studio36uk wrote:

And I didn't direct that at her individually either - just a general observation. And as for the rate? Nevada "out of town" rates... not LV or Reno. Pretty comparable, too, to what can be had in almost any big city in America.

It rubs me the wrong way when inexperienced "photographic" models start charging silly money for by-the-square-inch images, and I can get experienced "artists" models for a fraction of the price and get more exposure out of them at the same time.

The whole thing about models setting a price list... like 40 bucks for this and 75 bucks for that but for 150 you get boobs and an egg roll... smacks of a negotiation for a hooker. A BJ is this much and Half-n-Half will cost you that much, but I'll do a HJ for only this much.

Models should set a price for their TIME and not the amount of skin they show and see what the market brings to their door.

Do we hear the photographers saying "I'll pay you a buck a frame for B&W... but I'll pay you a buck 20 if you let me shoot in colour?"

Studio36

And a photographer saying $100 for one look and $50 for each additional look or wardrobe change is somehow different?  And $X per print thereafter? 

Too many of the people on the site equate a model asking for $$ for nude work as whoring herself out and yet a considerable number of the photographers would take pictures of their own dick and post them if $$ was offered.  And then we could get into an entire discussion as to whose dick is worth $80 bucks an hour.

(Hey, threads like that have already been published - remember the one about the couple wanting photos of them doing it?  That got a LOT of "Hey, I'd photograph it if the money is right!" comments from the photographer membership here - so called "Whores" are not limited to one gender.)

Experienced?? All the experience in the world won't perk up a saggy/ wronkled set of breasts - glamour photography doesn't like saggy, fashion with see-through doesn't like saggy, most of the so-called fine art nude doesn't care for them either. 

Model photography is a visual medium - some models can emote and bring more to the shoot than others, and experience counts.  But mostly is a look they have that makes them "great" or not; including their boobs. 

Come on people, Heidi Klum and her high-dollar sisters are not out there making money as a rocket scientists.

theda wrote:

Well, if that's your philosphy on the matter, have you considered working peep shows?

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

I now have to spend 10 mins picking chips out of the keyboard..

thank you..

Dreams To Keep wrote:
Experienced?? All the experience in the world won't perk up a saggy/ wronkled set of breasts - glamour photography doesn't like saggy, fashion with see-through doesn't like saggy, most of the so-called fine art nude doesn't care for them either.

I was refering to experience more in the light of concern about a newbie to nudity freezing up & flaking out.  Your comment about the appearance is dead on, which's why I said payment without seeing what is being paid for is asking for a lot.

studio36uk wrote:

Frankly I am not a boobs kind of guy. Wonder what she would charge to see her buttocks... with and without the legs and feet as well?

Studio36

Perhaps it depends if it's an implied buttock, full buttock or half cheeks.

KM von Seidl wrote:
Perhaps it depends if it's an implied buttock, full buttock or half cheeks.

That's what I thought... how about just a "builder's crack?"

LOL

Studio36

Dreams To Keep wrote:
And a photographer saying $100 for one look and $50 for each additional look or wardrobe change is somehow different?  And $X per print thereafter?

Yes, it is different because for each look and each change there is a time element. Thus, the photographer IS setting a rate on TIME spent shooting and waiting to shoot. If you, or another model, like I'll also tell you that I will do a whole day [8 hour] rate for $X flat... and shoot however many changes you can make in 8 hours.

As for "$X per print therafter" that again is a TIME and MATERIALS charge - editing time, printing time and cost of the materials and lab.

Dreams To Keep wrote:
Too many of the people on the site equate a model asking for $$ for nude work as whoring herself out ...

Within the framework of the way they a setting their rates it comes across EXACTLY like that. If that's an uncomfortable truth for models to face, then so be it. If it walks like a duck; quacks like a duck; and has feathers like a duck... who's to blame if someone then assumes that it IS a duck?

Studio36

Dreams To Keep wrote:
Experienced?? All the experience in the world won't perk up a saggy/ wronkled set of breasts - glamour photography doesn't like saggy, fashion with see-through doesn't like saggy, most of the so-called fine art nude doesn't care for them either.

SLE Photography wrote:
Your comment about the appearance is dead on, which's why I said payment without seeing what is being paid for is asking for a lot.

