Pat Thielen wrote:
So, people are basically commisioning you to make them clothes and then not pay you for the work? Are they also trying to use the "You'll get great exposure" line as well, thinking they won't have to pay you because of all the "exposure" they're going to get you? I can totally understand why this would be upsetting to you, and many other people on MM can as well. But the solution is relatively simple: Just say no. Make sure you know exactly what you're getting into when you work with people, and I'd suggest you create a document that outlines your fees and expectations with your clients. That way, there will be no miscommunication and you can find out from the outset that a client may want to simply rip you off. Contracts can be a very good thing to allow communication to happen and prevent these sort of things from happening.

  Anyway, just my suggestion. Good luck with everything!

  -P-

Oh I am very upfront with the "no".  I don't need the exposure thing.  It's just crazy that they would even ask.  Especially the models.  Models want to be paid for their time but in reality my time creating and making a garment supersedes their time to do a photo shoot.  And let's not get into the cost of the fabric...

Stanley wrote:
what the hell, you shouldn't be working with those jerks in the first place.  wardrobe styling takes time, $$$, and drive.

Yeah and some people think I just do it for the fun.  Money is fun to me.  I just wish they would ask for rates upfront.

MEWanoDesigns wrote:
I'm still wondering who pays the photographer... *giggle* We've gotta pay for our tools (camera, lighting, studio, gas for scouting locations, props, set design...), the model, the stylist, and the makeup... who pays us?

I think the whole world should work off of a barter system again. Bring back the days of pilgrams! I'll give you four footrubs for two batteries! Anyone?

Which do you need more, the footrub or the batteries? LOL

VRG Photography wrote:
Which do you need more, the footrub or the batteries? LOL

lol, depends on the day of the week and the time of the month.

Narvell wrote:
So my question is to you, do you really think clothes are free?

yes.  and pimpin aint easy.  :-D

MEWanoDesigns wrote:
I'm still wondering who pays the photographer... *giggle* We've gotta pay for our tools (camera, lighting, studio, gas for scouting locations, props, set design...), the model, the stylist, and the makeup... who pays us?

I think the whole world should work off of a barter system again. Bring back the days of pilgrams! I'll give you four footrubs for two batteries! Anyone?

hey now, i went on a shoot once, my very first shoot and i had to drive the photographer and his wife! LOL I didnt get gas money

shelly1982 wrote:
i don't moan because i like doing it
STOP MOANING!!!!!!

Ah, I see you're a screamer!

VRG Photography wrote:
TFC - Time for Clothes.

They don't pay you for the clothes, and you don't pay them for exposing your designs to the world.

Hell, if we can have TFP, why not TFC? LOL

This can be a double-edged sword for some designers.  Most often, the clothing source is not credited when the photog exposes the designs in their ports and promotions.  (Unless it is a commissioned editorial or something).  Otherwise, the designer is the one using the resulting photography to do the market exposures.  The downside of no-name market exposure is that the only thing that happens is other's get to copy the designs, but nobody knows where they came from.

I learned the hard way how much you can spend as a designer dressing up models for photoshoots, fashion shows, and TV events to not even get mentioned in the credits.  I am not saying that it is a bad idea for designers to do "TFC", but there needs to be a clear purpose and benefit to the designer to justify the hard money spent on making custom clothing for specific shoots.

Jay Dezelic wrote:
I think a lot of people put a low value on custom made clothing because they don't realize that it takes just as much design work to make one piece as it does 100,000 pieces.  The uninformed go to Wal-Mart, Gap or Old navy and see their prices as a basis of value to compare all clothing.  Of course, the labor cost in mass-market imported clothing is unfortunately about 10 cents per hour.  Most designers don't have the ability (or audacity) to convince people in third world countries to provide subsidize clothing production like Wal-Mart.

I always find it humorous when petite or plus size models think it's no big deal to whip out a design in their size.  - This is why a lot of commercial production designers like size medium models - they don't have to grade sizes.  Most garment prototypes are produced in size medium first. - If customers like it, then it is graded and sent off to production.  (For those that don't know, Grading is the process of making patterns for each size - It's not just a matter of scaling up or down)  I do all my own pattern making in CAD, but it still takes me several hours to draft and cut pattern before I can cut an sew the material.

