David Johnson wrote:

Kate Moss isn't payed by Photographers, she gets paid by agencies that hire the Photographer and Model. Even when the Photographer finds the model, he does not pay the model. The agency still does.

David, Some of the photographers who shoot with models like Kate Moss do strike up a friendship.  After the agency jobs are done, there are times when models and photographers get together just to shoot.  I don't know how long you've been shooting, but I'm sure as you get to know some of your models that you'll want to get together just to try shooting some creative idea you've got in your head. 

Are you a "people" oriented person?  I mean it's one thing to admire and emulate photographers whose work you like, but you need to do the same towards models too!  Without a good working relationship with some models, you'll have a hard time making it in this industry.  You'd be better off shoot still life's and landscapes! 

Pick up a couple of books by Gary Bernstein ... his "People Photography" or "Glamour and Beauty Photography" would be good for you.  I swear by his books and called Gary up one day to tell him I admire his work.  He invited me to his studio!  He is very personable and shoots with passion and love for what he does.

Don't get so hung up on getting paid, or tfp or paying models ... it's not as important to worry about it unless you are not making enough money to survive.  Then you need to take a look at your business plan and marketing ... the problem is there!

MaryPetiteModel wrote:
Jumping into the fray here...
There's an old saying: "water seeks its own level".  In the case of TFP, both the model and photographer should have work that is similar in QUALITY.  This is what a trade is all about: both parties bringing something to the table, and both parties walking away with something to show for it. 

That being said, if you are novice model or photographer, you SHOULD - for the SAKE OF YOUR CRAFT - pay for someone's time if they will really add something to your port.  I know many top-notch photographers who, in their humble beginnings, paid working, editorial or commercial models to pose for them because they knew it was worth it.

Simply put, if you want to work in this industry, you make sacrifices.

As for the argument about overhead, you have GOT to be kidding!  I suppose now I should start billing photographers for my haircuts, skin care, makeup, CLOTHING (which can be expensive, and you can't wear the same outfit repeatedly), travel expenses, nail care, etc.  If you choose to spend a fortune on equipment, that's YOUR call.  The best photographers can shoot anytime, anywhere...and some need NO EQUIPMENT other than their camera.  If you don't believe me, you need to do some more research.

I want to clarify that I don't have any problem with paying photographers who are EXCELLENT, and will bring me MORE WORK (which is the ultimate goal, no?).  However, it amazes me that the complainers about this stuff are nearly always the ones who have mediocre work.  Sadly for them, their work will remain mediocre until they learn.

Oh - and I am in love with you, Theda...and you, too, Jayne Jones.  Fight the good fight, girls:-)!  Sigh...now flame away!

Mary, depending on what you are wanting, I probably would NOT charge you!   I'm sure we can negotiate something ...

JM Dean wrote:

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

If they pick the right photographer Better images

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

Michael R  Kihn Studios wrote:
If they pick the right photographer Better images

Photographers need to "pick" the right model and make up artist too.  It has little to do with what everyone seems to be fighting over .. the money .. and everything to do with how much we benefit from working together.   

Photographers pay models sometimes.  Models pay photographers sometimes.  Photographers and model both sometimes pay make up artists.  And hopefully agencies pay everyone.  But if not ... there is always "TFP!"  That's what it's for .. those of us who are not hung up on money or run a successful business.

dennis potter wrote:
I LOVE THESE FORUMS DUDES.
its so cool to have this much feedback and info, evn if a lot is bs and off the cuff.

FYI
artist, painters, etc, pay models regularly. nude usually not always, or implied or semi.
why not, and modeling for photogs is often harder than simple poses, tho holding poses requires more than just a body,and a good artist model is a muse too, very inspiring. its incredible how far a model can go to be goood, i mean really inspiring, like a dancer or actor, holding a quite complex but natural pose and yet using his whole body to express subtle emotions and thoughts, and make each part of the body fascinating. go look at these photos and notice how many dead legs/feet images there are. a good model wont ever do that. keep it alive. im happy to pay models for that quality. i pay low, and trade art or cds or prints, but i want my models happy and im asking them to do EXACTLY what i want and more. way more. i wanna steal the soul too.

