitted.  this is one of the major values the agent has for the client/photographer, they "in theory" send you they type of girl you ask them to send you.  in my experience most clients don't want to pay for the same process twice i.e. so they don't want to pay anyone to pre~edit a casting that will have to be edited anyway.

Once again, your experience is very limited.  I understand that.  Please do not allow your limited experience to make false statements about how castings work.

One more example, not of a single casting, but of a process:

Charles Rosen Casting is one of the leading print casting agencies in New York.  They deal with major clients and jobs all the time.  I am pleased that I was one of the agents they called with jobs.

They operate every print casting in the same way:

1.  They call agencies with a breakdown, and ask for comp cards to be sent to them.

2.  They select which models they want to see from the cards, then call the agents and give the models specific time slots to attend their casting.

Yes, on very rare occasion an agent can get a model into such a casting on recommendation alone.  But that is an exceptional process, and to rely on it, or claim that the pictures aren't important, would be a great distortion of how things work.

I fully understand that your experience does not extend to such things.  Please do not claim they are not true, and not an important part of how casting works.

richard boswell wrote:
5,000 jobs in nyc ????

really??? ...

you must shoot/produce/travel 

really quickly.

I suppose that would be true if my involvement had anything to do with shooting, producing or travelling.  It did not.

richard boswell wrote:
i never said portfolios or model development were not important, in my experience their importance in the casting process is often over estimated, usually by those who profit from
their sale.

No, you did not use the term "not important".  Instead, you said "incidental" to the casting process.  You falsely minimized the crucial role that pictures play in a model's career.

Julia wrote:
You is make sense very litlle.

IF the model goes to a photographer that s/he chooses, s/he gets the copyright from them. 
So your first argument isn't very clear.

then, Remember, that people have language, that they use to communicate, with the help of their communication skills they could certainly TELL you what look they are looking for and what is suitable for that market.

TFP shoot .... What? who said it would be a TFP? Is that personal issue for you or something?

Keeping in mind what I just said it is simple for the agency to say: Yes, you can use your own images, as long as you have the copyright for them and we find them suitable.

Easy as that.

I know that some agencies acutally charge models for the shoot, and then pay a photographer... well... needless to say that they keep a part of the amount a model payed for the shoot.

Question one...what if the model is getting the copyright?  Oh here we go again.....how many times does that happen?  One in every 3 trillion?  If the photographer is giving the copyright I am not sure I would be using him for the photography unless you are paying an extra amount for the copyright.

TFP issue?  No...not really...but it is an issue industry wide.  Why is it fair for a photographer to pay to have his own shoot done so a model can have images to make money with an agency?  If the model is going to make money on the photos then the photographer should be paid the market rate for his assisting her with photos.

Another issue....more related to agency relations with models.  Fewer and fewer agencies are willing to pay for any photos or anything else for models because thousands of models have gone to agencies that did pay for the photos with the agreement to take it out of the model's commissions....then the models have either refused jobs or left the agency to go elsewhere before the agency made their money back.  That is the number one reason agencies seldom if ever pay for these things anymore.

Communicating to the model what the agency needs?  Oh geeze...tell a brand new model that she needs 3/4 length fashion shots and see what you get.  Tell a brand new model you need head shots and see what you get.  With brand new models....people who are new in the industry...50% or more will choose the photographer based on price rather than quality (experienced models understand the quality issue and have a better eye for what they need) and that opens the door for my exact point in why NOT to let models choose their own photographer

Communicatin is a good thing...yes, and all businesses should be upfront on issues that relate to the conducting of business....but as I said....if the model is paying less for the agency photographer than he or she would for a photographer not affiliated with the agency...and are getting as good as if not better images than the photographer the model's would choose, then what does it matter if the agency is getting a kick back?  Isnt lining up the photographer to do quality work for a rate less than the model can find elsewhere a service that is being provided in the model's interest?  If so...then shouldnt the agency be compensated for their effort to help and assist?

richard boswell wrote:
no i said casting process, not career. 

a process you already admitted "most" of the time happens without the client/photographer ever seeing a card or portfolio "before" they see the model at the casting.

every one should take notice who is misleading people here. 

rich

Richard you seem to have a lot of expirence can you provide a link to some of the commercial shots you've done or fashion if you have that also.

richard boswell wrote:
no i said casting process, not career.

Yes, you did.  A model's career is made up of a series of casting processes, without which she has no career.  To say that photos are "incidental" to those processes would, if believed and acted upon by models, be very detrimental to their careers.

richard boswell wrote:
a process you already admitted "most" of the time happens without the client/photographer ever seeing a card or portfolio "before" they see the model at the casting.

I have said nothing of the sort, and it is not true.  In fact, I have said quite the opposite many times, and have provided specific examples of why it is not true.

richard boswell wrote:
every one should take notice who is misleading people here.

Indeed they should.

Allen Coefield wrote:
Communicatin is a good thing...yes, and all businesses should be upfront on issues that relate to the conducting of business....but as I said....if the model is paying less for the agency photographer than he or she would for a photographer not affiliated with the agency...and are getting as good as if not better images than the photographer the model's would choose, then what does it matter if the agency is getting a kick back?  Isnt lining up the photographer to do quality work for a rate less than the model can find elsewhere a service that is being provided in the model's interest?  If so...then shouldnt the agency be compensated for their effort to help and assist?

