Bodyartist wrote:
Since the model doesn't have the camera, doesn't have the studio (if one is being used) and isn't paying the photographer, it's sort of "unusual" to expect the model to be the boss.  In fact, I find that the most alien concept of all.

True. All he/she has is the right parents--not something that can be trained or cultivated, the desire to do the work, and the determination to follow-through.

The photographer has the second and third, and may have 'talent' or have learned craft.

"The Boss" is simply whomever has the greater "power"--real or perceived. Money, talent, experience, ....

Bodyartist wrote:
PS: Oh, and because *someone* is going to comment on it, the costs of the prints reflect PORTFOLIO QUALITY enlargements, done by hand, by a skilled darkroom tech, on quality paper, and with fresh chemicals.  Not a machine-made, short-life print.

Given that the majority of prints I've seen in model's portfolios recently have been taken with digital cameras, it's difficult to do them by hand in a darkroom. (LightJet, Lambda, Chromira, etc. printers do benefit from processing with fresh chemicals, but the rest isn't particularly pertinent.)

DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote:
I think that in a Time For Print situation, the 'boss' status is a mutual sharing agreement. No one person is THE BOSS. As a photographer, I hold the camera and take the photo and give the product. As the model, I am giving 110% of what I know to do, for the photographer in getting images. The model won't get images without a photographer, and the photographer would not get photos of a model without the model.

i would just like to point out that a photographer can still get photos with out a model LOTS of stuff to photo  ;->

nathan combs wrote:

i would just like to point out that a photographer can still get photos with out a model LOTS of stuff to photo  ;->

I'd also like to point out, that the photographer shooting without the model is often what happens on TFPs because the models don't show up...if it's a "mutual sharing agreement" then the photographer wouldn't have to be worried about the model showing up because the model would be just as excited/nervous/intent on getting the shoot done as the photographer is.

Kevin Connery wrote:
True. All he/she has is the right parents--not something that can be trained or cultivated, the desire to do the work, and the determination to follow-through.

Kevin, could you clarify this for me, please?  I think I might be misreading you.  Are you saying that the only qualification to model is good genes, and that training and hard work and follow through don't apply to a model?

nathan combs wrote:

i would just like to point out that a photographer can still get photos with out a model LOTS of stuff to photo  ;->

Which is why she said,  "of a model"!

And I agree 110% with Dawn! Also, I'm always a little surprised that costs are never given any thought when it comes to a model. Clothing (a lot of cash, you can't wear the same outfit twice), make-up, cosmetics, hair, footwear, lingerie, plane ticket, accommodation, and the "food and snacks" isn't expected, ever. In fact I don't think many models want to eat while shooting.

Not saying these cost more than a photographer's expenditure, but we have costs too.

And if a photographer shoots in an already existing studio at his/her home, uses a digital camera and doesn't need to feed the model, just how much is being spent in a couple of hours?

Lillith Leda wrote:
And I agree 110% with Dawn! Also, I'm always a little surprised that costs are never given any thought when it comes to a model. Clothing (a lot of cash, you can't wear the same outfit twice), make-up, cosmetics, hair, footwear, lingerie, plane ticket, accommodation, and the "food and snacks" isn't expected, ever. In fact I don't think many models want to eat while shooting.

Not saying these cost more than a photographer's expenditure, but we have costs too.

And if a photographer shoots in an already existing studio at his/her home, uses a digital camera and doesn't need to feed the model, just how much is being spent in a couple of hours?

re: clothing.  Sure, you can wear it more than once.  And if you are creative, it won't even look the same.  But, then again, there are nudes, and it's sort of hard to change your birthday suit for each session.

Models may have costs, but you are talking from you own position, and perception of what a shoot is.  Over the years, and I'm talking YEARS, most models do not have much costs.  Some do.  Some have ideas, and things they want to do, but it's their "thing".  As a photographer, the only "cost" any of our models should have had is getting to the studio.  We usually provide all the props and stuff she needs.  That's our style.  No cost there.

And, if you know what digital cameras cost, and the cost of annual service contracts on them, and the costs of liability insurance and over heads, and all that stuff, as well as in my case over 30 years of paying dues, there is a rare model who comes to my studio/session with costs/dues even close to that.  A Nikon top end digital carries an annual service contract of almost $1500, when I looked (retail price of the camera close to $5k)  So, that's a major expense right there -- EVERY YEAR. 

