Kelly E Hensley wrote:
It depends on the instigator of the shoot and the purpose of the shoot in my opinion. If the purpose of the shoot is for the model wanting photographs, other than when working TFP to benefit both parties in the same way, then fair enough, model pays - if I want someone to do shots of my family I'll pay them. Essentially this is model hiring photographer.

But if the photographer wants to shoot something specific, and requires a model in order to do so, then they should pay because it is the photographer hiring the model.

So it depends on who hires who, basically. I take photos - if I need someone to be the subject then I have to hire them, and as such it is 'my' shoot - I direct what happens, the model works for me for the length of that shoot. If a model hires a photographer then the photographer is working for the model for that shoot.

Forgot to add, basically its a control issue. The one in control of the shoot is the one who funds the shoot.

Hello.............this goes both ways.........I recently was contacted by a Photographer who wanted to hire me to build his Portfolio............I know that it all depends on what is agreed,,,,,,,,,,,,yes its a business but many models get ripped off by always shooting TFP..........u cant do that for life.........Models have to pay bills also............

Kelly E Hensley wrote:
It depends on the instigator of the shoot and the purpose of the shoot in my opinion. If the purpose of the shoot is for the model wanting photographs, other than when working TFP to benefit both parties in the same way, then fair enough, model pays - if I want someone to do shots of my family I'll pay them. Essentially this is model hiring photographer.

But if the photographer wants to shoot something specific, and requires a model in order to do so, then they should pay because it is the photographer hiring the model.

So it depends on who hires who, basically. I take photos - if I need someone to be the subject then I have to hire them, and as such it is 'my' shoot - I direct what happens, the model works for me for the length of that shoot. If a model hires a photographer then the photographer is working for the model for that shoot.

Forgot to add, basically its a control issue. The one in control of the shoot is the one who funds the shoot.

I agree and disagree. I am hired by a model to be creative and help them build their portfolio by using my creative gift. Therefore, I direct the shoot. They hired me for my creative eye and that is what they will get. I do not let the model direct. I do however take their ideas and incorperate them with my own, so we meet both ways. If I have ideas for a shoot and I need a model, I usually solicate for a TFP shoot, but I do not believe I need to pay a model. I have a handle full of models that I work with on a TFP basis. That is all a Photographer should need.

Azure wrote:
The obvious reasoning an above poster was beating around the bush at was that the market is currently flooded full of sub-par 'photographers' who just recieved a Digital Rebel from Future Shop and are looking to score some boobie photos, and will pay a model to take them. This allows the model to make money and the shooter to improve. However, any serious model realizes that they will generally need to pay the photographer for shots of a high-caliber, or get on-board with a serious TFP arrangement.

What does 90% of the models on this site have to gain by paying a photographer?

JM Dean wrote:

What does 90% of the models on this site have to gain by paying a photographer?

Professional photographs to approach agencies/clients with, as opposed to webcam snaps and 'photographs' by Johnny-popup-flash.

Jones Digitography wrote:
Models usually start off w/ no funds, so they have to seek out photographers for TFCDs, as to build their book. No book, no substantial work (in most cases).

Photographers on the other hand, have to invest in equipment and supplies before they can seek out clients and/or models to shoot with them (except for GWCs). Thus, photographers should never have to pay a model, unless it's for a commercial project for said photographer (ie: the photographer is looking to make a profit from the images).

In closing, a model should always be ready to pay a photog or work out an agreement the benefit both parties (portfolio for payment or royalties after work [images] are sold)

Sincerely,

C. Jones, Owner
Jones Management, NYC
JonesDigitography.com

Outstanding Statement

Azure wrote:

Professional photographs to approach agencies/clients with, as opposed to webcam snaps and 'photographs' by Johnny-popup-flash.

Most agencies only accept Polaroid’s. If the Agency likes the Polaroid’s then they will tell the model to get pro pics.

Azure wrote:

Professional photographs to approach agencies/clients with, as opposed to webcam snaps and 'photographs' by Johnny-popup-flash.

90% of the "models" on this site have no hope of getting signed by an agency or landing commercial clients.  They'd just be throwing money away.

JM Dean wrote:

Most agencies only accept Polaroid’s. If the Agency likes the Polaroid’s then they will tell the model to get pro pics.

Agencies do meet and greets based on (not exclusively) a full body and a headshot; 'customers' (be it advertising/commercial/etc) will want to see a professional and diverse portfolio of a high caliber, not polaroids, and CERTAINLY not polaroids exclusively.

theda wrote:
Photographers aren't the ones trying to make a living here.

Stupidest statement I have ever heard!!!
Photographers have to pay for Studio location and all the normal bills that come with that. They have to pay for Lights, reflectors, Cameras, tripods, light stands, Computers and software if Digital, etc. Then they have to pay for MUA and Stylist. Models pay for what???? Clothes and maybe tanning......
I just spent over $2000 on a new camera. Last year alone I spent over $10,000 on equipment. So, you are telling me that we are not trying to make a living.... That's a joke.

