AJ Bella wrote:
What makes paying for a photo shoot better?

Nothing.  All great photographers, stylists, make up artists and hair stylists test for free.  They have to or their books would stagnate. The trick is recognizing the talent of the photographer's team and getting lucky enough to catch him/her at a testing period.

JC wrote:
BOTTOM LINE ----- YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.  WHY CAN'T ANY OF THESE F **N MORONS UNDERSTAND THIS ?  You want a Rolls Royce ? Great, write a check for a half a mil and you got one. If you can't afford it, DONT EVEN WALK INTO THE SHOWROOM !

I disagree, see above.  Plenty of great photographers test for free.  You just gotta walk into that showroom at the right time of day-- and pick the right dealer!!

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
The photographer is always responsible for the photographs.  No one else and no excuses.

-Don

Tis true, if it isn't working why snap the shutter? It is true that some people are more complicated than others and it may take some detective or psychic work to create the environment that works for the subject. I worked with a talented runway model once and got zero. The shots I took of her on the runway were nice though. I did a shoot with a non-model and got nothing. We were both intrigued by this (she was a photographer too and an attractive lady) so we reshot. All it took was one glass of wine and a different setting and we got a couple good ones.

Have Fun, Take Pictures

AJ Bella wrote:
Ok, so here's my theory on the ever going TFCD debate:Let's say you have a model who does TFCD with a photographer. Let's say he does 100 shots of her and are we to assume that even out of a 100 shots not even ONE can be used to add to her portfolio???

If that's the case then what's really to blame? The fact that its a non-paying shoot or the fact that either the photographer (which is oftentimes not the case) or the model can't do her job as a model to make a picture look good?

What makes paying for a photo shoot better?

If you're paying, "usually" there's more attention being made to the shoot. Details are looked at more closely than before, and a photographer knows that he/she is getting paid to produce a top notch product.

With "TF" anything, the pressure isn't as high, and some things can be missed.

I know that if I'm doing a TFCD photoshoot, I'm going to give it a lot of attention, but if I'm doing a PAID shoot, I'm going the extra mile. I have to. The model/client paid for it, and there could be dire consequences if things didn't turn out the way they were supposed to.

You get what you pay for, and if you're going to PAY for a photographer, then you want to make sure they are worthy to pay for FIRST. Not every photographer that you shoot with is worthy of paying, same for models.

I may do a million TFCDs, but not every one of them would/could be converted to paid shoots, and the reverse is true, as well. Some models would love to shoot TFCD with me, but they may not think that I'm at the "PAID" level, yet.

Rick Dones wrote:
Don HIt the Nail on the head......The photographer has to take the blame if he can't get one shot out of 100 to be portfolio quality

Question is, by WHOSE standards?

You can't clean up ugliness.

If the picture is technically sound, cropped right, and composed correctly, then it's portfolio quality, IMO. The model has to do something to help the picture along. Yes, there has to be some blame given, but to put that totally on the photographer... I don't know if I can agree with that.

AJ Bella wrote:

And that's what I'm saying! They like to argue that unless you are paying for a shoot you will only come out with crap but who's giving out the crap? The photog who is shooting or the model who thinks she can model but just stands there?

What if we take that same photog and pay him the $150 per look to shoot us? Suddenly the pics will be better just cause we paid him? That's pretty low. I give my all wether I am being paid or not.

Do you, really?

I'm not saying that you don't, but riddle me this:

If you're shooting for the SAME photographer, and it's a PAID shoot, you're telling me that there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you would do differently? No extra time on choosing the clothes, no extra sleep the night before, no admonishment to the hair stylist or makeup artists about your big shoot?

Most people take a little more time when there's money involved, even if they don't say they do. It's like going to the grocery store vs. going to the mall. You're going to dress differently because there's a (strong) possibility that you're going to see someone.

AJ Bella wrote:
Ok, so here's my theory on the ever going TFCD debate:Let's say you have a model who does TFCD with a photographer. Let's say he does 100 shots of her and are we to assume that even out of a 100 shots not even ONE can be used to add to her portfolio???

