David Moyle wrote:
Really? So in a collaboration situation (very different than hiring a model to use for work you are selling) you don't think she has the right to see it and see how she did?

David... to clarify... yes, in a collaboration situation, she gets to see everything, assuming that's what she wants.  Because I do the majority of my work in a few cities, what typically happens is that we'll sit down and go over proof sheets together at some point, usually after I've already sent a few of my choices... if it's someplace I'm not returning to for a while, then it's by mail.  Some models, especially the ones I work with frequently, do like to go over everything, a few like to retain photocopies of proof sheets.  Others don't seem to care. 

But as you've already recognized, it's a different game with film, doing more than a handful of scans  from any one shoot becomes fairly labor intensive, and I'm not interested in putting hi-res versions of the entire shoot out there anyway.  Fortunately, the majority of the models I work with are interested in a few top-quality images, it doesn't help them to post too much from any one shoot.  Most are also relatively experienced so they are already pretty good at visualizing results.

I do need to rely on the models to express themselves though, because the range of expectations seems to vary quite a bit from person to person.

BCG wrote:
have spoken with a number of gals who were asked to do a tfp shoot and only got a few lousy prints out  of the deal...if the nature of the shoot is TFP, why should the gal not get a complete set of prints with high res Cd???

Sorry, that should be negotiated between the model and photographer BEFORE any shoot and spelled out in a model release , including delivery date. Since I usually do TFCD, I give a MIN of 10 retouched images in both high res (300dpi) and low res web images(72dpi) in jpg format and MAYBE a few photos.I don't give 300 unretouched images on a cd to a model right after a shoot, like some photographers. As I said, you have to negotiate first . If you  and the model cant come up with a fair number, then just say NO.   Ive said NO to a few Demanding models, who want blood ... and then some. lol. Just my 2 cents worth.

Synthetic Shadows wrote:

agreed. a lot more time goes into post processing for good/meticulous images than people realize. besides, what can you do with 10-200 pictures of variations on the same look? you're only going to use one or two (the very best) per look in your portfolio, and the rest are just a waste of editing time. and for those who would argue that what they think is best and what the photographer thinks is best are different, you agreed to work with a photographer based on his/her portfolio, so you obviously liked what you saw, and should trust their judgment like the other models have.

Sheesh, do all female photograhers think on the exact same wavelength or what!!! I agree TOTALLY...

Kemara wrote:
Well, in my opinion its self centered and greedy b/c TFP is a trade, its not just to benifit the photographer, and its not just to benifit the model...

Kemara, we're unlikely to ever cross paths because what you do is very different than what I do... but just hypothetically... my prints go for $150-350 depending on size and venue.  If I give a model five or ten hi-res scans and, if she's interested, a chance to review proof sheets... where  exactly is the problem?  Since my shoots rarely exceed two or three hours, how is that not a fair trade for your time?

Like I said, you can see the results if that's what you want.  I'm simply not going to put hi-res versions of the entire shoot out there, because 1) it would take much too long with little or no benefit; and 2) most of my models understand that either of us posting anything but the best only hurts us both.

BCG wrote:
have spoken with a number of gals who were asked to do a tfp shoot and only got a few lousy prints out  of the deal...if the nature of the shoot is TFP, why should the gal not get a complete set of prints with high res Cd???

Wow.  I just gave a girl a CD of her shots with about 160.

Dee wrote:

Sheesh, do all female photograhers think on the exact same wavelength or what!!! I agree TOTALLY...

the X chromosome has linked rationality and photography genes that are gender-specific.

Ken Mierzwa wrote:

Kemara, we're unlikely to ever cross paths because what you do is very different than what I do... but just hypothetically... my prints go for $150-350 depending on size and venue.  If I give a model five or ten hi-res scans and, if she's interested, a chance to review proof sheets... where  exactly is the problem?  Since my shoots rarely exceed two or three hours, how is that not a fair trade for your time?

Like I said, you can see the results if that's what you want.  I'm simply not going to put hi-res versions of the entire shoot out there, because 1) it would take much too long with little or no benefit; and 2) most of my models understand that either of us posting anything but the best only hurts us both.

