Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Bluemoon Photography wrote:
If you really are interested in finding out the law on this matter, go to a library or book store and there are several great books on legal mumbo-jumbo about photography. Or go to google and look up the "berne convention act" and look under the artist section of it where photography copyright is covered.
Photographer
Bluemoon Photography
Posts: 202
Cranston, Rhode Island, US
CristinaLex wrote:
W/E What is W/E?
Model
CristinaLex
Posts: 1970
Silver Spring, Maryland, US
Bluemoon Photography wrote:
What is W/E? WATEVER.....
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
CristinaLex wrote:
ok so why does someone a model with hardly n e money pay 200 dollars to pay for a couple of pics that need just to be posted on MM... portfolios are considered an investment the model makes in her modeling career. Just like our cameras are an investment toward our photography. When I start getting free equipment, you can get some freebie shots from me, maybe.
Photographer
DoN'arie
Posts: 11
Mount Rainier, Maryland, US
Hamza said it best...
as I read this I was thinking the digital world has messed up the ART to a degree in regards to traditional tfp styled arrangements. I try to never give out the raw files PERIOD. If a photog does that make sure you get it in writing that you are able to edit the pics with consent AND also add that you will show edited work to them before posting them up anywhere.
Now being 2006 digital is the way to go but I think it is unfair when you give a model 200 pics unedited. Now does a model really need 200 pics, NO....
Of each outfit shot in, 3-5 pics should do to market with.
I don't think the photogs you worked with thus far tried to scam you at all....
I will say for the ones that do charge for a shoot ($300, $400) and give you a cd right there on the spot are the scammers but thats another topic in itself.
Photographer
Bluemoon Photography
Posts: 202
Cranston, Rhode Island, US
Hey Glam, your gonna have to take over for me here, I'm starting to fall asleep.
But be easy on the girl, she's still a beauty, I'd work with her.
Good night ya'll!!!!!!!
Photographer
Mark Brummitt
Posts: 40527
Clarkston, Michigan, US
Are you kidding me? If you are good at Photoshopping you will save me a ton of time and/or money. Forget the contract go for it.
mark
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
CrazyIsabelAurora wrote:
ok ok how about this:
models will stay away from editting their own images, and photographers will stop complaining about how much time it takes post-processing those images for a tfp shoot......? If they complain because they have to do a lot of PS work,they should improve their shooting.I don`t complain about any of the pre,during or post work. To me it is part of the territory. I have noticed that most of the ones who complain about editing are the ones mostly doing photography for money, not because they love photography.
Model
CristinaLex
Posts: 1970
Silver Spring, Maryland, US
Bluemoon Photography wrote:
Hey Glam, your gonna have to take over for me here, I'm starting to fall asleep.
But be easy on the girl, she's still a beauty, I'd work with her.
Good night ya'll!!!!!!! ...lol
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
CristinaLex wrote:
but he aint no picasso...lol Good lord I hope not. I couldn`t imagine what a photograph would look like after Picasso got ahold of it!
Photographer
Brandon Ching
Posts: 2028
Brooklyn, New York, US
markcomp wrote:
Are you kidding me? If you are good at Photoshopping you will save me a ton of time and/or money. Forget the contract go for it.
mark So what if the images you took (but another model Photoshopped better than you could have) starts circulating around and people want to shoot with you because of said images? What do you do then? Reply with "oh, I can shoot you.. but I'll have to hand over the images to __________ before I send them back to you." ???
No thanks. I don't let ANYONE edit my images.. I'm furious when models post my unedited (proof) images or worse, butcher it in Photoshop and then credit me. I rather not have my name attached to it since it makes ME look bad. I built up my reputation from my editing/retouching and have to live by a very high standard and unless you have someone else editing your photos full-time for you, I think that's false advertisement and misrepresentation of your skills.
Those few instances where models messed with my photos happened early in my TFP days when I'd give raw jpgs since I was too lazy to resize and watermark them, rendering them useless. I've learned my lesson!