Of course, I am talking about designers involved in making clothing for various consumer markets.  I don't have much knowledge of how the fashion folks do it, but they probably have similar issues.

Okay, you totally get how the industry works.  I think if people understood how long it takes to make a garment from idea, pattern, construction and then to the photo shoot, they wouldn't ask for such things and then disrespectfully blow it off like, "well, why not just do it up and call me when it's ready."  The call is never placed because I won't do.  I'll focus on clients that really value my services as I value their opinion of my work for them.

Narvell wrote:
So my question is to you, do you really think clothes are free?  Do you not understand why a fashion stylist or fashion designer should charge just as a makeup artist or hair stylist?  Or do you believe that all stylist should provide their services for free.  If so, why?

well, for a stylist, yes.  the clothes usually are free (on loan).  are you talking about testing or client shoots?  if client shoots, then i agree with you.  otherwise, you should not be paid for building your portfolio.  the mua's, hair stylists, models, and photographers all have to go through the wringer, and the stylists should be no different.  this is not meant to sound biting, but i've had my share of friction with stylists.  i just do it myself now.

shelly1982 wrote:
umm i am going to put my 2 cents in here too...

and those that know me should know that this is NOT personal at ANYONE whatsoever...

I have bills to pay too and have NEVER asked for anything from Photographers.
Some models they get MUA's for free stylists studio time locations all for free and then complain that their pictures have not been photoshopped etc etc etc..

I am sick of it. I hate being thought of as stereotypical.
I don't charge the only time I have asked for some money is if there has been a club shoot I got £20 for a few hours work which paid for my taxi just about and a Pint in the bar...

I have never asked for  Photographer to photoshop anything of mine and I think I myself have done a good job of what I have done myself.

Some people should count themselves lucky...


and on that note some people should count themselves lucky to be able to work with me. I have a tight normal work scedule I never have a whole weekend usually only a sun if lucky..
I NEVER moan about me paying my own bills etc.. I do TFP and if I do TFP I don't moan about not being paid.
If you want to get paid don't do TFP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (yes and I was just shouting out loud too)

I have a mortgage
I am 23
no one pays my bills
no one helps me pay to get to shoots that i regard as a hobby and a way to express my feminity and also to work with some great people
i have to travel 5 hours a day to get to work and back home

i don't moan because i like doing it


STOP MOANING!!!!!!

sorry rant now over

again DO NOT TAKE THIS PERSONALLY I AM GENERALLY FED UP WITH PEOPLE MOANING AT THEIR PERSONAL CHOICES!!!!!

Okay... that was way too much information.  My question was "...do you believe that all stylist should provide their services for free?" and "Do you really think clothes are free?"

To do a TFP/TFCD would be my choice if I had extra garments however, it's the services for couture garments and the garments themselves that I am express, COST SOME DANG MONEY.  (I hope I wasn't yelling. 8-|)

So I am not taking it personally that you are generally fed up with people "moaning" at their personal choices.  I am asking what you think... once again... My question was "...do you believe that all stylist should provide their services for free?" and "Do you really think clothes are free?"

VRG Photography wrote:
TFC - Time for Clothes.

They don't pay you for the clothes, and you don't pay them for exposing your designs to the world.

Hell, if we can have TFP, why not TFC? LOL

Ah... no.  Let's not do that.

MEWanoDesigns wrote:
I'm still wondering who pays the photographer... *giggle* We've gotta pay for our tools (camera, lighting, studio, gas for scouting locations, props, set design...), the model, the stylist, and the makeup... who pays us?

I think the whole world should work off of a barter system again. Bring back the days of pilgrams! I'll give you four footrubs for two batteries! Anyone?

I totally understand that you guys/gals pay for your equipment and it takes time to perfect your craft.  I too have to pay for equipment and perfecting my craft.  Photographers who have really perfected their craft, have tear sheets and shooting in the style with the direction I am going, I would love to collaborate.  However, unlike a photographer, once a garment is shoot, that is it for me and I sell it.  Another garment must me created or purchased.  A photographer can continue to shoot several more models before he has to purchase a new battery, lens and all the costly things you guys/gals have to purchase.

