Tony Lawrence wrote:
This is a very good question as I do pay based on look and expirence. To be
frank there are models for me that have a look I really like versus a model
who maybe while attractive isn't as intresting.  I also respond
to the quality of a models work also.  I don't like those images though that have
a lot of Photoshop because I want to see you not what a talented retoucher
can do.  I also think about height and weight.  I like taller models with long
necks and legs.  Not a big fan of big butts and thighs because I don't shoot images
that really show that.  I'm also usually more likely to offer more to a model who
has shot with several good photographers.  It sometimes means she knows how
to move and pose and isn't self-conscious.

Im in agreement.... I think compensation with most photographers goes according to your experience and look... Another element that might help  is adding something new to their port...

-Ariel

WG Rowland wrote:
How do you prove experience?  Especially if you're casting on the internet?  The best you've got until you've actually shot with the person and seen what he/she can do is a bio and some pics...

That's exactly the proof of experience I was referring to.... Many of us models look and message photographers whose work is outstanding to us, and their work is the ultimate proof of experience... You can DEFINITELY tell the difference between an amateur and someone whose been doing it for a while....

-Ariel

Ariel A wrote:
You can DEFINITELY tell the difference between an amateur and someone whose been doing it for a while....

-Ariel

Well, I have been doing it for awhile, and I even get paid for it much of the time, but I would consider myself an amateur, because I do model for the love of working with great artists and not for the masses of money. I am definitely not making a huge income doing modeling.
Does that make me semi-professional? (ugh...I don't think I ever want to be called semi-professional...there is something about that term I hate.)

Tony Lawrence wrote:
There are also several other things I look at.  If a model has worked with lots
of shooters I tend to see her as somewhat dependable.  I'm paying models
so they show up on time but the show up part is one of the bigger reasons.  I
study her face and figure.  There are features and figures I like more then others.
I also base it a bit on our conversation, goofy as that may sound.  If you have
a fun or cool way of looking at things and seem really focused then I feel we may
get something good.  I spoke with a model the other day for a upcoming New York
shoot that I'm paying some models for.  She sounded like a robot and had the
personality of a rock.  She gets offered TFP at best. What models must undestand
is you are selling the whole package. Its important to seem at least intrested in
the shoot.  Respond quickly to e-mails.  Return phone calls.  Sometimes a model
with limited expirence but nice images gets my intrest.  It may be her willingness
to take chances with her images.  Showing lots of skin doesn't impress me but
showing that you are really intrested in both of us (thats TFP) getting great
images is the deal maker and if I'm paying that you want me to be happy with
any and all images I get of you.

I agree that dependability is an essential factor in considering TFP/CD versus paid work... LOL@ "sounded like a robot"... But what happens when a model is just starting out but has a natural talent for modeling??? Is he/she compensated in TFP still???

Christina Ilise wrote:
Just wondering how many photogs do this and how they go about it. Let's say a model responds to a casting where the pay is 100-200 dollars based on experienced (let's no get caught up with the amount, this is just an example). How much experience does the model need in order to get paid 200 instead of 100? How do you go about compensating someone based on look? It would seem to me that if a model doesn't have the look you're going for that you would just find one who does. Please clarify. Thanks!

Well, the first mistake is by the person who says that the pay is $100 to $200 -- of course, the model will hear "$200" and will expect that amount, regardless of her experience.

A modeling contract is like any other negotiation, and one basic rule of negotiations is that the party who mentions a price first is at a big disadvantage.  Instead of saying that the job pays $100 to $200, based on experience & look, the photographs should have stated that the job is paid, and that the fee is negotiable.

To answer your question:

   >>>  Experience is important.
   >>>  Looks are important.
   >>>  "Chemistry" is important.
   >>>  It is rare to find all three in one job, and when working with new people,
          it is difficult to guess how all three will work.

So, I'd say you are asking the wrong questions.  When thinking about a job, ask yourself the following:

   *  How much is your time worth?
   *  How much do you want to receive for this job?
   *  What is the minimum amount that you are willing to accept for the job?