You and I do actually agree here to a large extent.  When I book a new model for a nude shoot who I have never seen, I usually book her for a "time range."  I tell her we will shoot from one to three hours, for example.  If I meet the model and she looks great with her clothes on, but there are problems with them off, I usual mumble something polite about me being short on time and end the shoot after an hour.  Of course, I still pay her.

The problem is when I fly a model in from out of town.  I won't do it without seeing a nude image before I bring them in.  In some cases that means the model may have to get a friend to snap a few with the family digital camera.  Models will occassionally feel awkward doing it, but that is the way it is.

So you are right, just because a model looks good with her clothes on doesn't guarantee she will look good with her clothes off.

That, is a different issue as to what she should ask to be paid, but if your point is that you wouldn't want to commit to paying her without seeing her, there is nothing unreasonable about that.

Then of course, we have the issue of guys that just want to see pictures.  But for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that we are all honorable and all the GWC's (except our friendly poster) have been purged from the industry.

Sirensong wrote:

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

I now have to spend 10 mins picking chips out of the keyboard..

thank you..

Glad I was eating Fruit Loops when I read that! (no milk)

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
You and I do actually agree here to a large extent.  When I book a new model for a nude shoot who I have never seen, I usually book her for a "time range."  I tell her we will shoot from one to three hours, for example.  If I meet the model and she looks great with her clothes on, but there are problems with them off, I usual mumble something polite about me being short on time and end the shoot after an hour.  Of course, I still pay her.

The problem is when I fly a model in from out of town.  I won't do it without seeing a nude image before I bring them in.  In some cases that means the model may have to get a friend to snap a few with the family digital camera.  Models will occassionally feel awkward doing it, but that is the way it is.

So you are right, just because a model looks good with her clothes on doesn't guarantee she will look good with her clothes off.

That, is a different issue as to what she should ask to be paid, but if your point is that you wouldn't want to commit to paying her without seeing her, there is nothing unreasonable about that.

Then of course, we have the issue of guys that just want to see pictures.  But for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that we are all honorable and all the GWC's (except our friendly poster) have been purged from the industry.

That was one of my major points from the beginning, I just might not have expressed it well.  Glad we can agree 

Bodyartist wrote:

You can charge -- or ask -- anything you want.  It's up to the market to decide if they want to pay it.  I wouldn't pay those rates -- $80 or $125, or $225, or any other pie-in-the-sky rate.  If you can get that ,fine.  if someone want's to pay you for 1 hour or two hours, and you have travel and other time, then I guess it would average out.

Our shoots don't work that way, and most of our models are doing TFP at the moment pending future paid work based on performance, not an hourly rate.

FWIW: I don't use any models that charge for nude, but do TFP for free, or similar, or who have nude images in their portfolios, but don't do nudes.   

So, again, you can ask, or "charge" any rate you want.  Looking at your portfolio, and apparant range of experience, $20/hour for a 3-4 hour session would be in line. You have nothing in your portfolio to demand more than that.  The question is, what will the bulk of customers be willing to pay?

Remember, the more you charge, the fewer jobs/experiences you'll get.  And, the more you charge -- or others get you to charge -- the more jobs left open for them.

Scott
aka Bodyartist

I'd have to agree with a lot of what you are saying... seems to me a model must prove her worth before she decides on rates that a lot of "well traveled" models are asking. She does have a good look though and if the marketplace deems her 80/ hr than 80 hr it is.

Sogno Dolce wrote:
is charging 80/hour for partial nudity (breasts exposed only) too much?

No.

scott slusher wrote:
This is my first post to this forum so I hope I don't step on any toes...

One of my biggest pet-peeves regarding the online modeling world is that a percentage of individuals who establish an online portfolio think they are "models."  I can't tell you how many times I've seen models who list themselves as amature with no experience and except to be paid for their services.

The price of $80/hour for partial/implied/semi-nude work is reasonable but one has to ask themself, what kind of experience does this model have and can they step out of the box in order to create the mood and expression that is required of the image.

As with most trades, one must understand they have to work on their own time for free in order to acquire the experience that demands a fee.

s c o t t

I don't see the problem. Whether a model charges $1 an hour or $1000 an hour, has a hundred years experience or zero days experience, if you have what I want and need and no one else can do it for me and I can et it into my budget, you're hired.

