Model
theda
Posts: 21719
New York, New York, US
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. It's only stupid because of the typo, but your reaction was amusing... there was a word missing...
Photographers aren't the only ones trying to make a living here. Now chill out spare us the lecture on your expenses, because clients are paying for your product, not your overhead.
Photographer
closedprofile
Posts: 14
New York, New York, US
Dave Krueger wrote:
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 modeling ability.  Hey... That "crouch grab" just got me Blue -- LOL, so I'm proud of that pic. Plus, it was a personal project and the model GOT PAID (and didn't even have to get nude)
LOL -- if folks see a pic w/ a girl holding her breast, it's cool, but one "johnson grab" and folks go "haywire" -- LOL
Photographer
David Johnson
Posts: 286
Fayetteville, Arkansas, US
Dave Krueger wrote:
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 Academic Photographer means that I photograph a lot of school pictures.
Model
CristinaLex
Posts: 1970
Silver Spring, Maryland, US
David Johnson wrote:
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. I understand your point of view... ...I personally feel that if a photographer wants a model for a certain look or for a certain shoot that he should pay her because sometimes that model might not be inclined to work with that photographer...if she is then it can be negotiable that then the payment could be a TFP basis thing..but more luck to you..and i like you port BTW
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
rdmdc2000 wrote:
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. Yup, again, same here
Photographer
LongWindFPV Visuals
Posts: 7052
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
My take on this might be a little skewed and is certainly not a black and white opinion because businesses across the region don't all operate exactly the same way, or follow the same rules, traditions and guidelines, so I leave a lot of room for the benefit of the doubt. But, based on my personal experience so far...My primary clientele are businesses and corporations, CEOs, VP's, Directors, word of mouth referrals, etc. For some of the most basic requirements, I'm able to get paid my half-day/full day rate. Models and Agencies, are not my clientele at all. I've tried, but it doesn't have the consistency my business would need to survive a monthly office space lease. I'd have to diversify in many areas outside of photography in order to pay a lease. I suspect that it would be a slightly different story if I were a photographer being commissioned by big name brand clients to do large national and international advertising campaigns. I view Agencies as a resource pool. Need a model for a project? Go to an Agency, or find a freelance model and negotiate an hourly rate. I've called Agencies in my area and asked questions about the possibility of doing work for them and they all gave me the impression that they will only contact a photographer (already established on their private vendor list), if one or any of their business clients asks for a photographer recommendation and that commissioning/paying the photographer is the responsibility of the agency's client. Their primary focus is to get their Models' jobs in the mainstream commercial space. Not photographers. That's what I presume. Many of my personal projects are not mainstream. Like my fine art nudes and figure study. I could be wrong, but it's my opinion that agencies in my area are too conservative and will decline having their models do that kind of work. If not, the hourly rate will most likely be non-negotiable and perhaps, slightly exorbitant to suit my operating budget. The solution for me then is to solicit freelancers for that kind of work. Because it is the type of work that draws attention to my online presence, I opt to negotiate and pay the freelancer a workable hourly fee. I'm not disagreeing with you, or the well known photographer you spoke to, just pointing out that the sun don't shine in exactly the same spots for Professional Photographers around the world. 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
Model
Ryan Deb
Posts: 3
Seattle, Washington, US
model signs with agency, agency finds model work, client pays model, 20% goes to agency. Photographer doesnt pay model.
Thats it.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Ryan DeBell wrote:
model signs with agency, agency finds model work, client pays model, 20% goes to agency. Photographer doesnt pay model.
Thats it. *sigh* did you even read the thread?
Photographer
William Coleman
Posts: 2371
New York, New York, US
theda wrote:
Of course the client should pay. Sometimes the model IS the client. And yes, sometimes the photographer is the client. (Shock!) Photographers shooting stock pay. Photographers shooting for their own paysites pay. Artists pay their models.
It all boils down to this: he who needs/wants the photos, pays. Not too complicated. That was pure, unassailable logic, Theda!
Photographer
MarkMarek
Posts: 2211
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Model
_kate
Posts: 1508
New York, New York, US
DigitalCMH wrote:
*sigh* did you even read the thread? now we see where things get off track. haha.
but at least we are VERY clear on how it all works....
Model
CristinaLex
Posts: 1970
Silver Spring, Maryland, US
Ryan DeBell wrote:
model signs with agency, agency finds model work, client pays model, 20% goes to agency. Photographer doesnt pay model.
