Photographer
FemmeArt
Posts: 880
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
All right, here goes: some "models" just do not get it. Basically, I've noticed three general categories of models on this site and others (such as OMP)
1. commercial model--actually modeling either yourself or a product, apparel, etc. for a company or other THIRD PARTY client
2. web model--shooting with photographers in order to gain photgraphic content for your website (typically your paid membership site, whether nude or non-nude)
3. photographers' model--"leasing" yourself out to photographers for their purposes
Now, I have nothing but positive feelings for all of the above, but, each of the above categories has certain rights and responsibilities associated therewith.
If you're a commercial model, please do not try to charge a photographer the same fee that your commercial jobs pay. That's not how the business works--you know this. Just because a company pays you $1000 for a three hour engagement does not mean that a photographer should pay that just for the privilege of shooting with you.
If you're a web model, do not try to charge a photographer $500 to utilize his equipment, come up with concepts, spend time doing the shoot and spend HOURS retouching photos that you are then going to given for free to use to make money for YOURSELF on your website. That is ridiculous, right? Right.
If you are a photographers' model, just look in the mirror and admit it--there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and we'd be lost without it. However, do not approach or attempt to deal with a photographer as though you were a commercial model. If you're into it for the art or b/c you're trying to become a commercial model or web model, try to do paid shoots, but do not scoff at TFCD. Even if a three hour shoot only produces 1 or 2 great images for you, be glad! You have lost nothing. You gain experience. Additionally, every photographer has a different perspective. Besides, as commercial models can tell you, in the commercial modeling world, it's nothing to do a paid shoot (where the photographer is paid) and the model receives only 2 or 3 of the best images.
Finally, if you're one of those models who are actually into this because you love creating the art, then rock on...rock on...rock on...
Model
Shyly
Posts: 3870
Pasadena, California, US
The problem with lumping art models into this sort of nebulous "photographer's models" category, is that as often as not we are artists in our own right, and work with photographers on genuinely collaborative ventures. I have had more than one shoot in which the concept was mine, and I collaborated with a talented photographer on the execution. I am not merely a very large breathing mannequin. There's a bit more to art modeling than that.
Photographer
images by elahi
Posts: 2523
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Joeys Angels wrote:
All right, here goes: some "models" just do not get it. Basically, I've noticed three general categories of models on this site and others (such as OMP)
1. commercial model--actually modeling either yourself or a product, apparel, etc. for a company or other THIRD PARTY client
2. web model--shooting with photographers in order to gain photgraphic content for your website (typically your paid membership site, whether nude or non-nude)
3. photographers' model--"leasing" yourself out to photographers for their purposes
Now, I have nothing but positive feelings for all of the above, but, each of the above categories has certain rights and responsibilities associated therewith.
If you're a commercial model, please do not try to charge a photographer the same fee that your commercial jobs pay. That's not how the business works--you know this. Just because a company pays you $1000 for a three hour engagement does not mean that a photographer should pay that just for the privilege of shooting with you.
If you're a web model, do not try to charge a photographer $500 to utilize his equipment, come up with concepts, spend time doing the shoot and spend HOURS retouching photos that you are then going to given for free to use to make money for YOURSELF on your website. That is ridiculous, right? Right.
If you are a photographers' model, just look in the mirror and admit it--there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and we'd be lost without it. However, do not approach or attempt to deal with a photographer as though you were a commercial model. If you're into for the art or b/c you're trying to become a commercial model or web model, try to do paid shoots, but do not scoff at TFCD. Even if a three hour shoot only produces 1 or 2 great images for you, be glad! You have lost nothing. You gain experience. Additionally, every photographer has a different perspective. Besides, as commercial models can tell you, in the commercial modeling world, it's nothing to do a paid shoot (where the photographer is paid) and the model receives only 2 or 3 of the best images.
Finally, if you're one of those models who are actually into this because you love creating the art, then rock on...rock on...rock on... thank you for articulating the definitions and standards..and you knwo what, some still wont get it...LOL....