David Johnson wrote:
If you are a model, then you should start looking for the Photographers who have agents, like myself or have a great client base, that they will offer you projects that you will receive pay for.

So models shouldn't work with me because I don't know anyone.  Thanks a lot.

theda wrote:
90% of the "models" on this site have no hope of getting signed by an agency or landing commercial clients.  They'd just be throwing money away.

Someone got my meaning.

DigitalCMH wrote:

So models shouldn't work with me because I don't know anyone.  Thanks a lot.

My point is that if a Model is looking to get paid, then they should find a Photographer who has clients willing to pay them for their service. That's it. I know that not all Professional Photographers have agents, but they do help get the big jobs. I just shot with the Actor Chad Michael Murray this past weekend. I wouldn't have got that gig, if it weren't for my agent.

CristinaLex wrote:
Yea but lets just say that what if a model is at her peak right now..she might have a paid site, getting money from that and she might have gotten paid from doing some mags and what not..and there are photographers that still contact her to shoot with her...She should not charge then?...Why do a free shoot with a photographer when your gettin money from many other investments and also if you want to help the photographer creat thier image, but dont neccessarily need the photos..like the photographer is extremly good at what he does, you like his work, as a model, but you neccessarily dont need the images..She should charge then?

and to the OP, I was once told that even taking care pf the travel exspenes was some sort of payment...not sure if you see it that way ...but thats what i was told when i pondered the question of payment or something

I have a model that I have been working with on a TFCD basis for over 2 years and she now lives over 3 hours away. If I need her for a shoot, I don't expect her to waste gas to come to a free shoot, so I pay for her gas.... That's it.....

Lens N Light wrote:
I agree that the "client" should pay both the photographer andthe model. However, in most of my shooting, I am shooting images on spec. and hope that I am able to sell them as art or decoration. In that case I am both, client and photographer, so I pay the models. It would be unethical to shoot TFP when the intent the shoot is commercial.

(edit)
Or maybe in the case of some sort of "profit sharing" deal. I must think more on this.

We're in the same boat & thinking the same way then

David Johnson wrote:

Stupidest statement I have ever heard!!!
Photographers have to pay for Studio location and all the normal bills that come with that. They have to pay for Lights, reflectors, Cameras, tripods, light stands, Computers and software if Digital, etc. Then they have to pay for MUA and Stylist. Models pay for what???? Clothes and maybe tanning......
I just spent over $2000 on a new camera. Last year alone I spent over $10,000 on equipment. So, you are telling me that we are not trying to make a living.... That's a joke.

Easy tiger! I'm sure she missed the word only.  And if that is the stupid statement you have ever heard, stick around these forums.  You'll find some winners!

David Johnson wrote:
My point is that if a Model is looking to get paid, then they should find a Photographer who has clients willing to pay them for their service. That's it. I know that not all Professional Photographers have agents, but they do help get the big jobs. I just shot with the Actor Chad Michael Murray this past weekend. I wouldn't have got that gig, if it weren't for my agent.

And as a couple of us have pointed out, sometimes we ARE the client
I am self-publishing a calendar & series of posters based on images I shot, should I expect those models to just get a few images that won't fit in most portfolios in return?

David Johnson wrote:
I have a model that I have been working with on a TFCD basis for over 2 years and she now lives over 3 hours away. If I need her for a shoot, I don't expect her to waste gas to come to a free shoot, so I pay for her gas.... That's it.....

but i just wanna know your view as to the question i had at hand.. ...

If a model has gotten aname for herself..a few mags there and her paid site...is known but not "KNOWN"..but she still getting contacted by photographers who would like to work with her for any reason at all, should she not have them pay her...she doesnt mind helping them build a port, but the photos she doesnt need? should she be paid?


**I have so many questions...Or what if you would liek her to do nude shots, tasteful but nude...Do you not pay her for exposing her body'***

JM Dean wrote:
Most agencies only accept Polaroid’s. If the Agency likes the Polaroid’s then they will tell the model to get pro pics.

All established angencies/management companies will look at polaroids, but as stated in this forum, most models on online sites are not going to make it or even be seen by an established agency. Some models have the assumption that bookers/agents have idle time to view website, either like this one or personal websites. The truth is, if a model don't "beat the pavement" and go to open calls or call agencies, they're never going to have to opportunity to be seen.

Mostly, photographers, MUAs, stylists, upcoming designers and upcoming fashion coordinators visit online sites like MM or personal sites. Thus, models should seek out the assistance of TFCD/barter photographers to try to receive assignments from other photogs or clients that look at models online.

