Joanne Lai wrote:
hi everyone, i'm just starting out in this business as a model and i recently got some test shots done.
the shots came out and i was called in to choose some pictures. after i got 5 of them chosen, the photographer said he can get them printed for $20CAD each at 8.5X11" and touched up....

my question is, do photographers provide any prints at all? or do they just shoot? i feel a bit ripped off...

the simple, non-professional shoot costed me $300CAD at about 3 rolls of film, luckily the pictures turned out nice. they weren't going to give me a cd at first, they wanted to give me an index sheet, but i negotiated for a long time and they finally handed over the cd.

also, the place looked dirty, he didn't even have great lighting (just one light), he was eating beef jerky on the set while he was shooting, and he didn't tell me how to pose and it's my first ever shot....

i think i had a bad first shot experience, what do you think?

It's not out of line for a photographer to charge for prints.  Some will shoot for free and charge for prints.  Some will shoot for free and give prints for free.  Some will give you a select number of prints included in the package price.  This should all have been negotiated in a contract before you even started shooting. 
However, it sounds like you didn't do your research on the photographer before you booked him for a $300 shoot.  If you think someone is non-professional, don't pay them.  Also, equipment doesn't have much to do with whether or not the photographer can give you nice pictures.  I got all my first paying shoots when I had 0 lights.  But, I guess you know that since you said the pics turned out nice even though he had a dirty studio and only 1 light.
There are plenty of photographers who can give you nice images for $300, some of them will even shoot for free if they like you enough to use you in their book.  You bought what he was selling, then decided you didn't like what you got.  All I can say is buyer beware, and try again.

Krs wrote:
I don't pay photographers... I never would also. All my photographers gave me prints. I would be pretty upset if a photographer charged me.

That's a very poor attitude.  If you want professional pictures, expect to pay a professional.  If you're lucky, someone with some talent will want to shoot you for free.  You have no right to get upset, if you can't afford to pay a photographer, then don't work with one, plain and simple.

I have models ask to shoot for free (which I sometimes do) or for me to pay them (which I don't do).  I just say "I'm not in a position to pay models, thanks though."  No need to get upset.

Joanne Lai wrote:
well there wasn't a contract to sign, it was an 'agency' person finding the photographer for me, i didn't even know who it was at first. i asked, but it was a different person that day. it was the guy who owned the agency, who happen to also be a photographer...
and when he told me about the shoot, he said i will get some prints and all the pictures on a CD. well i got the CD and now he's charging for prints... what to do?

No contract, no modeling.  Without a piece of paper, don't even show up.  This agency sounds like a scam.  If it's agency personnel taking your picture, they have no reason to withold prints, they want to use your book to promote you.  You got screwed.  Let this be a lesson.  Find a new agency.

Krs wrote:
I don't pay photographers... I never would also. All my photographers gave me prints. I would be pretty upset if a photographer charged me.

It's evident that you haven't paid a photographer, and if you did, I would request a refund.

Joanne Lai wrote:
well there wasn't a contract to sign, it was an 'agency' person finding the photographer for me, i didn't even know who it was at first. i asked, but it was a different person that day. it was the guy who owned the agency, who happen to also be a photographer...

Ok, don't know which "agency" you were dealing with, that doesn't sound right.

I shoot tests for the few top agencies here.  They send the models to me, the models pay me, I send the resultant images (shoot about 150, send them 30-40 on one CD) to the agency and they pick the images so the models will make the prints (wherever they want) from the CDs I sent the agencies.  (Note carefully who does what and who pays who for what).  The smarter ones would buy the prints from me.

EMG STUDIOS wrote:
It's evident that you haven't paid a photographer, and if you did, I would request a refund.

EMG, nevermind them.  Different sector, different market. 

Joanne Lai wrote:
then i tell him the many others offer at least 3 prints, but then he said, "Oh it's a different world, different photographers do different things, some photographers chare $900 and they take crappy pictures... blah blah blah..." then there's this weird furniture analogy on how you can get the same furniture half the price...

ok, i'm going to try to get myself some prints. i checked the CD, they gave me every picture at 2550X3300, wait, is that pretty high res?

Yes.  You can get good 8x to 9x prints out of that easily.  But that, of course, depends on how well it was shot...  Pixels don't mean anything if they are blurry pixels.