I'm not saying give her a full CD of hi res... i'm saying give her a low res CD, let her choose the ones she likes too(not ONLY the ones you like)... like have the images #ed... and then she can decide from there.
Or in your case~ give her a proof sheet, and a way for her to get images printed for her port., or let her decide which images she wants, not only what you think is best. Like I said before... there are photographers that picked images out for me, and they were AWFUL! I wouldn't want to put my name or keep my face/etc. on that image. So why should I allow them to post them? U know what I mean? Its a 2 way street. A collaberation is a collaberation either way you look at it...
I'm not necisarily saying that your greedy, etc. I'm saying that photographers that dont' want to give models anything besides 3-9 images from a shoot is a bunch of shyt.
~!*Kemara*!~

Kemara wrote:
I'm not saying give her a full CD of hi res... i'm saying give her a low res CD, let her choose the ones she likes too(not ONLY the ones you like)... like have the images #ed... and then she can decide from there.
Or in your case~ give her a proof sheet, and a way for her to get images printed for her port., or let her decide which images she wants, not only what you think is best. Like I said before... there are photographers that picked images out for me, and they were AWFUL! I wouldn't want to put my name or keep my face/etc. on that image. So why should I allow them to post them? U know what I mean? Its a 2 way street. A collaberation is a collaberation either way you look at it...
I'm not necisarily saying that your greedy, etc. I'm saying that photographers that dont' want to give models anything besides 3-9 images from a shoot is a bunch of shyt.
~!*Kemara*!~

Yeah but...
If you let a model choose the shots, often times she'll choose one that is poorly exposed, or the lighting needed adjustment, or the shadows were wrong, or whatever, because she thinks the shot makes her butt look cute or she likes her expression.  The photographer has every right to remove pics from the running that do not meet their standards for acceptable representation of their work.  If you want to choose the pics, get a camera.

And no, it's not "shite" just because you don't agree with it.  If you don't like the photographer's arrangement, don't work with them.  If a model demands a high res CD immediately after the shoot and wants the right to print them herself at Walmart, I say (politely) she can take a hike, I don't work that way.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
Yeah but...
If you let a model choose the shots, often times she'll choose one that is poorly exposed, or the lighting needed adjustment, or the shadows were wrong, or whatever, because she thinks the shot makes her butt look cute or she likes her expression.  The photographer has every right to remove pics from the running that do not meet their standards for acceptable representation of their work.  If you want to choose the pics, get a camera.

And no, it's not "shite" just because you don't agree with it.  If you don't like the photographer's arrangement, don't work with them.  If a model demands a high res CD immediately after the shoot and wants the right to print them herself at Walmart, I say (politely) she can take a hike, I don't work that way.

Amen! said much better and more tactfully than i could have managed!

Synthetic Shadows wrote:
the X chromosome has linked rationality and photography genes that are gender-specific.

I must be a closet woman?  Uh-oh...I just opened a very bad can of worm.

I agree with all you *edit: FOUR* ladies, literally put words in my mouth. 

Kemara wrote:
I'm not saying give her a full CD of hi res... i'm saying give her a low res CD, let her choose the ones she likes too(not ONLY the ones you like)... like have the images #ed... and then she can decide from there.
Or in your case~ give her a proof sheet, and a way for her to get images printed for her port., or let her decide which images she wants, not only what you think is best. Like I said before... there are photographers that picked images out for me, and they were AWFUL! I wouldn't want to put my name or keep my face/etc. on that image. So why should I allow them to post them? U know what I mean? Its a 2 way street. A collaberation is a collaberation either way you look at it...
I'm not necisarily saying that your greedy, etc. I'm saying that photographers that dont' want to give models anything besides 3-9 images from a shoot is a bunch of shyt.
~!*Kemara*!~

With all due respect, what I offer is clearly stated on my web site.  From there, as III's diagram so beautifully illustrates, it's a matter of supply and demand.  If I were brand new at this, perhaps I'd need to offer more.  But I'm not, and I don't.

lll wrote:
This again calls for the famous graph...

I am so stealing this!!!! 

LMAO

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
Yeah but...
If you let a model choose the shots, often times she'll choose one that is poorly exposed, or the lighting needed adjustment, or the shadows were wrong, or whatever, because she thinks the shot makes her butt look cute or she likes her expression.

By the same token, it's possible the model may see something in the raw images the photographer missed because they were looking for something else.  I've had it happen to me, more than once.  Most of the people I work with are artists in their own right of one sort or another, and have pretty good judgement beyond "i look cute in that shot."

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
The photographer has every right to remove pics from the running that do not meet their standards for acceptable representation of their work.  If you want to choose the pics, get a camera.