Photographer
FemmeArt
Posts: 880
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Shyly wrote:
The problem with lumping art models into this sort of nebulous "photographer's models" category, is that as often as not we are artists in our own right, and work with photographers on genuinely collaborative ventures. I have had more than one shoot in which the concept was mine, and I collaborated with a talented photographer on the execution. I am not merely a very large breathing mannequin. There's a bit more to art modeling than that. much respect--rock on...rock on...rock on...
Photographer
Frank Tammen
Posts: 203
Sacramento, California, US
I couldn't have said it better; too, the marketplace will decide both a photographers and models financial worth.
I always look for currency, as in "what have you done for me lately"? If it's been more than 60 days since an update, that's a sure sign the party simply can't close a deal--and that's not good. If ya' don't use it, ya' lose it.
That's where TFCD comes in: stay current and in the loop!
When I'm not shooting, I'm a commercial pilot. I train constantly on my own dime to stay competitive...then I write that training off on my taxes--it's legal.
Same thing with photography; I've got a business license, checking account, cards, accept Visa/MC, the works...and when I shoot TFCD to stay competitive, that gets written off, too.
Model
StacyJack
Posts: 2297
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
Shyly wrote:
The problem with lumping art models into this sort of nebulous "photographer's models" category, is that as often as not we are artists in our own right, and work with photographers on genuinely collaborative ventures. I have had more than one shoot in which the concept was mine, and I collaborated with a talented photographer on the execution. I am not merely a very large breathing mannequin. There's a bit more to art modeling than that. here here!
Model
theda
Posts: 21719
New York, New York, US
Joeys Angels wrote:
If you are a photographers' model, just look in the mirror and admit it--there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and we'd be lost without it. However, do not approach or attempt to deal with a photographer as though you were a commercial model. If you're into it for the art or b/c you're trying to become a commercial model or web model, try to do paid shoots, but do not scoff at TFCD. Even if a three hour shoot only produces 1 or 2 great images for you, be glad! You have lost nothing. You gain experience. Additionally, every photographer has a different perspective. Besides, as commercial models can tell you, in the commercial modeling world, it's nothing to do a paid shoot (where the photographer is paid) and the model receives only 2 or 3 of the best images. Okay. What do you mean by "do not approach or attempt to deal with a photographer as though you were a commercial model"?
Photographer
Vance C McDaniel
Posts: 7609
Los Angeles, California, US
...Stacy wrote:
here here! Question..
And if I am off base..please correct me..
If a model is in it for the Art only....AKA...breathing mannequin...in it for arts sake only...then shouldnt he or she be paying for the shots?
As a painter would pay for suplies? Does not the phortgrapher simply become a tool for the artist at that point?
Just wondering, I could be off base or missing your point.
Photographer
Archived
Posts: 13509
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Drives me nuts when girls try to sell themselves to me. No, I don't need images for MY portfolio badly enough to pay you $500 for a shoot. Maybe the third party client would pay that, but definitely not me.
Model
Shyly
Posts: 3870
Pasadena, California, US
Vance wrote:
If a model is in it for the Art only....AKA...breathing mannequin...in it for arts sake only...then shouldnt he or she be paying for the shots?
As a painter would pay for suplies? Does not the phortgrapher simply become a tool for the artist at that point? No, no. You misread. I said we are not just breathing mannequins. There are three art models in this thread alone. Take a look at theda's work, or Stacy's, or mine. There's a bit more to it than just standing there.
And though I don't know either of these ladies well enough to say this concretely, I suspect it is as true for them as it is for me: an art model has to be just as versatile and flexible as any other kind of model. Depending on who I am shooting with, I am either following specific instructions to a T in order to achieve a vision, I am collaborating on a project in which both photographer and model are equally invested, or I am proposing an idea and then seeing the magic that happens when a gifted artist (the photographer) becomes inspired by it and adds his or her own flair and adjustments.
I have never used a photographer like a puppet that I can recall, though my occasionally overbearing nature does get away from me from time to time. 
|
