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?

Does not sound like you had  a great experience. My husband and I give you a CD of all pics taken. If you want prints done we can do it for you, but it would be cheaper for you to take the CD and get them done yourself. We have some great packages including hair and make up.

We also keep our place tidy, and have lights.

If you are interested, or if there is any advice that we can help you with, come visit our site.

Take care and I wish you great success.

Rhonda

AllenA wrote:
Scott (aka Bodyartist):

That is a well thought out and well written post.  I thank you sincerely for your time.

Thanks.  It's nice to know someone read it  It was a little long, but after reading a bunch of threads here the past few days, I had to post a few messages on the topic of Model/photographer relations, TFP and Nudes.

I'm just sort of tired of running into the "speed bumps" like:

"I don't pay models, models pay me."
"I don't pose nude for free."
"I don't get naked for TFP."
"I only take paid shoots, so don't ask about TFP."

Or the best, "I don't do nudes" and 9 out of 10 of the images in their porfolio would get them arrested for indecent exposure if they were out in public.

Etc. 

There are nicer ways to say it, and better ways to get the idea across that you'd like to be PAID for your work or time, you have all the work you can handle, and have no interest in contributing to the general pool of art work.

Or something to that respect.

FWIW:  I love working TFP, and never had a problem. If I'm going to use the photos, or have a plan for them, I PAY the models a _reasonable_ fee for the shoot, because legally, I really need to do that.  It has to do with all those work for hire, implied agreements, contracts, etc.  You give a model a check for her time, and the issues go away, unless you were deceptive in some way.

I don't like getting paid by models, or even clients, because then it's stressful.

I much prefer creating my own works or images that people buy, or toss money at me for, or want to download, or this whole Internet thing   I get to do my own thing, find models who are fun to work with and have similar interests, and we all get paid for it from people who really want to see the images and like our work.

Some people love the glamour and stress of fashion and runway.  I cringe at the thought. 

Some love the idea of setting up a studio full of lights to grab that one product shot that ends up on the cover of a magazine.  I don't.

But, there seem to be a lot of loud points of view on this forum that are ONLY from the vantage of the runway or fashion shoot/model.  That is not really cool. 

Scott
aka Bodyartist

Joanne Lai wrote:
wow Scott, thank-you so much for that thorough thoughtful write-up, it was a very different point of view, great insight. thanks!

joanne

Thanks

PS:  As I re-read the title of this thread, I thought occurred to me.

No.  Photographers *don't* give prints.  The models _earn_ them.

FWIW.

Scott
aka Bodyartist.

Bodyartist wrote:

Thanks.  It's nice to know someone read it  It was a little long, but after reading a bunch of threads here the past few days, I had to post a few messages on the topic of Model/photographer relations, TFP and Nudes.

I'm just sort of tired of running into the "speed bumps" like:

"I don't pay models, models pay me."
"I don't pose nude for free."
"I don't get naked for TFP."
"I only take paid shoots, so don't ask about TFP."

Or the best, "I don't do nudes" and 9 out of 10 of the images in their porfolio would get them arrested for indecent exposure if they were out in public.

Etc. 

There are nicer ways to say it, and better ways to get the idea across that you'd like to be PAID for your work or time, you have all the work you can handle, and have no interest in contributing to the general pool of art work.

Or something to that respect.

FWIW:  I love working TFP, and never had a problem. If I'm going to use the photos, or have a plan for them, I PAY the models a _reasonable_ fee for the shoot, because legally, I really need to do that.  It has to do with all those work for hire, implied agreements, contracts, etc.  You give a model a check for her time, and the issues go away, unless you were deceptive in some way.

I don't like getting paid by models, or even clients, because then it's stressful.

I much prefer creating my own works or images that people buy, or toss money at me for, or want to download, or this whole Internet thing   I get to do my own thing, find models who are fun to work with and have similar interests, and we all get paid for it from people who really want to see the images and like our work.

Some people love the glamour and stress of fashion and runway.  I cringe at the thought. 

Some love the idea of setting up a studio full of lights to grab that one product shot that ends up on the cover of a magazine.  I don't.

But, there seem to be a lot of loud points of view on this forum that are ONLY from the vantage of the runway or fashion shoot/model.  That is not really cool. 

