Posted by Joe Kozlowski: 
...snipped...she books about 25 hours a week. That nets her about $875 a week or about $44,000 a year before taxes (because she also takes two weeks off to get a tan in Hawaii). She’s shot with some of the most creative photographers in her area and has a reputation for being the greatest model in the world.

Damn. It's about time I saw someone work out the math. But, now that you mention it, I'm thinking...somewhere out there, is a shocked tax regulator thumbing his chin, going, "Hmm. Is that sooooo? Muahh."

Anyhow, years ago when I was running a side business, I was told that at the end of the year, you're required by Federal Law to report extra income greater than $10,000...that's whether, or not you're working under a registered DBA, working as 1099, or under the table. I never needed to doublecheck that since I kept a seperate checking account anyway for all side jobs and gave all the receipts and stuff to my tax guy. ...to avoid being audited.

Posted by Joe K. Perez: 

Posted by Joe Kozlowski: 
...snipped...she books about 25 hours a week. That nets her about $875 a week or about $44,000 a year before taxes (because she also takes two weeks off to get a tan in Hawaii). She’s shot with some of the most creative photographers in her area and has a reputation for being the greatest model in the world.

Damn. It's about time I saw someone work out the math. But, now that you mention it, I'm thinking...somewhere out there, is a shocked tax regulator thumbing his chin, going, "Hmm. Is that sooooo? Muahh."

The trick is that a lot of modeling - internet modeling (which, for those too young to remember, was conducted through newspaper classifieds before your PC was invented) - is cash and carry. No checks, no paper trail. That does a coupla things. I would imaging there are those who don't report that cash income over $10K - and that $44 kilobucks is a clean, tax free amount. Not $37,400-ish take home after taxes on a gross $44K.

Posted by Austin Models & Talent Agency: 
The punishment needs to fit the crime... so to speak.

A model may work for a very low rate to a photographer shooting for his promo book, perhaps gaining a few nice images for their own as well... while a release allowing publication or sale may demand fee's based more upon how and where the shots will end up (of course specified in the release form).  In defense of those online stating models charge too much, for the general "starting photographer seeking models to build my book by" theme, then yes that is correct and models should learn to adjust pricing based upon who the client is.  Certainly one would not expect a model to be paid the same fee by "Joe with camera" as they would by the likes of a major corporation intending to market their image in ads across the nation... or even global.

Modeling is a business and should be treated as such.  Okay, it's fun to have fun too... so dropping rates to shoot something you enjoy, or to help out a beginning photographer who has to pay vs. being paid is not such a bad thing either.

It's really difficult to add up yearly incomes based upon the concept of "drop your price and take everything that comes along."  In L.A., I knew models who made more money stripping in the adult booths (some $300-500 a night), but that doesn't make them models, per say.  Working 5 days a week, that's easily well over a hundred grand per year... but it is short lived (girls age). 

Short term income may sometimes be priority.  A long time career may require, however, a bit more thought.

I think I missed the part where you say the math doesn't work. I concede it doesn't work when there's an agency cut involved ... but lets pretend for a moment that you're not a factor ... as is the case with the thousands and thousands of models who a.) are involved in as art models or b.) don't quite fit the "look" that's the rage with all the agencies this year and got a "no sale" from you or c.) don't live in major markets but would like to pursue some kind of modeling anyway - all those models who either don't want to sign with an agency or have been passed up by one - all those models who know they're not going to get the superstar campaigns that pay them super star bucks but, by population probably make up on the order of 80% of the model population.

Posted by Joe Kozlowski: 
Model B gets more offers than she can handle, some of which are certainly from GWCs (they just won’t go away, will they?). She gets to pick and choose, so she turns down anyone who’s portfolio smells like ripe cheese. Because she can pretty much work whenever she wants to, she books about 25 hours a week. That nets her about $875 a week or about $44,000 a year before taxes (because she also takes two weeks off to get a tan in Hawaii). She’s shot with some of the most creative photographers in her area and has a reputation for being the greatest model in the world.

