TXPhotog wrote:
It's common for go-sees to include a few "Polaroid" style or digital pictures as a documentation of what the model looks like.  Typically no more than two or three shots are taken.

On VERY rare occasion before a major job a client will ask for a full up "test" of the model by the photographer - but that doesn't sound like what is happening here.  It sounds more like the photographer wants a TFP without admitting to it if the "test shoot" is more than about two minutes long.

However, your profile says you have a manager.  It's the manager's job to answer questions like this.

My manager agrees that it sounds like a tfp, especially based on the quality of the work and models he's (th photog presented so far).

Sindia wrote:
I was selected to appear in calender. The company/photographer then stated he wanted to set up a test shoot with me before the calender shoot (which is a paid shoot). I've done calenders and other types of shoots in the past and no one has ever asked for a test shoot. Can anyone explain why this person would request that? When exactly would a test shoot would be called for?

Thanks
Sindia

There are really only two possibilities -- one -- the photographer is just trying to sweeten the pot and get models to shoot with him on a TFP basis by dangling bait (a paid calendar shoot) that he has no ability or intention to deliver -- a deceptive practice, at best.

The second possibility is that he is actually doing a legitimate calendar shoot, and is being very cautious about the models he selects. He wants to actually shoot with the model first before agreeing to pay her.

It could be either situation. As others pointed out, since this is just a test shoot, if I were the model, I would sign absolutely nothing in terms of a model release, and make it crystal clear that the photos from the "test" are not to appear anywhere without your express written consent.

Regards,
Paul

megafunk wrote:
Piling on. Dude sounds like he wants something for nothing. The end.

Why?

Why are people so quick to doubt other people's motives...it's just plain fucking crude.


Is it something that you would do? Lie to a model about the possibility of paid work related to a test shoot just to get the test shoot?  What for?  That is the most ridiculously quick way to ruin your own reputation that there is.  Why would anyone else do it?

TXPhotog wrote:
It's common for go-sees to include a few "Polaroid" style or digital pictures as a documentation of what the model looks like.  Typically no more than two or three shots are taken.

Oh, oh.  I think when I do polaroids or digi-pics at a go-see I am breaking a rule.  I rarely shoot 2-3 images, I usually shoot four.  The last time I looked, that was how many sides a model has.  I think I better start leaving one out!

Sorry TX, I couldn't resist, the point of your answer was right.  But I do normally shoot four so I can get all four sides.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
But I do normally shoot four so I can get all four sides.

There you go again, taking unfair advantage of the model

TXPhotog wrote:

There you go again, taking unfair advantage of the model

Maybe his models were offering some kind of deal... like, photograph 3 sides, get the 4th free?

Brandon Ching wrote:

Maybe his models were offering some kind of deal... like, photograph 3 sides, get the 4th free?

SOGO?  Shoot one get one?

TXPhotog wrote:
There you go again, taking unfair advantage of the model

Brandon Ching wrote:
Maybe his models were offering some kind of deal... like, photograph 3 sides, get the 4th free?

PK Digital Imaging wrote:
SOGO?  Shoot one get one?

Now you have figured me out!

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

TXPhotog wrote:
There you go again, taking unfair advantage of the model

Brandon Ching wrote:
Maybe his models were offering some kind of deal... like, photograph 3 sides, get the 4th free?

Now you have figured me out!

No no...I think I've got it...

You just like being able to charge your client that extra $1.10 per model brought to the casting!!!

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

TXPhotog wrote:
There you go again, taking unfair advantage of the model

Now you have figured me out!

James Jackson wrote:
No no...I think I've got it...

You just like being able to charge your client that extra $1.10 per model brought to the casting!!!

That was before inflation, I now charge $1.85

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

That was before inflation, I now charge $1.85

Oh my, is that their going rate these days? Half a gallon of gas?

phcorcoran wrote:
I've done lots of test shoots for clients.  The main purpose of a test shoot is to see whether a model shows up on time, prepared, resembling her photos, and whether she follows direction well. 

Of those important points, I would say that the "on time" is the most important.  Show up five minutes late when everyone else managed to get there on time and you can kiss the job goodbye.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
Always am surprised by the posts that gripe about models that don't show up, when they show up - aren't what the photos look like and so on. Never have shot a job with a model unless she's tested with me. If the client has picked a model and I don't know them - I request a test. Don't like surprises on a job.

My shortest test was two rolls of film. Average test has been around 200-300 frames. If it turns out well the model gets a print, just like a regular testing. By then I have a good idea of their range and ability and they've learned how to work with me.

I also have models that say "I'll test only if it leads to a job". Next model please.

Exactly - this is how it works in the REAL world of modeling! 

I couldn't have said it any better.