If you have to be the one to name a figure first, take the "how much you want" figure and add a little more, say 20% - 25%, to give yourself some negotiating room, then tell the photographer, something like, "I'm very interested in this job.  My rates are negotiable, but would you be willing to pay me $xxx (the figure with the negotiating room)?"  A good professional may come back with a lower figure -- it's the immature ones who would complain & get insulted.  If you & the photographer can agree to a figure higher than your bare minimum, be happy.

Good luck.

Ariel A wrote:

I agree that dependability is an essential factor in considering TFP/CD versus paid work... LOL@ "sounded like a robot"... But what happens when a model is just starting out but has a natural talent for modeling??? Is he/she compensated in TFP still???

Chances are, if you are a nude model with a look the photographers are looking for, and you refuse to do TFP, you will still get paid, however that is rare. Most models DO have to work TFP or even *gasp* pay a photographer to get the photos they want before they will successfully get paid work.

Lapis wrote:

Well, I have been doing it for awhile, and I even get paid for it much of the time, but I would consider myself an amateur, because I do model for the love of working with great artists and not for the masses of money. I am definitely not making a huge income doing modeling.
Does that make me semi-professional? (ugh...I don't think I ever want to be called semi-professional...there is something about that term I hate.)

No I mean If youre in it for the artistic part of it thats great, whatever works for you.... I look at modeling in the same way... I love the fact that you evoke a certain message via photo, but I would ultimately expect to get compensated... You do have to pay your dues as they say, but once youve earned your stripes, I think monetary compensation is definitelysomething I personally would look into... If anyone plans to make a career of modeling as opposed to banking, medicine, law, etc... then getting paid would (in my opinion) have to make up for that decision...make sense?

Lapis wrote:
Yes, if you are paying, you get to choose. Some models will respond to a casting and you think, okay, they are worth 100 but not 200 dollars. Just be tactful, say, I am really only paying 100 right now. If they push, say that is what your look and experience is worth to me. Hell, if they won't take the 100$, their loss.

On the other hand, if there is someone who responds who you want to work with really really badly, you offer the 200, which will greatly increase the chances they will work with you.

If a photographer is paying, he gets to set the price, expectations, and everything else, and all the model has to do (if s/he agrees to shoot the model) is to say they can or cannot do the job set out by the photographer.

It makes sense that as the client, the photographer is willing to shell out more cash for the look and experience he is truly after

Yes I agree that if the photog is paying then he/she definitely has the right to set whatever standards that he/she wants. But if you don't find a model with the look that you are after, why settle instead of continuing to search? There are so many model that at least one has to have what you are really going for. I'm also just wondering how a model would feel knowing the range of the pay and then finding out that she is receiving the low end because of her look.

TXPhotog wrote:
Pay based on experience is primarily an Internet thing.  In the commercial world a job pays what it pays.  First shoot or thousandth, it's the same.

so no more comparing modeling to a real desk-type job, people!!! (pretend that's in caps)

TXPhotog wrote:
Pay based on experience is primarily an Internet thing.  In the commercial world a job pays what it pays.  First shoot or thousandth, it's the same.

You are absolutely correct. All of my comments are based on my experience, which is primarily with internet/art modeling and NOT with commercial modeling.

However, the commercial models I know get paid to fulfill an assignment and having the look that the clients are desire, and it does not matter how experienced they are, just that they fulfill the needs of the client.

Lapis wrote:

Chances are, if you are a nude model with a look the photographers are looking for, and you refuse to do TFP, you will still get paid, however that is rare. Most models DO have to work TFP or even *gasp* pay a photographer to get the photos they want before they will successfully get paid work.

Right, thats what I meant as far as "paying your dues" was concerned... But I think the main purpose for TFP/CD is:

a) to gain the experience
b) network
c) build a portfolio

I personally feel that if the photographer is reputable and can help in furthering your career in modeling then paying them is not such a bad idea.... Many models who have made it did that... When going out to go-sees , a good picture/portfolio can help you a lot, but again, it would depend on your look and experience...Just a though...