Scott
aka Bodyartist

I understand your position, and your post was very well thought out, but here's my perspective on the "I don't pay models" thing.  People want pictures of themselves for all different reasons.  Actors pay me to take their headshots.  Bands pay me to take their promotional pictures.  Parents pay me to take pictures of their children.  My boss pays me to shoot weddings.  All of these things are assumed paying gigs unless I've worked out a special arrangement with the client in advance because of some other barter, or because I just really want to use them in my portfolio.  Why should a "model" (aspiring, professional, internet, or otherwise) be any different?  It's a person who wants pictures of herself for something (in this case, a print or digital portfolio.)  If I want her in my portfolio, I may agree to do it for free.  If I'm not thrilled about the idea, I may decide not to shoot her at all, or decide that I need to get paid to do it.  If she declines, fine.  If I really needed a specific model (or stylist) for a certain project (related to a third party client or not) and she wasn't wiling to do it for free, I would certainly pay her her rates to show up.  But so far, that hasn't happened, everyone I've wanted to work with has agreed to TFCD.  I don't have a whole lot of spare cash sitting around (hell, I'm still paying off my camera), so the project would have to be pretty special and important for me to dig into my pocketbook for the money to pay a model or stylist.

Joanne Lai wrote:
hi everyone, i'm just starting out in this business as a model and

My advice is that you should negotiate the details before the sitting.  If you want prints, ask for them before you agree to pose.

AllenA wrote:
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.

Allen, sorry, I wasn't clear about your point since you put the "blemish" and skin imperfections in the same line as the "telephone pole".  I did read the whole thing, but it was unclear, so I made a (sadly incorrect) assumption.  My apologies.

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.

How beautifully written.    "She EARNED those stretch marks"...I agree, I do love my mom. 

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????

Depending on which one, but mostly was genetics and my magical makeup artist.  Also, the images are so small, it's hardly visible.  In the larger prints you will see some minor "imperfections", but these girls are all human, you know. 

Side Effects Studio wrote:

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.

LMAO!  Where do I send my check?  Seriously, I'll buy the next coffee, you are not far from me.

Terry Breedlove wrote:
Seriously hookup with Leo/III and get some great shots from a great guy.

Awww, schucks....Terry. 

BodyArtist wrote:
FWIW:  I love working TFP, and never had a problem. If I'm going to use the photos, or have a plan for them, I PAY the models a _reasonable_ fee for the shoot, because legally, I really need to do that.  It has to do with all those work for hire, implied agreements, contracts, etc.  You give a model a check for her time, and the issues go away, unless you were deceptive in some way.

Let's deal with an inaccuracy first.  Photographers are not legally required to pay a model to use the images, even for commercial purposes, as long as a release is signed.  "Work for hire" is a specific case in the Copyright law where the copyright is transferred to the photographers' employer (and a few more specific cases), it has nothing to do with the model.  I have no idea what implied agreements/contracts you are talking about.  The model release generally has all the terms clearly laid out all usage for the photographer, but generally it secures the rights for commercial use for most free tests with unsigned aspirants or models.

In your market (fetish and softcore erotica as you stated in your profile), it may be the case where most models want to get paid for photos to get naked.  I don't know, I do not deal with this field.

For agencies, in fashion or commercial, models generally go to a selected group of good photographers for quality images in order to build their books to make them marketable, and most of the time it is paid, either by the agency through advance (they take the cost out of the paychecks in the future) or the models pay the photographers directly.  For established enough photographers, there is no need to develop their book after a certain point, and the models offer no particular value to him/her, there is no reason to shoot for free.  These photographers do update their books once in a while, and will do free tests for that purpose, but it is done at their choosing, because they present more value to the model than vice versa.

Now, it has to be said as well that it costs the photographer money to test with a model, and testing fees for good photographers these days basically just cover the cost (there is no money to be made in the model testing business, that's not the purpose of testing with agency models).  But yes, it costs money to get marketable images for a serious fashion/commercial model to make money.  I have seen wannabe "photographers" offering agencies to shoot their girls for free.  They generally get laughed out of the door when they deliver, and the models end up not receiving anything usable, while wasted easily half a day at the "shoot".

bodyartist wrote:
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...

The example of your friend being discovered on the street is a rarity.  There are always more pretty girls, it certainly is not "how it is done".  Talk to your local legitimate agencies.  Since the original poster is certainly not interested in the fetish community, I don't think your words hold much value for her, while it may be highly accurate for models interested in doing your line of work.

Your proposed idea that models should never pay photographers is ludicrous in the commercial and fashion worlds, and that is apparently the market that the original poster was asking about.  Joanne fits solidly into the commercial world.

Joanne, you are welcome to PM me etc. if you are serious about modeling and getting into the commercial market.  And of course, if you are into the "art" world, you would not need me, talk to Lapis here on MM, she would give you some solid advice on art modeling.

Hope this helps and clarifies a few things.

Let's deal with an inaccuracy first.  Photographers are not legally required to pay a model to use the images, even for commercial purposes, as long as a release is signed.  "Work for hire" is a specific case in the Copyright law where the copyright is transferred to the photographers' employer (and a few more specific cases), it has nothing to do with the model.  I have no idea what implied agreements/contracts you are talking about.  The model release generally has all the terms clearly laid out all usage for the photographer, but generally it secures the rights for commercial use for most free tests with unsigned aspirants or models.

