dee740 wrote:
he wants to shoot me for a magazine. I have had 5 photoshoots since then and he's seen all the pics but still he wants to test shoot. Is that necessary? And if so y?

Nerlande made an excellent point!

If I look at a models portfolio before shooting, I get an indication on what she's done before, but unless I shot her and don't know if she photographs using MY eyes...

Also, when is the magazine's deadline? You talk for four months already? Doesn't he have to deliver sometimes?

Or does he just want to submit the photos for publishing, hoping they are getting picked?

Nerlande wrote:
The photos you showed him are ones other photographers took of you. He may want to see how you are through HIS camera. I bet the images you emailed him were your best shots right? I think it's always best to meet a model beforehand if possible.

A test really isn't that big of a deal. 1 hour of your time.

Well stated,   If he is asking for a all day test with nudity or full pay then maybe not cool.
But I love to do quick shoots,  I call them no makeup tests or quick makeup tests to see if I want to hire a model.  Especially useful if you like an internet model but never met her or not recently.

Never would I hire a normal model myself without meeting first.  If the client choose to then that is their problem.

I would not.  I worked as a casting person for a short time and looks can change quickly.

UdoR wrote:
Nerlande made an excellent point!

If I look at a models portfolio before shooting, I get an indication on what she's done before, but unless I shot her and don't know if she photographs using MY eyes...

Also, when is the magazine's deadline? You talk for four months already? Doesn't he have to deliver sometimes?

Or does he just want to submit the photos for publishing, hoping they are getting picked?

He is doing the latter. Hoping to submit the photos for publishing and hope the mkag picks them.

dee740 wrote:
I have recently been corresponding witha particular photog over the last 4 months and he says he wants to shoot me for a magazine. I have had 5 photoshoots since then and he's seen all the pics but still he wants to test shoot. Is that necessary? And if so y?

Dee,
A test shoot is also good sometimes to see how comfortable you are working with eachother.  For example, you may have really great work in your port with prior photog's.  But, if you are not comfortable with this photog...for any reason at all...it will show in your photo's.  I guess what I am saying is you can have a million pic's in your port, but the photog may not feel comfortable hiring you until he know's how you will look in the images he takes when you work together.  Also a good opp for you as well. :0)

JJ~ XoXo

dee740 wrote:
Hoping to submit the photos for publishing and hope the mkag picks them.

There are a lot of photographers who talk aspiring models into posing for free because they're going to submit the photos to Playboy or MAXIM or whatever. What they don't mention is that you could just as easily submit your own photos to MAXIM or Playboy or whatever and keep complete control of the process. I don't recall if Playboy is doing it anymore but some magazines also pay a "finders' fee" - to the photographer.

I'm not saying the photographer's scamming you, and I'm sure you've already done your own research about how images are submitted to whatever magazines you're talking about - I just thought it'd be worth mentioning it. I've known several enthusiastic and hopeful young models who wound up spending a lot of time naked and near-naked having cruddy pictures taken of them (that even EasyRiders wouldn't print) and gotten nothing out of it except for a little more cynical and some experience.

(edit) I guess that if I were dealing with a photographer who was going to submit some photos to a magazine I'd want to know which magazine, how many other times his photos had been accepted, whether he had any kind of "in" with the editorial team at the magazine or whether he was just going to drop the photos in the mail and cross his fingers, etc. The last guy I ran into who was pulling this routine was telling a model I know that he was going to "get her into Playboy" - he made it sound like a sure deal. She spent hours posing nude for this chump, who shot pictures that looked like your typical Myspace camera-phone self-portrait, and of course it never went anyplace.

mjr.

dee740 wrote:
He is doing the latter. Hoping to submit the photos for publishing and hope the mkag picks them.

That's really weird then. Why does he call it a test shoot when his intention is to take pictures of you and submit them to the magazine.

I understand the reason for a test shoot before you give the model a paid gig. But what the hell is this?

UdoR wrote:
If I look at a models portfolio before shooting, I get an indication on what she's done before, but unless I shot her and don't know if she photographs using MY eyes...

You don't?? Really?

If I look at a model's portfolio I can tell whether she's got the raw material to photograph well. I can't tell if she's a psycho, or high-maintenance, or a flake, or has bad skin or whatever -- but if she cleans up well for her portfolio, I can be pretty sure she's going to clean up equally well for my shoot. I've had some models that were a pain in the neck to pose, or were slow, or whatever, but there's no need to test if you're confident you can get what you want on the first go-round. And if you're not confident you can do that, then your problem lies elsewhere. The only 2 times (in 6+ years of doing this) that I'd wished I had a better view of my model before I shot with her was the one model who showed up 30lbs heavier than the pictures in her portfolio (and I sent her home) and the other who showed up with horrible pregnancy stretch-marks that she didn't mention (for fine art nudes? are you kidding? I sent her home).