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
CristinaLex wrote:
W/E people are always different over the phone and in person ..thanks? Not always, which is the practice I and many others live by when online. I have seen so may models I would love to work with. Until I saw their horrible attitude in the threads here.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
CristinaLex wrote:
W/E like,,,,how high school. Can`t think of something to say so put in a whatever
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Bluemoon Photography wrote:
What is W/E? It means whatever. The adult equivalent of a lil kid putting their fingers in their ears and repeated "lah lah laalalal LAH lalalalal lah la" over and over.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Bluemoon Photography wrote:
But be easy on the girl, she's still a beauty, I am, trust me and yes, she is.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Brandon Ching wrote:
"oh, I can shoot you.. but I'll have to hand over the images to __________ before I send them back to you." ??? This is actually more common than many realize. Many photographers hire an editor to clean up their images.But to me, that is part of my love of the craft. Doing it all from start to post production.
Photographer
SolraK Studios
Posts: 1213
Atlanta, Georgia, US
markcomp wrote:
Are you kidding me? If you are good at Photoshopping you will save me a ton of time and/or money. Forget the contract go for it.
mark I hope your just playing around..........
Model
PlusModelNikki
Posts: 1196
Pontiac, Michigan, US
this is exactly the reason i have no problem with photographers only handing me 20 EDITED images from a tfp shoot... i have absolutely no need for a cd with 300+ images... and believe, i have 2 cd's like that from my first two shoots.
Photographer
Mark Brummitt
Posts: 40527
Clarkston, Michigan, US
Brandon Ching wrote:
So what if the images you took (but another model Photoshopped better than you could have) starts circulating around and people want to shoot with you because of said images? What do you do then? Reply with "oh, I can shoot you.. but I'll have to hand over the images to __________ before I send them back to you." ???
No thanks. I don't let ANYONE edit my images.. I'm furious when models post my unedited (proof) images or worse, butcher it in Photoshop and then credit me. I rather not have my name attached to it since it makes ME look bad. I built up my reputation from my editing/retouching and have to live by a very high standard and unless you have someone else editing your photos full-time for you, I think that's false advertisement and misrepresentation of your skills.
Those few instances where models messed with my photos happened early in my TFP days when I'd give raw jpgs since I was too lazy to resize and watermark them, rendering them useless. I've learned my lesson! If I get more work because somebody Photoshopped my images then I will hire that person to do more work or find some one like that person to do the same. I can only be somewhat of a purist. There are very few shots out there that are not Photoshopped and I am willing to set aside my ego for the sake of the art.
Photographer
Mark Brummitt
Posts: 40527
Clarkston, Michigan, US
KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote:
I hope your just playing around.......... I'm really not. Two things I said that I would do for future shots:
1. Always hire and MUA except for testing.
2. Photoshop every shot.
While I certainly respect someone who shoots for a living and wants to maintain complete control over their work, I would rather someone took something I did and made it better.
Photographer
Brandon Ching
Posts: 2028
Brooklyn, New York, US
markcomp wrote:
If I get more work because somebody Photoshopped my images then I will hire that person to do more work or find some one like that person to do the same. I can only be somewhat of a purist. There are very few shots out there that are not Photoshopped and I am willing to set aside my ego for the sake of the art. I agree, but I guess I like to have that start-to-finish involvement in the image making process.
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
This is actually more common than many realize. Many photographers hire an editor to clean up their images.But to me, that is part of my love of the craft. Doing it all from start to post production. If that's the case.. anyone wanna hire me for retouching services? ![https://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/028.gif]()
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
I just noticed this thread and I am sorry guys, I am going to chime in. What ever happened to civility? What ever happened to being respectful? What ever happened to the purpose of these forums, for everybody to learn and share?
The OP asked a perfectly legitimate question. She simply wanted to know if a model should learn Photoshop to work on images and people started jumping all over her as a moron, but more importantly the "F" word started flying. That was totally inappropriate. Guys, how do you expect models to learn if you don't teach them? How do you expect models to work with you if you can't treat them with respect?
Christina, I apologize for everyone here. I am embarassed by the language used in this thread.