No, you are not legally required in the strictest sense.  Just try to work for any length of time, *not* paying models, and using the images, and seeing what sort of legal quagmire you end up in.  I don't remember saying you were _required_ to pay models, just that it AVOIDED a lot of problems.  And, simply paying models is *not* enough.  Paying fairly is also something you need to undertstand, but there's no point arguing that here either.  Just depends on how much time and money you have to devote to non-photography stuff down the road. 

For agencies, in fashion or commercial, models generally go to a selected group of good photographers for quality images in order to build their books to make them marketable, and most of the time it is paid, either by the agency through advance (they take the cost out of the paychecks in the future) or the models pay the photographers directly.  For established enough photographers, there is no need to develop their book after a certain point, and the models offer no particular value to him/her, there is no reason to shoot for free.  These photographers do update their books once in a while, and will do free tests for that purpose, but it is done at their choosing, because they present more value to the model than vice versa.

I'm not going to debate, or get into trivialities here.  the bottom line is that agencies like to see their models shot with their own photographers.  If they are -serious_ about a model, they don't want to lose them, or take a chance on losing them, so they pay for the photos.  The photos may or may not come out of their paychecks in the future, but again, the bottom line is, if the agency doesn't sign the model, the agency doesn't make money -- and can lose her to another agency.  If they do sign the model, and cant get her work, then they are losing money.  It's a business. 

I believe I did say, a model didn't have to pay a photographer -- unless they wanted to.  I'll leave all that other c**p about how great the photographer is, and how he doesn't need that model, etc on the side of the road where it belongs. 

I also did say, that there *ARE* plenty of photographers with great talent, who would be willing to shoot that model for free, or trade, or other non-cash arrangement.  If both model and photographer are "hungry" then the images that come out of the shoot will be of a more interesting nature [see below]

Now, it has to be said as well that it costs the photographer money to test with a model, and testing fees for good photographers these days basically just cover the cost (there is no money to be made in the model testing business, that's not the purpose of testing with agency models).  But yes, it costs money to get marketable images for a serious fashion/commercial model to make money.  I have seen wannabe "photographers" offering agencies to shoot their girls for free.  They generally get laughed out of the door when they deliver, and the models end up not receiving anything usable, while wasted easily half a day at the "shoot".

Again, this is correct, but not the whole story.  The 'costs' are taken out of the percentages the model earns for the agency, which is why they agency wants to be selective.  And, they like to shoot with their own photographers, since they get a feel for what was there, and what will turn out.  This is just for EVALUATION purposes, and some agencies have retainers for photographers just to shoot tests, because the photographer can do it quickly, in a "standard" fashion that the agency can use to judge the models.  Some of these photographers never shoot "ad work" for the agencies, just tests.

But, this is not about how agencies operate, since all operate a little differently, it's just about filtering out the *BAD* situations, eg: You pay us to look at you.  Nope.  *that's* a joke.

And, just to be fair, the models time *IS* valuable too, and the 4 or 5 hours she spends preparing and working for a TFP shoot, is another shift at the restaurant, store, or other "day" job she has, so it *IS* costing her too.   Few models have enough resources to jump in full-time without a day job, just as many photographers start with a day job of sorts, and move into full time.  EVERYONE has a different story, remember that.

The example of your friend being discovered on the street is a rarity.

No, it's not.  EVERYONE is discovered on the street, in one way or another, whether she walks through the door of an agency, or into a cafeteria where a scout was sitting, or was caught on camera at a football game.  *THAT* is how it happens.

Of course, there are always those who take it on themselves to market themselves, and force themselves on the crowd, like Madonna.  I met her a few times in NYC before she was known, and around the time her first single got air play.  Talk about a chick that never took no for an answer -- for anything.  She was a popular model -- nude model -- down at the New School, and there is at least one photographer with a lot of nudes of her he never "cashed in" on, because he was a gentleman (perhaps?)  But, that too is another story, so I'm told.  *THAT* was awesome self-marketing.  But, not everyone has that "energy", for lack of a better word.

Talk to your local legitimate agencies.  Since the original poster is certainly not interested in the fetish community, I don't think your words hold much value for her, while it may be highly accurate for models interested in doing your line of work.

You know, this is the real pointlessness of your post.  And posts like it.

"legitimate agencies" sounds like a flag you have to wave.  "Me thinks the lady doeth protests too much" (or close, I dont' have time to look up the exact wording).  If you have to keep saying you are "legitimate" and you should pay us because we are "legitimate", etc then there is something wrong.