Now let's speak realisticly for an internet model.  There is only so much a model can do with her look.  Art nudes, art nudes, art nudes and then what?  Eventually she will be played out and another model will take her place in the business.  Also, being choosy on who you work with will give you higher credentials.  If a model works with amatuers, she will get amatuer work.  Also, what photographer wants to work with a model whom has worked with everyone in the industry?  If a model works with the best, she will get recognized quicker in the industry and eventually all her hard work will be paid off.

Posted by * Visual Mindscapes *: 
Now let's speak realisticly for an internet model.  There is only so much a model can do with her look.  Art nudes, art nudes, art nudes and then what?  Eventually she will be played out and another model will take her place in the business.  Also, being choosy on who you work with will give you higher credentials.  If a model works with amatuers, she will get amatuer work.  Also, what photographer wants to work with a model whom has worked with everyone in the industry?  If a model works with the best, she will get recognized quicker in the industry and eventually all her hard work will be paid off.

Oh be quiet!!!  Don't let the secret of reality out or there will be no more models to be shot online.  Well, actually there will.  Never ending supply.  Keep em dumb, keep em quiet.  Tell them only what you want for them to hear.  In a few years, when their being naked isn't quiet so attractive any more, they'll be sitting in their trailer reading magazines and seeing ads containing what......... MODELS!

Posted by * Visual Mindscapes *: 

Posted by Joe Kozlowski: 
Model B gets more offers than she can handle, some of which are certainly from GWCs (they just won’t go away, will they?). She gets to pick and choose, so she turns down anyone who’s portfolio smells like ripe cheese. Because she can pretty much work whenever she wants to, she books about 25 hours a week. That nets her about $875 a week or about $44,000 a year before taxes (because she also takes two weeks off to get a tan in Hawaii). She’s shot with some of the most creative photographers in her area and has a reputation for being the greatest model in the world.

Now let's speak realisticly for an internet model.  There is only so much a model can do with her look.  Art nudes, art nudes, art nudes and then what?  Eventually she will be played out and another model will take her place in the business.

Realistically speaking, it sounds like you're quoting from the movie "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" I think you must be referring to the models in another line of modeling when you suggest they get played out and another one comes along to take their place. What's the shelf life in Glam? or Fashion? Glam wants only women under 30 (well under) and Fashion has a crush on teenagers.

Two of my favorite models were in their 40s - they weren't your thing but they were perfectly suitable for the project I was working on. Of the two, one had been modeling for about 20 years, for college art classes, photographers and painters. She drove a Beemer. It wasn't a cheap 3 body, either. Both were reliable, creative, professional and they had a good handle on who they were and what they wanted out of their lives. I've met very few in their 20s ... male or female, model or not model who fit those parameters. Realsitically speaking ...

Posted by Joe Kozlowski: 
Realistically speaking, it sounds like you're quoting from the movie "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" I think you must be referring to the models in another line of modeling when you suggest they get played out and another one comes along to take their place. What's the shelf life in Glam? or Fashion? Glam wants only women under 30 (well under) and Fashion has a crush on teenagers.

Two of my favorite models were in their 40s - they weren't your thing but they were perfectly suitable for the project I was working on. Of the two, one had been modeling for about 20 years, for college art classes, photographers and painters. She drove a Beemer. It wasn't a cheap 3 body, either. Both were reliable, creative, professional and they had a good handle on who they were and what they wanted out of their lives. I've met very few in their 20s ... male or female, model or not model who fit those parameters. Realsitically speaking ...

And then?  How many photographers out there shoot artistic nudes?  How many photographers are willing to use the same model over and over again and pay them every time?  Do you understand the words that are coming outta my mouth?!