Joanne Lai wrote:
then i tell him that many others offer at least 3 prints, but then he said, "Oh it's a different world, different photographers do different things, some photographers chare $900 and they take crappy pictures... blah blah blah..." then there's this weird furniture analogy on how you can get the same furniture half the price...

ok, i'm going to try to get myself some prints. i checked the CD, they gave me every picture at 2550X3300, wait, is that pretty high res?

also, i did say: "Can't i just take the cd and print them somewhere else?"
he said: "yeh, but those are just crappy quality, we machine(?) print them, with great quality. we have an art student from emily carr touch-up and print them herself, and she only charges $20. some people just take it to supermarkets and get crappy prints."

well, i print all my family photos at superstore or future shop and they're great. well i guess this industry look for perfect nice prints eh? and some art student?

are we allow to post names of agencies on here?

Print the photos if you like them and you want to use them in your book.  Many labs will require a physical copyright release from the photographer if they look like professional pictures (which he may refuse to give). One lab here still refuses to print my photos because I don't have the "release from the studio," even though I took the pictures my damn self and I don't even HAVE a studio.  But other than that, cut all ties and start looking elsewhere for your material.  This place is DEFINITELY a scam.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
...One lab here still refuses to print my photos because I don't have the "release from the studio," even though I took the pictures my damn self and I don't even HAVE a studio....

Sorry to hear that, Amanda.  Talk to the manager and COMPLAIN.  It happened to one of my assistants as well (also a girl), they claimed she stole the photos.  WTF.  So sexist.  They refused until I walked in with her and told them she took those pictures in my presence (since they know me).  We made enough of a scene they gave her 100 free prints (!).  Never hurt to biotch a little once in a while. 

lll wrote:
Sorry to hear that, Amanda.  Talk to the manager and COMPLAIN.  It happened to one of my assistants as well (also a girl), they claimed she stole the photos.  WTF.  So sexist.  They refused until I walked in with her and told them she took those pictures in my presence (since they know me).  We made enough of a scene they gave her 100 free prints (!).  Never hurt to biotch a little once in a while. 

Haha, I have a few shots I took in a studio I borrowed from a guy I know from photo club, and they demanded I bring HIM in to sign the copyright release.  I said "How can he sign the release when he doesn't own the copyright?  He wasn't even there when the photos were taken!"

People are huge idiots.  It sucks to be a young girl in this world, ya gots no clout... Plus I'm pretty short, that doesn't help.  Everyone thinks of you as a child.  Maybe that's what made me such a bitch, having to smack around stupid people so they treat me like a human being.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
People are huge idiots.  It sucks to be a young girl in this world, ya gots no clout... Plus I'm pretty short, that doesn't help.  Everyone thinks of you as a child.  Maybe that's what made me such a bitch, having to smack around stupid people so they treat me like a human being.

I feel you.  I am not a young girl, but I am not a tall guy either, and I look very very young for my age.  All you need to do is to "confidently bitch" as if you own their place.  It's funny how it works!  Just slap them, they deserve it. 

AllenA wrote:
Geeze... I'm bribing my TFP/CD models with a CD containing the best pics retouched in both high res + email/forum posting sizes without any watermarks + thier favorate 3 images printed professionally in A4 size at a lab my friend manages...

(note:  retouching includes contrast/sat/sharpness but also fixing blemishes & careful cloning of stupid distracting background elements that should have never been in the shot anyway...I mean hey, it's MY fault as the photographer that the distracing elements are there, right?  It's my job to get rid of 'em)

I'll usually also include a folder of some of the shots converted to duotone or tritone, with also some post-processing tomfoolery just for kicks...

plus I buy them coffee or water or a Boost Juice or whatever during our time together..

PLUS I'll cover bus fare or train fare or fuel if they need it...

Come to South Australia & shoot with me...

Have pride in your work and you don't have to "bribe" anyone.

AllenA wrote:
...I mean hey, it's MY fault as the photographer that the distracing elements are there, right?  It's my job to get rid of 'em...

What?!  Is it their mothers' fault that they were not born looking like a Barbie without plastic skin?