If that's the case then what's really to blame? The fact that its a non-paying shoot or the fact that either the photographer (which is oftentimes not the case) or the model can't do her job as a model to make a picture look good?

What makes paying for a photo shoot better?

It takes 2 to do the Tango

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Which leads me to something thats whispered but not always said aloud.
There are people here who are not model material.  I won't say ugly but some
would.  There are very real reasons some women and men are paid lots of cash.
They simply look better in photos.  They don't need lots of Photoshop they just
look fantastic.  These people look good no matter who shoots them and in the
hands of a talented photographer they shine.

Ive heard some whispers that some of the photographers really arent photographers ...whats with  all this whispering?

AJ Bella wrote:
I'm glad I asked this question. I think paying a reputable photographer is a good idea. But what if you do and you are not satisfied with the results? Is that where a written agreement should come in?

You should have some type of conversation BEFORE the agreement, written or not.

Here's what will happen:

You see a photographer whose work you think will fit very well into your portfolio, so you hire him. You don't hire him to shoot like some other person, but to shoot with the same great results and style that you saw from previous shoots. You get your pics back, and are not satisfied with the results.

The question then becomes:

"Are you dissatisfied with the results because it looked like his other pics,"
"Are you dissatisfied with the results because they DIDN'T look like his other pics," or
"Are you dissatisfied with the results because they aren't up to the same standards that prompted you to pay him in the first place"?

You gotta first look at their work, see if it fits what you are trying to do, THEN hire them. Just because one is reputable doesn't necessarily mean that they will fit what you are looking for. That's why the conversation is so very important BEFORE you make the choice.

The written agreement might cover some things, but not all. Nothing is going to give you a 100% success guarantee, but the more experienced the photographer, the better your success rate should be.

AJ Bella wrote:
Ok, so here's my theory on the ever going TFCD debate:Let's say you have a model who does TFCD with a photographer. Let's say he does 100 shots of her and are we to assume that even out of a 100 shots not even ONE can be used to add to her portfolio???

If that's the case then what's really to blame? The fact that its a non-paying shoot or the fact that either the photographer (which is oftentimes not the case) or the model can't do her job as a model to make a picture look good?

What makes paying for a photo shoot better?

I just did a shoot at the end of the day today which came out amazing!  The sun cooperated and so did the model, Ricardo.  I shoot tf cd because I'm an amateur.  The model definately got shots he can use in his portfolio.  It was worth it to him and to me...that's my take on tf cd.

David

VRG Photography wrote:

If you're shooting for the SAME photographer, and it's a PAID shoot, you're telling me that there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you would do differently? No extra time on choosing the clothes, no extra sleep the night before, no admonishment to the hair stylist or makeup artists about your big shoot?

Most people take a little more time when there's money involved, even if they don't say they do. It's like going to the grocery store vs. going to the mall. You're going to dress differently because there's a (strong) possibility that you're going to see someone.

I disagree with the above statement. If you're professional in what you do, then you should put in 100% whether you are receiving monetary compensation or not. I refuse to do anything just half way. I never have, and never will. It's a matter of both personal and professional integrity. Whether I'm being paid by cash, check, a designer dress, prints, CD, or chai and bagels is totally irrelevant.

What sets apart a 'professional' (model, photographer, lawyer, art director, caterer, etc.) is NOT simply whether or not he or she is financially compensated (or by how much), but much moreso by how he or she conducts him/herself with regard to business. If you're professional in how you conduct business, others quickly know it, and respect you for it. Your reputation reflects it. But, most of all, you can respect yourself for it. I won't compromise my integrity over a $ sign. That's my bottom line.

AJ Bella wrote:
What makes paying for a photo shoot better?

The fact that I can pay my bills when im paid to shoot.

A J, hopefully you didn't pay $150.00 for your photo's.

You don't have one shot in your portfolio that is professional or up to industry standards. I realize that perhaps your arguement supports your not wanting to spend $150 and that may work for you.

Your pics may be appropriate by Snellville, GA standards, however, they certainly wouldn't hold up in the market place of the competitive modeling industry.