I guess I'm saying, with all due respect (because I think that generally I agree with much of what you say) I'm not buying this one. Forcing models to "test" prior to a shoot tells me a photographer is either trying to slide a free session past a model (cheesy!) or isn't confident that he can work with whatever he gets.

mjr.

John Jebbia wrote:
BUT I REPEAT: TEST SHOOT DOES NOT GUARANTEE PAYING WORK.

Which should get your "scam alert" detector blinking red.

Just a bit of business advice that applies to any transaction:
- always examine your upside (What's the best case for how
   it could work out for you? What will you get/make?)
- always examine your downside risk (What do you stand to
   lose if it doesn't work/fails/goes noplace?)
- always examine your partner's upside (What is the best
   case for them? What do they stand to get/make?)
- always examine your partner's downside risk (What do
   they stand to lose if it doesn't work/fails/goes noplace?)

You should balance your upside and downside risk and assess them in light of your (perception of) your partner's upside and downside. Then you can start to figure out if you're making a good deal or not.

mjr.

MarkMarek wrote:

That's really weird then. Why does he call it a test shoot when his intention is to take pictures of you and submit them to the magazine.

I understand the reason for a test shoot before you give the model a paid gig. But what the hell is this?

It's called a "spec shoot", which is one step up from a test shoot.  Normally spec shoots require a lot more investment of time and team members, because the intent is to produce something of the quality that a magazine might actually purchase.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Which should get your "scam alert" detector blinking red.

mjr.

Bullshit. What's the point of doing a test if it's a guaranteed shoot?

Name one job that hires it's employees without an interview? Some interviews involve a typing test, map reading test, 10 key test. I often require a modeling ability test.

Tell you what... You do things your way, I'll continue to do them my way. I'm not scamming anybody.

John Jebbia wrote:
Bullshit. What's the point of doing a test if it's a guaranteed shoot?

That's what I'm saying. Read the thread. This sounds to me like some chump who's just getting models to work for him for free because he's blowing some smoke about how he's gonna submit their photos to magazines. Wow. Never heard that one before.

mjr.

John Jebbia wrote:
Tell you what... You do things your way, I'll continue to do them my way. I'm not scamming anybody.

My, my, my - defensive aren't we??  I wasn't talking about you - was I?

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
That's what I'm saying. Read the thread. This sounds to me like some chump who's just getting models to work for him for free because he's blowing some smoke about how he's gonna submit their photos to magazines. Wow. Never heard that one before.

mjr.

Oops.. Sorry. Got a little defensive there. I thought you were calling what I do a scam. My bad

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

That's what I'm saying. Read the thread. This sounds to me like some chump who's just getting models to work for him for free because he's blowing some smoke about how he's gonna submit their photos to magazines. Wow. Never heard that one before.

mjr.

You see, that's the problem.  I have heard of it before.  Spec shoots are quite common, and the expense (borne by the photographer and/or his team) makes it entirely reasonable to have confidence in a model before the shoot.  Given the confidence one can typically place in a 'net model, it seems to me that a test shoot in advance is a reasonable precaution.

That said, you also asked a lot of questions above that are useful in separating "spec shoots" from "scam shoots".  I have no way, given what we know, of determining which this is.  Only that the request is not, on the face of it, unreasonable.

John Jebbia wrote:
I do use a new method though when hiring models on the spot. I ask them to take 2-3 digital snapshots holding a handwritten piece of paper with the date written on it.

It's either this, or they'll have to get on the webcam (something I always feel weird about asking), or a test shoot. I wanna know what I'm buying before I buy it.

Ha, you wouldn't get me to do that shit. Wait, I already shot with you.

Nevermind.

Nerlande wrote:
Ha, you wouldn't get me to do that shit. Wait, I already shot with you.

Nevermind.

I didn't wanna see you shit on the webcam. I wasn't in the mood.

John Jebbia wrote:
(oh.. and I just learned a valuable lesson: never fry bacon naked!)

ROFL! I learned a similar "valuable lesson" once--never iron clothes naked either. At least not on an ironing board that is about waist high.

TXPhotog wrote:
You see, that's the problem.  I have heard of it before.  Spec shoots are quite common, and the expense (borne by the photographer and/or his team) makes it entirely reasonable to have confidence in a model before the shoot.  Given the confidence one can typically place in a 'net model, it seems to me that a test shoot in advance is a reasonable precaution.

