Mary wrote:

actually if you have an artist waiting, its the artists loss because a lot of work goes into packing your stuff, driving to the studio, unpacking, waiting, pack up again and drive home.  Some artists have kids, they call in babysitters, some give up other paid jobs because they committed to a test.   

I can not imagine any professional photographer or artist working without a deposit in these testing situations.  You dont put much value on yourself or your skills if you don't take a deposit on your time, and I wouldnt want to work with anyone that values themselves so little..... I would think a little self examination would be in order.

Hmmm, I've agreed with you in the past Mary so I guess I'll have to agree and say that  I guess I dont' value myself or my skills (what little I have, and getting less by the minute).  Or maybe it's because I've been lulled into complacency because I have only had 2 TFP/Test no-shows and one client no show in the past few years.  And, each time I paid the Makeup Artist a fee out of my business account because I felt like they deserved something for their time and effort - even though we were both stood up.  But I guess now I've learned that I did it because I didn't want them to not value themeselves or their skill.   And yes, I understand about packing, unpacking, setting up, taking down, carrying the stuff to who knows where, and doing it all without a deposit.  As I said, I must not value myself or my skills because I still believe that models and clients deserve a chance and that I can take a risk with the forecast of rewards.  So I guess all in all I won't ever be able to work with you because of this value thingy, right?      PS - I did a self examination - I don't have any lumps...

Mark Anderson wrote:
Kit fee?  On TFCD?   Guess I'll have to start charging a "studio fee" and a "camera fee".  When a model is a no show it's best to just move on.  I feel it's their loss.

Yeah cos you so throw away your camara, lenses and your studio when youre done with it.

Once we're done with out sponges, q-tips and mascara wands we throw them away...and guess what...we have to go out and buy some more.  So a little $25 kit fee is a small price to pay.  Us MUA's dont use cheap stuff ya know...

This subject always makes me steam!!

Mary wrote:
The distinction has already been made in this thread....we are talking about webmodels, not agency models.   Most of us know better then to charge a Ford or Elite model a deposit, unfortunately most testing type photographers (99% of the MM photographers) cant get a Ford or Elite model, that’s why we're having this conversation.

My fist-timer no-show and last minute cancel rates are about 25%. I understand that it is about the same what other photographers experience so if you have to use wannabes that’s what you have to work with. It's a force of nature. I use the overbooking method. I usually schedule a model that I’ve worked before and then two or three that I haven’t worked with. Usually two show up for the shoot. I plan the looks for the sure-thing model and with the others we just make up stuff as we go. One of the new ones becomes a sure-thing model for the next shoot and the cycle repeats. This way if I want to shoot something for my own project that the model may not be able to use for her book I’ve already paid her with headshots or whatever during the first shoot. Planning it this way I’ve never had a total no-show but I did have a couple of cases where all of them showed up and it was hectic.

Yisell  wrote:

Yeah cos you so throw away your camara, lenses and your studio when youre done with it.

Once we're done with out sponges, q-tips and mascara wands we throw them away...and guess what...we have to go out and buy some more.  So a little $25 kit fee is a small price to pay.  Us MUA's dont use cheap stuff ya know...

This subject always makes me steam!!

I try not to steam - it burns my ears when it escapes. 

Actually I do throw my camera and lenses away after the shoot - you know how these disposable cameras are...      

Seriously, yes, the MUA has to buy new sponges and wands and Qtips.  Yep.  And they get images, right?   And the photogrpaher has to pay for electric, HVAC, sometimes studiospace (if they need to rent a studio), spend hours editing on that free computer using the free software, never replace the modeling lamps or flash tubes (they never wear out - just like the digital camera that costs almost as much as remodeling a kitchen, it will never wear out even though it has a technical life expectancy), use those cheap swab (Sensor Swabs - takes 2 each cleaning) to clean the CCD in the camera before the shoot, the backdrops are just paper, the props are there because they were free, CD Mailers and postage are gratis from the postal service, etc. 