Thats it. some argue that the models should isgn with an agency to get pay...what if there are some models who dont wanna do it the agenc way...i know that might sound stupids but, i am a serious model...i want to change things and make a good career off of this.I just dont like the notion of being "owned"' by a company then they take most of my earnings....maybe i am wrong..some 1 correct me ,
but what if there are models who dont wanna sign with an agency and just uses the photos for bookings..and you wanna work with her...you have to pay her in some way ..especially if you want to try a look on her...but then again let me stop because imma just wind up repeating myself :
Photographer
LongWindFPV Visuals
Posts: 7052
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
CristinaLex wrote:
...I just dont like the notion of being "owned"' by a company then they take most of my earnings....maybe i am wrong..some 1 correct me , You should get used to it if you're looking for work. Many of my Enterprise level web development projects come to me from a middle man/organization and for every nickel or dime I'm making, he's taking a penny or two from it and in some cases, more. It's called sub-contracting and models signed with agencies are sub-contractors in that sense. You can look at it as if you're "owned", or you can look at it like this, it's work you'd get that you wouldn't have been able to get on your own.
Model
Just AJ
Posts: 3478
Round Rock, Texas, US
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 Wow David, why don't you tell us how you really feel??? I'm going to go with my initial response to your question, before I actually read what you wrote. . .
The answer to your question IMO is: the same reason why models pay photographers. Nuff said.
At the risk of being flamed, I will respond to what you wrote:
What?? Models should be grateful that you chose them to pose for you??? Particularly if they are not local??? I think you are being incredibly silly. If you can always find a model to pose for the Greatness that is David the photographer, that's fantastic. But I would think it be professional courtesy to pay someone you asked their services of. Regardless of their profession. Now I'm gon sit my non-professional internet model self down and have some popcorn, whilst I read the backlash.
Model
CristinaLex
Posts: 1970
Silver Spring, Maryland, US
J.K. Perez, Sr. wrote:
You should get used to it if you're looking for work. Many of my Enterprise level web development projects come to me from a middle man/organization and for every nickel or dime I'm making, he's taking a penny or two from it and in some cases, more. It's called sub-contracting and models signed with agencies are sub-contractors in that sense. You can look at it as if you're "owned", or you can look at it like this, it's work you'd get that you wouldn't have been able to get on your own. but havent there have been some models who are able and maybe quite successful for getting that work on their own....i just have this bitter taste in my mouth of a agency taking my money....it taste gross....because somtimes the deals are not that sweet....but....maybe something can help me change my mind
Model
Just AJ
Posts: 3478
Round Rock, Texas, US
theda wrote:
Of course the client should pay. Sometimes the model IS the client. And yes, sometimes the photographer is the client. (Shock!) Photographers shooting stock pay. Photographers shooting for their own paysites pay. Artists pay their models.
It all boils down to this: he who needs/wants the photos, pays. Not too complicated.
Photographers aren't the ones trying to make a living here. Theda the Goddess has SPOKEN. Tell it!!!
Model
Just AJ
Posts: 3478
Round Rock, Texas, US
Azure wrote:
Professional photographs to approach agencies/clients with, as opposed to webcam snaps and 'photographs' by Johnny-popup-flash. 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. THANK YOU!!! And that's not for lack of talent, drive or initiative.
Model
Just AJ
Posts: 3478
Round Rock, Texas, US
DigitalCMH wrote:
So models shouldn't work with me because I don't know anyone. Thanks a lot. 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. Question:
Can you point some of the 90% Theda metioned, to some of those photographers??? Also, can you send them with a letter of recommendation so that those photographers will actually work with them and return their calls/emails??? *snort*
Photographer
Bill Tracy Photography
Posts: 2322
Montague, New Jersey, US
As a photographer I find clients who need models for their products, such as shoes or clothing. I set the price and hire a model. We both make money, but I set what my cut is and what the model gets.
Photographer
Lost Coast Photo
Posts: 2691
Ferndale, California, US
I can think of at least three reasons that some might:
1. Their photography sucks so badly that they can't get any models to come to them without offering pay;
2. Their photography is fine, but they aren't good at marketing themselves so need to pay:
3. They're lawyers billing out at $200/hr and very busy, so it's more cost effective to hire models for weekend shoots than it is to waste three days contacting models who may or may not respond and/or show up.
Photographer
Ivan Aps
Posts: 4996
Miami, Florida, US
This is two fold. If you are an art photographer who only shoots for potential exhibit projects and you are looking for a specific model look and style, then I can understand paying the model for her time. If you a commercial photographer who is looking to try some new styles or ideas but will be shooting images that will directly benefit a models own portfolio, then TFP is 100% acceptable.