This arguement is such a no brainer, the models who pay photographers with noteable reputations take better pics. For example, if Tony Metaxas in San Francisco does a test, the NYC agencies know his work, "Oh I see you shot with Tony!"... That speaks volumes for a new face that she actually shot with a photographer that is on the A list of every major agency, not only that, plain and simple he's good!

He doesn't charge $150, he charges $450 (includes hair and make up). Look at your TFP images in your portfolio and then compare them to; www.tonymetaxas.com , now, can you honestly say that your TFP pics are on the same level as the Tony Mextaxas shots? There is no contest whatsoever. So, for a serious model, seeking to break into the industry it's irresponsible for one to think that "all photographers are created equal".

We use Robert Fein a lot (www.cinnamonbunz.com), he shoots for us TFP, however, he gets all rights for his web content, again, compare the "quality of your shots vs Robert Fein", and realize that the TFP has much more involved than the tfp's that simply exchange pics for a models time.

This is a classic example of the proverb; "The strength is not in having 'the answer', but in understanding the question".....

Andrea-Anderson wrote:

I disagree with the above statement. If you're professional in what you do, then you should put in 100% whether you are receiving monetary compensation or not. I refuse to do anything just half way. I never have, and never will. It's a matter of both personal and professional integrity. Whether I'm being paid by cash, check, a designer dress, prints, CD, or chai and bagels is totally irrelevant.

What sets apart a 'professional' (model, photographer, lawyer, art director, caterer, etc.) is NOT simply whether or not he or she is financially compensated (or by how much), but much moreso by how he or she conducts him/herself with regard to business. If you're professional in how you conduct business, others quickly know it, and respect you for it. Your reputation reflects it. But, most of all, you can respect yourself for it. I won't compromise my integrity over a $ sign. That's my bottom line.

Who said anything about doing something half way???

I'm not saying that you won't (or shouldn't) put in 100% in what you do. What I AM saying is that it's human nature for most to put in 110%, go the EXTRA mile, when they are being paid.

100% is not an option.

110% IS.

Rue 99 wrote:
It's not a black or white issue - it all depends on the context.

- A reasonable photo for a part time model in a local market is probably not usable for a full time model working in a major market.

- A model with a terrible port will find even a sub-par photo is usable. 

- A model with no portfolio (a situation I find myself in all the time) will think everything looks good (thank you to you first timers!)

- A great photog can make a average model look good; An average photog can make a great model look good.

This can go on and on ad nauseum...

" 'can' go on in nauseum" ?   too late! after I read that bilge I was feeling extremely nauseated. Never have I heard such crap in all my life. If you're giving models that kind of coaching, you are are not being a service to them.

even the secondary markets demand professionalism and have standards. the modeling business is not a level playing field, often the rules are not fair. Bottom line, only the strong survive, one should be encouraging models to be the best they can be, shoot with the best photographers they can, go beyond their comfort zones ( and often that means shooting with great photographers who refuse to do tfp, and they will have to pony up the $$$ ).

VRG Photography wrote:
Who said anything about doing something half way???

I'm not saying that you won't (or shouldn't) put in 100% in what you do. What I AM saying is that it's human nature for most to put in 110%, go the EXTRA mile, when they are being paid.

100% is not an option.

110% IS.

Ok, lets not mince my words here. When I referred to putting in 100% effort, I meant giving a job EVERYTHING that you've got. That MEANS going 'an extra mile,' at least it does in my eyes. Some of us do, to use your termonology here, go 'the extra mile' on every job, whether it is financially paying or not.

The suggestion that everyone puts in 'just 100%' on an 'unpaid job', while on a paid job they'd be putting in more, isn't necessarily true. It depends on the person. It has always been in my nature to put in an exceptional amount of effort on anything to which my name is attached. My reputation depends on it! And, beyond reputation, relationship-building and networking are just as valuable of assets as cash, check or charge! Then again, I have a background in advertising and public relations. I can probably find a value and benefit to virtually anything. ;-)

Of course, I'm not just a model, but also a freelance creative/art director and stylist. I spend more time concepting shoots than being in front of the camera. And, I've never just 'stood there' as a model either! ;-) I spent years as an advertising and PR creative and worked on some very large pro-bono (unpaid) projects. Yes, I was selective on which accounts I worked on, but I put in extra effort on every one of them. And, I am quite sure my clients would agree.