BTW... I'm booked up and I can't do your foot rub but I can send JH in my place.  He likes that sort of things.

JH wrote:
yes.  and pimpin aint easy.  :-D

Yes JH... you are so right... but it's fun as hell!

Narvell wrote:
BTW... I'm booked up and I can't do your foot rub but I can send JH in my place.  He likes that sort of things.

Wow, I'll take JH, and any other letters you've got that look like him.

Double wow.

Eric S. wrote:
I pay $300 cash on the day of the shoot to (good wardrobe) stylists for editorials.
Anyone who can pull from Gucci, Hermes, Prada, Pucci, Chanel, Cavali, Zegna, etc, please contact me.

Not many stylists that could do this just for a test,  even a spec is not good enough for most.
This needs a letter from a mag like Zinc or better to get items.   

Doug Swinskey wrote:
i see a lot of price tags on clothes and duct tape on the soles of shoes...i think theres a lot of "borrowing" going on from the stores....

That is why photographers can often do themselves justice by styling the shoot themselves.
Problem is,   involved still takes time,  credit,  risk and other issues.

This is harder for stylists these days to pull this off and not all that useful for spec shoots or shots that are expected to end up in mags.   

What is in the stores now is already last seasons stuff.   Great for commercial or tests but not good enough for better shoots.

Ps.  how is your dog?

Diana Moffitt wrote:
Not if you have a handy dandy credit card and a dear good friend that works at bergdorf goodman or saks fifth avenue

Still last seasons,  and I do prefer Bendels.

Marksora wrote:

Still last seasons,  and I do prefer Bendels.

Ooooh Bendels is nice! 

Diana Moffitt wrote:
Ooooh Bendels is nice! 

I bought  a gift for an ex from Bendels.   She just showed the bag around for a few days to make her friends feel bad.   She did not open it for days.

Nasty but true.



Ps.  that is when I made a lot of money,  not now.
Nasty but true.

MEWanoDesigns wrote:
I'm still wondering who pays the photographer... *giggle* We've gotta pay for our tools (camera, lighting, studio, gas for scouting locations, props, set design...), the model, the stylist, and the makeup... who pays us?

I think the whole world should work off of a barter system again. Bring back the days of pilgrams! I'll give you four footrubs for two batteries! Anyone?

The client pays the photographer. Whether it's the commercial client, the ad agency, the stock house purchasing instead of just licensing, or the couple getting married - that's who pays the photographer. There are just too many out here who are shooting as hobbyists. Many are really good, but they are giving away what many of us use as income.

Four footrubs for two batteries? I just bought a box of 36 Duracells. And my feet are aching.... ;-O

Marc Stevenson
UCPhoto

Marksora wrote:

I bought  a gift for an ex from Bendels.   She just showed the bag around for a few days to make her friends feel bad.   She did not open it for days.

Nasty but true.



Ps.  that is when I made a lot of money,  not now.
Nasty but true.

Damn and I was going to ask you out on a date.  LMAO

Diana Moffitt wrote:

Damn and I was going to ask you out on a date.  LMAO

Single but not rich.
Waves hello,  I'm interested.

UCPhotog wrote:
The client pays the photographer. Whether it's the commercial client, the ad agency, the stock house purchasing instead of just licensing, or the couple getting married - that's who pays the photographer. There are just too many out here who are shooting as hobbyists. Many are really good, but they are giving away what many of us use as income.

Yes,  all well and good.   Very true but my views on reality have changed.  Even before entering the net a year and half ago,   I have had clients that were models,  agencies,  makeup artists,  stylists, designers,  artists,   actors, and beyond.

I agree that many people give away too much but to discount what factors and levels are out there is just discounting too much.

Exchange is fine,  but do not give it away.  NO one should nor should we ask others to do so.

But life is not perfect,  wish it was.......

Then I could afford to date Diana.