Now, from a models side..... A model a while back said it perfectly and opened my eyes to her side. She said, "If the pictures will benefit my portfolio, I will do it time for print. However, if the photographer's skill or project is one that will not benefit my portfolio, then monetary compensation is only acceptable." I felt that was very well said.
Photographer
Dave Krueger
Posts: 2851
Huntsville, Alabama, US
I pay llamas because I need llamas. llamas don't need me.
To say, "models pay photographers" as if it's an inviolable rule is narrow-minded and ignorant of the internet llamaing community almost to the point of being undeserving of a response.
People exchange money for something they value more than the money they're exchanging for it. Attractive llamas who are willing to work in the glamour, fetish, pinup, and softcore markets are in high enough demand to be able to charge for their time. Those styles of work are mostly what comprise the paying jobs available to llamas who get work through the internet. It's not rocket science. It's simple supply and demand.
If you don't want to pay llamas, that's just spiffy. But don't come on here and rant that everyone else must be nuts because they don't follow the rules according to David Johnson. Yes, photography can be a business. And so can llamaing be a business. And sometimes photographers are customers of llamas. You act as if there can never be a reason why a photographer would need a llama outside of advertising, which is nonsense. You're on the internet for Christ's sake. Open your eyes. I do artistic photography, which is another "business" that uses llamas.
I had a commercial photography business for seven years. On occasion, I used to photograph llamas sent to me by a local agency. I can't speak for New York photographers who are in the heart of the fashion industry, but for me, in Alabama, shooting llama portfolios sucked. It wasn't particularly exciting and it didn't pay much. Maybe there's a big llamaing industry in North Carolina, but I doubt it.
Currently, I need llamas who are attractive, slender, and have no tattoos, stretch marks, tan lines, scars, or implants. They must have a B or C bust and be interested in llamaing nude. They must have nearly perfect skin since I my pictures don't go through a computer and therefore don't get any editing. I would love to have llamas of that caliber lined up willing to pay me for the opportunity of working with me, but I live in the real world.
-Dave
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 26342
Portland, Oregon, US
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. So, let's see: you are willing to spend 5 or even 6 figure sums on all the stuff that surrounds & points at the model, but you aren't willing to spend a low 3 figure, pre-tax & tax deductible sum on the model herself?
I don't buy this argument at all.
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 26342
Portland, Oregon, US
My take: The party that retains the copyright should compensate all the other participants. The P's or CD's in TFP/TFCD arrangements aren't really all that valuable to the model if she doesn't have the copyright.
I think this attitude of not paying models (which admittedly is popular in this thread) is a bit on the arrogant side. Most models I know lead a busy life & their time is valuable to them. I consider photographs of people to be a collaboration, and that means the model deserves to be compensated for their time (and like I said, the P's & CD's aren't all that valuable).
--- Minor rant on ---
Okay -- if you guys don't want to pay your models, I don't want you to complain about no-shows or other flaky behavior. You get what you pay for.
--- Minor rant off ---
Photographer
Bluefire
Posts: 10908
East Tawas, Michigan, US
theda wrote:
It's only stupid because of the typo, but your reaction was amusing... there was a word missing...
Photographers aren't the only ones trying to make a living here. Now chill out spare us the lecture on your expenses, because clients are paying for your product, not your overhead. A valid, and often overlooked point is the time and equipment the photographer brings to a shoot. In fairness, how should that be factored in to compensation when negotiating?
Photographer
La Seine by the Hudson
Posts: 8587
New York, New York, US
Looknsee Photography wrote:
My take: The party that retains the copyright should compensate all the other participants. The P's or CD's in TFP/TFCD arrangements aren't really all that valuable to the model if she doesn't have the copyright.
I think this attitude of not paying models (which admittedly is popular in this thread) is a bit on the arrogant side. Most models I know lead a busy life & their time is valuable to them. I consider photographs of people to be a collaboration, and that means the model deserves to be compensated for their time (and like I said, the P's & CD's aren't all that valuable). There are a lot of misconceptions here.
Photographer
La Seine by the Hudson
Posts: 8587
New York, New York, US
tgimaging wrote:
A valid, and often overlooked point is the time and equipment the photographer brings to a shoot. In fairness, how should that be factored in to compensation when negotiating? Factor it into bids as part of your overhead.