I am new to this internet modelling thing too and I have not yet figured out if the model pricing on this site is market driven, industry driven or just plain "let me see what I can get because I have no idea what to charge".

At the ad agency I used to work for, an advertiser paid $40,000 for a single portrait of a politicians wife. A head shot to be used in a national charity campaign. By the same token, I have seen Hollywood actors sit for just $500 an hour and often for free.\

I have known both famous celebrities and amatuers to price themselves out of the market and known amatuers to grossly undersell themselves.

Many years ago, telling a model or photographer you should do it without charging because you need to get some experience was an insult. Today, on the internet, it seems par for the course. TFP and TFCD.

Perhaps one day there will be a forum on "How a model should determine self-value".

JT Hodges wrote:
Looks like yes and no. Part of it will depend on your market. Part of it will depend on how often you want to do work like that. Part of it will depend on your client.

Great REPLY!

scott slusher wrote:
The price of $80/hour for partial/implied/semi-nude work is reasonable but one has to ask themself, what kind of experience does this model have and can they step out of the box in order to create the mood and expression that is required of the image.

Scott,

I have to disagree with you on this one. At one it has already been correctly pointed out here, that experience is a very little decission factor for many photographers who are looking for models. It's the look that matters most of the time. And this is exacltly my case too. In fact, I do not work with internet models, mostly becasue of their overinflated egoes and you barely see one which would actually look pretty, but there are other factors as well. Do you think girls I shoot, who have never modelled before and have no interest to pursue this carreer any further offer any less value to my photographs than so called "experienced models"? I found exact opposite to be true. Non models are more fun to work with, look far more natural and happy in pictures, take your advice instead of making you feel like they know it all and are definitely more reliable. Would you really prefer to go for the model who's got tons of experience but good-for-nothing look or a naturally pretty enjoying-the-life type of girl who has never done it before, hence has no experience to offer.

One of the best paid New York photographers, Ron Harris never shoots girls who are experienced models and most of his girls are first timers. Take a look at his pictures, do you think the fact that these girls have no experience makes any difference? Well, most likely it does, FOR BETTER.

Mark

MarkMarek wrote:
Do you think girls I shoot, who have never modelled before and have no interest to pursue this carreer any further offer any less value to my photographs than so called "experienced models"? I found exact opposite to be true. Non models are more fun to work with, look far more natural and happy in pictures, take your advice instead of making you feel like they know it all and are definitely more reliable. Would you really prefer to go for the model who's got tons of experience but good-for-nothing look or a naturally pretty enjoying-the-life type of girl who has never done it before, hence has no experience to offer.

That's one reason why I don't like to work with commerical models.  I DO find girls online to work with, but not the net models per se, more the beginners or ones just looking to collaborate to make art 

Tony Lawrence wrote:
There are some people who don't really
care what they do as long as it pays well.  Nothing wrong with that view but it
is a shortsighted one at best.

Now lemme see. . .where have I heard that before???  OH, I know:

Sogno Dolce wrote:
well if somebody wants to see my tits, then they can pay to see them.  I don't charge for regular fashion or lingerie shoots. but if someone asked me to pose topless then I sure as hell aren't doing it for free!

Or maybe it was:

Sogno Dolce wrote:
thanks for your advice.  I hope I don't give off the impression that I'm not "serious" about modeling.  as a matter of fact I give 110% at all my shoots.  my port does kinda suck right now just cos I haven't been doing this for a while....but I'm trying
also, I just want to make it clear that the reason I asked to begin with was cos I've had numerous photogs ask me what my rates were for nude work, and I didn't know what a reasonable rate was to charge.  when people offer to pay me, I'd be stupid to turn it down!  I don't want to seem fake or anything but money is money is money and I'm in college so a little bit of extra cash sure comes in handy!

Can't recall really.  Mind is just so clouded with breasts and penises. 


Seriously though, I agree with what Tony said here:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
The real question becomes one of who's paying you and why.  As a smart model
posted here just because someone has the bucks to pay you doesn't mean
you should always shoot with that person.

But when he said

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Things that don't feel right eat away at your self image.