Posted by * Visual Mindscapes *: 

Posted by Joe Kozlowski: 
Model B gets more offers than she can handle, some of which are certainly from GWCs (they just won’t go away, will they?). She gets to pick and choose, so she turns down anyone who’s portfolio smells like ripe cheese. Because she can pretty much work whenever she wants to, she books about 25 hours a week. That nets her about $875 a week or about $44,000 a year before taxes (because she also takes two weeks off to get a tan in Hawaii). She’s shot with some of the most creative photographers in her area and has a reputation for being the greatest model in the world.

Now let's speak realisticly for an internet model.  There is only so much a model can do with her look.  Art nudes, art nudes, art nudes and then what?  Eventually she will be played out and another model will take her place in the business.  Also, being choosy on who you work with will give you higher credentials.  If a model works with amatuers, she will get amatuer work.  Also, what photographer wants to work with a model whom has worked with everyone in the industry?  If a model works with the best, she will get recognized quicker in the industry and eventually all her hard work will be paid off.

I don't think I agree with that, actually.  If your talking strictly about internet, nude models (lets say glamour nude models instead of artistic nude)- without naming names I happen to know that plenty of recent Pet of the years worked significant amatuer work before hitting it big or worked the local photoday circuit with amateur photographers.

Again, the only people I know making money from passing are in the NFL.

Posted by * Visual Mindscapes *: 

Posted by Joe Kozlowski: 
Realistically speaking, it sounds like you're quoting from the movie "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" I think you must be referring to the models in another line of modeling when you suggest they get played out and another one comes along to take their place. What's the shelf life in Glam? or Fashion? Glam wants only women under 30 (well under) and Fashion has a crush on teenagers.

Two of my favorite models were in their 40s - they weren't your thing but they were perfectly suitable for the project I was working on. Of the two, one had been modeling for about 20 years, for college art classes, photographers and painters. She drove a Beemer. It wasn't a cheap 3 body, either. Both were reliable, creative, professional and they had a good handle on who they were and what they wanted out of their lives. I've met very few in their 20s ... male or female, model or not model who fit those parameters. Realsitically speaking ...

And then?  How many photographers out there shoot artistic nudes?  How many photographers are willing to use the same model over and over again and pay them every time?  Do you understand the words that are coming outta my mouth?!

I understand you perfectly. You see the world from your perspective and fail to recognize there might be other ways of looking at the world. You shoot a very specific kind of formula image and think that's all there is. You present the perspective of a piano player who's mastered one note and imagins himself a concert genius. I look at a Glam portfolios and see the same photograph over and over - with different faces. It's like looking at a Coney Island tourist cutout photo booth where cousin Belle sticks her head through the face hole of a bathing beauty painted on plywood. One Glam portfolio looks pretty much like the next.

Some people master the art of taking a particular kind of formula picture and imagine they've conquered the world. If they had to rotate their camera 90* they couldn't find the shutter release. They work for someone else's studio and get to shoot schicksas that the studio attracts with the hope of supporting themselves someday - crowing about how they never pay models that weren't there for them in the first place. To me they sound like they're high on the smell of someone else's cork.

I can use the same model (or group of a very few - a very finite number) over and over because what I do depends on new ideas far more than it does on new faces.

How many photographers shoot artistic nudes? I don't know. And actually, that's not my problem. I would imagine that's the problem of the thousands and thousands of models (some of whom work hard at it - and others who are pick up players) and little concern of yours. It has little to do with your business and, because I shoot more than just art nudes, its only marginally interesting to me.

Posted by Jose- JoseOnline.com: 
I don't think I agree with that, actually.  If your talking strictly about internet, nude models (lets say glamour nude models instead of artistic nude)- without naming names I happen to know that plenty of recent Pet of the years worked significant amatuer work before hitting it big or worked the local photoday circuit with amateur photographers.

There's a big difference between glamour nudes and artistic nudes to models, even though to me it's the same damn thing.  There are more models willing to do one of them than the other.  Also, the rate goes up for glamour nudes.  Also, once you do glamour nudes, that is what you are known for.  As for artistic, you get some slack.