We have already had this conversation.  No.  It is unethical and in many states illegal.

The agent should make his money in the same way the model does:  by getting the model work.  Pictures are an important element of that, and if the agent's judgment is biased by a kickback, he is not doing the model a service by sending her to photographers that pay him.

TXPhotog wrote:
We have already had this conversation.  No.  It is unethical and in many states illegal.

The agent should make his money in the same way the model does:  by getting the model work.  Pictures are an important element of that, and if the agent's judgment is biased by a kickback, he is not doing the model a service by sending her to photographers that pay him.

MY experience is in corporate america.. and every ethical seminar we were forced to attend said the same thing.. that yes it may happen but YES it is illegal and could cost not only our jobs but future earnings for the company and potential jail time for all involved depending on the offense..

We even had in house ethics officers to say yay or nay to ANY gifts that a client sent us during the holiday seasons.. depending on your position and direct involvement in decision making, the less you were able to accept IF anything..

As small as a bottle of wine or a cofee cup..

People steal every day and think nothing of it, but they want to say how minor it was and that everyone does it when they get CAUGHT and have to pay the price.. 

again, these are LEGAL issues, not moral ones.. and JAIL is real..  LOL

richard boswell wrote:
i'm sorry i am about to travel now. i will leave you wit my points once again ...

most of the time(all) in my experience a casting is held and announced to local agencies requesting a "type" of model ...

at the casting the client/rep/photographer see the model and any images of her for the first time in relation to the job being cast.

at the casting the most important thing in getting the job is the model themselves.

yes things can and do seem to happen differently.

you say my posts are misleading, maybe in some specific instances they are.  however i never said "always or never" in my posts, and qualified my statements, and said they may vary market to market.

if my post may be taken as misleading.

Please note highlighted parts.  I've said it before, it seems to need repeating:  your experience is very limited, and does not reflect the way fashion and commercial jobs actually work for the most part.

richard boswell wrote:
i submit that giving models the impression that they need a competitive portfolio, and or a stunning comp card to be able to get into most castings, and or compete for a job, is at least as misleading, and more so in my experience, and opinion.  it also points to a photographers motivation in their posts. $$$

I have no doubt that some photographers make self-serving statements about the need for pictures, and mislead models.  We see that all the time.  However, that does not change the fact that pictures are a vital part of the casting process, and vital to the success of a model's career.  The fact that some photographers use that for their own ends does not change the truth of the statement.  The fact that you do not have the experience to recognize it also does not change the truth of the statement.

richard boswell wrote:
12 years working in new york city, 8 years in the tampa florida area before that.
all in the commercial, advertising, and editorial photography fields, is not inexperienced tex.

If you say so.  Nothing on your profile suggests that - in fact you go to some lengths to distance yourself from the fashion community in your text.  However, I would pass over that if what you said truely reflected the way these processes work.  It's not.  You are showing your inexperience in fashion and commercial work.

richard boswell wrote:
no matter how you try to paint it that way for your advantage.

What advantage would that be?  You are the one making false statements about the process, not me.  I don't gain any personal advantage by correcting you.

richard boswell wrote:
once again please take issue with what i post, in it's entirety instead of editing it to serve your purposes, some people have the manners to cut and paste fairly, in my experience you are not one of them.

I will take issue with what I choose to take issue with.  Some of what you said is not objectionable.  I see no reason to re-quote that or take issue with it.  Some of what you said is nonsense that does not bear repeating.  I see no reason to repeat it.

If you have a problem with some of what you said, that is your problem.  You have not shown a single instance in which a criticism made by me was made unfair or untrue by anything else you said. 

When you make up fairy tales in the middle of posts, do I really have to quote the entire post to say so?

richard boswell wrote:
most of my work is entertainment related. i shoot quite a bit of high quality low volume work for publication. the music and entertainment industry demands striking, memorable, and varied images to promote it's artists.

unlike the fashion industry, the people i shoot are usually too busy to collaborate on portfolio, and fine art projects.

That's pretty much the entirety of your statement about your own work.  That's not a strong indication of either fashion or commercial (non-entertainment) experience.

richard boswell wrote:
as far as my experience and clients go, they are posted proudly on my page.

You keep raising the notion of "your experience".

Here is the entire list of credits from your page:

clients include :

sony records, new york times, billboard, view magazine,
transworld publications, roadrunner records, out magazine,
gordon and smith, numerous p.r. and stock news agencies,
and many others.

There is not a single fashion client on that list.  None of the credits appear to include any commercial print work outside the entertainment industry - which is far from representative of how commercial modeling works.  Wherever your vast experience in fashion and commercial is, it's sure not on your page.

I'm sure you are experienced at something - just not the "editorial fashion community" that you made up your fairy tale about, nor commercial modeling in general.

theda wrote:
As for the debate between Rich and TX, let me just say in my limited experience, I booked from comps directly. No castings.  Comp cards are your resume and the go-see is your interview.  You're not likely to get the interview if your resume is a piece of crap.  Somebody is granting you that interview based on what they see on your comp.

I dont think it can be explained any more basic than that..

and just because someone hits the lottery, doesnt make the lottery a "good investment" for anyones disposable income..

thought I would throw in a random analogy for those who like to say what can happen even if it is unlikely..