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 26342
Portland, Oregon, US
tgimaging wrote:
A valid, and often overlooked point is the time and equipment the photographer brings to a shoot. In fairness, how should that be factored in to compensation when negotiating? See my first response, above. It's amazing to me that a photographer will happily spend tens of thousands of dollars on the stuff to surround & point at the model but isn't willing to spend a hundred or two on the model herself.
In addition: the money photographers spend on photo equipment can be tax deductible and depreciated. If the photographer is careful, his equipment is likely to last longer than most models' careers. A model can't deduct or depreciate her looks.
I could go on, but I want to keep my blood pressure down. I'll just say this: why shouldn't a model's time be valuable to her? Why shouldn't she be compensated?
I'll repeat: The person who retains the copyright should compensate the other participants.
Photographer
Jose Luis
Posts: 2890
Dallas, Texas, US
When I was a hobbyist- I paid models to get more experience and because I really enjoyed shooting glam (if you read that as Im a perv- up to you- I just think it was something I wanted to do- and the easiest way from a to b- Im not hurting for money).
When I was a more serious amateur photographer- I paid a few models b/c the images they had in their book was far better than what I had or could offer them- but I still wanted them in my port. Pretty girls like pretty girls- if you have hot models in your port- more will follow.
Now, as a part time pro- I dunno. I am not opposed to it- but usually I am getting paid or its a trade shoot. Im still not opposed to the idea tho. I have still paid for certain expenses on a shoot like travel, makeup, wardrobe- etc. I dont make enough money in photography to worry about profits- I just hope to cover my expenses and such.
In conclusion- its only money. If you dont got much- this is a big issue for you. If you got alot, it may be a pride issue or you may not care.
-Jose
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 21528
Chicago, Illinois, US
CristinaLex wrote:
some argue that the models should isgn with an agency to get pay...what if there are some models who dont wanna do it the agenc way...i know that might sound stupids but, i am a serious model...i want to change things and make a good career off of this.I just dont like the notion of being "owned"' by a company then they take most of my earnings....maybe i am wrong..some 1 correct me ,
but what if there are models who dont wanna sign with an agency and just uses the photos for bookings..and you wanna work with her...you have to pay her in some way ..especially if you want to try a look on her...but then again let me stop because imma just wind up repeating myself : Although there have been models who have made a decent living from being on their own most are those doing nude or adult level work. One big thing to
remember is if a client doesn't pay the agency has too. Thats why they are
bonded by a insurance agency. Many companies won't hire freelance models
also. They simply won't look on a website for a model and they won't do any
sort of open call. When was the last time you heard about Mac for example
looking for new models for a campaign? You won't, only the advertising and modeling agencies hear about it. Otherwise they would have tons of models they
simply couldn't use. Trust me sign with a agency. Once you have some tear sheets and published work then maybe you can get work on your own.
Photographer
Marvin Dockery
Posts: 2243
Alcoa, Tennessee, US
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 What's the difference in you paying the model, and then your paying customer paying you for your time, plus what you have paid the model?
I pay my models at the time of the shoot, and then get paid later by my collectors when they buy my prints. Not all photographers have four years experence, like you do. Some have 40 plus years behind the camera, and know that there are a lot more ways to do things, and they are all correct.
Pay your models, or not pay your models has nothing to do with being a professional. It's OK to pay or not pay.
Being a professional has more to do with honesty, and how you treat the people you photograph and do business with.
What are you going to do when some one local, wants a small cataloge, and ask you to bid on the job that requires furnishing the models, a MUA, and a stylist?
Photographer
Ransomaniac
Posts: 12588
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Why do you care why photographers pay models?
Model
CristinaLex
Posts: 1970
Silver Spring, Maryland, US
Thanks for the information Tony, very helpful, but I am into the glamour thing for the moment to make money off of that then excel once i have enough wages to move around, I think that glamour models get more bookings and paid jobs than models who are usually signed with agencies, Thats what is in demand right now... but i do appreciate your knowledge on that subject
Model
theda
Posts: 21719
New York, New York, US
Model
theda
Posts: 21719
New York, New York, US
tgimaging wrote:
A valid, and often overlooked point is the time and equipment the photographer brings to a shoot. In fairness, how should that be factored in to compensation when negotiating? No, it's not a valid point, and it's rarely overlooked by complaining netographers.
That's not the client's problem. If You drop $15k on light and lenses and camera bodies, but shoot mediocre work, it's not worth as much as the guy shooting brilliant work with a disposable camera and a desk lamp. Granted not many dudes with disposable cameras and desk lamps are shooting pro-quality work, but it's the skill of the photographer that makes the difference.
