|
Forums >
General Industry >
MasterCard Presents: The REAL cost of TFP/CD
Model paid airfare: $300 Model paid rental car: $85 2 days off from work: $270 Photographer shooting 700+ images; hand held on Auto, ISO 100, Shutter Speed 1/3 seconds⦠ Priceless Nov 30 05 09:59 pm Link lmfao I've heard/seen this from several models I know Nov 30 05 10:03 pm Link I don't expect anyone to pay the $2 subway fare to my place without first seeing my portfolio and talking to my references. Why would anyone pay anything without being reasonably sure of what the quality of the results will be? Nov 30 05 10:11 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: Can I tell that to the electric company? Nov 30 05 10:14 pm Link SexyJena wrote: handheld at Auto, ISO 100, Shutter Speed 1/3 seconds?? technically questionable....... Nov 30 05 10:24 pm Link FreddyB wrote: c'mon Freddy, the photog was tryin' to be all artsy with the blurry focus...LOL Nov 30 05 10:27 pm Link Marksora wrote: ...or the gas company Nov 30 05 10:30 pm Link FreddyB wrote: and since the op knows that, I think that the next mastercard purchase should be a camera to take self portraits. Seriously, a lot cheaper and probably better than that pic... Nov 30 05 10:33 pm Link That's unfortunate. Why'd you fly so far to work with a guy if you never saw how bad his work was first? On a positive note...you look GREAT for 105! Nov 30 05 10:36 pm Link I agree... She does look fabulous for her advanced age. She's defying gravity, even! Jena - for you, I'll switch out my avatar to one of you. And I'd at least split the gas money with you to come over. Jeez. E. Nov 30 05 10:56 pm Link Hard to beat, this one. I'm surprised the photographer didn't at least help pay for your trip and associated costs. Personally, I wouldn't expect a model to pay her own way if I wanted to work with her. Seems rather odd to me. But... really... handheld at 1/3 second? Why? It looked like you were shooting in a studio; does he have the dimmest lights he could possibly find? Is he using 25 watt second strobes? Or was he using flash lights (I've seen it done)? And the dude didn't check the results in the camera (assuming of course it was didgital)? Its really too bad, and that sample image would have been rather nice had he bothered to use a tripod or a faster shutter speed. I'd suggest you not work with him again . By the way, I read your other post and its a very good thing you're not retiring. I think you're making a good decision, and its always good to be very selective when choosing who to work for. I wish you much success! -Pat- Nov 30 05 11:02 pm Link I'm so sorry Jena..... Was this all shot on one of those film camera thingies? Why did it take so long to realize how far off his damn images were? I'm not saying digital is fool proof, but at least you can see after a couple of shots that your dick is stuck in your zipper and adjustments need to be made. Nov 30 05 11:04 pm Link Lapis wrote: That is going to be a big part of the future. Nov 30 05 11:11 pm Link SexyJena wrote: Jena, Why would you invest so much in a TF shoot? I mean if the guy was world famous I could see it but just a guy...OY! Nov 30 05 11:13 pm Link Rick Edwards wrote: If you are happy then, good for you. Dec 01 05 01:25 am Link WELL maybe you cannot blame the photographers. You have been posting about not modeling anymore because of the bad guys and deals you have been doing. Maybe the fault is not the photographers but YOURS. You pick some of the worst guys to shoot with. After spending that kind of money I would stop modeling too. bs Dec 01 05 02:47 am Link thats rough.. most models that travel have atleast the travel and lodging paid for.. i am sorry it turned out like it did jena.. chris Dec 01 05 04:55 am Link For that much $$$ I could have gone there to shoot you and gotten better pics...ooops, sorry it would have to be clothed shots since I don't shoot nudes, but still there would have been awsome pics with out you leaving work for 2 days or renting a car lol Or...paid a good local photographer to shott you...no need to fly out. Dec 01 05 05:05 am Link SexyJena wrote: I guess this means a toycamera shoot is out when I travel to Fla this winter? Dec 01 05 06:25 am Link i hope she got a kiss out of the deal...cuz she got f*cked. Dec 01 05 06:26 am Link Melvin Moten Jr wrote: I'd actually really like to see the result from that... C'mon Jena! Let Melvin bring the toy camera out! Dec 01 05 07:30 am Link Ouch. Dec 