When Christina asked the initial question, rather than screaming "Fuck" all that was necessary was this simple answer and we could have had a civil discussion:
When a photographer takes a photo, he owns the copyright. While it is good for a model to know how to use Photoshop, in most cases, it is inappropriate for a model to alter the work of a photographer without his consent. Do so is called a derrivate work and is prohibitted by copyright law. There are a couple of solutions to your problem. The first is to enter into an agreement with the photographer before you shoot as to how many edited images the photographer will give you. With some photographers you can get a proof disk and choose the ones you would like to receive. Other photographers will pick the images for you. If there is an image you would like to edit yourself, the proper way to handle it is to ask the photographer for permission. Many photographers won't allow you to do it. Others may allow you to do it if you submit the image to them for review before you post them. However, it is generally at the photographer's discretion. When you did your TFP photoshoot, you should have been given a license to use the images provided to you. It will spell what you can or cannot do with the images. It may also discuss altering the image.
That is all that was needed. It was not necessary to swear at her or treat her so badly. The question was a fair one. The model wasentitled to a fair answer.
I am embarassed to think that we, as photographers couldn't answer this question in a professional manner.
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and rachet this down a notch. There is a lot of name calling on both sides and it is unecessary. We are all friends. Let's make nice!
Photographer
SolraK Studios
Posts: 1213
Atlanta, Georgia, US
markcomp wrote:
If I get more work because somebody Photoshopped my images then I will hire that person to do more work or find some one like that person to do the same. I can only be somewhat of a purist. There are very few shots out there that are not Photoshopped and I am willing to set aside my ego for the sake of the art. Ok I was actually leaving to go watch a movie but I must reply to this
A I admit many photographers hire retoucher and what not to do work they don't have time for or unable to do, but you replied that it's cool if a model retouches your pics cause it save you time. That makes sense only if the model was a pro retoucher by trade. Otherwise it's just plain laziness
B some what of a "PURIST" please study up on the definition
C set aside my ego for the sake of ART...... now this kills me their are few TRUE astist here on MM ( I am not one nor do I claim to be). A TRUE artist would want complete control of their images from creation to finish product.
Imagine loretta lux letting just anybody work on her images or araki taking his pics to rite aid..doesn't make sense does it..
Photography is more that taking pics of pretty naked women!
Photographer
DeBoer Photography
Posts: 782
Melbourne, Florida, US
DoN'arie wrote:
I will say for the ones that do charge for a shoot ($300, $400) and give you a cd right there on the spot are the scammers but thats another topic in itself. So you are calling me, and others who work in this fashion scammers?
lol
When I shot film (slides actually), I used to just give the models the rolls afterwards and let them go get it developed themselves...
I think you are confusing studio/portrait photography with portfolio work...
- Denoy
Photographer
SolraK Studios
Posts: 1213
Atlanta, Georgia, US
DeBoer Photography wrote:
So you are calling me, and others who work in this fashion scammers?
lol
When I shot film (slides actually), I used to just give the models the rolls afterwards and let them go get it developed themselves...
I think you are confusing studio/portrait photography with portfolio work...
- Denoy I would
yes ppl who work in this fashion are scammers and brainless!
even Glamour Shots retain the negative for future sells!
and yes I am referring to "portfolio" work
Photographer
Mark Brummitt
Posts: 40527
Clarkston, Michigan, US
KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote:
Ok I was actually leaving to go watch a movie but I must reply to this
A I admit many photographers hire retoucher and what not to do work they don't have time for or unable to do, but you replied that it's cool if a model retouches your pics cause it save you time. That makes sense only if the model was a pro retoucher by trade. Otherwise it's just plain laziness
B some what of a "PURIST" please study up on the definition
C set aside my ego for the sake of ART...... now this kills me their are few TRUE astist here on MM ( I am not one nor do I claim to be). A TRUE artist would want complete control of their images from creation to finish product.
Imagine loretta lux letting just anybody work on her images or araki taking his pics to rite aid..doesn't make sense does it..
Photography is more that taking pics of pretty naked women! Okay, fair enough. You say photography is more than taking pictures of a pretty naked woman as though my port were full of them. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't see any so I guess that does not apply to me.
When I say purist I am referring to the days when we shot in film and we were not even supposed to crop the image in the final process. It was supposed to be printed as shot. If your definition is different, you describe.
Your statement that a true artist would want to take control begs the question. you assume that we agree on that statement without merit.