Yea, I guess I see your point - I'll be much more understanding in the future. 

The fantastic MUAs that I have had the pleasure of working with in the past and hopefully in the future, work as a team in a "non paid" shoot because we are all investing into something we can all use.  It takes a team effort and team investing to get team results and the team shares in the rewards. 

oops, I just burned one of my ears... 

Pete Flanagan wrote:
I don't want to sound insensitive but, when discussing a particular Chicago area model with several other photogs, I learned that her "favorite granny" died at least 7 times in a 6 month period.
.  One model I shot years ago scraped up her sitting fee by baking cookies and going to the fire stations to put the beg on the firemen.  She managed to scrape up the money...and she showed.

Thats horribly adorable about the cookies.... That is true- where there is a will there is a way..... I see what you mean... The cookies was a pretty adorable idea.... Hmm.... I could bake some really good mac and cheese!!!! does that count???
(and sorry to hear about that chicago model....... her loss... big time... 7times with the granny and 7 times with the 7 photographers!!!

faithb wrote:
I'm definitely sorry to hear about your father.  It's not that models are the only flaky ones, they're just the flakiest when it comes to unpaid shoots.

Thank you... I understand where you are coming from.
I once had a photographer tell me that he couldn't shoot because his house burned down.... That was inteteresting. I hope it didn't!

Yisell  wrote:
Yeah cos you so throw away your camara, lenses and your studio when youre done with it.

Once we're done with out sponges, q-tips and mascara wands we throw them away...and guess what...we have to go out and buy some more.  So a little $25 kit fee is a small price to pay.  Us MUA's dont use cheap stuff ya know...

This subject always makes me steam!!

I completely agree with you on this point, Yisell. I had an email conversation with a photographer who refused to pay me a basic kit fee. I don't have time to reword it, so I'll just quote some bits:

"...TFP stands for Time For Print, not Kit-fee, Transportation and Time for Print. I really don't care how someone else defines TFP, that's not how I define it, sorry.  All you get for free is my time, and thats a pretty good deal, as  my time as a makeup artist is usually worth $60/hour or more.

I might also point out that a kit fee isn't for the parts of my kit that I get to keep and re-use. My makeup does not replace itself, it's not a prop I can store and pull out whenever I feel like it...

...Who has greater expenses isn't a question here. Yours could be much more or less than mine; it wouldn't make any difference. As the creator/organizer of the shoot, your expenses are your own. However I'm neither organizing, nor collaborating for these shoots.

For me, it's been TFP. Time for Print follows the exact same business structure as if you hired me for your photo shoot. So essentially I've been working for you. The only difference is that my time is compensated for by prints or CDs, rather than money. But my time is totally separate from my expenses...

...And there is no reason to ask the model for my compensation. She is not the organizer of the shoot, nor does she have any rights to the resulting images. You are supplying her and yourself a make-up artist, not the other way around. You are "captain of the ship", as you put it; you contacted me and requested my work, so you are in charge of providing compensation. If a model were to contact me and request my work, then I would in turn ask her for compensation..."

That's what I think of the whole TFP issue...of course there are always special exceptions.

Gotta run!

xo

AlwaysMadeUp wrote:

I completely agree with you on this point, Yisell. I had an email conversation with a photographer who refused to pay me a basic kit fee. I don't have time to reword it, so I'll just quote some bits:

"...TFP stands for Time For Print, not Kit-fee, Transportation and Time for Print. I really don't care how someone else defines TFP, that's not how I define it, sorry.  All you get for free is my time, and thats a pretty good deal, as  my time as a makeup artist is usually worth $60/hour or more.

I might also point out that a kit fee isn't for the parts of my kit that I get to keep and re-use. My makeup does not replace itself, it's not a prop I can store and pull out whenever I feel like it...