I don't value my time as electrons on a card.  Each shot I take is potentially art, a big seller, another poster or big sale.  I'm not giving that away, and I'm not undervaluing it.  What went into making that shot is far more costly than what that model is doing -- USUALLY --.    While I try to get the model's personality out, or get her to play a role, or do something to make the shots valuable, *ULTIMATELY* it's my skill (the photographer/artist) that creates the final result.  A good photographer can take a bad model and still get usable stuff.  It's part of the skill, training, talent, and such they've cultivated.

Now we are going to get into that whole model-as-a-trained-professional thing. 

You know, that's great.  I work with first-time models 70-80% of the time.  I count repeat models in that, if I was the first.  I'm looking for a whole different look, and results in my work.  That's my position.   In certain worlds, like fashion, runway, or such a model is expected to act a certain way.  That's not my world, those are not my models, and they are the smallest percentage of models (though they seem to be the most because they are so visible).  If you don't think so, a quick cruise of the internet will show you how many non-fashion models there are out there...

What I've found, coming back into photography, and on-line/digital photography, is a whole other attitude in models.  They think they run the show.  Many are using the photographer to get loads of free pictures for their commercial websites, and bitch if the photographer expects to turn a profit on the images as well.

Everyone has different ideas and needs, and goals.  But a *MODEL* is a _MODEL_, and without a photographer or artist, they are just a manniquin, or a pretty face or body looking for work.  Brutal, but true.  As a photographer, I don't need models.  I _CHOOSE_ to work with them because I like the body as art more than I like landscapes, or flowers.  That's not to say I haven't won awards for my flowers, landscapes, still lives, or editorial work -- I have.  Actually, more legitimate awards than I have for my nudes and such. 

So, before the models get to where they think they are running the show, stop and think.

What is a model, without the artist/photographer to do something with her/him?

There is always a new crop and generation of pretty faces and bodies, and fresh young girls and looks (and, for male models it's even more rough).  Someone always willing to do what it takes, for less, or simply for fun.  Your "work" is their fun.  Same for photographers.  I don't know why some photographers actually take pictures, they seem to hate it so much.  But, with the costs of digital getting cheaper, the needs of working with a "trained" "high paid" or other wise attitude-packing model are getting less and less.  Unless a commercial shoot with a time limit, and high location and extra costs, requires "professionalism" most photographers can test and shoot models -- willling models -- all day, shooting 10's of thousands of images, and picking the one or two that actually come out.

The cost of that is really low.  It's "shot gun" work, and while not really art, or even fun in my book, it *PROBABLY* would be commercially viable for the stock industry, the catalog and advertising industry looking for images, without a set deadline or setting up their own shoot.

This is the reality.  You may disagree.  You want to disagree, you may hope it's not true, but that won't change the facts. 

Just as advanced cameras made talented photographers less of a requirement, so does digital make "talented models" less of a requirement.  Mediocrity rules. 

Scott
aka Bodyartist

Shyly wrote:
Kevin, could you clarify this for me, please?  I think I might be misreading you.  Are you saying that the only qualification to model is good genes, and that training and hard work and follow through don't apply to a model?

Shyly, he is only talking about beginner models.  He is also correct that the "entering requirement" of a model is indeed good genes.  Skills and training (acting training, dance training, not modeling school crap) come later.

Model Sarah wrote:
Who cares?

I agree!!

Ashley Elizabeth wrote:
Bruce is the boss.

Darn tootin'!   

And don't anybody for__..........  Oh, .....you mean the chap that sings.

Shyly wrote:
Kevin, could you clarify this for me, please?  I think I might be misreading you.  Are you saying that the only qualification to model is good genes, and that training and hard work and follow through don't apply to a model?

I may have been overbroad. The first thing needed for many, albeit not all, fields of modeling is having the right genes, and it's not something that can be substituted.

With the right parents/genes, the desire to model, and the determination of following thorough (which includes doing the other things needed) are also necessary. Without the right genes, though, the other aspects are of limited value.