Joanne Lai wrote:
hi everyone, i'm just starting out in this business as a model and i recently got some test shots done.
the shots came out and i was called in to choose some pictures. after i got 5 of them chosen, the photographer said he can get them printed for $20CAD each at 8.5X11" and touched up....

my question is, do photographers provide any prints at all? or do they just shoot? i feel a bit ripped off...

the simple, non-professional shoot costed me $300CAD at about 3 rolls of film, luckily the pictures turned out nice. they weren't going to give me a cd at first, they wanted to give me an index sheet, but i negotiated for a long time and they finally handed over the cd.

also, the place looked dirty, he didn't even have great lighting (just one light), he was eating beef jerky on the set while he was shooting, and he didn't tell me how to pose and it's my first ever shot....

i think i had a bad first shot experience, what do you think?

You paid $300CAD to shoot and it did not include any prints?  OUCH!!

Next time, spend that $300 to spend a weekend in Los Angeles and I'll take care of you.

Or fly me to Canada, I could use a vacation

EMG STUDIOS wrote:
It's evident that you haven't paid a photographer, and if you did, I would request a refund.

Oooh, even I felt that sting

Joanne Lai wrote:
ok, i'm going to try to get myself some prints. i checked the CD, they gave me every picture at 2550X3300, wait, is that pretty high res?

That is EXCELLENT resolution.  What are the file sizes?  I've seen models get full res pics but they are compressed down to 500k and smaller.  They'll still probably look good as 8x10s though.  When I save my D70s 2000x3008 resolution files in Photoshop at level 12 (very low compression) they range from 4.5 to 6mb in size.  Level 10 (still low compression) will give me 2 to 3.5mb files.

The smaller the file, the more compression, which causes some artifacting to occur and MAY show up prints.

lll wrote:
What?!  Is it their mothers' fault that they were not born looking like a Barbie without plastic skin?

That's distracting elements in the BACKGROUND... read (not skim) my post...

If I put a telephone poll 'growing' out of a model's head, then it's MY fault... and it's my job to remove it.

As far as perfect skin is concerned:  a zit is temporary, while a photograph can last forever... so I eliminate the temporary, right?  As far as 'ultra skin smoothing' is concerned:  I do it rarely, but yes, I do it.  You'll notice that my 'models' are not barbie dolls.  They are that most glorious thing on earth: normal human beings.  One of my 'models' has stretch marks on her upper thigh (left in) and some glorious freckles.  She EARNED those stretch marks, and her freckles are angel-kisses.

You've left the kind of response that I would leave, so I gotta believe that you and I share an opinion, but read the post & check my stuff before you go off like that.

Cheers,

Allen

EDIT:  I just looked at your gallery.  Wonderful lighting, but there ain't one single flaw... is that because of post-processing, MUA, or genetics????

DigitalCMH wrote:

That is EXCELLENT resolution.  What are the file sizes?  I've seen models get full res pics but they are compressed down to 500k and smaller.  They'll still probably look good as 8x10s though.  When I save my D70s 2000x3008 resolution files in Photoshop at level 12 (very low compression) they range from 4.5 to 6mb in size.  Level 10 (still low compression) will give me 2 to 3.5mb files.

The smaller the file, the more compression, which causes some artifacting to occur and MAY show up prints.

So what would you consider to be the best resolution and file size for printing and web purposes?

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
Have pride in your work and you don't have to "bribe" anyone.

While that reads like good, sound advice, please know that I do have pride in my work.  Sure, I may be self-depreciating at times for a bit of fun, but I take what I do very seriously.  To offer a model a fair package is only right. 

I did call it a 'bribe' which may have negative connotations for you and many others, but by definition: The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the reciever's conduct (Wikipedia).

I wish to stand above the crowd of newbie photographers in the package I will deliver.  I stand by my term 'bribe' as well, but others may merely call it 'offer' or somesutch.

Cheers,

Allen

EDIT:  so... what do you as a photographer offer for your 'unpaid' models... is TFCD going to only get them low-rez images or the good stuff? Oh... you ONLY have 'unpaid' models, don't you?

Joanne Lai wrote:
^ the pictures range from 3.5 to 4.0MB

Then unless he did something funky, you have the capability to make some really great prints (assuming the photos themselves are good).  You've got plenty usable data.  You could print them yourself on an Epson and get some kick ass results.

Olamide Demi wrote:

So what would you consider to be the best resolution and file size for printing and web purposes?

For printing, there is no best resolution.  The more you have the better.  there is a point that you don't need more, but it never hurts to have more.  And the file size is only important as a possible indicator to how much compression they may have save it with.  The more compression, the less quality you'll have. 

In a nutshell, the more pixels and the larger the JPEG file is, the better.