I believe, and it is my opinion that an artist enjys art wherever it comes from.
I sincerely believe that money drives most things and while I have no problem with that, in this particular venue it again does not apply to me.
Model
PlusModelNikki
Posts: 1196
Pontiac, Michigan, US
Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I just noticed this thread and I am sorry guys, I am going to chime in. What ever happened to civility? What ever happened to being respectful? What ever happened to the purpose of these forums, for everybody to learn and share?
The OP asked a perfectly legitimate question. She simply wanted to know if a model should learn Photoshop to work on images and people started jumping all over her as a moron, but more importantly the "F" word started flying. That was totally inappropriate. Guys, how do you expect models to learn if you don't teach them? How do you expect models to work with you if you can't treat them with respect?
Christina, I apologize for everyone here. I am embarassed by the language used in this thread.
When Christina asked the initial question, rather than screaming "Fuck" all that was necessary was this simple answer and we could have had a civil discussion:
When a photographer takes a photo, he owns the copyright. While it is good for a model to know how to use Photoshop, in most cases, it is inappropriate for a model to alter the work of a photographer without his consent. Do so is called a derrivate work and is prohibitted by copyright law. There are a couple of solutions to your problem. The first is to enter into an agreement with the photographer before you shoot as to how many edited images the photographer will give you. With some photographers you can get a proof disk and choose the ones you would like to receive. Other photographers will pick the images for you. If there is an image you would like to edit yourself, the proper way to handle it is to ask the photographer for permission. Many photographers won't allow you to do it. Others may allow you to do it if you submit the image to them for review before you post them. However, it is generally at the photographer's discretion. When you did your TFP photoshoot, you should have been given a license to use the images provided to you. It will spell what you can or cannot do with the images. It may also discuss altering the image.
That is all that was needed. It was not necessary to swear at her or treat her so badly. The question was a fair one. The model wasentitled to a fair answer.
I am embarassed to think that we, as photographers couldn't answer this question in a professional manner.
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and rachet this down a notch. There is a lot of name calling on both sides and it is unecessary. We are all friends. Let's make nice! so glad you stepped in feel free to chime anytime... i noticed it, but i didnt want to say anything.
Photographer
Mark Brummitt
Posts: 40527
Clarkston, Michigan, US
KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote:
Ok I was actually leaving to go watch a movie but I must reply to this
A I admit many photographers hire retoucher and what not to do work they don't have time for or unable to do, but you replied that it's cool if a model retouches your pics cause it save you time. That makes sense only if the model was a pro retoucher by trade. Otherwise it's just plain laziness
B some what of a "PURIST" please study up on the definition
C set aside my ego for the sake of ART...... now this kills me their are few TRUE astist here on MM ( I am not one nor do I claim to be). A TRUE artist would want complete control of their images from creation to finish product.
Imagine loretta lux letting just anybody work on her images or araki taking his pics to rite aid..doesn't make sense does it..
Photography is more that taking pics of pretty naked women! Oh, and if you are a full time potographer than yes it could be construed as laziness but not knowing what my schedule is like, that statement is better left unanswered.
By the way, I really like what you have done with simple backgrounds. Nice work.
Photographer
DeBoer Photography
Posts: 782
Melbourne, Florida, US
KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote:
[DeBoer Photography]So you are calling me, and others who work in this fashion scammers?
lol
When I shot film (slides actually), I used to just give the models the rolls afterwards and let them go get it developed themselves...
I think you are confusing studio/portrait photography with portfolio work...
- Denoy[]
I would
yes ppl who work in this fashion are scammers and brainless!
even Glamour Shots retain the negative for future sells!
and yes I am referring to "portfolio" work I'll tell you what. You work your way, and I shall continue to do what works best for me.
As far as calling others "scammers" and "brainless," I think that says more about YOU than the people you accuse.