I'm not sure how to feel about that.  On the one hand, if your image of self isn't all that high to begin with. . .well. . .everyone can fill in the blanks as they see fit.  On the other hand, if your self image/self worth is high and you've been paid (with your fee predetermined by that perception of self), shooting pictures with Leisure Suit Larry will still be a photo shoot with Leisure Suit Larry.  You've already been paid and signed the release so you can't very well back out of it.  When you agree to a price, you have already begun the "closing of the deal" process.  You can try to take as many precautions as possible and still end up shooting with Leisure Suit Larry.  He could have an awesome portfolio, communicate professionally and seem totally on the up and up. . .and when you get there to work with him he's still Leisure Suit Larry.  Business is business, and once a deal is made. . .it's pretty much done.  Many an alcoholic/drug addict/stripperhoe have been made off of regrets.  Which is exactly why I say that part of deciding to be a model is deciding what kind of model to be.  There are just some decisions that absolutely without a doubt must be made before a situation happens.  Weather or not you're comfortable taking your clothes off in pictures (if you're an experienced model or otherwise) I think is just one of them.  To negotiate a fee based on wardrobe level or lack thereof. . .speaks to something demeaning and sleazy, weather intended to be that way or not.  Be it initiated by the model or the photographer.  That's just how that's always going to sound to me.  I kinda forgot where I was going with this, so I guess I'll just be quiet now and try to offer the nekkid chic (Iona) a blanket or something.

MarkMarek wrote:
In fact, I do not work with internet models, mostly becasue of their overinflated egoes and you barely see one which would actually look pretty, but there are other factors as well.
Mark

Hmph!  So!  We wouldn't have fun working with you anyways!!!

I'm just kidding.  You have your reasons.  Although, I'm sorry you feel that way about ALL of us internet models (or soon to be in my case). . .and I'm particularly offended that you just lumped us all together into one HUGE A** group.  I thought artists were supposed to be unbiased toward other artists.  Guess I was wrong.  Unless. . .Mark's not a true artist!!  I'm telling!!  j/k

Jayne Jones wrote:
Hmph!  So!  We wouldn't have fun working with you anyways!!!

I'm just kidding.  You have your reasons.  Although, I'm sorry you feel that way about ALL of us internet models (or soon to be in my case). . .and I'm particularly offended that you just lumped us all together into one HUGE A** group.  I thought artists were supposed to be unbiased toward other artists.  Guess I was wrong.  Unless. . .Mark's not a true artist!!  I'm telling!!  j/k

Well, i wish I had the nerve to call myself an artist . Lumping everyone into the same a** group was a little unintentional. I have to say you are too cool to be in a** group and theda is too pretty to be there too. So here... exceptions confirm the rule

MarkMarek wrote:
I have to say you are too cool to be in a** group and theda is too pretty to be there too. So here... exceptions confirm the rule

Theda always gets to be the pretty one!!!  Theda Theda Theda!!!

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Ms. Jones you are a cut up!  I can't remember how often I've heard young women
say I'll do whatever as long as I'm making money.  I think how sad.  If  You're
self worth is only about how much someone will pay you.  I have no hate for
those models who say they won't pose nude unless someone is paying them but
it leads to a bigger question of what else they will do for cash.  If all you see is
$$$ signs for yourself what happens when the money runs out?  Does this apply
to your choice of love intrest? He/she runs out of cash and you are out the door.
Whenever for example I hear that tired saying, no romance without finance, I think
how sad.

I think you need to re-read my posts and check yourself.  I was quoting the model that started this thread.  Personally, I feel that as a model, I have to choose what type of modeling I will do.  I have stated that I will NOT pose nude, nor will I do Adult nor Erotica.  I have also stated that as a model, I feel I am paid for my time not my show/display of skin/nipple/breast/coochie or what have you. 

Contrary to MY beliefs, the model that started this thread has made statements such as:

Sogno Dolce wrote:
well if somebody wants to see my tits, then they can pay to see them.  I don't charge for regular fashion or lingerie shoots. but if someone asked me to pose topless then I sure as hell aren't doing it for free!

And

Sogno Dolce wrote:
thanks for your advice.  I hope I don't give off the impression that I'm not "serious" about modeling.  as a matter of fact I give 110% at all my shoots.  my port does kinda suck right now just cos I haven't been doing this for a while....but I'm trying
also, I just want to make it clear that the reason I asked to begin with was cos I've had numerous photogs ask me what my rates were for nude work, and I didn't know what a reasonable rate was to charge.  when people offer to pay me, I'd be stupid to turn it down!  I don't want to seem fake or anything but money is money is money and I'm in college so a little bit of extra cash sure comes in handy!