Photographers don't have that innate requirement. If they lack "creativity" their career may be limited, but it's not a complete lock-out, though some physical handicaps can curtail or eliminate some people (blindness...).

The "craft" of having the right somatype and skin isn't something that can be taught today.
The "craft" of photography can be taught to almost anyone.

Some models are pretty much interchangeable--but so are some photographers. Making the blanket claim that photographers are always more important/valuable than models, with repeated put-downs of models themselves, doesn't make it true.

Bodyartist wrote:
I work with first-time models 70-80% of the time.

In that situation, I can see how your stance applies. In other situations, it doesn't necessarily do so.

Bodyartist wrote:
This is the reality.  You may disagree.  You want to disagree, you may hope it's not true, but that won't change the facts.

Bodyartist wrote:
But a *MODEL* is a _MODEL_, and without a photographer or artist, they are just a manniquin, or a pretty face or body looking for work.  Brutal, but true.

I don't understand why these conversations always seem to turn into who is more important or worthwhile.  I happen to agree that photographers generally invest much more monetarily in their careers, so that's not what I'm taking exception to.  But why, in the course of discussing that, is it necessary to dehumanize models along the way?  Particularly you, an art photographer? 

My experience has been that every shoot is a collaboration in which what I bring before the camera is just as vital as what the photographer brings behind it.  The piece of art we create together couldn't happen just that way without me.  It couldn't happen just that way without the photographer.  We're in a symbiotic relationship.  We need each other.  Our sum is vastly greater than our parts. 

I completely fail to understand this antagonistic relationship that is continually perpetuated and, evidently, enjoyed by some photographers and models.  Is it really all that hard to go create some photographs, and maybe even enjoy ourselves along the way?

lll wrote:
Shyly, he is only talking about beginner models.  He is also correct that the "entering requirement" of a model is indeed good genes.  Skills and training (acting training, dance training, not modeling school crap) come later.

Aha, I see now!  Thank you, Leo.  Sometimes I need English to English translations.

Ashley Elizabeth wrote:
Bruce is the boss.

Bruce Talbot wrote:
Darn tootin'!   

And don't anybody for__..........  Oh, .....you mean the chap that sings.

No Bruce, you're the boss....

well at least on days that I'm not...

Kevin Connery wrote:
Some models are pretty much interchangeable--but so are some photographers. Making the blanket claim that photographers are always more important/valuable than models, with repeated put-downs of models themselves, doesn't make it true.

Thank you very much for the detailed response, Kevin.  I had misread the tone of what you were saying, which now makes sense.  I particularly agree with the above paragraph, which I think sums up the issue rather tidily.

Ken Mierzwa wrote:
the master is above the people
and no one feels oppressed.
he goes ahead of the people,
and no one feels manipulated.
the whole world is grateful to him.
because he competes with no one,
no one can compete with him

  -- from the tao te ching

BCG wrote:
i thought it was tony danza

And here I clicked this thread, looking for pics of Alyssa Milano.. how deceiving -_-

Bodyartist wrote:
re: clothing.  Sure, you can wear it more than once.  And if you are creative, it won't even look the same.  But, then again, there are nudes, and it's sort of hard to change your birthday suit for each session.

Models may have costs, but you are talking from you own position, and perception of what a shoot is.  Over the years, and I'm talking YEARS, most models do not have much costs.  Some do.  Some have ideas, and things they want to do, but it's their "thing".  As a photographer, the only "cost" any of our models should have had is getting to the studio.  We usually provide all the props and stuff she needs.  That's our style.  No cost there.

And, if you know what digital cameras cost, and the cost of annual service contracts on them, and the costs of liability insurance and over heads, and all that stuff, as well as in my case over 30 years of paying dues, there is a rare model who comes to my studio/session with costs/dues even close to that.  A Nikon top end digital carries an annual service contract of almost $1500, when I looked (retail price of the camera close to $5k)  So, that's a major expense right there -- EVERY YEAR. 

I don't value my time as electrons on a card.  Each shot I take is potentially art, a big seller, another poster or big sale.  I'm not giving that away, and I'm not undervaluing it.  What went into making that shot is far more costly than what that model is doing -- USUALLY --.    While I try to get the model's personality out, or get her to play a role, or do something to make the shots valuable, *ULTIMATELY* it's my skill (the photographer/artist) that creates the final result.  A good photographer can take a bad model and still get usable stuff.  It's part of the skill, training, talent, and such they've cultivated.