Regards,
Denoy
Model
Alicia I
Posts: 9
Fayetteville, Arkansas, US
CristinaLex wrote:
you shouldnt have to get permission from a photographer to edit your pics to accomadate you feel for your work you put into the pics as well...cuz what if he says no you can do tht but if you wanna let me ddo it heres the charge $$$$$.......not disrespecting at all to the photographers who work hard on what they do Christina, I think you have been given some pretty good examples. Slow down and understand what everyone is telling you about ownership. It's not about what you personally feel, it's about what's fact. Just like an author owns the rights to his book, a photographer owns the rights to his photographs, and that's a fact.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Alicia I wrote:
Just like an author owns the rights to his book Oh man, theres another can of worms I could open. But this is a photography site, not a writers site,lol.
Photographer
UnoMundo
Posts: 47532
Olympia, Washington, US
As I said now you see why I dont do TFP!
I pay or you pay; simple!
no questions who 'owns' what!
Photographer
Mark Brummitt
Posts: 40527
Clarkston, Michigan, US
Brandon Ching wrote:
markcomp wrote:
If I get more work because somebody Photoshopped my images then I will hire that person to do more work or find some one like that person to do the same. I can only be somewhat of a purist. There are very few shots out there that are not Photoshopped and I am willing to set aside my ego for the sake of the art. I agree, but I guess I like to have that start-to-finish involvement in the image making process.
If that's the case.. anyone wanna hire me for retouching services? ![https://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/028.gif]() I am always open for good Photshoppers.
Model
Just AJ
Posts: 3478
Round Rock, Texas, US
I know no one really asked me. . .but here's my change anyhow. I don't see a problem with a model learning PS if she wants to experiment on her own images, meaning if she took them. It's always a good idea to be well rounded. I do see a problem with altering a photog's images. Be them given on a TFP basis or paid basis. A photog is ultimately an artist. When he/she gives the final images. . .that is their work. I think the message conveyed ultimately if you alter the image is: "Hey. . .this wasn't good enough." In which case. . .if you're working on a TFP basis. . .I would think a lot of collaboration/discussion should be involved prior to shooting and prior to obtaining the prints/CD. If you look at the prints and aren't happy with how they look. . .I would think you should talk to the photog about it. If you're paying for the pics. . .all the more reason to talk about what you like/don't like about the finished product. So to alter a photog's work: I don't think that's cool. To educate yourself on the process: cool beans. But that's just this newbie's opinion.
Photographer
JM Dean
Posts: 8931
Cary, North Carolina, US
Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I just noticed this thread and I am sorry guys, I am going to chime in. What ever happened to civility? What ever happened to being respectful? What ever happened to the purpose of these forums, for everybody to learn and share?
The OP asked a perfectly legitimate question. She simply wanted to know if a model should learn Photoshop to work on images and people started jumping all over her as a moron, but more importantly the "F" word started flying. That was totally inappropriate. Guys, how do you expect models to learn if you don't teach them? How do you expect models to work with you if you can't treat them with respect?
Christina, I apologize for everyone here. I am embarassed by the language used in this thread.
When Christina asked the initial question, rather than screaming "Fuck" all that was necessary was this simple answer and we could have had a civil discussion:
When a photographer takes a photo, he owns the copyright. While it is good for a model to know how to use Photoshop, in most cases, it is inappropriate for a model to alter the work of a photographer without his consent. Do so is called a derrivate work and is prohibitted by copyright law. There are a couple of solutions to your problem. The first is to enter into an agreement with the photographer before you shoot as to how many edited images the photographer will give you. With some photographers you can get a proof disk and choose the ones you would like to receive. Other photographers will pick the images for you. If there is an image you would like to edit yourself, the proper way to handle it is to ask the photographer for permission. Many photographers won't allow you to do it. Others may allow you to do it if you submit the image to them for review before you post them. However, it is generally at the photographer's discretion. When you did your TFP photoshoot, you should have been given a license to use the images provided to you. It will spell what you can or cannot do with the images. It may also discuss altering the image.
That is all that was needed. It was not necessary to swear at her or treat her so badly. The question was a fair one. The model wasentitled to a fair answer.
I am embarassed to think that we, as photographers couldn't answer this question in a professional manner.
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and rachet this down a notch. There is a lot of name calling on both sides and it is unecessary. We are all friends. Let's make nice! Shit to Fu*%ing Hell. I was going to put in my 2 cents but guess not now
Photographer
SolraK Studios
Posts: 1213
Atlanta, Georgia, US
DeBoer Photography wrote:
I'll tell you what. You work your way, and I shall continue to do what works best for me.