Also, we were talking about models being paid (financially compensated) BY photographers. You stated:

**** "If you're shooting for the SAME photographer, and it's a PAID shoot, you're telling me that there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you would do differently? No extra time on choosing the clothes, no extra sleep the night before, no admonishment to the hair stylist or makeup artists about your big shoot?" ****

My response was in regard to the aforementioned comment, and in that context.

Now you state "If I'm getting PAID to do a shoot, then that means that I can afford to PAY other necessary expenses to make this shoot what it needs to be." You are now talking about a [b]budget[b] for a shoot, which is something entirely different than 'getting paid' for your time alone.

Of course, there is a great deal more you can do if a job has a budget. And, as I said... I work as a freelance CD/AD and stylist, too. Without a budget, I am obviously limited on what I can do in either capacity. That does not mean that I don't put in my best effort within the confines of what I have to work with. ;-)

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
Maybe the photographer can invest more in the shoot? Better MUA, equipment, retouching?

Couldn't have said better. But what if the photographer is a starving artist? He should then gently refuse to do a TFP/CD with the understanding that the model is better off working with a more experienced and resourceful photographer. Thats what I generally do, when the models want advanced treatment.

Scott Meyer wrote:

The fact that I can pay my bills when im paid to shoot.

Ya got a point there

JC wrote:
BOTTOM LINE ----- YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.  WHY CAN'T ANY OF THESE F **N MORONS UNDERSTAND THIS ?  You want a Rolls Royce ? Great, write a check for a half a mil and you got one. If you can't afford it, DONT EVEN WALK INTO THE SHOWROOM !

I totally agree... no matter how many times you say it, the same subject matter resurfaces time and time again.

It's easier to be a cheap bastard and then bitch & moan about the realities associated with TFP's, TFCD's ect.  Pony up and pay the models, if you can afford all that expensive photography equipment, you can certainly afford to pay for a reliable model.

The problem isn't the tfp/tfcd models, the problem is inherent by nature, I think the new models should pay for their sessions, it helps the new faces learn the value of a session ( and perhaps in the future they would be less likely to flake ).

In my opinion the TFP/TFCD has been a detriment to the industry, it opens the door to unprofessionalism and creates a market where nothing has a value.

I think there's only a limited set of circumstances where a TFP/TFCD arrangement is appropriate, however, it shouldn't be modus operandi.  One man's opinion...

Andrea-Anderson wrote:
Ok, lets not mince my words here. When I referred to putting in 100% effort, I meant giving a job EVERYTHING that you've got. That MEANS going 'an extra mile,' at least it does in my eyes. Some of us do, to use your termonology here, go 'the extra mile' on every job, whether it is financially paying or not.

The suggestion that everyone puts in 'just 100%' on an 'unpaid job', while on a paid job they'd be putting in more, isn't necessarily true. It depends on the person. It has always been in my nature to put in an exceptional amount of effort on anything to which my name is attached. My reputation depends on it! And, beyond reputation, relationship-building and networking are just as valuable of assets as cash, check or charge! Then again, I have a background in advertising and public relations. I can probably find a value and benefit to virtually anything. ;-)

Of course, I'm not just a model, but also a freelance creative/art director and stylist. I spend more time concepting shoots than being in front of the camera. And, I've never just 'stood there' as a model either! ;-) I spent years as an advertising and PR creative and worked on some very large pro-bono (unpaid) projects. Yes, I was selective on which accounts I worked on, but I put in extra effort on every one of them. And, I am quite sure my clients would agree.

Also, we were talking about models being paid (financially compensated) BY photographers. You stated:

**** "If you're shooting for the SAME photographer, and it's a PAID shoot, you're telling me that there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you would do differently? No extra time on choosing the clothes, no extra sleep the night before, no admonishment to the hair stylist or makeup artists about your big shoot?" ****

My response was in regard to the aforementioned comment, and in that context.