Now we are going to get into that whole model-as-a-trained-professional thing. 

You know, that's great.  I work with first-time models 70-80% of the time.  I count repeat models in that, if I was the first.  I'm looking for a whole different look, and results in my work.  That's my position.   In certain worlds, like fashion, runway, or such a model is expected to act a certain way.  That's not my world, those are not my models, and they are the smallest percentage of models (though they seem to be the most because they are so visible).  If you don't think so, a quick cruise of the internet will show you how many non-fashion models there are out there...

What I've found, coming back into photography, and on-line/digital photography, is a whole other attitude in models.  They think they run the show.  Many are using the photographer to get loads of free pictures for their commercial websites, and bitch if the photographer expects to turn a profit on the images as well.

Everyone has different ideas and needs, and goals.  But a *MODEL* is a _MODEL_, and without a photographer or artist, they are just a manniquin, or a pretty face or body looking for work.  Brutal, but true.  As a photographer, I don't need models.  I _CHOOSE_ to work with them because I like the body as art more than I like landscapes, or flowers.  That's not to say I haven't won awards for my flowers, landscapes, still lives, or editorial work -- I have.  Actually, more legitimate awards than I have for my nudes and such. 

So, before the models get to where they think they are running the show, stop and think.

What is a model, without the artist/photographer to do something with her/him?

There is always a new crop and generation of pretty faces and bodies, and fresh young girls and looks (and, for male models it's even more rough).  Someone always willing to do what it takes, for less, or simply for fun.  Your "work" is their fun.  Same for photographers.  I don't know why some photographers actually take pictures, they seem to hate it so much.  But, with the costs of digital getting cheaper, the needs of working with a "trained" "high paid" or other wise attitude-packing model are getting less and less.  Unless a commercial shoot with a time limit, and high location and extra costs, requires "professionalism" most photographers can test and shoot models -- willling models -- all day, shooting 10's of thousands of images, and picking the one or two that actually come out.

The cost of that is really low.  It's "shot gun" work, and while not really art, or even fun in my book, it *PROBABLY* would be commercially viable for the stock industry, the catalog and advertising industry looking for images, without a set deadline or setting up their own shoot.

This is the reality.  You may disagree.  You want to disagree, you may hope it's not true, but that won't change the facts. 

Just as advanced cameras made talented photographers less of a requirement, so does digital make "talented models" less of a requirement.  Mediocrity rules. 

Scott
aka Bodyartist

Okay... But you didn't answer my question. How much would a photographer be spending in one afternoon, in a studio he owns, at his house, using a digital camera, with all his already purchased equipment.

I'm not asking how much does it cost to start up one's photographic career because yessssssss no doubt about it, it's insanely expensive. I simply want to know what expenses a photographer has to fork out given the above instances.

Shyly wrote:
I don't understand why these conversations always seem to turn into who is more important or worthwhile.  I happen to agree that photographers generally invest much more monetarily in their careers, so that's not what I'm taking exception to.  But why, in the course of discussing that, is it necessary to dehumanize models along the way?  Particularly you, an art photographer? 

My experience has been that every shoot is a collaboration in which what I bring before the camera is just as vital as what the photographer brings behind it.  The piece of art we create together couldn't happen just that way without me.  It couldn't happen just that way without the photographer.  We're in a symbiotic relationship.  We need each other.  Our sum is vastly greater than our parts. 

I completely fail to understand this antagonistic relationship that is continually perpetuated and, evidently, enjoyed by some photographers and models.  Is it really all that hard to go create some photographs, and maybe even enjoy ourselves along the way?

Shyly - Thank you so much for putting this out there as I was about to do the same.  It is true that lately, too many people are trying to dictate who has what importance.  The truth of the matter is that each is equally important to the equation.  Without the model, the photog has no PERSON to capture, without the photog, the model has no image, and without the stylist and MUA we all might as well just go home. 

