Ashlee Yvette wrote:
I think the price range varies depending on the caliber of the person's work.

As it should. Agreed.

Julia Gerace wrote:
of course, I would assume that you'd pay for quality.....that question should have been a non-issue...

Oh, but it is not!

Sadly, the quality of the images doesn't necessarily have much to do with the price.

There are some very talented hobbyist photographers who can provide very good quality photos for TFP/TFCD. Not always on your own schedule, since they have a regular job, and can only shoot on weekends or whatever. But just because a photographer isn't a "pro" doesn't mean he/she can't make good photos. Just examine their portfolio closely.

Among pros who charge, some are excellent, some are merely competent, and some are downright awful. Their fees don't necessarily reflect their skill (they should, but they don't). Presumably they will be more timely, since it is a job, not a hobby. But their fees reflect whatever they can get away with charging, and their own sense of worth (which may be under or over inflated).

If a model needs good quality, reliable portfolio shots on a deadline, they should find a pro who has a consistent portfolio they like, and pay for a shoot. If a model is in  no hurry, and is willing to experiment with photographers of varying skill levels, then there is little harm in trying a few TFPs with hobbyists (as long as they screen out the pervs).

The reverse is also applicable. If a photographer needs a good reliable model they can count on to deliver a known look on a deadline, then they should pay an experienced model. If they are not in a particular hurry, and are willing to experiment with inexperienced models, then TFP is fine.

What baffles me is completely new inexperienced models or photographers who demand to be paid exorbitant commercial rates, when they have no portfolio to justify it. I laugh when I see MM portfolios full of crappy snapshots or webcam photos, who demand "no TFP, paid only". Dream on.

Sometimes I pay a model, if I need their look and I need it on a schedule, or if it is for a commercial job. Sometimes I charge a model if they need me, and I don't need their look for my portfolio. I typically charge $150/hr. Sometimes I TFP if they are candidates for my art photography. It depends on the situation.

Personally, I almost never give a model a CD of hi-res unedited images, regardless of whether it is a paid or TFP shoot. Really, who wants a whole CD of 200 or 300 hi-res images, most of which are crap? I usually batch process the whole shoot to smaller unedited "proofing images" (600 pixel on the long dimension), and give that to the model. If it is a paid shoot, they can select whichever one's they want, and I'll give them hi-res retouched images. If it is TFP, I'm a little more selective of what they get. I don't want crappy images out there with my name on them, so I will try to steer them to better photos. Then I'll give them a few hi-res images (the quantity of images is negotiated before the shoot). I make exceptions occasionally. There is one model who I've worked with several times, and I know her pretty well, and I know her Photoshop skills are on par with my own. She is artistic and creative. So I trust her with a full set of hi-res images.

Regarding image rights: I grant very limited image rights to TFP models. They can use images I approve of in their portfolio (online and/or print). I don't allow them to edit them without my prior approval. For paid shoots I still retain the copyright, but grant them much broader usage rights; pretty much any use other than commercial relicensing or reselling. I'll even grant them full copyright if they pay me enough. And I give them broader leeway on selecting and self-editing photos, since they are paying for it.