On the other hand, like lawyers, when they smell the money, they do it for free for a substantial cut.  When they don't smell the money, or they need to bail you out of trouble, they get their money up front -- win or lose. 

You decide which way to play.

Your proposed idea that models should never pay photographers is ludicrous in the commercial and fashion worlds, and that is apparently the market that the original poster was asking about.  Joanna fits solidly into the commercial world.

You know, this is also trash talk, and what I find really, really bad about the whole industry, from when I started, to now. 

Ladies, you *NEVER* have to pay a photographer, unless you want to. PERIOD.  You don't need to pay for expensive portfolios, and you don't need to play their game. 

If you pay a photographer, understand that that photographer is just like you -- trying to get PAID. Period. They see nothing special in you, nothing that is worth their time, and nothing that is going to make you special.  Your photos with them, while maybe "striking" to you, will be the same-old same-old they have shot a hundred times before, and the stuff the agencies you are promised will look at the photos, will just set aside.  It will be the _RARE_ day that the agency will even take the time to notice what is in your photos -- because they KNOW the photographer!  So, is this a catch-22?  No.  It just means DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY PAYING PHOTOGRAPHERS.  *THAT* is the only place the money is made.  Like get-rich-quick schemes, the only person making money is the person selling you the materials.

So, in fairness, the agencies probably will _look_ at that photographers prints, but not take the time to look at YOU in those prints, unless something happens to strike them, or the print gets left out for some reason, or some other event happens to make your "striking" prints stand out from the white noise on their desks.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, is not being honest.

And, FWIW: You have *MORE* chance of being discovered on the streets of NYC than by paying that photographer to shoot you.

All things being equal.

If you take those prints, and market yourself, and use them as an "investment" in yourself, that you need to interest another photographer, and so on, go for it.

Agencies don't take kindly to "paid" portfolios for the reasons above.  Noone had that "spark" or "desire" to work together, other than for the money, so why would anyone else notice you in their client's advertising?? 

Think about it.  Seriously.  Think about it.

Joanna, you are welcome to PM me etc. if you are serious about modeling and getting into the commercial market.  And of course, if you are into the "art" world, you would not need me, talk to Lapis here on MM, she would give you some solid advice on art modeling.

Wow... you slipped that in.  I'll stop short of calling this a "troll" but, joanna, this is where that whole "COMMON SENSE" thing kicks in.

Hope this helps and clarifies a few things.

Yep, it does for me.


And, folks, don't assume I'm a "hick" from some cattle country or sheep farm, or coal mine.  I've been around the block a few times, tried to play their games -- and found it pretty much revolted me (not only photography, but a few other fields).  I work for myself now, because -- well, I *like* my boss, and that's the first time I can say that.  Lying, backstabbing, two-faced, self-serving, fair-weather people who pretend to be your friend simply because they have nothing better to do at the moment, or are trying to use you -- or worse -- abuse you so no one else will use you is *not* how I was raised, or who I want to associate with.

No business does all that "fun" stuff better than the fashion/photography/modeling business.

You may want to argue it, you may want to deny it, but you really can't, can you?

I don't have any ulterior motives posting on these threads, only to "share" what my experiences and view points are, from a 30+ year perspective.  I'm not trolling for models, if I want you to model for me, I'll ask.  I never liked to see the models used up by the system, and now as a father (of daughters) most models are young enough to *be* my kids (though, since I never once slept with a model, I know they aren't ), I feel more strongly about those issues.   I like short girls, fashion wants tall.  I want curvy, figured models, with bodyart of all sorts; fashion wants thin clothes racks with nothing to distract from the designs.  I want models whose personality is as important to the pictures as their posing -- not lifeless expressions of bordom and misery.  I'm looking for "edge" players, not people on the edge of sanity.  I don't want to work with agents, casting directors, clients, or boy friends.   I'm *not* in NYC any more, or LA, or any other area, and I'm not up to travelling.  So you decide if what I say in these threads is worth listening to, or taking as advice.

I offer it, just as anyone else offers it.

Scott
aka Bodyartist

PS:  For those of you wondering, yes, I have slept with models, or girls who were models, just none who were working for me, or even who worked for me.  Just not my style.   Something about that whole "don't piss where you eat" thing.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
I understand your position, and your post was very well thought out, but here's my perspective on the "I don't pay models" thing.  People want pictures of themselves for all different reasons.  Actors pay me to take their headshots.  Bands pay me to take their promotional pictures.  Parents pay me to take pictures of their children.  My boss pays me to shoot weddings.  All of these things are assumed paying gigs unless I've worked out a special arrangement with the client in advance because of some other barter, or because I just really want to use them in my portfolio.