And this whole issue of costs (which seems to be making alot of face lately) is just moot.  Photographers have substantial costs.  Models have substantial costs (whether or not people agree with that is one thing).  Stylists have substantial costs.  MUA's have substantial costs.  Who spends what is not of relevance at all.  Can we please stop whining about it now?

jon mmmayhem wrote:
man, whatever happened to mutually agreeable symbiotic beneficial dyads??

What is a dyad?

Brandon Smith wrote:

What is a dyad?

it's what you call your father if you're from the south.


oh ok, not really. it's a fancy way of saying "pair"... two people involved in a relationship of some sort, whether familial, romantic, professional, or ... whatever.

jon mmmayhem wrote:

it's what you call your father if you're from the south.


oh ok, not really. it's a fancy way of saying "pair"... two people involved in a relationship of some sort, whether familial, romantic, professional, or ... whatever.

Further proof that you CAN learn something new everyday!  :-)

Lillith Leda wrote:
Okay... But you didn't answer my question. How much would a photographer be spending in one afternoon, in a studio he owns, at his house, using a digital camera, with all his already purchased equipment.

I'm not asking how much does it cost to start up one's photographic career because yessssssss no doubt about it, it's insanely expensive. I simply want to know what expenses a photographer has to fork out given the above instances.

You're missing the point.  In order for you to get to the point of being in that photographer's house/studio, with all their equipment, overhead, and years of experience, just walking through the door, you've incurred a cost with them.

To ignore that shows how little you value the photographer's experience, or ability, or even talent, when all a model has to do is stand there.  (sorry, an oversimplification, but really, in essence, true.)

I'm sorry, but while it's cool to believe that it works both ways, and we like to deal with models who have fun at the shoots, reading this board shows that there has to be a real kick in the booty to most of the people around here about how things work.

Like it or not, all a person needs to do to be a model, is well, nothing.  Really.

Can you argue with that?  If you can, then we are not going to even try to work on these issues, because you are standing in the land of unreality.

There is much more that goes into creating a photograph, or a painting, or sketch, or sculpture than just deciding to "be" a photographer, artist, or such.

Argue the point all you want, but that is how it is.  You don't wake up one day and decide to be a photographer or artist.  You *certainly* can wake up one day, or decide over lunch you are done with your current job, and be a model.  You may be a natural, and need very little to get you going. Other times, you may find it's an uphill battle, but you don't need *anything* more than yourself.  Period.

You don't *have* to invest in anything, but a good watch, and reliable transportation if mass transit isn't available. 

From a photographer's point of view, all I see on these boards is attitude, arrogance, and a real penchent for bitching -- on both sides.  I'm not sure who is worse at it.

FWIW: We've had a few great shoots with models we've met on this board recently, a really great one yesterday, and I can't wait to see how they develop both as models and photographers (at least one is on both sides of the camera).

But, that is not the impression one gets from reading people's profiles, or reading these message boards, and that is a real problem for me.

There are plenty of sweet, pretty girls with a desire to be in front of the camera part time, full time, or even one time.  There will *always* be that. 

There will always be people with cameras, with more or less talent, perverts and pedophiles, sexual predators and all sorts of low-lives.  I've met many models with issues, drug addictions, and stealing problems.  It works both ways.

But, the one thing you can't argue with, is that the way the system works, is that the photographer calls the shots, the model appears in the shots, and the money *usually* goes from somewhere, to the photographer to the model.  Most of the system is set up that way, and clients/contracts are usually made with the photographer and the photographer hires the models.  *or* the photographers and models are hired by the client, but rarely if ever does the model get the clients or job and hire the photographer.  (It happens, and if you run your own website, you may be in that, but that is not the rule.)

If it goes the other way, the model is *not* a model, but a client or customer who is modeling.

So... while this is fun, I'm all vented out.  I've been doing this 30+ years, and I don't see it changing.  I see a lot of major noise, a lot of distractions and wanna bes, but the basics of the working relationships seem to still be the same. 

As in any business, follow the money.  Or, follow the path of the eventual money.

For 30+ years I've written checks TO models.  I've accepted money from clients. 

This is my experience, my history, and my viewpoint.   Yours, obviously differs.

Scott
aka Bodyartist

PS: I'm starting to think a lot of postings are trolls, or wishful thinking, or attempts to get something for nothing.  Human nature never, ever changes.

BCG wrote:
i thought it was tony danza

lol