Dennis, love your 'tude man!  It's Cali kick back!

Welcome to the forum! 

David Johnson wrote:
Why do Photographers pay Models?
David

To be fair to the newbies, there is no last word or single right answer to this question. Those veterans most qualified to answer are getting too jaded to reply to this weekly or fortnightly recurring theme. As has been discussed many times before, there are many types of models and many types of photographers, and many types of opportunities. There will never be one answer to suite all.

To help clarify, the types of models can be loosely described as:
- fashion (including non-sexual swimwear & lingerie),
- beauty (including hair, cosmetics & non-sexual partial nudes),
- glamour (including swimwear, lingerie, and nudes of all types),
- fine art (non-nude & nudes, debated whether this includes erotic),
- health & fitness (could also include nudes),
- body parts & accessories,
- product & promotional,
- adult entertainment (including sexy lingerie, nudes, erotic and explicits).

This list more or less defines the opportunities available to models. Many models span a number of types or genres. But historically many models have found that they can't do all types of modeling. Models selling cereals to kids by day are not  usually seen erotic nude by night.

Models are also at some stage in their career:
- young or teen newbies (under 20)
- adult newbies (over 20)
- amateur (for fun or practice)
- professional (casual and career)

Internet sites like MM don't represent a full cross-section of models. You don't see many Ford-like top fashion models on MM. And potential top fashion models are rarely if ever discovered by hunters or agencies on websites.

It's clear that model's investments into their craft ranges from nil (for some newbies and amateurs) to tens of thousands of dollars for some serious career professionals. Obviously, models that are investing a lot of time & money into their craft are going to expect a return on investment (ROI).  Models that are successful at their craft and in their genres can (and should) expect to get paid. The question and discussion in this thread is - who pays them?

If you follow these threads (or know something about the industry) it's clear that potentially anybody can pay models. But generally when it comes to getting paid there's either agency (or employed) models or free-lance (or contractor) models.  There are probably agencies to represent all types of models, but traditionally we talk about the top agencies that represent fashion and beauty models - so called covergirls.

By the nature of their contract, an agency model only gets paid by the agency. And an agency model is usually prohibited from showing their own profiles on sites like MM.  We know that many models when taken on by an agency are required to remove their profiles and withdraw photos of themselves. We know that most agencies are very selective. We know that most commercial clients will only hire their models through reputable agencies. We know that of all the wannabe models, less than 1% go on to become a professional agency models. We know that the remaining 99% of models (and wannabes) are freelance and able to use sites like MM. And finally we know that most agencies won't look at inexperienced amateurs. So wannabe models are expected to get a lot of practice and refine their craft before attempting to approach an agency to represent them.  Except for top tier agency models (la creme de la creme), most agency models would be lucky to earn $10,000 per year. It's not a full time job. For most it's still a hobby.

Only a fraction of wannabe models aspire to become fashion or beauty models. Or many know that aspiring to become a top tier fashion model is hopeless because they don't have the stereotype look or physical characteristics. But we're going to leave that 1% fashion/beauty agency type model behind now and focus on the remaining 99% of freelance models.

The next questions are:

- what are the opportunities for freelance models?
- how do wannabe models get experience?
- who pays them?

In the freelance modeling environment it should be no surprise that the jobs which pay the most money is adult entertainment. Many models love this environment and are very successful well into their 30's. A top tier adult entertaining model can earn over $500/hr and average several thousand per week (even with a no touch policy). This is a big business for them, they are very professional and usually have support staff and many pay their taxes. Good adult entertainment models can earn $150/hr, usually 2 hour minimum per session, and can get several jobs a week. Novice AE models could get $75/hr and maybe several jobs a month. The paying clients can be club operators, publishers, pay website operators, or photographers. Paying photographers usually onsell the photos to websites, magazines or private collectors (they may even be a private collector themselves).  These models promote themselves in many ways. Ads in magazines and websites are two popular ways. Adult entertainment models are easy to find because of their successful promotion ability.