As far as calling others "scammers" and "brainless," I think that says more about YOU than the people you accuse.
Regards,
Denoy hmmm think about it for just two seconds if you keep your negative and the model wants print for future use you can charge right. If you give away the negative you give away all future earnings and I know models to lose CD I gave them or had them stolen. Wedding, portrait and event photographer are just a few to operate this way. Now with that said isn't simply brainless to give away future earning ( and no I am not call YOU brainless)??
Now as far as retouching goes (as this is what the OP was about) doesn't it make sense to show a model how they look at their best ! sure you can give unnretouched negs away save you time and trouble of dealing with the work is one way of looking at it. I retouch all DGN files to pay a third party to do retouching would cost the model a great deal more, to offer it with the photoshoot package means more money for you right ? Let's be honest any joe blow can take a picture but not every joe blow can become a photographer
and as far as "photographers" that do a photoshoot burn a CD of all images and say c-ya later ----yeah scammers, GWC's, faketographers...
Photographer
santagati
Posts: 6
Brooklyn, New York, US
whether its TFP or paid, unless you specifically delineate the images as "work for hire", the photographer remains the author for the purposes of copyright. In addition, in most countries (save the United States) the law recognizes certain "moral rights" of an author, that cannot be licensed away. The US doesn't recognize these traditionally, but there has been some movement in that direction in the courts. These moral rights prohibit the alteration or destruction of a creation. This is in part to protect creators from the bastardization of their works by the people who purchase them. For example, you can't buy my paintings then destroy all of them, just because you own them. Or buy my painting then paint a happyface on it so it matches your yellow couch. (that ain't right!) Same things apply to photographs. So no, you cannot alter the images of a photographer, legally, unless you have specific permission to do so, even if you paid for the pictures, unless the (written) contract says its a work for hire. My words of advice? CYA: Cover your ass. Not that I want too many models to take that to heart (lol), but its always good advice when it comes to legal matters. If it ain't in writing, consider yourself out on a limb. I think because the ACT of taking a picture involves a seemingly simple act (pressing a button) that laymen think of it as a simple act, when in fact, years of study and training go into every shot. Because each picture is in essence the collective output of all those years of study, though I think we do appreciate that there are certain images you like that we don't, trust us, we may not always be right, but trust us on this. I know you like those pics with your ass hanging out in your favorite porn star pose, but really, it doesn't look as good as you think it does. So just because I took 200+ images of you and only gave you the 5 best ones, it really is most likely there are only 5 images (if that) that we are really comfortable as representing ourselves and our work. Of course, I am referring to the collective we, not specifically referring to myself, I have a LOT of work to go before I am really comfortable behind the camera...but that said, I know about composition and the like, I've earned my degrees (and then some), and you are getting more than a human tripod with a camera, you are getting all the intellectual capability I bring to the table. Whether my intellectual capability is worth anything or not, well, I'll leave that up to someone else to decide..my exgirlfriends' opinions will not be counted, however...lol Finally, a free program that does everything photoshop does is called GIMP: Gnu Image Manipulation Program. you can find it at http://www.gimp.org/. I don't really use it because I am very comfortable with photoshop, but if you don't have a lot of dough, it can be a good tool to have in stock for absolutely nothing. zip. zero. zilch. y'all can thank me later.
Photographer
DeBoer Photography
Posts: 782
Melbourne, Florida, US
Karlos, Since you replied and have raised some issues for discussion, I'll go ahead and reply, even though this thread has been "done" since the first couple postings when the cuss words started flying... KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote:
hmmm think about it for just two seconds if you keep your negative and the model wants print for future use you can charge right. If you give away the negative you give away all future earnings and I know models to lose CD I gave them or had them stolen. Wedding, portrait and event photographer are just a few to operate this way. Now with that said isn't simply brainless to give away future earning ( and no I am not call YOU brainless)?? Some photographers hold negatives "hostage" and charge out the ying-yang for them, or insists on prints being provided only BY the photographer. This is capitalism and they are capitalizing on the fact that they can do that and people are willing to pay them for the images or the negatives.