For web anywhere from 640x480 to 800x600 is good.  Maybe even smaller.  I size all my photos too 800 and less.

Joanne Lai wrote:
you guys are so great~ i didn't expect so much advice and comments so fast! thank-you so much for helping me out!

AllenA: wow you're awesome! i hope i can find someone like you in vancouver. that sure sounds like a nice package.

oh and one more thing, the agency said they will put my picture up on a website for bookers to look at. then yesterday, they told me it's $10 a month for maintainence fee towards the website company.

when i left, the 'photographer' insisted that i come back in to do some topless shots, like the ones in the victoria's secret magazine he showed me. and he emphasized that "it's free anyway, why not try it in some shadow lighting since you have a nice body."

No No No get away from these pigs
MM is free and find a better angency

I'd love to see the web site though.........

AllenA wrote:

While that reads like good, sound advice, please know that I do have pride in my work.  Sure, I may be self-depreciating at times for a bit of fun, but I take what I do very seriously.  To offer a model a fair package is only right. 

I did call it a 'bribe' which may have negative connotations for you and many others, but by definition: The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the reciever's conduct (Wikipedia).

I wish to stand above the crowd of newbie photographers in the package I will deliver.  I stand by my term 'bribe' as well, but others may merely call it 'offer' or somesutch.

Cheers,

Allen

EDIT:  so... what do you as a photographer offer for your 'unpaid' models... is TFCD going to only get them low-rez images or the good stuff? Oh... you ONLY have 'unpaid' models, don't you?

Sometimes I have PAYING models.

When I arrange a TFCD, the model knows she is getting a CD of low-res images which she may use online, and if she wants prints for a physical book (which some do and some don't, some models only use online portfolios, though not the agency kind of model...) she can buy them for a very reasonable price.  If she doesn't want that deal, she doesn't have to work with me.

lll wrote:
...Pixels don't mean anything if they are blurry pixels.

Can we just take a moment for the genius of this simple statement?
I want to put it on a sticker and adhere it to the forehead of every dolt with more camera than they know how to use.

Thank you - carry on...

Joanne Lai wrote:
my question is, do photographers provide any prints at all? or do they just shoot? i feel a bit ripped off...

I'm sort of old at this, but "new" to the new photography.  I retired out for about 7 or 8 years, and am just going back now.

In the "old days" when we shot a model, there was no CD's (heck, when I started out, there were *NO* CD's , unless you meant Certificate of Deposit), and we gave the models 1-3 prints (on average) per hour of time.  The actual number varied, and depended on the shoot (and the quality and type of print).  IF it was an archival, "Gallery" type print, 11x14 or 16x20, there might be only one print for the whole day of work (or more).  If it was just a test shoot, or spec shoot, the model might get a few 8x10's.

There was no rule, only a few guidelines.  1-3 8x10's per hour (more or less).

Some photographers did it by "roll".  1 print for every roll of 35mm, or 1 print for every 2-3 rolls of 120.

But, the idea was the same.  THe model got prints for her portfolio (usually 8x10's) and the photographer got images for his. 

The images were *usually* not sold, or used, and there was no Internet to upload them to for quick money. 

It was a different world.

*BUT* the model *never* got the negatives, unless there was some odd agreement, or she was paying to get them.  The negatives were always the photographer's property, with or without a model release.  The release only gave him the power to "use" the images in some way(s).  The equivalent is the RAW or even HI res image from digital cameras. There is no reason for models to expect that from _serious_ photographers.  Hobbiests may not care about the use of their images (at first) but most photographers do.  Like a model who has her assets in her looks/body, the photographer has his/her assets in their film/images. 

I can see, perhaps, a model getting a single RAW image, and limited rights to that image, for a shoot, but I can't see getting a whole RAW CD.  It's never been done that way.  While it's "easy" to give entire CD's/DVD's now, it's not necessarily the "right" thing to do, or even expect. 

Today, with CD's and everyone wanting to model or take photos for different reasons, there really are no guidelines -- NONE.  Anyone who tries to tell you there are is too focused on their own little world.  It's really more important than ever to CLEARLY define what is going to be expected from a shoot:

1) what the shoot is, where, when, how, why, who, etc.
2) what the model is expected to do, perform, behave.
3) what images are the goal, more or less "concept"
4) what payment or compensation is
5) anything specific to that shoot or relationship (ex: a client's rights).