But for many more models, working in the adult entertainment sector is not an option or interest. So working from the other end of the spectrum there are:

- many "models" who will never get paid work (nor seek it)
- some that occasionally get work in local fashion productions
- some that get local product promotion (advertising or flyer) work
- some that get work as a promotion model at a product show (cars, etc)
- some that get work posing for photographers (or wannabes)
- some that get work posing for artists (non-photographic)

Now that we've established a context, let's get back to the question, why do photographers pay freelance models? There are several reasons:

- they want a more experienced model for their project or portfolio,
- they prefer to pay rather than trade (TFPCD) for time
- they are onselling the photos or somehow profiting from the work,
- they want adult entertainment (AE) or are "collecting"

How much do paid non-AE models earn? It spans from $15/hr to probably $60/hr (if they are very good with lots of clothes and good makeup), average probably closer to $20/hr.  Even artists models (nude artistic figure models, non-photographic) rarely earn more than $20/hr, with a several hour minimum. Your average photographic artistic nude model may earn $30-$40/hr in a non-AE context.

How do novice freelance models get experience?  They do TFPCD.

And the notion that serious or professional models don't pay professional photographers for photos is garbage. I personally know of 100's of working models who have paid $300 or more to have proper portfolios and comp cards done (some $1500).

Looknsee Photography wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, unless you are sharing the copyright (and who would?), even the best world class print for a model's portfolio is nearly worthless.

I would and I frequently do when shooting TFCD. My financial life is not going to be ruined if I give a model equal opportunity to profit from the time we gave one another, without the benefit of monetary compensation on the front side. I have spoken out a great deal about the unreasonable demands of some models so I am going to live by my own "rules." Fair is fair and I am content to let that position go both ways.

oldguysrule wrote:

Testing and TFP ARE NOT!! the same thing. And yes, "the pro's" test.

Referencing Kate Moss as proof that wannabe or up-and-coming, etc. models shouldnt pay a photographer is proof of how poorly most models understand the industry in which they hope to have a career.

The Kate Moss reference was not given to show models shouldn't pay photographers. You misread my intent.

David Johnson wrote:
Dean Johnson isn't payed by Photographers, she gets paid by agencies that hire the Photographer and Model. Even when the Photographer finds the model, he does not pay the model. The agency still does.

I wasn't contesting or questioning the way in which these full time models make their money, my point was, if you're a professional full time model you don't (usually I imagine) pay photographers. The point was in direct relation to the OP's post about "professional photographers". My post was... and what about professional models. Same credentials, both full time and professional.

Does that make sense now?

Say for instance you want to do a shoot with Kate, Alec Wek, Giselle etc. you'd have to go through their agents and pay them to hire her. Yes, I get that, point is you'd still have to fork over the money, she's not going to pay you to shoot her. (The you is generic and not directed at you personally). I would imagine this is normally the case anyway.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

Lots do. They're at agencies. If they're new faces to a market, they need pictures. If they substantially changed their look, they need pictures. They pay for those (through their agency). Kate Moss is arguably the most established model in the world, and established in every major market, so that's hardly a fair comparison.

What I meant, (seems my post was wholly misinterpreted) full time, professional models (as far as I know, could naturally be wrong, it's just in my understanding) do not go out hunting for photographers, and paying them to add a couple of shots to their books. They've already *made* it. They're FULL time professionals, not beginners. And they get paid to pose.

Kate is one of many incredibly established and famous AND rich models in the world.

Lillith Leda wrote:
What I meant, ... full time, professional models ... do not go out hunting for photographers, and pay[ing] them to add a couple of shots to their books. They've already *made* it. They're FULL time professionals, not beginners. And they get paid to pose.

Kate is one of many incredibly established and famous AND rich models in the world.

You are taking about established agency models which probably only make up 1% of the total model industry (and less than 1% of MM models). If a reputable established agency model needs to update their portfolio with something new (and not tearsheets), then sometimes the agency will arrange and pay the photographer or they will use a good "staff" photographer. But it still comes out of the model's fees.

When asked by the model why they're not getting more work, more often than not the agency will just say to the model or their manager - "you need some new photos".  These photos cannot be done "trade" because of the contracts with the agency. The photographer will have to be paid. And although the photographer may technically own the copyright, they won't get the right to publish or on-sell them.  It's easier just to use tearsheets or left over photos from some job as they are just for self-promotion.