Those *are* paying gigs, and I don't think there needs to be any explanation as to why they would "hire" a photographer.  Although, there are people who would do it for free, or trade.  Sometimes people do feel more secure or safe paying for things.  And, like any service, or need, you have the right to try to fill it.  'nuff said on that.

There's nothing wrong with running a commercial studio.  Just don't confuse the issues, or let the "modeling" issues slide into the discussions.  It's a different market.  If you only take paid assignments, fine.  That really isn't something a model is going to set up for themselves.  If they do, more power to them (and you).  But, then again, it's really not a "modelling" assignment is it?  It's a commercial job, with a client, even if the client is the model.  There are exceptions to every "rule".  They pretty much prove the rule, rather than invalidate it. 

Why should a "model" (aspiring, professional, internet, or otherwise) be any different?

because it *is* different  and let's not confuse:

a person who wants pictures of herself for something (in this case, a print or digital portfolio.)

with a "model" posing for a photographer. 

The *original* message, as mis-interpreted by the last reply I responded to, was not about any specific form of photography, but about:

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...

And it's to this "idea" I responded to, and I think I was clear enough to point out that all situations are different, and all that sort of stuff I posted before I'm not going to post again, just scroll up.

There could have been miscommunication here.  The photographer was offering a fee-based package, and the model thought it was a TFP.  *AND* from reading a bunch of the messages, the model had a greater chance of being led to believe that.

If I want her in my portfolio, I may agree to do it for free.  If I'm not thrilled about the idea, I may decide not to shoot her at all, or decide that I need to get paid to do it.  If she declines, fine.  If I really needed a specific model (or stylist) for a certain project (related to a third party client or not) and she wasn't wiling to do it for free, I would certainly pay her her rates to show up.  But so far, that hasn't happened, everyone I've wanted to work with has agreed to TFCD.  I don't have a whole lot of spare cash sitting around (hell, I'm still paying off my camera), so the project would have to be pretty special and important for me to dig into my pocketbook for the money to pay a model or stylist.

My point exactly.  I don't see why you feel you are disagreeing with me. (I'm assuming this is the real point of your reply).

A model *can* pay you.  You *can* pay a model.  There is *NO* one right or wrong way of doing it.

*BUT* this particular model felt it was a TFP, not a "scam" as she found out.

These scam photographers have cropped up all over, and have started to "run" the business.  They get good PR, they come across slick in their ads, and that is where they put all their money.  NOT into making good photos, or being creative.  And, the only money to be made is what the models pay them.

Sorry, this is something I live(d) and you will not change my mind on this.

Just understand, that in this sea of slime, there are the good, honest, working people.   If you get offended by my words, are you really offended by me, or by the others who you feel are pushing you into that soup of slime?

The idea of a FORUM like this is to wash off all that slime, burry the bullsh*t, and try to pass on some advice people can use.  Simply repeating the same old mantras, or tired old advice doesn't work.  Or, even worse, allowing the slime to keep rising without fighting back.

I find this whole concept of trying to get the models to pay for everything like trying to tax the road crews to pay for the ashphalt and supplies they need to fix the roads.   Or, taxing doctors for the priviledge of treating patients.   It's not how the "system" is supposed to work. 

And, again, don't confuse a person looking for some portraits or head shots, with TFP type portfolio modeling.  There's nothing really creative about the "stock" work, and it's a cost of doing business for both models and photographers. 

I do portraits and head shots occaisionally, still.  But I consider it mostly "commercial" work, not "art" or even "portfolio" work.  Oh, and yes, people will want to _pay_ me for that, because of my knack, skill, experience, or whatever.  I'm not denying you that either.

Part of the problem with such a mixed open forum, is everyone is seeing the "problem" or "issues" from their point of view.  I try to see it from a neutral vantage point, but what is "neutral" for me, may be your particular "specialized" niche.  If so, smile and feel you've cornered a specialty market.

Starting out, building a portfolio, doesn't require MONEY to change hands.  There are always new, aspiring talented photographers *AND* models to work with each other.

That's *my* main point.  And, my follow up point is:

Often, the TFP, or mutual needs of the photographer/artist and model create much more striking, unusual, creative and NOTICABLE works.

Boy, I'm all typed out.

Scott
aka Bodyartist.

Bodyartist wrote:
I also did say, that there *ARE* plenty of photographers with great talent, who would be willing to shoot that model for free, or trade, or other non-cash arrangement.  If both model and photographer are "hungry" then the images that come out of the shoot will be of a more interesting nature

I didn't say that there aren't.  But they would be willing to pay for the services of those who can guarantee their work and produce images that the agencies can use to market them.  Consistency is the key.  It has not much to do with art.  You are right, it is a business.

Some agency girls I shot with asked why I charge so little, go figure.