It's no trick to simply pre-edit the raw images before committing them to disc.  I do it all the time, so in effect, the model dosen't get anything in raw form that I wouldn't want anyone to see.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
By the same token, it's possible the model may see something in the raw images the photographer missed because they were looking for something else.  I've had it happen to me, more than once.  Most of the people I work with are artists in their own right of one sort or another, and have pretty good judgement beyond "i look cute in that shot."


It's no trick to simply pre-edit the raw images before committing them to disc.  I do it all the time, so in effect, the model dosen't get anything in raw form that I wouldn't want anyone to see.

If a model wants to ask me to please not use a particular image because she feels it portrays her in a less than flattering way, I'll very likely grant that request.  But for someone to demand that they see and be able to use and print every image we shoot is unacceptable.  They are not HER pictures, and they are not OUR pictures, they are MY pictures that I'm allowing her to use (assuming we are talking TFCD).  That's why I'm the one with the camera in my hand.  That's why it says in my profile and in my contract that I have full rights to the images, maintain full copyright, and when a model signs my release she agrees to release the right to examine the finished product, etc.  Not that I'm really that much of a hardass about it, or inconsiderate to the model, but it's all legal.

There's also the hazard that the model *doesn't* have any of that good judgement stuff.  As evidenced by many of the pictures models on this site use in their portfolios.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:

If a model wants to ask me to please not use a particular image because she feels it portrays her in a less than flattering way, I'll very likely grant that request.  But for someone to demand that they see and be able to use and print every image we shoot is unacceptable.  They are not HER pictures, and they are not OUR pictures, they are MY pictures that I'm allowing her to use (assuming we are talking TFCD).  That's why I'm the one with the camera in my hand.  That's why it says in my profile and in my contract that I have full rights to the images, maintain full copyright, and when a model signs my release she agrees to release the right to examine the finished product, etc.  Not that I'm really that much of a hardass about it, or inconsiderate to the model, but it's all legal.

There's also the hazard that the model *doesn't* have any of that good judgement stuff.  As evidenced by many of the pictures models on this site use in their portfolios.

Yep, no bad photographer choices on this site whatsoever.

Tanya Dakin wrote:
BTW 75% of my portfolio is tfcd

Yeah Tanya geez i've seen your port. Your should get paid Wow!!!

David Moyle wrote:

Yep, no bad photographer choices on this site whatsoever.

I didn't say that.  But I don't have to protect my work from them.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
They are not HER pictures, and they are not OUR pictures, they are MY pictures that I'm allowing her to use (assuming we are talking TFCD).  That's why I'm the one with the camera in my hand.  That's why it says in my profile and in my contract that I have full rights to the images, maintain full copyright, and when a model signs my release she agrees to release the right to examine the finished product, etc.  Not that I'm really that much of a hardass about it, or inconsiderate to the model, but it's all legal.

Your feeling illustrates the fundamental difference between us.  To me the images belong to both the model and myself equally.  It's not like they'd exist without their input.  As I said before, I'm very, very careful who I work with...Most of my models are artists in their own right and we operate as such:  two artists working on a collaborative idea.  It's just different from how you see it, not better or worse.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
There's also the hazard that the model *doesn't* have any of that good judgement stuff.  As evidenced by many of the pictures models on this site use in their portfolios.

Like I said, if you work with smart models, they make smart decisions...if you work with dumb models, they make dumb decisions.  I work with smart people I can trust [and who trust me], so I don't have to worry what they do when I'm not looking [and vice versa].

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
I didn't say that.  But I don't have to protect my work from them.

I was just teasing.

Seriously though. I tend to go into a tfcd situation as a partnership. I want the model to get what she wants out of it. So, I let her see all the work. Even my screw-ups. Hell, she saw me fall in the tidal pool when I hit the button, so, that's why ist's a little cockeyed and blurry.

Sure, I retain the ultimate copyright and ownership, but, I find if I show respect and consideration for them, they are nicer to me as well and not petty.

Of course, I've been married for 12 years too, so maybe I've become whipped.

David Moyle wrote:
I was just teasing.

Seriously though. I tend to go into a tfcd situation as a partnership. I want the model to get what she wants out of it. So, I let her see all the work. Even my screw-ups. Hell, she saw me fall in the tidal pool when I hit the button, so, that's why ist's a little cockeyed and blurry.

Sure, I retain the ultimate copyright and ownership, but, I find if I show respect and consideration for them, they are nicer to me as well and not petty.

Of course, I've been married for 12 years too, so maybe I've become whipped.