...Who has greater expenses isn't a question here. Yours could be much more or less than mine; it wouldn't make any difference. As the creator/organizer of the shoot, your expenses are your own. However I'm neither organizing, nor collaborating for these shoots.

For me, it's been TFP. Time for Print follows the exact same business structure as if you hired me for your photo shoot. So essentially I've been working for you. The only difference is that my time is compensated for by prints or CDs, rather than money. But my time is totally separate from my expenses...

...And there is no reason to ask the model for my compensation. She is not the organizer of the shoot, nor does she have any rights to the resulting images. You are supplying her and yourself a make-up artist, not the other way around. You are "captain of the ship", as you put it; you contacted me and requested my work, so you are in charge of providing compensation. If a model were to contact me and request my work, then I would in turn ask her for compensation..."

That's what I think of the whole TFP issue...of course there are always special exceptions.

Gotta run!

xo

Excellent example of what TFP is not.  For the Makeup artist who gets nothing out of the shoot it's a paid shoot.   If you are not collaborating on the shoot you are being employed.  If the model and the photographer ARE collaborting then they share the images and may share the expense of the MUA.

faithb wrote:
I'm definitely sorry to hear about your father.  It's not that models are the only flaky ones, they're just the flakiest when it comes to unpaid shoots.

Miss Aimee wrote:
I've been flaked on by photographers AND makeup artists soo please don't make the models out to be the only can-be-fishy ones.

That is a very good point. We are concentrating on models but it's the stylist no-shows that can really ruin a shoot (like it happened to me lately). How about a little ring of deposits? I take a deposit from the model until she shows up, the model takes one from me until I give her the pictures, then I take the deposit from the stylist and the stylist from me and the model. And so on. A very good way to set up a friendly and creative environment for TFP collaboration.

AlwaysMadeUp wrote:

I completely agree with you on this point, Yisell. I had an email conversation with a photographer who refused to pay me a basic kit fee. I don't have time to reword it, so I'll just quote some bits:

"...TFP stands for Time For Print, not Kit-fee, Transportation and Time for Print. I really don't care how someone else defines TFP, that's not how I define it, sorry.  All you get for free is my time, and thats a pretty good deal, as  my time as a makeup artist is usually worth $60/hour or more.

I might also point out that a kit fee isn't for the parts of my kit that I get to keep and re-use. My makeup does not replace itself, it's not a prop I can store and pull out whenever I feel like it...

...Who has greater expenses isn't a question here. Yours could be much more or less than mine; it wouldn't make any difference. As the creator/organizer of the shoot, your expenses are your own. However I'm neither organizing, nor collaborating for these shoots.

For me, it's been TFP. Time for Print follows the exact same business structure as if you hired me for your photo shoot. So essentially I've been working for you. The only difference is that my time is compensated for by prints or CDs, rather than money. But my time is totally separate from my expenses...

...And there is no reason to ask the model for my compensation. She is not the organizer of the shoot, nor does she have any rights to the resulting images. You are supplying her and yourself a make-up artist, not the other way around. You are "captain of the ship", as you put it; you contacted me and requested my work, so you are in charge of providing compensation. If a model were to contact me and request my work, then I would in turn ask her for compensation..."

That's what I think of the whole TFP issue...of course there are always special exceptions.

Gotta run!

xo

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!  I couldn't have put it better myself.  *sigh*

Mark Anderson wrote:

I try not to steam - it burns my ears when it escapes. 

Actually I do throw my camera and lenses away after the shoot - you know how these disposable cameras are...      

Seriously, yes, the MUA has to buy new sponges and wands and Qtips.  Yep.  And they get images, right?   And the photogrpaher has to pay for electric, HVAC, sometimes studiospace (if they need to rent a studio), spend hours editing on that free computer using the free software, never replace the modeling lamps or flash tubes (they never wear out - just like the digital camera that costs almost as much as remodeling a kitchen, it will never wear out even though it has a technical life expectancy), use those cheap swab (Sensor Swabs - takes 2 each cleaning) to clean the CCD in the camera before the shoot, the backdrops are just paper, the props are there because they were free, CD Mailers and postage are gratis from the postal service, etc. 