Some lower ranked photographers are prepared to cut a deal to get a known agency face into their own portfolios, even knowing that the photos can't otherwise be used. But a top model will use a top photographer - their reputation depends on it. And top photographers don't need to do freebees.

But the majority of models (the not yet established and those who want to become agency models) will pay a good "agency experienced" photographer for their portfolio and comp cards in order to try and get on the books. The agency will often recommend a photographer but the model still pays. This is usually the only way forward for them, and the better the photos the more chance of success they will have. I've known ordinary models to pay in excess of $1500 for their agency photos and they often get work as a result. It shows a lot of commitment if nothing else.

Many experienced professional commercial photographers have said on these forums that "trade" or TFPCD just does not happen for agency models. A commercial agency or client may "test" a model to see what they will look like in a particular context, but that's something completely different.

But non-agency models (and the majority of models are freelance or independents) almost never have to pay for promotional photos. Trade works for them, as does getting paid!

But many models don't want to work trade. They'd rather pay to get exactly what they want (quality & content), or not have to do the stuff some photographers want for the "trade".

I wonder if the majority (if not all) models on MM are independents (non-agency) and if the majority of their photos on here were not "paid" for. They were either TFPCD or complementary copies from a shoot where the model was paid. I'll actually start a new thread now and ask this question.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=39087

Already several models with commercial aspirations have said they pay for their portfolios photos (or would do so if they could afford it) and would continue to pay to get want they want. That paying for their photos is the norm.

But I admit we're getting off the track here. The question was "why do photographers pay models"? Not the other way around.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Sure, I agree, respect the business.  Isn't part of respecting the business is respecting the models?  Find a little pre-tax, tax deductible cash to compensate the models for their time -- you are keeping the copyright, so show a little respect for the central objects of your photographs.

As far as I'm concerned, unless you are sharing the copyright (and who would?), even the best world class print for a model's portfolio is nearly worthless.

Number 1.: Non pro photogs, CAN't tax deuct, so get that outta you head, only pros can do that and usally they aren't bothering with small potatoes,and often have people lining up for them if they are.

Number 2 I agree, and I usally share my copyrights, to give us both full  use of images, reason being, I'm shooting to shoot, not to make money.  I don't have to  worry about enforcing my Copyrights, or anything else.

The ONLY thing a model can't with me do is sell exlusive rights, because they don't them to begin with, nor do I, I think that's fair enough.

Michael McGowan wrote:
If photographers are worried about models paying them, they obviously are still bottom-feeding, because photographers with real clients have a lot more on their minds. That doesn't mean they aren't capable, qualified photographers. It's just that test shooting for a living isn't exactly high on the food chain.

Spend the time to generate one decent client, and you'll make tons more money than from a week's worth of models.

This is true. Models are not clients. They are collegues.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Sure, I agree, respect the business.  Isn't part of respecting the business is respecting the models?  Find a little pre-tax, tax deductible cash to compensate the models for their time -- you are keeping the copyright, so show a little respect for the central objects of your photographs.

Zeo wrote:
Number 1.: Non pro photogs, CAN't tax deuct, so get that outta you head, only pros can do that and usally they aren't bothering with small potatoes,and often have people lining up for them if they are.

I have a couple of thoughts on this.  In no particular order...

>>>  It doesn't take a lot to become a "pro", at least as far as the IRS is concerned.  While I don't consider myself to be a professional, I do accept voluntary donations on my web site, and that's enough to pay for the models I hire, my materials / consumables, some equipment, and my web hosting costs.  I spend $100 a year on a business license, and lo & behold, I am a "pro", and the money I pay models is tax deductible & pre-tax.  Sure, I'm not supporting myself with photography (nor do I want to), and sure, I may have only a few years to show a profit, but in the meantime, I can treat my photography costs as business expenses.  Bottom line -- it don't take much.

>>>  If you are an amateur photographer & you want to get better, try working with better models.  Sure, there's plenty of young ladies out there willing to pose for free, but I will submit that you won't be as challenged by inexperienced models as you are with experienced models.  And those more experienced models definitely deserve compensation.

>>>  I understand that being a "pro" does not necessarily imply that the quality of your images is better than non-pros, but unless you are offering significantly high quality images, just how valuable can the images you give the model be?