Again, this is correct, but not the whole story.  The 'costs' are taken out of the percentages the model earns for the agency, which is why they agency wants to be selective.  And, they like to shoot with their own photographers, since they get a feel for what was there, and what will turn out.  This is just for EVALUATION purposes, and some agencies have retainers for photographers just to shoot tests, because the photographer can do it quickly, in a "standard" fashion that the agency can use to judge the models.  Some of these photographers never shoot "ad work" for the agencies, just tests.

No, Sir.  Agencies don't have "their own" photographers (they might have a list of "selected ones", though), unless they are those agencies that charge to represent and receive kickbacks from outrageous photographer fees; I don't deal with those and I am not talking about those.

The shoots that agency models pay for are not for "evaluation" purposes.  I have no idea what you are talking about.  These images go straight into their books, or on their compcards to market them directly to clients.  You are, again, talking about those agencies that charge to represent, and charge to "look at" the potential models.

But, this is not about how agencies operate, since all operate a little differently, it's just about filtering out the *BAD* situations, eg: You pay us to look at you.  Nope.  *that's* a joke.

Yes, that is a joke.

No, it's not.  EVERYONE is discovered on the street, in one way or another, whether she walks through the door of an agency, or into a cafeteria where a scout was sitting, or was caught on camera at a football game.  *THAT* is how it happens.

Errr...what?!  Commercial models (which Joanna fits into) are generally not "discovered".  Most of them attend open-calls to the modeling agencies and get picked from a pool of aspiring ones.

That few supermodel fashion models, maybe.  Telling me everyone is discovered, at least, I know for sure that none of the agency models I know were "discovered".

You know, this is the real pointlessness of your post.  And posts like it.

"legitimate agencies" sounds like a flag you have to wave.  "Me thinks the lady doeth protests too much" (or close, I dont' have time to look up the exact wording).  If you have to keep saying you are "legitimate" and you should pay us because we are "legitimate", etc then there is something wrong.

Pointlessness.  There are, indeed, illegitimate agencies (described above) that I don't deal with, which you tend to describe a lot.  I was describing clearly how the agencies that really get models to work operate here, how is that pointless to a newcomer?  Yes, it is a flag that we have to wave, because too many models are being taken advantage of by "modeling schools" and scams alike.  Whether I am legitimate or not is up to the perceiving end.  Take a look at the book, profile, check references, then decide.

You know, this is also trash talk, and what I find really, really bad about the whole industry, from when I started, to now.

Ladies, you *NEVER* have to pay a photographer, unless you want to. PERIOD.  You don't need to pay for expensive portfolios, and you don't need to play their game.

No point arguing with you.  Apparently we are working in different markets (you do softcore, and others disagreeing with you do fashion/commercial).  I have no idea why the way we work upset you, since our worlds don't intersect.

And by saying what you just said, you are insulting all photographers' work as having no value.  And that somehow only models (whether they actually have skills or not) have values; I just can't agree with that.

If you pay a photographer, understand that that photographer is just like you -- trying to get PAID. Period. They see nothing special in you, nothing that is worth their time, and nothing that is going to make you special.  Your photos with them, while maybe "striking" to you, will be the same-old same-old they have shot a hundred times before, and the stuff the agencies you are promised will look at the photos, will just set aside.  It will be the _RARE_ day that the agency will even take the time to notice what is in your photos -- because they KNOW the photographer!

Nonesense.  Agencies send their signed models to us to update their books in order to better market their latest looks.  They don't send them to us to get the images for "evaluation".  I guess you really have no idea what goes on.  Testing has no money in it.  The fee is to cover cost.  Makeup artist, stylist and many hours cost money.  There is no reason for all my team to work tirelessly for free so the models can make money later.  And the agencies know that.  Now, again, the agencies do NOT pay for the model's portfolio.  It's either advanced, or the model pays for it.  Yes, the models can use free photographers, and may get good results, I would not dispute that.  But if they want to look for guaranteed good result that can make them marketable, then many established photographers offer that value.  And that value is worth the payment.  It's simple economics.  If someone don't want to waste their time trying to figure out who takes images that are marketable for them, then photographers like us present a good value proposition.  As you have said, their time has a small cost, too.

Demand, and supply.

So, in fairness, the agencies probably will _look_ at that photographers prints, but not take the time to look at YOU in those prints, unless something happens to strike them, or the print gets left out for some reason, or some other event happens to make your "striking" prints stand out from the white noise on their desks.

And, FWIW: You have *MORE* chance of being discovered on the streets of NYC than by paying that photographer to shoot you.

Again, you are talking about "pay for representation agencies".  Images I shoot for the agencies go directly to their portfolio or compcards.  It has nothing to do with "evaluation".

Wow... you slipped that in.  I'll stop short of calling this a "troll" but, joanna, this is where that whole "COMMON SENSE" thing kicks in.