As photogs, we're not going to really look at a model in a "snapshot" unless that model is striking. Most models need a creative photog to make another photog even look at them. Hence, they should be willing to either pay or barter. Unless, as stated, it's for a commercial project for said photographer.

CristinaLex wrote:

but i just wanna know your view as to the question i had at hand.. ...

If a model has gotten aname for herself..a few mags there and her paid site...is known but not "KNOWN"..but she still getting contacted by photographers who would like to work with her for any reason at all, should she not charge them...she doesnt mind helping them build a port, but the photos she doesnt need? should she charge?


**I have so many questions...Or what if you would liek her to do nude shots, tasteful but nude...Do you not pay her for exposing her body'***

If the model has made a name for herself and she is contacted by a Photographer who does qreat work, then the model should make the decision on wheteher or not it is worth it. I do not believe that the model should request the Photographer the pay. If payment is what the Model needs and wants, then they should stay with paying jobs that are offered to them, but don't request a Photographer to pay you.

Now, I do want to make this statement. I do not shoot nudes myself, but I do believe that if a models is contacted by a Photographer to do a nude shoot, then at some point that model needs to start charging to pose nude.

David Johnson wrote:
I have searched through a lot of Photographer profiles on MM and found that there are quite a bit of Photographers who offer models pay to shoot with them. *To me this is completely unprofessional.* If you are a Professional Photographer, the model should be paying you to take their pictures, not the other way around.

Very few of the photographers on here are professional.  After reviewing all those profiles, one would think you would have noticed that.

By the way, what is an academic photographer? 

-Dave

JM Dean wrote:

Someone got my meaning.

She's correct.  Its funny to see all those wonderfull fashion shots of 5'2" models.
The only fashion modeling they will do is with photographers here.  Its silly for
them to invest money trying for that genre of modeling.  The truth is also most
of the photographers are wasting money on models when they will only show their
work on sites like these.  Working pros aren't being realistic when they go to sites
like these looking for models.  Their here but you waste so much time with all the
bullsh^& of contact my boyfriend/agent thats its not worth it.  If a model needs
pro level work and really has a chance at real work then invest in some of the photographers here.  If you as a photographer will make some of your money back from shooting a certain model and or like her look then pay her.  However if all
you're doing is impressing us with your work then save your cash.

Intensity wrote:
Why da heck do we bring this topic up everyweek dont you guys get tired to reply to the same thing over and over. If she awnts pay then just move on to the next one.

Actually topics like this are good for new models to read over and over again, as most new faces think just because they think or someone told them that they look good, they're going to be a fully working model and that someone should want to pay them. However, the truth is that modeling is a career and with any career, a person (ne: the model) invests first and then seek out paying opportunities. Not the other way around.

As a published photographer and personal manager of models for 13 years, I have seen models who think they are "it". But the truth of the matter is that they have to learn what "it is" (the modeling/fashion industry, as a whole).

GWCs are here to exploit models. Established/professional photographers are here to mold careers of models. Thus, they should be paid for their services.

All the best,

C. Jones
Jones Management, NYC
JonesDigitography.com

Intensity wrote:
Why da heck do we bring this topic up everyweek dont you guys get tired to reply to the same thing over and over. If she awnts pay then just move on to the next one.

I'm only in here cause you're in here.  Muahahahahahaha!

David Johnson wrote:
Recently I have had a ton of models contacting me and asking me if I would pay them to model for me. This really stumps me. I have never and never will pay a model to shoot with. I will cover there travel expeneses, but that is it. I have searched through a lot of Photographer profiles on MM and found that there are quite a bit of Photographers who offer models pay to shoot with them. *To me this is completely unprofessional.* If you are a Professional Photographer, the model should be paying you to take their pictures, not the other way around. I work with many different agencies and when they have a project for me, they ask me to find a model. I find the model and we both get paid, but the agency pays the model. not me. Recently I have contacted a well-known fashion Photographer who shoots for Ford and Fredricks of Hollywood and asked him his Professional opinion on this. He replied, that he has never paid a model and that Professional Photographers should never have to. He went on to say that he did work with many models on a TFP basis to get his portfolio built, but he never had to pay a model.
Photography is a business. It is what pays the bills. If we as Photographers keep paying models, then we will never get paid by a model.

David

I usually do TFP work with model but sometime I need the exclusivity of the images especailly if I plan on selling them.  To minimize any potential legal headaches, I pay models according to usage.  I don't have to give them any images (unless I want to) and I am for the most part free and clear to do what I want with the images.

I usaully only pay for nude work. I can usually find a model to do TFP if I need anything else.

Jones Digitography wrote:
GWCs are here to exploit models. Established/professional photographers are here to mold careers of models.

LMAO!  I love your Avatar of the guy grabbing his package while looking at Penthouse.  No GWC could possibly aspire to that level of career molding ability.