01 05 07:45 am Link Melvin Moten Jr wrote: Doctor E wrote: Hee hee... I bet Mel can get the toy camera to take brilliant pictures if he wants.. Dec 01 05 07:47 am Link "Hand Held on Auto"? If I'm not mistaken just about every auto camera has a slow shutter speed warning in the viewfinder advising flash or a camera support - so he can't understand his little LED messages. Another strike! Dec 01 05 08:12 am Link a local photographers model portfolio rate,(me) less then two hours drive from palm bay fla. for half day with a great quality MUA.. $300.00 TFP cant be worth your time.... Dec 01 05 08:28 am Link SexyJena wrote: Umm... I think someone already said this... but how can it be on auto if the iso and shutter speed are set? Maybe shutter priority? Dec 01 05 08:35 am Link Pat Thielen wrote: Wouldn't want to be accused of "chimping" don'cha know. Dec 01 05 09:08 am Link Damn Jena sorry to hear this. I was wondering as well, it must have been film? Dec 01 05 09:22 am Link I think I would have made up an excuse like "a mouse got in my camera and ate the chip", before handing the shot over to you. Dec 01 05 09:23 am Link A sad but amusing story... I hope that this was not the best image! I acutually like the angle and the lighting... The prob is, the photog was obviously hopped up on goofballs and couldn't hold the camera steady (let alone read an lcd!). Better luck next time i guess!  Dec 01 05 09:41 am Link Pat Thielen wrote: I have to dig up some shots I did a few years ago with a model laying still in the dark. I opened the shutter on a tripod and started painting her in with colored flashlights. Dec 01 05 01:08 pm Link I shoot in film, and nothing I have is that blurry...Blame the photog, not the media.... Otherwise, Jena, sorry you had such a bad shoot  Dec 01 05 01:18 pm Link RobHowardStudios wrote: I do! Dec 01 05 01:18 pm Link Bethany Gilbert Photo wrote: They don't need to be set manually. The ISO, aperture, and shutter speed need to be set to something to take the picture-even if it's all done automatically. The image info will all show up in the EXIF data. Dec 01 05 01:18 pm Link I agree. I was confused initially because I thought the photographer paid for the costs. Then I went back and saw that a model posted this. You paid for your own airfare and travel expenses so someone could take blurry nude shots of you. Even if the nudes were good photos, you should never pay for your own travel expenses. Dec 01 05 01:19 pm Link Since I am still not in the class of professional and haven't hired any models I wouldn't know about what costs are associated with that type of shoot. But I have done several shoots TFP, and in all cases I pay any costs such as entrance fees, lunch or dinner, drinks, and ect. I don't know what is expected or assumed, but isn't it the responsiblity of the photographer or agency to make the arrangements and pay for such expenses? Dec 01 05 01:38 pm Link SexyJena wrote: You're cut off at the armpit! Dec 01 05 01:43 pm Link SexyJena wrote: i made a t-shirt for my web-site a year and a half ago Dec 01 05 01:45 pm Link well isn't it obvious that its the models fault? i mean, as a model you should be highly trained in the arts of hatha-yoga, thereby enabling you to hold your breathe for hours whilst holding strange statue-like positions for, at minimum, 1/3rd of a second. then again his lighting sucked enough that he needed a 1/3" shutter to get the shot. and wait, the camera sucks even more for not AUTO-magically selecting a higher ISO setting to compensate for the crappy lighting. i bet it wasn't even a SLR (not that i have anything against SLRs, in fact im rather anti-SLR but i'll save that for another argument) ...probably just some cheap digicam with cheapo SuperDuper Anti-Shake Technology (tm) "...allowing the photographer more freedom in lower lighting situations with lower shutter speeds, without the use of a tripod!" gosh well i mean if you haven't seen his work before, why did you go? you can't really get mad at him, unless he lied about his work and showed you pics he didn't actually take which happened to be astronomically wonderful pictures that are worth you blowing > $500 on expenses... and of 700 shots, is this the only shot you want to show us? or are you just showing us the WORST shot of the bunch to start a topic? hmm.. there's gotta be more to this story... we're only hearing one side Dec 01 05 03:05 pm Link mike3521 wrote: Really now Dec 01 05 03:09 pm Link |