Now you state "If I'm getting PAID to do a shoot, then that means that I can afford to PAY other necessary expenses to make this shoot what it needs to be." You are now talking about a budget for a shoot, which is something entirely different than 'getting paid' for your time alone.

Of course, there is a great deal more you can do if a job has a budget. And, as I said... I work as a freelance CD/AD and stylist, too. Without a budget, I am obviously limited on what I can do in either capacity. That does not mean that I don't put in my best effort within the confines of what I have to work with. ;-)

Okay.

Let's just say that the 100% effort is not dependent on the resources available, and call it a day.

It can be one in the same at times, and others, completely separate.

I can say to myself, "Vic, if you shoot this model for TFCD, if you REALLY want to make it right, you'd hire an MUA, stylist, get a nice studio, and go all out. THAT will do the trick." My WALLET says otherwise, so I am only relegated to using the resources available to me, which are locations.

I give 100%, but as my resources increase, I expend more time and effort.

Free is good, your reputation IS on the line, but so are your bills. It's a decision that we all make on a regular basis. If a model is shooting TFCD, does she go out and buy a whole new wardrobe, or does she wear what she has, and add an outfit or two? Now, add some money to the mix. The model does a little more than get clothes out of her closet and show up.

THAT is my point.

The 100% effort should always be there. The extra effort will more times than not be dictated my whatever it is that motivates you to give more, be it money, the prestige of shooting a highly sought-after model, or having a fresh new face in your port.

It just depends.

JC wrote:
BOTTOM LINE ----- YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.  WHY CAN'T ANY OF THESE F **N MORONS UNDERSTAND THIS ?  You want a Rolls Royce ? Great, write a check for a half a mil and you got one. If you can't afford it, DONT EVEN WALK INTO THE SHOWROOM !

Wow such hostility,

So, If i save up my earnings or what little I have.,,pay a photographer 200 something for a shoot ...get my best wardrobe...get my makeup artist and things together...and we shoot...and he gives me back shitty ass photos, that I cant use...Is that what i should have paid for?.....or should I get my moneyback....I mean if you buy the rolls royce and It aint running right and you want to return it...dont you get your money back???

AJ Bella wrote:
I'm glad I asked this question. I think paying a reputable photographer is a good idea. But what if you do and you are not satisfied with the results? Is that where a written agreement should come in?

This seems a reasonable enough suggestion, but you have to look at a number of assumed steps:


•You should've seen this photographer's work already.  No reason to assume it will be any better.  If you don't think you'd fit in well with the style he or she is already shooting, then don't book this person.

•You should already be clear on the idea/concept for the shoot.  That, coupled with the previous point, should give you a reasonable prediction of the outcome.

•You needs should be clearly communicated before the shoot date is set.  I run into a lot of models who say "I'd love to shoot with you!"  Fine.  Great.  When I ask what ideas they have, all I get is "Uh... whatever you want to do!"  And that's fine with me because I'm full of stuff (that didn't come out right).  But if they can't tell me what they want or need, they had better be happy with what they get.  I'm not a mind-reader.  I can speculate on what he or she may need based on current photos or the direction they're taking but still, they better tell me or else it's a crap-shoot.


A written agreement is only as good as what's said in it.  If the written agreement says: Photographer shall provide pictures that Model will like well I'm not signing it, that's for sure.  On the other hand if it says Photographer shall provide pictures of Model under concept xyz with x number of headshot, y number of full body, z number of blahblahblah... well those are reasonable parameters.  They're the same ones I put on myself before the shoot anyway...

Nick Ryder wrote:
Christina,

I have a list of photographers that are flawless, you will get superb results, but, $200? It's going to a lot more than that.

Take some top guns like Johnny Crosslin, Robert Fein, Andy McFarland or Rich Markese, their work is impeccable and on a consistent basis, we use their services and the models get results that the tfp/tfcd gwc's just cannot come close to achieving for us. Consequently, we have more models in more magazines than any of our competitors.