Best Regards,
JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Sindia wrote:
I was selected to appear in calender. The company/photographer then stated he wanted to set up a test shoot with me before the calender shoot (which is a paid shoot). I've done calenders and other types of shoots in the past and no one has ever asked for a test shoot. Can anyone explain why this person would request that? When exactly would a test shoot would be called for?

Thanks
Sindia

Sindia

Did you end up doing the test shoot?

Also, on this same subject, I did do a test shoot for a company/photographer recently (see my profile's latest images) in re: possible calendar shoot as well as other projects he will have in the very near future........  anyway.... he shot me in a bikini and then in casual clothes... 

(I feel stupid for admitting this so please learn from my mistake)

...then he "did me a deal" on the 40+ photos I ended up choosing to have burnt to CD and to use (non-profit manner)... he charged me $200 for the lot. His reasoning for the charge was to cover his expenses since he did photography full time as a self-employed individual.  I fell for it.

I got ripped off didn't I?

No I havn't signed anything.  The contract is verbal.  Does paying a photographer for any images justify me in being able to use them in a for-profit manner (ie to sell as prints online or in real life for instance) ?

Please forgive me for hijacking this thread... just that what Sindia said striked a cord with me... I think she may be speaking about the same person I just did a shoot with recently (earlier this week).

GoldCoastGirl wrote:

Sindia

Did you end up doing the test shoot?

Also, on this same subject, I did do a test shoot for a company/photographer recently (see my profile's latest images) in re: possible calendar shoot as well as other projects he will have in the very near future........  anyway.... he shot me in a bikini and then in casual clothes... 

(I feel stupid for admitting this so please learn from my mistake)

...then he "did me a deal" on the 40+ photos I ended up choosing to have burnt to CD and to use (non-profit manner)... he charged me $200 for the lot. His reasoning for the charge was to cover his expenses since he did photography full time as a self-employed individual.  I fell for it.

I got ripped off didn't I?

No I havn't signed anything.  The contract is verbal.  Does paying a photographer for any images justify me in being able to use them in a for-profit manner (ie to sell as prints online or in real life for instance) ?

Please forgive me for hijacking this thread... just that what Sindia said striked a cord with me... I think she may be speaking about the same person I just did a shoot with recently (earlier this week).

What are you, four years old???!!!  Crikey - I've seen jellyfish with more self-determination!  That photographer may have screwed you, but it was you spread yourself wide open - in a manner of speaking.

And no, the rights remain with the photographer unless he signs them away.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Christopher Ambler wrote:
If you've been selected for the calendar, why not get that contract signed first? Or is your acceptance dependant on a successful test? :-)

But you could also call it an "audition" or even a "peanut butter sandwich," now that I've described its purpose.

Glenn Francis wrote:
The term "Test-Shoot" in Still Photography is the same thing as a "Screen-Test" in motion picture photography.  Does anyone who lives in the real world think that actors are hired sight unseen based on a headshot?  Absolutely not!  They must first "show" on film how they would perform the actions and dialogue that they would be doing in the real movie.  Same thing.

-Glenn

I'll make a particular distinction here that only a few posts above point up:

TFP = for the benefit of photographer and model - model is compensated with photos in exchange for time = there is usually no particular job offer at the end of it, that is not the objective.

Test =  an audition = often but not always in costume and make-up = for the benefit of the CLIENT. There is usually a job OFFER at the end of it if the test is successful. Model is usually NOT compensated, though, in the porn business in particular, there is such a thing as a "paid test," and more occasionally in main stream expenses to travel for a test may be re-paid. But you don't get copies of the test material for your own use. A test is NOT merely a go see. A test is NOT about YOU it IS about business decisions the CLIENT is making.

So... insisting on being absolutely "hired" [getting a signed contract] before a test is unrealistic. Insisting on treating it as a TFP is also unrealistic - it is neither for your benefit or the photographer's but rather the client's.

Consider... If you went for a job interview at McDonald's would you also expect, or get, free hamburgers? NO! If you applied for a job at at Ford would you expect or get a free car? NO! If you begin to make the demands you aren't gonna get the job. If you won't go at all... you already made the decision that you don't want it. It is usually the case where a test is asked for that no test [refusal] = no job offer; but even after a test there may still be no job offer from a client if in THEIR judgement you don't fit the bill for the job.

I test performers all the time on video... maybe 5, 6, or even 8 for the same part... only one gets THE job but the others may be offered SOME job. If they refuse to test or try to start with conditions they are no longer even in the running. To the client they are invisible. NEXT!!!!!

Studio36

TXPhotog wrote:
I'm bemused by all of this.  The claim that people in the professional industry require extensive test shoots as part of the hiring process for print jobs is entirely outside my experience....
...and that is true whether the client, the ad agency, a casting director or the photographer did the casting.