I don't mean for any of this to sound like I disrespect the model.  I love to collaborate on ideas, and anyone who has worked with me knows that I am very respectful of the model's wishes.  I wouldn't want them to feel like they are getting ripped off, but if you choose to work with me, you choose to play by my rules (which are clearly outlined in the contract that I send the models prior to the shoot, which leaves them plenty of time in which to chage their minds).  This probably comes from working under a photographer who makes a lot of money on her prints and is therefore very protective of the copyright of her work, and very protective of the images she allows the client to see.

I just think it's unreasonable for a model to make demands about pictures that don't belong to him/her.

lll wrote:
This again calls for the famous graph...

Please get rid of this graph....

David Moyle wrote:

Of course, I've been married for 12 years too, so maybe I've become whipped.

Beyond whipped......

BasementStudios wrote:

Beyond whipped......

At least she doesn't give me crap about taking photos of women. So, I'll manage.

Berumen wrote:
It's only a rip-off if you were promised more than was delivered

MB

Bingo!

I don't care if I receive 1 or 100, as long as I get what I was promised I was going to get! 

StaciF wrote:
Personally I enjoy TFP- And a few of the best shots edited makes me happy- but after giving 150% to a shoot to walking away with nothing- Not even one edited picture- Makes me want to charge cause at least then I will have gotten something for my time-

Sorry If I am starting to sound jaded- Because I am starting to get that way

Zoe wrote:
ditto!  i feel your pain.
and since we can't kick them in the n--- for not giving up the images, trades are now at risk...

yeah... Please don't start kicking us in the nuts!!!  Ouch! 
Well, if you don't want to do tfp, that's your perog but, you're going to have to deal with a lot of less than pro pics from a lot of amatuers that are paying models,l basically to see boobies.  let's face it, hopefully you are working with people on this forum to build you portfolio so... you can kick ass in the real world; gwc (I hate that term) shots (I'm generalizing) are usually not agency friendly.  Now, If you models are just trying to make money testing then... indicate no tfp's and, your intentions will be known to the world.
Also... Many photographers on this site have to deal with the "flaky model no-show..." There are unprofessional people in every aspect of this industy making tfp a risk for everyone. 
Have a groovy day!

Zoe wrote:
ditto!  i feel your pain.
and since we can't kick them in the n--- for not giving up the images, trades are now at risk...



HA! HA! I don't got any nuts to kick!

T H Taylor wrote:

yeah... Please don't start kicking us in the nuts!!!  Ouch! 
Well, if you don't want to do tfp, that's your perog but, you're going to have to deal with a lot of less than pro pics from a lot of amatuers that are paying models,l basically to see boobies.  let's face it, hopefully you are working with people on this forum to build you portfolio so... you can kick ass in the real world; gwc (I hate that term) shots (I'm generalizing) are usually not agency friendly.  Now, If you models are just trying to make money testing then... indicate no tfp's and, your intentions will be known to the world.
Also... Many photographers on this site have to deal with the "flaky model no-show..." There are unprofessional people in every aspect of this industy making tfp a risk for everyone. 
Have a groovy day!

Rachel Models Too wrote:
Expectations should be set before the shoot.  I give a CD with the best photos in print and web quality formats.  The model can look over the rest to see if there are any others she wants. 

Last I checked, both the model and the photographer were putting in their time, so they should both expect to get something in return.

Something for their time..
Cool..well said...

I give em a Web resolution CD..Or e-mal..depending...

3 to 5 retouched images.. high res..will drop that to two soon..

They can ORDER and PAY for more retouches later if they life from the web resolution CD.

They can not retouch images them selves.

I own all rights and have an agreement in the contract in case images are sold. The model will get a cut.

They must do the same, if they are so inclines to shop the images around. Though low res is a hard sell.

V

Mikel Featherston wrote:
I don't give a CD of full sized images (any more). I don't need to see my intellectual property badly altered and placed online with my name attached to it.

Unless I'm the one butchering it. (Had to be said)

StaciF wrote:
Personally I enjoy TFP- And a few of the best shots edited makes me happy- but after giving 150% to a shoot to walking away with nothing- Not even one edited picture- Makes me want to charge cause at least then I will have gotten something for my time-

Sorry If I am starting to sound jaded- Because I am starting to get that way

I feel the same.. Half the photographers that I've worked with have yet to even give me a cd.. Makes me so bummed.

leah michel wrote:

I feel the same.. Half the photographers that I've worked with have yet to even give me a cd.. Makes me so bummed.

They make it hell for those of us who try. If I don't have a disc in the hands of my model in a week or less from the date of the shoot, I screwed something up.