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

Back to my "D2BP" rating system. You are an 8 on that scale, Sogno. You do deserve to be paid at least $80.00 an hour. I mean, if I could get away with it, I would love to pay you $50.00 an hour. That doesn't mean that is what you are worth though. I assess your worth far more than that.

Tony Culture Photoz wrote:

Back to my "D2BP" rating system. You are an 8 on that scale, Sogno. You do deserve to be paid at least $80.00 an hour. I mean, if I could get away with it, I would love to pay you $50.00 an hour. That doesn't mean that is what you are worth though. I assess your worth far more than that.

I agree with you Tony

Tony Lawrence wrote:
At first to be Frank most of us wouldn't have considered paying the OP at
all but after her shoot with a good photographer her stock went up.  Thats
why it pays to have better images.  Each of us has a different focus.  $80.00
to some is very little to others its a weeks worth of food at the store.
I imagine many of the photographers here shoot for themselves and make little
to no profit from photography.  So it again comes down to how much can you
afford to spend on your hobby?  One things for sure we wouldn't say $80.00
for breasts was too much if she looked like a younger Tyra Banks or a still modeling Iman.  Don't get me wrong the OP is attractive but doesn't most of this come down to how fine you look?   Women are often paid for their beauty and this is
no different.

Actually, I appreciate what you are saying.  The problem is that in the mainstream both you and the OP are really not in tune.  $80 an hour is not an unreasonable rate to pay for topless.  Indeed through a mainstream agency she would be paid substantially more.  But that isn't the point.

Models aren't typically paid for how they look, they are paid for the job.  Normally, in the mainstream, the project is defined and a rate is set.  Agents are typically told when the casting notice goes out what the project pays.  Then they submit models who expect to be paid what they have been told.

Casting directors don't modify the rate because of how a model looks.  They pick the model that fits the project.

So when a model says her rate is $80hr, that is her basically her declaring her ad hoc rate.  What you are saying is that you decide what yo uwill pay a model based on how good you think she looks.

The reason that is counter-intuitive, is for professional bookings, what we are looking for is the model that best fits the gig.  That is what casting is all about.  Picking the best so whoever is cast qualifies for the rate.

That is just one of the anomalies with regard to the net.  That is in part related to the fact that so many photographers are hobbyists.  It becomes a question of what a particular model is worth to them.

I do understand your point though.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I had to shoot 1,800 images of a model plus two hours of video from noon on Monday until noon on Tuesday.  I am burned out so I had to come play with my friends before I start buring disks.

Well I had emergency surgery with no anaesthetic Monday, so you get no sympathy from me  :p

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Models aren't typically paid for how they look, they are paid for the job.  Normally, in the mainstream, the project is defined and a rate is set.  Agents are typically told when the casting notice goes out what the project pays.  Then they submit models who expect to be paid what they have been told.

Casting directors don't modify the rate because of how a model looks.  They pick the model that fits the project.

So when a model says her rate is $80hr, that is her basically her declaring her ad hoc rate.  [break in text]

The reason that is counter-intuitive, is for professional bookings, what we are looking for is the model that best fits the gig.  That is what casting is all about.  Picking the best so whoever is cast qualifies for the rate.

That is just one of the anomalies with regard to the net.  That is in part related to the fact that so many photographers are hobbyists.  It becomes a question of what a particular model is worth to them.

I do understand your point though.

I'm right there with you Alan and throughout that has been my point. Line up [at a casting] 10 - 35 models and interview them, do the 'roids, see how they look and move. From the 35 you might get a short list of 3 - 5 that will fit the job. Then the cost factor is considered. If the cost range is set as in the NORMAL market they should be all reasonably close - AND it is usually a cost set at agency level not based on the model's own personal price list -  BUT if the range is set by the NET MODEL SILLY-MONEY PRICING system the cost will be what flys... when set against the shooting budget.

With independents [non-agency bookings] - say a net model against an art model or even a street cast model - then 99.999% of the time the art model or the street casting will get the work on price alone. And we all agree that against the rates for a "typical" art model the typical prices set by the NET MODEL SILLY-MONEY PRICING system are usually sheer and utter nonsense. Where the two come close is in fashion style work [clothed] but as soon as you mention bikini or lingerie... or GASP!... showing a little skin be that "implied" [Jes... how I hate that designation], topless or nude then the NET MODEL SILLY-MONEY PRICING system prices the net model right the hell out of the ballpark.

For one off jobs, not necessarily ongoing campaigns, there are very, very few models that are sooooooo unique, and you will ONLY find them under exclusive contract in the big agencies as a rule, that they can set a price and expect to get it on every job. Or ANY models that can't be replaced as soon as they show the slightest flicker of a diva attitude. Even the agencies will negotiate prices on a job-by-job basis for the same model [above floor prices]... which is not at all what the NET MODEL SILLY-MONEY PRICING system is about.

Agency pricing is also usually by the day or half-day and only RARELY set by the hour, except perhaps for overtime and out-of-hours work where some kind of premium is computed into the billing. Further, agency pricing, also, usually will set a lower rate for preparation time - fittings and make-up -  if that is going to be extensive. Usually a half-rate basis [50% of day rate / 8 hours X prep time hours - then - full rate for the on-set, on-camera, time] Figuring in those kinds of variables, on some jobs, at least those lasting the whole day, one might even get an agency model cheaper than a net model to do the same job.

Agency model day rate $500 = $500 [and, yes, I can find both lower and higher rates but this is not low] = notional hourly rate @ $63

vs

Net model @$80/hr X 8 hr = $640
Net model @$100/hr X 8hr = $800
Net model @$150/hr X 8hr = $1200

but for nudes, because agencies may not have models that they will book for nude work, I will compare net models to art models

Art model @$40/hr X 8 hr = £320 [and this is a particularly high rate]

But lets look at an agency model [where the agency will book nudes - and those that do tend to have higher day rates] @$1200/day with a half rate offset for part of that time

fitting + hair + make-up = 2 hrs = 50% / 1200 / 8 = 50%/$150 = $75 X 2hr = $150 + on-set time = 6hrs X $150 = $900

$900 + $150 = $1050 for the WHOLE DAY

In almost every case guess who gets the job... or rather who doesn't?

Studio36