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 can't speak for other publishers, but as someone who does calendars and the like, this isn't outside the realm of usual behavior.

Typically, my calendars and books are comprised of models with whom I've worked on other projects (like the radio station content deal) or trade shoots, so I already know them. But if I have a client, like a radio station, who wants a calendar, they're going to want to see and approve the models first. So I put out a casting call and simply say, "if I've worked with you before, let me know if you're interested. If I've not worked with you before, I'll want a test shoot. This can be 10 representatve frames and take 20 minutes of your time, or can be a full trade shoot - your choice."

Almost always, they want the trade shoot. I'm being paid by the client, they're auditioning, but they get images out of the trade shoot, and I retain the rights. They're free to decline the offer under these terms, as there are plenty who accept (back to the "anything is okay as long as both parties agree" topic).

Again, that's how I do it. Others likely do it differently.

TXPhotog wrote:

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?

playboy pays $1200 and all expenses for a test shoot. i refered them 2 models for that. when your a new model, un represeted, it happens. I was paid to be test shot for a calander before. It all depends on the circles in which you do business.

Treagen Kier wrote:
playboy pays $1200 and all expenses for a test shoot. i refered them 2 models for that. when your a new model, un represeted, it happens. I was paid to be test shot for a calander before. It all depends on the circles in which you do business.

Playboy just may do that for girls they are interested in as potential Centerfolds.  Otherwise they do not.  People who have more experience than I do placing people in Playboy magazine can chime it.

However, Playboy centerfolds are hardly representative of the way "big magazines" operate.  Your earlier post would seem to indicate that "big magazines" generally paid for tests.  They do not.

As for what you do on calendars, that has little to do with the way the commercial print and fashion industry operate.

studio36uk wrote:
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.

I'd like to refute your particular distinction.

Sorry, but I've *most commonly* heard the term "test" used to describe a portfolio expansion, typically unpaid in any direction, in the commercial/catalog/lifestyle photography world.  I may not have the decades of experience that some people do, but when an experienced model who has decades of experience and her own clothing line, turns to me and asks me for a test shoot I know what she's talking about, and it's not benefiting a client...it's simply expanding my portfolio.

Of course in this instance the OP seems to be talking about another type of test, which as I also said I've heard...and that's the type of test you describe.

There's also the type of test that is a portfolio expansion for only the model in which she pays the photog...

and...
and...
and...

Really it's quite a flimsy term.

TFP on the other hand is completely meaningless.

James Jackson wrote:
Of course in this instance the OP seems to be talking about another type of test, which as I also said I've heard...and that's the type of test you describe.

Well then just don't call it a test... call it more what it actually is a casting call. Model or performer appears in the HOPE of getting a job but where there is no definite job offer made in advance.

If the assessment process requires the candidate(s) to sing while dancing on one leg; or have pictures taken; or read lines; then that's what they do to stay in the running for the job.

James Jackson wrote:
TFP on the other hand is completely meaningless.

Not if it understood to be a non-commercial non-profit based exchange of services. A straight pure barter arrangement. Then it does have meaning.

Studio36