Yes, I slipped that in.  I offered to help, many people on MM know I volunteer to help all the time, need reference?  I asked her to contact me to see where I can point her to.  She is relatively local to me, and I know all the legitimate agencies around the area.  She was already hit by an apparently illegitimate agency (but we don't know the full story), what is so "troll-like" for me to offer assistance?  If you would like to be rude, and call me a troll, feel free.  She can check my reference, history, talk to the hundreds of models I have shot for and getting work, she can talk to the agency owners who are excited to see my vision of each particular girls they send to me and how much those images have added value to their careers.  Yes, I am, indeed, a troll.  A pretty charitable troll.  She can talk to people I have helped on MM, for not a single penny.

I work for myself now, because -- well, I *like* my boss, and that's the first time I can say that.  Lying, backstabbing, two-faced, self-serving, fair-weather people who pretend to be your friend simply because they have nothing better to do at the moment, or are trying to use you -- or worse -- abuse you so no one else will use you is *not* how I was raised, or who I want to associate with.

No business does all that "fun" stuff better than the fashion/photography/modeling business.

You may want to argue it, you may want to deny it, but you really can't, can you?

Yes, easily.  Because you have no idea what the heck you are talking about.  You don't even know who I am, what I do, and you have already made disrespectful accusatory remarks, which are again unsubstantiated.  And looking at your profile here, I can understand.

I do, if you don't know since you are new here, have a dayjob.  If I want to make money I have much easier way to do so other than shooting tests.  They don't pay me nearly close to my usual business rate.  Give me a break.

I like short girls, fashion wants tall.  I want curvy, figured models, with bodyart of all sorts; fashion wants thin clothes racks with nothing to distract from the designs.  I want models whose personality is as important to the pictures as their posing -- not lifeless expressions of bordom and misery.  I'm looking for "edge" players, not people on the edge of sanity.  I don't want to work with agents, casting directors, clients, or boy friends.   I'm *not* in NYC any more, or LA, or any other area, and I'm not up to travelling.  So you decide if what I say in these threads is worth listening to, or taking as advice.

Again, no disrespect to you, we obviously are talking about two different markets.  I respectfully agreed with you that what you said must work well for your softcore porn/fetish market, but it hasn't been what I have known for a while for the commercial/fashion agencies here.  And just looking at both of our books, I think the models/aspirants will notice the difference clearly, too.

PS:  For those of you wondering, yes, I have slept with models, or girls who were models, just none who were working for me, or even who worked for me.  Just not my style.   Something about that whole "don't piss where you eat" thing.

Yes, I think we all figured.

I am done with this.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
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.

I feel for you there, and in ways it's not too cool, but consider the alternative of labs that print anything and don't care, including clearly copyrighted/protected images.  At least this lab respects property rights.

Yea, I'm a guy and more "age challenged" than you so explaining to my lab the first time that I AM the photographer, took care of it.  I would think that if you took your portfolio in to them one time, that should be enough.  Maybe just a business card or business license.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:

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.

Wow, that sucks! Yes, people have treated me like a child, since I am a young woman, but I've also had that same treatment work in my advantage. And people wonder why some women are such b$$$$$.

theda wrote:
What agreement was made before you started shooting? Being charged fro prints is not uncommon or unreasonable, vut if you were lead to beleive the prints were included, that's bad.

short and to the point theda! good response  / very important to COMMUNICATE b4 ANY shoot...IN DETAIL!

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
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.

Wow. That has to be the most fair trade agreement I have come across yet.

JenniferMaria wrote:
Wow, that sucks! Yes, people have treated me like a child, since I am a young woman, but I've also had that same treatment work in my advantage. And people wonder why some women are such b$$$$$.

You, too?  When I come visit you, let's go make a scene! 

Lillith Leda wrote:

Wow. That has to be the most fair trade agreement I have come across yet.

Isn't Amanda great?  We just seem to agree on everything. 

Free tests can be absolutely great, photographers can get the creative juice going instead of knowing full well he/she has to deliver a particuly product that has to have a certain quality.  With test we can take artistic risks, it is like an exercise that frees up the mind.  That said, the subject needs to be of a similar caliber who is willing to take the same (if not more) amount of risk and create things that are different, and understanding that there may not be one single usable image in the whole set.

Oh, fun.

Kevin Janow wrote:
I would disagree with models should never have to pay a photographer as there are plenty who are good and will shoot for free. Not true.

I have to disagree on that, because I know differently.  You might want them to pay you, but there *are* loads of photographers who will shoot for free.  Many of us actuall _Pay_ models for work, and sell the work.  So, it's wonderful to get a model to work TFP. 