-Ariel

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Well, the first mistake is by the person who says that the pay is $100 to $200 -- of course, the model will hear "$200" and will expect that amount, regardless of her experience.

A modeling contract is like any other negotiation, and one basic rule of negotiations is that the party who mentions a price first is at a big disadvantage.  Instead of saying that the job pays $100 to $200, based on experience & look, the photographs should have stated that the job is paid, and that the fee is negotiable.

To answer your question:

   >>>  Experience is important.
   >>>  Looks are important.
   >>>  "Chemistry" is important.
   >>>  It is rare to find all three in one job, and when working with new people,
          it is difficult to guess how all three will work.

So, I'd say you are asking the wrong questions.  When thinking about a job, ask yourself the following:

   *  How much is your time worth?
   *  How much do you want to receive for this job?
   *  What is the minimum amount that you are willing to accept for the job?

If you have to be the one to name a figure first, take the "how much you want" figure and add a little more, say 20% - 25%, to give yourself some negotiating room, then tell the photographer, something like, "I'm very interested in this job.  My rates are negotiable, but would you be willing to pay me $xxx (the figure with the negotiating room)?"  A good professional may come back with a lower figure -- it's the immature ones who would complain & get insulted.  If you & the photographer can agree to a figure higher than your bare minimum, be happy.

Good luck.

This is pretty sound advice. I was referring, however, to specific situations where the casting says a specific pay rate and notes that the pay rate is based on experience and look. That just sounds reallt vague to me so I was just wondering how photographers go about making their decisions. What you said about negotiating is right on the money. That's what I usually do.

TXPhotog wrote:
Pay based on experience is primarily an Internet thing.  In the commercial world a job pays what it pays.  First shoot or thousandth, it's the same.

This is what I always thought, which is why I found the practice mentioned in the OP to be a bit strange.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Ariel A.  Thats a good question.  Now here's where some photographers and I
differ.  I use expirence but it doesn't really mean how many photographers a
model has worked with so much although I do put that in my castings.  Its more
about a look and again a freedom or something I see in a models port.  If for
example I see a beautifull face but her poses seem forced and her expressions limited then I'm not as intrested.  Part of what makes a good model to me is she
brings more to the party then a smile and a mini skirt.  I'm looking for some energy
some passion.  Robot girl who I mentioned in the past post is attractive but in
most of her images looks life less.  I have seen web cam images of models who
seem so lively and exciting you want to shoot them no questions asked.  Lets
say a photographer is paying a models $100.00 an hour but it takes the model
over an hour to become comfortable.  You've just wasted $100.00 or more bucks.
I've had models from start to finish were wonderfull to shoot.  Great poses,
comfortable with their bodies and free.

I hear that.... From the photographers I have worked with/ spoken with, most of them do like models with experience because a lot of them equate that with that same ability (to feel comfortable in their bodies, and the "free" element)... To some models it comes naturally, but for most I think its is something that comes with the experience...

Kate, the desk type analogy I used was in reference to the compensation... Although the professions I spoke of were in fact worlds apart, what model wants to work for free ???

Ariel A wrote:
a) to gain the experience
b) network
c) build a portfolio

I hate the term TFP, but for me, the primary reason I accept non monetary work at this point is to
d) work with rockin' photographers that I REALLY want to shoot with.

I guess that kind of is covered under the first three letters, but in truth I don't 'need' to build my portfolio, network, or gain the experience, but there are photographers I work with because I just really want to work with them, and I would rather have their soul and some of their personal prints than green stuff. Many times money ruins the collaborative aspect of modeling, and even though I am pretty experienced, my primary motivation for modeling (other than to pay for my new, ridiculously expensive camera) is to work with amazing artists, and I do that for love, not money.

Lapis wrote:

I hate the term TFP, but for me, the primary reason I accept non monetary work at this point is to
d) work with rockin' photographers that I REALLY want to shoot with.

I guess that kind of is covered under the first three letters, but in truth I don't 'need' to build my portfolio, network, or gain the experience, but there are photographers I work with because I just really want to work with them, and I would rather have their soul and some of their personal prints than green stuff. Many times money ruins the collaborative aspect of modeling, and even though I am pretty experienced, my primary motivation for modeling (other than to pay for my new, ridiculously expensive camera) is to work with amazing artists, and I do that for love, not money.