It takes the spontenaity out of the shoot, and experience, but unfortunately everyone needs to protect themselves these days, it seems. 

Despite that, understand everyone, EVERYONE, has different needs/wants from life and photography or modeling in general, and in relation to any specific shoot.

A model might want to do TFP for experience, or for some new images, or just to say she worked with a photographer.  A photographer might do the same for a model.  Photographers *DO* pay models.  Really.  It happens .  Not every model makes $2000/day, but $25-$75/hour for a 2-5 hour shoot is not unreasonable.  10 years ago, we paid a flat $160 or $200 for a 4-5 hour shoot.  The different in price was based on repeat and on-time performance.  It was a "bonus" paid to "serious" models (in our business, they were often hard to find).

Some models are "in demand" or value their time at $100 or more an hour.  If what they offer is right for a client, or photographer, they'll get work.  If not, well, they can *ask* whatever they want.

Some photographers are asked by models for photographs (eg: offered money).  I'm not sure why, unless in a competitive market getting shot by that photographer means something (usually it means nothing, but people think it does.  Being HIRED by that photographer, or showing up in his gallery or portfolio may mean something).

Models should *never* have to pay for photos.  Unless they want to.  There are more than enough talented, skilled, and willing to trade services photographers, MUA's, etc out there. 

FWIW:  If you are looking for prints for your portfolio, and the photographer is not enamored or interested enough to WANT to shoot you -- you might be wasting your time, as the "spark" won't be there.  Something to think about.

Any angency that says you need to shoot with THEIR photographer, and charges you for it -- run, don't walk in the other other direction.  RUN. 

When I lived in NYC, a girl in our dorm was stopped on the street by one of the big (the biggest?) agency in NY.  She was handed a card, told to show up at the photographers in an hour, and was shot, and hired by the end of the day.  *THAT* is how it's done.  If they want you, they show it.  If they don't want you, they show that too.  Take the hint before you spend all your money. 

BTW:  She thought it was a joke, till she started making $500/day several days a week -- back then, *GREAT* money.

And, she wasn't the only one.  There were several during the course of my time there.

Not everyone has that "look" but the concept is the same.  Agencies only want what they can sell, because it costs money to promote someone.  They only make money when their clients make money (percentages).  If they charge you, then they don't think they can make money on you -- and they won't spend their time trying to promote you.

So... back to the original idea.

Yes, photographers do give prints if they shoot film, or if that is what you need/want.

Most photographers give CD's, since that is what the industry seems to want today, for sizing up people.

*ART* photographers, will rarely want to give CD's, because they can't control their work.  That is one way you can pick out an "art" photographer, (or a control freak, maybe).  Depending on the work you are looking for, and the number of in-person presentations of your portfolio, that print might be more than than you could have afforded on your own.

Often TFP sessions produce BETTER and more ARTISTIC work than paid shoots.  If the shoot is paid, there is usually already an idea or concept, or perhaps a very specific look or shot they are working for.  The creativity is far less, as there is no "money" (or time) to wander down creative opportunities, the "money" shot is what is needed.

There is so much misinformation, and mis communication, out there today for people to read, it's very disheartening.

There is *NO* one way of doing something.  Being flexible, and upfront is always the best.  If a photographer has a set of strict rules for things, and you are not a strict rules type model, find another photographer.  If a model has a set of rules for what she will and won't do, and you are an "art" photographer who likes to seize the moment, she's probably not the right model.

Not everyone can work with everyone else or on any/every job.  Picking your shoots is the most important thing for a model.

Like an actress picking or passing up roles, what you choose to model, and how you do it, say a lot about you.  As long as you do what makes you happy, and comfortable, and you like the results (either the prints or check) go for it.

But, don't expect every photographer to offer the same deal, or even the same photographer to offer the same deal each shoot.   

On the other hand, *MODELS* need to be more consistent, since they are being hired for what they have done, or state they will do, or show in their portfolio.  If you change the rules when you show up for a shoot, don't be suprised to find the door hitting you in the ass.  It may not seem fair, but the role of the model *IS* to be a model, *MOST* (*MOST*) of the time.  And, agreeing to a TFP/CD *is* being hired, and you need to act the same professional way as if you are getting a cash-money check.

Just thought I'd slip that in, since I haven't seen that posted anywhere yet.

Scott
aka Bodyartist