Maybe they just don't post here because they have more "work" than they can handle, and don't want to spoil their golden goose?

Many aren't good and if a model is new and doesn't have a great look she will not find really good photogs willing to shoot her.

So, what you are saying, is prey upon the desires of girls (people) who have no chance of success?  So, take their money, and keep taking it, rather than give them the message "maybe you should save your money and try something else."

Hmmmm... just as I suspected.

It all comes down to what you have and what you want. MOST girls who want to model aren't going to find work, which is why agencies make them pay/supply their own photos.

LOL!!!  So, you CHARGE THEM for pictures YOU KNOW aren't going to help them, rather than direct them to a TFP solution where EVERYONE wins? 

Boy, is this getting better by the minute.

I'm not talking about big NY/LA agencies, but smaller agencies which have hundreds of average cute girls who will work for cheap and might have the right look for a catalog job every now and then. Those girls will do better to pay a really good photographer to make them look as good as possible as opposed to going with a photographer who is average like them. Just like an average photog is better off paying a really good model.

So, what you are saying, is money is good substitute for talent, and that everyone lies, so why shouldn't you? 

I'm enjoying this, really.  Makes me understand why I got out, and why I have no regrets, nor ever should.

Really good models and really good photographers shoot for free only with each other. Average models and average models shoot for free with each other. You need to be realistic about exactly where you fall and then decide if paying is worth it for you.

LOL, ROTFL, I'm dying here.  I can't even reply to this one.

I don't know what to call this, sexist?  Bigoted?  Elitist?  Or just dead wrong.

It's so hard to believe that these attitudes are out there.  But, I said my piece, and I don't have to keep saying it.  Saying more, doesn't make it more right.  I said it once, and it can be read by anyone digging up threads here for as long as the board archives it.

I really got to quit here.  No one can decide even what makes a "really good model" or even a "really good photographer" yet, somehow they shoot only with each other... maybe it's Point, Line, Plane.  A circular definition.  A really good photographer is one who shoots with really good models.  Really good models are ones who shoot with really good photographers.

The *best* thing about that, is it keeps them both away from the rest of us!



I'm all laughed out.  I realize how pathetic, and self serving these posts are.  They don't help the body at large, but are set up to try to further the individual ends.

All I can say to this is, and that is putting my money where my mouth is, if there are [female] models who want to do TFP, we'll shoot all you want.  As often as you want.  I'll find and add or hire photographers to keep up with the demand if it gets to that.  Work with us 5 times at standard TFP, and we'll even do one shoot for you, of your choosing (as long as it's within the realm of our other shoots and legal) and give you full reproduction rights to high-quality web-sized images of that shoot, or a limited number of RAW images, or what ever other arrangement you feel is fair for your own needs.  [NOTE: This is *not* a specific offer, and all offers are subject to our standard modeling contracts and image use contracts, but it's a SERIOUS possible offer if you qualify, and your terms may vary slightly (isn't this disclaimer stuff a bitch?).]

So while I broke my own policy of not soliciting models in the threads, I'm actually not.  I'm taking you, and everyone else who has this "hidden agenda" of getting models to pay them for work, with a counter offer.   Right now I'm in pittsburgh, so all work will have to be done here, *but* if this works out, I'm willing to expand to other cities. Austin, TX comes to mind at first.  NYC, Philly and LA are potential markets after.  Maybe you can even do the same in YOUR city.  Wouldn't it be wonderful for everyone to have all the work they need, or all the new prints they need, and get all the experiences they need without having to come up with cash?

*NO* [female] model willing to work for 2-4 hours should have to pay for photos.  I'll stand by that.  Nude or non-nude, there are opportunities for both.  Nude models will always do better, as will swimsuit or lingerie models, etc. 

Give me a few days, and I'll have the exact offer up on http://bodyart.com. 

I'll stand by it.

There's nothing more I can do to back up my point than this.  And, I'll tie to the standard royalty agreement, where if an image set sells above it's cost point, usually $1000-$1500, we'll share 25% of the income above that level with the models.  Why?  Because that's the type of people we are.  We want the models to keep knocking on our doors and beating them down. 

In closing:

I'll say it once more:  No [female] model should have to pay for photos -- unless they want to.  TFP is a way for both photographers and models to find out if they have what it takes, with little monetary risk and potential great gain on both sides.  TFP *is* a very *old* means of doing work on Spec, and getting new material for portfolios -- or potential advertising jobs. 

Your mileage may vary.

Scott
aka Bodyartist

PS: I'm sorry if I'm coming off abrupt, but I'm really appalled at how much has "changed" by people who don't know photogaphic history, but bought a camera and read a book, and think they know it all.  I'm especially PO'd at being told that what I've done for 30 odd years didn't happen, didn't work, and wasn't possible.