Those are Sogno's words not mine dearie.

Sogno Dolce wrote:
I love how I am portrayed as a whore now.  All I did was ask a simple question and I feel like I've started World War 3.  I'm done with these forums.

No offense chica, but you've got drama queen down pat!  No one is calling you a whore b/c everyone gets that you're not selling your body for money.  We're just discussing the "viewpoint" that you seem to have about being a paid model.  Sheesh!

Sogno Dolce wrote:

well if somebody wants to see my tits, then they can pay to see them.  I don't charge for regular fashion or lingerie shoots. but if someone asked me to pose topless then I sure as hell aren't doing it for free!

Well, if your mindset is that you're being compensated "to see my tits", then you're not a model. You're in another vocation entirely.

Good luck with that.

John

Jayne Jones wrote:

No offense chica, but you've got drama queen down pat!  No one is calling you a whore b/c everyone gets that you're not selling your body for money.  We're just discussing the "viewpoint" that you seem to have about being a paid model.  Sheesh!

Sometimes I wish my moderator powers included giving gold stars to people who make sence on the forums.  You'd totally get one.

But I'd rather be the cool one than the pretty one. I usally am, actually.

John Allan wrote:
Well, if your mindset is that you're being compensated "to see my tits", then you're not a model. You're in another vocation entirely.

Good luck with that.

John

Now John. . .in So's defense. . .we've already covered that.  She will NOT do peepshows!

But perhaps you can lend your perspective as a photog on why you may or may not hire a nude model.  Is it because of her "look" or because of her "boobs"????

Jayne Jones wrote:

Now John. . .in So's defense. . .we've already covered that.  She will NOT do peepshows!

But perhaps you can lend your perspective as a photog on why you may or may not hire a nude model.  Is it because of her "look" or because of her "boobs"????

Well, I don't typically shoot nudes, so....
But I think if a model's genre is nudes, then part of her "look" is her boobs.
I don't see a nude model's body as being any different than a fashion model's body. Just because the nude model is unclothed.

I guess the mindset of charging based on exposed 'bits' is just a little offensive to me.
It represents something very different than modeling to my ears.

John

Sogno Dolce wrote:
I love how I am portrayed as a whore now.  All I did was ask a simple question and I feel like I've started World War 3.  I'm done with these forums.

You're going to have to learn to have thicker skin than that if you want to model for any length of time.
Don't kid yourself; these arguments have been going on long before you got here, long before I got here, and long before Theda got here, well maybe not Theda but we still love her.

When you ask a question of 20 diffrent people expect 20 diffrent answers.
This is a very free market economy your dealing with.

How much does a girl make at the peep shows these days????

Iona Lynn wrote:

You're going to have to learn to have thicker skin than that if you want to model for any length of time.
Don't kid yourself; these arguments have been going on long before you got here, long before I got here, and long before Theda got here, well maybe not Theda but we still love her.

When you ask a question of 20 diffrent people expect 20 diffrent answers.
This is a very free market economy your dealing with.

How much does a girl make at the peep shows these days????

I think it's $20 for 15 minutes..... LOL

John

John Allan wrote:
I think it's $20 for 15 minutes..... LOL

John

Gee.... 80 bucks an hour - that's what started this thread in the first place. Is that ironic or what?.

LOL

Studio36

Jayne Jones wrote:
But perhaps you can lend your perspective as a photog on why you may or may not hire a nude model.  Is it because of her "look" or because of her "boobs"????

Because she has good-looking boobs.
Porportional, well shaped, and creating good curves with the rest of her body for an overall aesthetic effect that creates the images we seek.

Iona Lynn wrote:
long before Theda got here, well maybe not Theda but we still love her.

Did you just call Theda OLD?

Sogno Dolce wrote:
I love how I am portrayed as a whore now.  All I did was ask a simple question and I feel like I've started World War 3.  I'm done with these forums.

I have changed my mind about your look. I now think you have a lot to offer as a nude model. Beautiful face, with big eyes, and a full mouth. You have a look not often found in the south. If you want to do a three hour shoot with me this summer, I am open to it.

The new images you added today look great.