I completely agree with you!! That's why I was trying to subtly suggest to the model that she approach it like she would any other business proposition.

Back when I used to interview for jobs, I learned that you're not just asking for a job, you're evaluating your potential supervisor (is this person a psycho control freak? a political manipulator? a great leader?) and the business you're going to become part of (is this company a clusterf*ck?  going to be the next google? going down the tubes?) -- it's a 2-way street.

I'm not a commercial photographer (thank goodness!) but I've done big projects on spec before that involved months of investment of time and energy -- and I'm sure the same kind of things apply: you want to not invest that time until you're pretty sure of your customer, or, more likely, have a contract or letter of intent in hand. And you want to make sure your team can do the job, so you don't go out there and crater in front of your customer and wind up in arbitration. So your customer checks you out - and vice versa. Same deal. And you check out your team - and vice versa.

But, when I was hiring programmers for a multi-million dollar project, I didn't ask them to sit down and write code for me. I did a lot of reference checking, background checks, looked at work they had done for other projects before mine, etc. In the photography/modelling world that is exactly analogous to looking at their portfolio (seeing work they have done before) and talking to them and checking references (to see if they're reliable). I've done consulting projects on spec, too - but in those cases that's part of the cost/benefit equation - you tell a programmer, "hey, if you're willing to gamble a week of your time on a 50% chance that none of us will get the job, I'll make sure you get paid three weeks' worth if we do get the job and you get it done."

That's what I meant in my earlier comments to the model about how it's important to understand the upside/downside balance for any deal. The person who is taking the most downside risk should (ideally) have the highest upside. The word for a deal in which one person takes all the risk and has no upside is "bad deal." And a lot of these "model for free for me because I might be able to get you in a magazine" deals have all the upside for the photographer and a snowball's chance in hell of a return for the model.

Now, if someone asked me to pose for a "test" shoot for them, I'd ask them annoying questions first, like:
- "What percentage of models who pose for your tests do you wind up hiring for paid shoots?"
- "In those cases, what do you pay?"
- "If I'm posing for you so you can submit my photos to a magazine, where do you make your money in this transaction? Is the magazine paying you a finder's fee or would you like to make an agreement with me that if your photo lands me a shoot that you'll be the photographer to do it?"
- "Since this is a test/spec shoot, I'd like the commercial rights for the photos to be jointly held; i.e.: neither of us can use them to make money without negotiating an agreement with the other first. Is that OK?"
...etc.

You start asking those kind of questions and a lot of GWCs are gonna find someone else to try their slick lines on instead.

mjr.

Nerlande wrote:
Ha, you wouldn't get me to do that shit. Wait, I already shot with you.

See, now, if I were hiring Nerlande as a model, I'd look at her portfolio and go "Wow, she's gorgeous! I can do great photos of her!" and I'd be perfectly comfortable hiring her based on her portfolio and an exchange of Emails.

Wait, I already did that.

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
See, now, if I were hiring Nerlande as a model, I'd look at her portfolio and go "Wow, she's gorgeous! I can do great photos of her!" and I'd be perfectly comfortable hiring her based on her portfolio and an exchange of Emails.

Wait, I already did that.

mjr.

Carefull man. She'll eat all of your butter.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
See, now, if I were hiring Nerlande as a model, I'd look at her portfolio and go "Wow, she's gorgeous! I can do great photos of her!" and I'd be perfectly comfortable hiring her based on her portfolio and an exchange of Emails.

Wait, I already did that.

mjr.

John Jebbia wrote:
Carefull man. She'll eat all of your butter.

Shutup John! I told you I thought it was whip cream!!!

Nerlande wrote:
I told you I thought it was whip cream!!!

I'm outta here. This is getting too sexual

Nerlande wrote:
I told you I thought it was whip cream!!!

MarkMarek wrote:
I'm outta here. This is getting too sexual

::GASP:: but seriously. John took me out to breakfast with Mike Reiner. I had a huge stack of pancakes. On top of the stack was "whip cream". So I took a huge bite. It ended up being butter, so now I get made fun of.

Screw you guys...back to the topic.

Nerlande wrote:
Shutup John! I told you I thought it was whip cream!!!

I have a confession... It wasn't whip cream and it wasn't butter. I guess you couldn't see what I was doing under the table.

I don't wanna hijack this thread. So, I started a new thread for you to enjoy:

Nerlande eats a scoop of butter.. and other tales.