When working with models (for comps or portfolio), I don't charge a lot and don't make a lot. I don't care to.
I try to make things EASIER for them by providing them with the pics and whatnot in a form where they can easily reproduce them on comps, in portfolio, etc. I don't even care if they decide to PS them and/or butcher them. Anyone who wants to work with me should look at the work on MY SITE.
I deal mostly with "Pro" models or those looking to become "Pro" so I don't run into any of the "problems" I've seen on this site and others. The models I've worked with pay me for my work and pretty much use what I give them (and suggest for them to use on their comps/portfolio).
Models (new ones at least) do not have much money for the most part. I charge what they can afford to pay and what I am willing to accept.
I do not make most of my photography money from shooting model portfolio/comps. Most such work is done for FUN and having a little $$$ on the side is nice. Most of my photography money actually is earned from shooting for products, such as my VSP-Poker Game, or from shooting weddings/events. Even then, I charge a reasonable rate for my market.
Do I give the models all the images and just walk away? Yes and no. If they are hiring me to produce comp/portfolio shots, the model and I will pick 4-5 images out of all those that were shot and I will "PS" them to clean them up. I do not do a lot of PS work because I try to do most stuff "right" in the camera in the first place. Also, for model comps/portlio, I do not "alter" the model other than slight cleanup of stuff like pimples, a stray hair, etc. The model is the subject in portfolio work...not my photography or artistry.
I don't even shoot RAW (gasp!). I shoot JPG as it is good enough for comp/porfolio stuff. I even shoot .jpg for weddings. When shooting such images, I try to make it EASIEST for them to use the work that they hired me to shoot.
I don't keep their images "hostage" because I don't care to make a few more bucks off them. I really have no use for those images, so I "give" them to the client. The client knows they are to be used for self-promotion (i.e, comp or portfolio, or even web portfolios). Any commercial usage would need to be cleared by me.
KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote:
Now as far as retouching goes (as this is what the OP was about) doesn't it make sense to show a model how they look at their best! They hire me because they know I will make them look their best. I work with them to select about 4-5 pics that I will PS for them. Additional pics can be done by me at additional cost. Otherwise, they are free to mess around with any of the pictures. I even suggest cheaper alternatives to PhotoShop that they can use to "play" with their images.
They are the client...not me. I shoot what they want and present it how they want to present it. We are talking about a PAID shoot, where they are paying me...not the other way around.
If we were shooting something for ME, things would be completely different. In that case, I'd be producing a vision (my vision), and in such a shoot, I would want full creative control. And if that were the case, I'd be hiring the model...or working out a mutually agreeable trade arrangement with the model.
KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote:
sure you can give unnretouched negs away save you time and trouble of dealing with the work is one way of looking at it. I retouch all DGN files to pay a third party to do retouching would cost the model a great deal more, to offer it with the photoshoot package means more money for you right? Models come to me to produce comp/portfolio images. I provide them with that, and with a 100% satisfaction guarantee. Most models who come to me understand how the industry works and only need 4-5 "good" images to start out. Giving them the additional images doesn't hurt me in one way or another. They really are "useless" to the model as we have picked the best shots. And they are certainly useless to me, because they are shot specifically for the model's portfolio.
KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote:
Let's be honest any joe blow can take a picture but not every joe blow can become a photographer Any Joe Blow can become a photographer. How GOOD a photographer they become is another matter.
I don't really care about other Joe Blows or Photographers. I only care that *I* try to do my best to deliver what my client needs/wants.
(BTW, I would have said something nasty to you, but I looked at your portfolio samples and you are no "Joe Blow").
KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote:
and as far as "photographers" that do a photoshoot burn a CD of all images and say c-ya later ----yeah scammers, GWC's, faketographer... Well...there ya go again...calling me names...
Doesn't bother me though. I do what I do and my clients are happy.
Regards,
Denoy
Photographer
SolraK Studios
Posts: 1213
Atlanta, Georgia, US
DeBoer Photography wrote:
Doesn't bother me though. I do what I do and my clients are happy.
Regards,
Denoy enjoy life Denoy the drinks on me !
|
