Jose Luis wrote:
on the internet- the pay is usually based on how little clothing she is wearing.

I figure the models rates like a NADA car book.

Starting at $100.00 per hour I deduct for high mileage, (I prefer starting models), tattoos, bad hair, implants, piercings, and if the model works out or not..

If she is all natural, in the right age and weight range, and works out, she gets paid the full $100.00 per hour.

If a model has several deductable items I pay less, or pass on working with her. I also deduct for models that have to have escorts, after the first shoot.

Sounds cold, but it's just good business.

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.

Yup, I have said this before.  But this forum isn't for mainstream photographers, it is primarily for net photographers.

Few of the rules you and I know from the mainstream apply to this realm.

To me, experience is the one thing which barely factors into a decision.  For me it is about whether the model has the look to fit the gig.  Normally, the pay for the booking was set before the model was chosen so experience is not a factor.

It all comes down to deciding who fits the project and then they get paid the rate set by the client or the job.

On the net, it is more about photographers hiring models for things they are doing themselves.  Many of the shooters here like to say they are the photographer and the client.  Since, as the client, they get to choose what they are willing to pay, some consider experience to be an important factor.

I have never understood that because no amount of experience will give the model the right look for the job, but I do understand that it is important to many here.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Why is one photographer worth more then another for the same type of shots?

Hmm because he is better?  I think that is an entirely different question.  Models learn to pose and learn the business and there is something to say about that.  In the end though a model has to have the look or it doesn't matter how experienced she is.

Just because two photographers take the same style of photos doesn't mean they take the same quality of photos.  It is obvious throughout the portfolios on this site.  Photographers who take better pictures are worth more money.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I have never understood that because no amount of experience will give the model the right look for the job, but I do understand that it is important to many here.

Obviously experience doesn't give the model a look.  I always assumed clients would look for both, look and experience.  I mean, is an ad agency that is putting together a big budget shoot for a major client going to take a chance on a model who might be stiff and freeze up in front of the camera, all the lights and crew because she's never experienced that before, or go with a model that still has a very marketable look but they know will perform because she's done it successfully before?

Sure there are situations where experience isn't that much of a factor, and if a particular model has a stunning look that the client wants they may be willing to take a chance, but is wanting an experienced model really that foreign a concept in the commercial world?

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Hmm because he is better?  I think that is an entirely different question.  Models learn to pose and learn the business and there is something to say about that.  In the end though a model has to have the look or it doesn't matter how experienced she is.

Just because two photographers take the same style of photos doesn't mean they take the same quality of photos.  It is obvious throughout the portfolios on this site.  Photographers who take better pictures are worth more money.

Of course thats correct but how many models really know who's a better photographer?  Do they understand that while one photographer may be better
for fashion type or creative images he may not be a good choice for the
common and commercial images many agencies need.  better is a subjective word
in my view also.  I recall seeing a Penn and Teller show where people were
eating at a four star resturant.  They were told the food they were eating was
of high quality and of course prices to match but they were really eating normal
foods from budget stores and even generic products.  A susposed high priced
wine was really a $2.00 bottle from a area store.  This light and fluffy desert
was really cheap whipped cream with sprinkles and almost everyone loved it.
Some were people who were used to eating at high priced, better resturants.
What many people here don't always see is that many here are average photographers with a great support staff.  They work with some excellent MUA
and stylists maybe they have people they can get nice outfits from. 
They have solid images but better images?  Not quite the case but maybe more
polished images for sure.

Gary Davis wrote:
I always assumed clients would look for both, look and experience.

They may give bonus points to experience (that is, make it more likely that they would hire a model based on experience), or it may subtract (that model has been seen too many times; we want a new face).  But either way, all it does is influence the probability of hiring the model, not the pay.

Gary Davis wrote:
I mean, is an ad agency that is putting together a big budget shoot for a major client going to take a chance on a model who might be stiff and freeze up in front of the camera, all the lights and crew because she's never experienced that before, or go with a model that still has a very marketable look but they know will perform because she's done it successfully before?

Imagine the situation:

Ad agency folks sitting around discussing who to hire.  They have a choice between an "almost right" experienced model, and an "exactly what we were looking for" inexperienced model.  One of the assembled group says, "Hey, I know!  Let's hire the girl that is not experienced, but mitigate our risk.  If she blows the shoot we are out the entire cost of the photographer, studio rental, MUA, stylist and everyone else on the project, so we need to reduce her pay $50 an hour to cover ourselves."

Never happen.  Sooner or later everyone does their first professional job, and when they do, they get paid the same as more experienced models.

Axlf wrote:
Wow it's really interesting that so called models keep asking to get paid. And then turn arround and make money off the images that they were paid for, I mean if a person who pushes a buton on a camera pays a girl she gives up all rights to the images that were taken on that shoot that he or she was paid for no if and or butts
And it is a two way street if the photographer get's paid model get's all rights. So please girls learn what you are getting into when asking to be paid for prints. And a real photographers time is worth more than your time will ever be i mean nobody cares what the photographer looks like but they do care what he or she creates we make you what you are not the other way arround so 200 to 300 for a shoot is not the photographers responsability it's the person who want's the image of you..

uh, ok but what does that have to do with the OP?