What the OP, and some of the others as well as myself, might have been alluding to is a PRE-casting. The job contract not yet being let to any particular model but where only a rough go-see pre-selection of candidates has been made... and only a select few are being called back.

You also know that, at least in my case, I am not talking about strictly conventional commercial print work, or necessarily even advertising, either.

One of the best, or worst, practices [depending on which end of the stick you are holding] I have ever come across is in Japan. The "working test." After the pre-selection the girls are called back put in their gear and make-up and shot one after the other [usually only two or three girls at this point] in identical sets. Everything goes to the client who chooses which set to actually use in their campaign. That girl gets paid. The other(s) do not.

The inscrutable Japanese theory is that it incentivises the girls to be, do and perform their absolute best. In the Japanese way of doing things it also turns on the concept of "face" between model and their agency as well and between agency and client. Different strokes...

Oh, and it also appears to be a quite legal practice there as well.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
What the OP, and some of the others as well as myself, might have been alluding to is a PRE-casting. The job contract not yet being let to any particular model but where only a rough go-see pre-selection of candidates has been made... and only a select few are being called back.

I understand that.  I've been involved in a lot of call-backs too. None of them included "test shoots" of more than the "Polaroid" type.

Now admittedly, those castings and call-backs were for commercial print and fashion jobs, and the practices of other kinds of segments (the "calendar" segment, as we have just seen) may be different.  I can't speak for those.

TXPhotog wrote:

I understand that.  I've been involved in a lot of call-backs too. None of them included "test shoots" of more than the "Polaroid" type.

Now admittedly, those castings and call-backs were for commercial print and fashion jobs, and the practices of other kinds of segments (the "calendar" segment, as we have just seen) may be different.  I can't speak for those.

i think that if it is anything to have to do with a job that the model, other than a casting or call back, the model should be compensated for her time- because it is related to the job and required, so the client should pay her. when a wardrobe stylist gets hired for somthing, she/he is paid for their prep time. when i do a camera test, i still get paid for my time. you might not always get the luxury of telling a client "i only shoot with girls i have shot before" and things go wrong on sets ALL the time that lead to talent being replaced. i say that if the photographer is so uncomfortable with his casting choices, perhaps they should arrange a more put together and professional "go-see" rather than playing the intrenet guessing game.

but i am also not familiar with the webglam or calendar world, so perhaps things rae different.

rachelrose wrote:
i think that if it is anything to have to do with a job that the model, other than a casting or call back, the model should be compensated for her time-

Now that I think about it, I do recall one time that a model was asked to do a test-shoot.  It was a strange situation.  He was cast in New York for a shoot that was to take place in Las Vegas.  The client had his own favorite, but was willing to give my model a chance.  So after a go-see and callback in NYC, (neither of which involved more than Polaroids), they flew him to Las Vegas for a test shoot.  They paid for the trip, paid for his hotel and meals, and gave him $1,500 for the test shoot.  That was part of the deal before he ever got on the plane.

Oh, by the way, he also was hired for the job, which turned out to be both a print and TV ad, so he got a lot more money for the actual job itself.

Edited to add:  I just remembered that I have a copy of the ad that resulted from all of this, and it might be fun for people to see it.  My model is the guy with the flute:

www.txphotog.com/Posts/amenaflautista.mpg

Sindia wrote:
I was selected to appear in calender. The company/photographer then stated he wanted to set up a test shoot with me before the calender shoot (which is a paid shoot). I've done calenders and other types of shoots in the past and no one has ever asked for a test shoot. Can anyone explain why this person would request that? When exactly would a test shoot would be called for?

Thanks
Sindia

I think I should add.

Not to sound vain, but the work I've seen of the photog and the models used previously weren't very impressive. Had it been so, I would be less suspicious.

When I sent him a few photos, he came of as extremely excited and said that I was just what they we're looking for then later mentioned the test shoot.

The combination of things means I wont be doing a test shoot (in this particular instance).

test happen for big mags etc when your a new model. thing is, the big companies pay for test. it's kinda like a "dress rehearsal" type deal, with out all the styling etc.

Treagen Kier wrote:
test happen for big mags etc when your a new model. thing is, the big companies pay for test. it's kinda like a "dress rehearsal" type deal, with out all the styling etc.

Could you give some examples from your own experience?  I know of no such case.  In fact, magazines pay very little for the shoot itself, let alone a test.  So what have you actually seen happen, and for whom?

KM von Seidl wrote:
Same planet, different worlds.

What works in porn different in calendar and different in commercial.

I guess one (particularly models) should be clear in the part of the world they're going to be operating in!

Really!

test = hamburger
test = evergreen tree
test = tfpxrd5
test = milk
test = pogostick

John