The problem is, many think that they are on a level playing field and that their opinion or advice holds up to the same standards as industry professionals, and it just isn't so.

Paying for a shoot has become such an oddity to new faces these days, they are under the false impression that a tfp with an average photographer is the same as a paid session with a top gun photographer, it simply isn't true.

Check out next month's American Curves (#26), it will be on newstands June 27th, on the cover (and inside) are several Johnny Crosslin pics of Brooke Banx, two multi-page features on Raquel Gibson (Miss November) and Kara Monaco (Playmate of the Year 2006) taken by Andy McFarland. Literally thousands of dollars of photo's compile that issue.

Sometimes, it takes thinking outside the box, be willing "not know", when you don't know, there are more possibilities. If you shot some great sessions that you paid for, it would increase your chances of being in a magazine by tenfold, I promise.

Excellent points, Nick.

Jay Bowman wrote:

This seems a reasonable enough suggestion, but you have to look at a number of assumed steps:


•You should've seen this photographer's work already.  No reason to assume it will be any better.  If you don't think you'd fit in well with the style he or she is already shooting, then don't book this person.

•You should already be clear on the idea/concept for the shoot.  That, coupled with the previous point, should give you a reasonable prediction of the outcome.

•You needs should be clearly communicated before the shoot date is set.  I run into a lot of models who say "I'd love to shoot with you!"  Fine.  Great.  When I ask what ideas they have, all I get is "Uh... whatever you want to do!"  And that's fine with me because I'm full of stuff (that didn't come out right).  But if they can't tell me what they want or need, they had better be happy with what they get.  I'm not a mind-reader.  I can speculate on what he or she may need based on current photos or the direction they're taking but still, they better tell me or else it's a crap-shoot.


A written agreement is only as good as what's said in it.  If the written agreement says: Photographer shall provide pictures that Model will like well I'm not signing it, that's for sure.  On the other hand if it says Photographer shall provide pictures of Model under concept xyz with x number of headshot, y number of full body, z number of blahblahblah... well those are reasonable parameters.  They're the same ones I put on myself before the shoot anyway...

More excellent points!

Manny Desalamanca wrote:
1 out of 100 shots ? That guy must suck pretty bad !!!!! My shoots are usually max 350 shots and the models get 150 to 200 shots worked and photoshop.... The models are there for 1 reason and that is to make magnificent images..... and In return they expect the same ....If you are a Pro model and well experienced do you want to shoot with a Photographer that offers you 1 great iamge from 100  ?  .......

Rare ... I see a lot of photographers on MM and rarely see one that offers crap, and If he does, practice with the New models ......But If you are getting images at no cost to you why complain ... One hand washes the other .....


Manny D.

You give the models 150-200 post-processed pics for TFP/CD.  Good Lord!

CristinaLex wrote:

Wow such hostility,

So, If i save up my earnings or what little I have.,,pay a photographer 200 something for a shoot ...get my best wardrobe...get my makeup artist and things together...and we shoot...and he gives me back shitty ass photos, that I cant use...Is that what i should have paid for?.....or should I get my moneyback....I mean if you buy the rolls royce and It aint running right and you want to return it...dont you get your money back???

Buying a Rolls is not the same as paying for a photographer, Christina.

When I shoot weddings, the client has SEEN my work, they have checked out my references, and they know what they are paying for, what they are getting. I have yet to have a bad wedding in all of my 15+ years of shooting them, and don't plan on it. That day is a very special day for someone, and I take every precaution to make sure that I'm able to give them what they paid for. They know, based on the photos that I've seen, that I'm going to do a bang up job on their photos. If there was any doubt, they wouldn't have hired me in the first place.

The same goes for shooting models. I look at them both the same way, and I'm sure that most photographers who get paid for what they do look it it that way.

If the photos are sh*tty, then you would've known there was a possibility for sh*ttyness before the first photo was taking.

Professional photographers who are good at what they do don't take hundreds of useless, sh*tty photos.

It just doesn't happen.

AO Photo and Design wrote:

You give the models 150-200 post-processed pics for TFP/CD.  Good Lord!

That's quite a large number.