And why not go for both???

Ariel A wrote:
Kate, the desk type analogy I used was in reference to the compensation... Although the professions I spoke of were in fact worlds apart, what model wants to work for free ???

oh honey i wasnt talking to you. people compare modeling to regular jobs in the threads all the time, and I didn't notice that you had even compared the two.

Christina Ilise wrote:
...How much experience does the model need in order to get paid 200 instead of 100? ...   How do you go about compensating someone based on look?

My pay rate is set by the job, not by what a model looks like.  Whether I offer her the job is dependent on what she looks like, though.

I'm not interested in her experience at all.

MHana wrote:
In the commercial/fashion field, the pay can vary if a certain model is desired.
If the client must have a certain model then the model/agency can have the upper hand.
Though this is usually only for top models with a brand name that is known in certain circles or around the world.

The only models who are "a brand name that is known" are editorial fashion models.  Commercial models, almost by definition, are not "known".

And even though it's true that some fashion models can command a higher rate than others, it's not based on "experience" per se, but rather "market recognition".  A model who has only done five jobs, all the covers of major fashion magazines, will get more than a model who has done 500 catalog jobs.

Ariel A wrote:

That's exactly the proof of experience I was referring to.... Many of us models look and message photographers whose work is outstanding to us, and their work is the ultimate proof of experience... You can DEFINITELY tell the difference between an amateur and someone whose been doing it for a while....

-Ariel

Actually what I meant was how do photographers gauge model experience of of some pics and a bio..  We can gauge what you look like.. And I suppose of the work is uniformly bad we can write one off..  But a picture can be as little as one model and one photog up to a whole creative team.. And when looking at the photo how do you use it to judge how experienced JUST THE MODEL is?

Not knocking anyone.. Just an honest question..  I go by images.. Try to strike up an email conversation with a person if I think they have a look I might be able to do something with and find out if there's interest or any issues that are going to get in the way..  But I've never checked references because I'm not sure how I would..

WG Rowland wrote:

Actually what I meant was how do photographers gauge model experience of of some pics and a bio..  We can gauge what you look like.. And I suppose of the work is uniformly bad we can write one off..  But a picture can be as little as one model and one photog up to a whole creative team.. And when looking at the photo how do you use it to judge how experienced JUST THE MODEL is?

Not knocking anyone.. Just an honest question..  I go by images.. Try to strike up an email conversation with a person if I think they have a look I might be able to do something with and find out if there's interest or any issues that are going to get in the way..  But I've never checked references because I'm not sure how I would..

ask photographer who have worked with that model.
or studio managers.
If you look on my website I have two studios I work with a lot and I bet if you call them up and ask them if I am any good they will tell you I suck......

Iona Lynn wrote:

ask photographer who have worked with that model.
or studio managers.
If you look on my website I have two studios I work with a lot and I bet if you call them up and ask them if I am any good they will tell you I suck......

In that case I definitely want to work with you..

Gary Davis wrote:
I figure pay by factoring experience and looks judged on a scale of 1-10, performing a transform anaysis and computing the fourier series then plugging that into an inverse logrithmic scale and computing [(A * X - 3.14159) log 1] where A is the maximum budget allowed for the shoot.  Funny thing is, it always comes out to zero, so I ask if they'll accept a few photos instead....

HA!

Gary Davis wrote:
I figure pay by factoring experience and looks judged on a scale of 1-10, performing a transform anaysis and computing the fourier series then plugging that into an inverse logrithmic scale and computing [(A * X - 3.14159) log 1] where A is the maximum budget allowed for the shoot.  Funny thing is, it always comes out to zero, so I ask if they'll accept a few photos instead....

KSROTFLMAO!!!

wrote:
... You can DEFINITELY tell the difference between an amateur and someone whose been doing it for a while....

-Ariel

yay! shall i put up my 80's and 90's work? i assumed that would be false advertising!