|
Forums >
General Industry >
The ethic of TFP/Cd.
I have read many posts on this and other sites about the advantage and disadvantages of Time for Print/CD. The argument seems to centre on whether or not there is any real need for it. The arguments seems to be, and some may disagree, that there are no hard and fast rules on how it should be done, what the model and photographer should get out of it and if in fact it is worth while in the first place. For years there was a system that operated between agencies and photographers, called go-sees. The agency would phone and make an appointment for a new model to go-see a photographer. If the photographer liked the look of the model he would do a simple test shoot with them. From this the photographer would assess the models potential and give the model a proof sheet. If the agency liked a shot from this test they would arrange for the photographer to do a print for the models book. The advantage in this was that over a fairly short period of time the model built up images in her portfolio that cost him/her nothing. The advantage to the photographer was that he knew how this or that new model worked and their suitability for any work he may have in the future. I have personally done many of these âTest Shootsâ for new models and in many cases finally used the models concerned for paid work. I feel that now there is a misuse of the system arising from the TFP/CD regime. Many models complain that they never see the images taken or that they take too long to be delivered. I feel that this is in part due to the unprofessional and un-business like attitude of the photographer and the model. There seems to be no direction in what they are doing and little understanding of proper business ethics on both sides. This is enhanced by no real communication between the photographer and model. Efficient communication is one of the cornerstones of good business. Although many models now work without an agent there is still a need for good efficient communication between model and photographer. Or has the Internet changed everyone into a state where ethics in business can be ignored? A TFP/CD (test shoot) shoot should be no more than a co-operation between the model and photographer where both benefit. However, it is now apparent that any shoot no matter paid or not must know be put in writing beforehand. Has the world of photography changed at much that there is little or no trust in the business any more? Or is it that many photographers are really just GWC (guys with cameras) that have no understanding of business ethics and many models have no real idea of what they want to achieve in their chosen profession? May 12 06 02:08 am Link Could just be that a lot of the TFP's being done nowadays have absolutely nothing to do with the business of modeling. May 12 06 03:41 am Link TFPs and "go sees" are not the same things. Modeling and photography are skills. TFPs are how models and photographers improve their skills in new areas. This is different from a "go see," where a model auditions for a photographer, for work where they are both presumably already skilled enough in to be making a living from. TFPs are sensible for anyone who isn't getting all the paying work they'd like. If I have a Saturday morning without a paying gig then I am more than happy to do a TFP with someone. I ask TFP models to bring pictures of poses they would like to imitate. By imitating those poses the model learns how to model as in the pictures, and by imitating the lighting and other effects I learn how to take a greater variety of pictures. Essentially I copy the work of other photographers, which is how I have learned most of my craft. But you never get to be a professional if you don't act like one, and you don't remain a professional if you don't act like one. I use the same modeling agreements with TFP models as I do with art models or commercial models I hire. Photography is how I earn my living, and I don't conduct it like a hobby except when I'm on vacation. May 12 06 07:48 am Link VirtuaMike wrote: You could make very similar statements about other creative high-profile businesses -- the vast majority of musicians slaving away, playing free gigs at summer festivals and working for slave wages in tiny bars are never going to make the "big-time" music business. The average kid playing football, baseball, hockey, etc. is never going to get a chance to sign a contract for a pro team. And so forth. May 12 06 08:09 am Link VirtuaMike wrote: Now-a-days it's just having a collection of pretty pics to show people on the internet. May 12 06 08:30 am Link jmc wrote: Recall, this is the Internet, in which it is considered customary (some would even say mandatory) to have big, burly men with tattoos come along on TFP shoots to intimidate the photographer, who otherwise might do something awful to the model. That didn't happen in your "old days" either, and it doesn't happen now for real-world shoots off the Internet. May 12 06 08:49 am Link bang bang photo wrote: If we accept the fact that the subject is "modeling on the Internet" that might be true, although it's not exactly clear where the "big leagues" are on the 'net. If by your statement you mean that's how commercial and fashion modeling work through brick-and-mortar agencies, it's not true. May 12 06 08:51 am Link bang bang photo wrote: That has been my experience as well. May 12 06 11:22 am Link |