Photographer
Visual E
Posts: 215
Wellington, Colorado, US
This is all good information for the Newbies. This thread pretty much spans the range of views commonly expressed. It's important to understand what's going on here at MM and sector of the model-photography industry represented by the participants.
It's too bad this topic gets repeated almost every week like clockwork. Can I suggest that the moderator move this thread to Newbies, lock it in another day or so and "!" it so it stays at the top - recommended reading. And maybe add to it the several other almost identical threads on this topic discussed in the past month.
I mean does anything more need to be said on this topic?
Photographer
Ransomaniac
Posts: 12588
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
theda wrote:
No, it's not a valid point, and it's rarely overlooked by complaining netographers.
That's not the client's problem. If You drop $15k on light and lenses and camera bodies, but shoot mediocre work, it's not worth as much as the guy shooting brilliant work with a disposable camera and a desk lamp. Granted not many dudes with desiposable cameras and desk lamps are shooting pro--quality work, but it's the skill of the photographer that makes the difference. Agreed. Any equipment cost incurred by the photog should NOT be re-distributed for each shoot as a necessary expense. If you never did that one TFP shoot, you'd still have the cam and lights and lenses. It kills me how photogs on here try to act as if soooo much goes into shooting each TFP that they do. As if they didn't have a camera or lenses or lights or photoshop or anything BEFORE they set up the shoot. Or they didn't have a studio BEFORE they set up the shoot and somehow the flaking model made them go out and invest in all this equipment. Quit bitchin! If you get flaked on, move to the next one. If you don't want to pay a model, DON'T. If you do DO.
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 21528
Chicago, Illinois, US
I do understand where the OP is coming from. A intresting thing has happened with the internet. Years ago if a model wanted to start modeling she usually paid
some shooters to help her. Now all you do is shoot some web cam or snapshots
and you've got photographrs panting after you. Many of those looking to shoot
are very good to great. Some even offer money. In fact a smart and motivated
model could get a fantastic book for free. Many don't see the value in paying
photographers and truth is unless you are really offering some really great work
their right. Looking at most of the ports here I can't tell who is paying photographers and who isn't. I also can't tell based on the quality of the work
I see if the photographers are paying or not. I'm willing to make a bet
though. I think most of the photographers here aren't paying. Most are hobbists
and love to shoot but when they do pay its not much. If as a model you really think you can make a living or real $$$ by shooting with internet photographers
you are mistaken. Some may most won't and if as a photographer you think
Suzie the MM girl is going to fork over some big bucks so you can shoot her.
You are also mistaken.
Photographer
SFlickPhoto
Posts: 153
Cincinnati, Ohio, US
theda wrote:
Now chill out spare us the lecture on your expenses, because clients are paying for your product, not your overhead. That's not true in the slightest bit. When you go to a restaurant, do you think the amount you are being charged for a sandwich is only covering the food cost involved in getting it from oven to mouth? No, there is employee wages, rent, utilities, equipment, insurance...... OVERHEAD all factored into every item on the menu, not to mention the hope for profit.
Some photographers choose to pay because they have a rush to get a project done, a desperation to have better looking models with more experience in their portfolio, a client paying them, etc. This is rare in my opinion of "professional" photographers.
I may still instigate a shoot with a model that lists "pay only", however if she/he doesn't like the vision of a shoot that I wish to use she/he for then she can simply say No or not respond at all to my TFP/CD request.
When I am approched by a model requesting the same thing, I can say no or not respond if I don't think that person will benifit me.
When I am approached by a model requesting to be paid by me, then I will respond very poilitly that I do not pay models unless I am being paid... if they still want to work with me I would be happy to to a TFP/CD test shoot in order to help them out as well as test them for future commercial projects.
Model
theda
Posts: 21719
New York, New York, US
SFlickPhoto wrote:
That's not true in the slightest bit. When you go to a restaurant, do you think the amount you are being charged for a sandwich is only covering the food cost involved in getting it from oven to mouth? No, there is employee wages, rent, utilities, equipment, insurance...... OVERHEAD all factored into every item on the menu, not to mention the hope for profit. Therein lies what some may see as a subtle difference. You as a service provider factor your overhead into your prices, but that's not what the customer pays for. The customer is still paying for the end product. If you can provide a better product with less overhead, you can continue to charge more than Mr. X down the street who produces a lesser product with a greater overhead. If your overhead is substantially greater than Mr. X's, you better be able to provide MUCH better product, or your business will tank.
|