Yea, I guess I see your point - I'll be much more understanding in the future. 

The fantastic MUAs that I have had the pleasure of working with in the past and hopefully in the future, work as a team in a "non paid" shoot because we are all investing into something we can all use.  It takes a team effort and team investing to get team results and the team shares in the rewards. 

oops, I just burned one of my ears... 

You have a GREAT point here..but here's one for your ears..
One day Getty wants to buy one of those images you took. The model may make some money but guess what? THE MUA makes NONE. And if it's printed, her/his name will probably not be on it as a credit.

Naomi wrote:
You have a GREAT point here..but here's one for your ears..
One day Getty wants to buy one of those images you took. The model may make some money but guess what? THE MUA makes NONE. And if it's printed, her/his name will probably not be on it as a credit.

Hey Naomi,  Good point - that's what being employed is all about.  That person who designs the cover of the magazine, the model who poses for a masterful painter, they get paid for their service.  For TFP shoots I use a release that includes each person on the shoot and it spells out that if anything we create together is ever sold (first, they would have to agree to it in writing) we all split the profit.  It's only fair - we are all INVESTING, not being employed!  If one is employed by the others then that's their compensation - standard economics and business practice.  And even if it doesn't become the next Getty purchase, if we all invest, we all get to use the photo in our books (which is what most of TFP shoots are all about).  And as far as credits on images that are printed, many times the photographer is not credited either, but if we have the original for our books and the tear sheet, that says it all.

Pazza_x_Trucco wrote:
ok so i'm still new to this so..

TFP/CD everyone works for free...

what about a paid job...Who pays who? The model/model's agency pays the photographer or visa versa ... model pays mua... mua pays photographer to get images for her book?

sorry if this is a dumb question.

Not a dumb question at all.   It all depends on the shoot.  I have done shoots where the client pays everyone and I have done shoots where I have paid everyone and the client writes one check to me.  I normally try to pay the MUA myself because I feel that if a client's check bounces it's my responsibility since the client has come to me for photos.  When the client has selected the MUA and models I let the client pay them and pay me.  When an agency is involved, if I have selected the models I pay them, and if the cliient has selected them they pay.  As I said, it all depends on ths circumstances of the particular shoot.  But that brings up a good point, you should always get it in writing who pays you.  My contract with the client and support team spell out the full arrangement.  And for that matter, even my TFP agreement spells out who gets what and all the terms/conditions.   

Good question!

Mary wrote:
NEVER NEVER NEVER trust a model to show up on a free shoot....NEVER NEVER NEVER.   She will no-show if shes having a bad hair day, if she feels bloated, if she stayed out late etc....the excuses go on and on and you really shouldnt be doing TFCD without some sort of deposit.

If you choose your models carefully, this shouldn't be a problem.  I honestly don't remember the last time I had a model flake on me...And considering the nature of my work, you'd think the opposite.  Any reasonalbe judge of charachter should be able to tell the wanabes, flakes and amateurs from the people who are serious.

Brandon Ching wrote:
Playing devil's advocate, I'm just waiting for an influx of posts about "photogs/MUAs collecting deposits and no-showing or never being heard from again."

LOL - and what about the bounced checks?     Or the PayPal expenses... 

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
If you choose your models carefully, this shouldn't be a problem.  I honestly don't remember the last time I had a model flake on me...And considering the nature of my work, you'd think the opposite.  Any reasonalbe judge of charachter should be able to tell the wanabes, flakes and amateurs from the people who are serious.

as always Melvin, I disagree with you.  You can NOT tell charater by email and a quick phone conversation.  Just about everyone has been stood up by a model, artist or stylist a few times....if you havent, youre the exception, good for you.  Most of us dont have ESP.