Wynd Mulysa wrote:
I think having a resume in any case would make you look more professional.

A model's portfolio is her resume.  Words don't count, only pictures.  Professional models do not use resumes.

(Yes, I know that some "promotional modeling" companies want resumes.  That's because they are hiring performers, not models.  Actors have resumes, and something like an actor's resume is what a promotions company wants.)

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
What is I.M.T.A?

http://www.imta.com/

TXPhotog wrote:
A model's portfolio is her resume.

That's what I tried to put in bold letters, until the site froze on me.

Fadeline wrote:
I have had a couple of bad experiences with modeling scams/modeling schools. I have learned from my mistakes and I certainly have learned alot about this industry which is why I do research before making any decision.

I have gone to I.M.T.A  and spent over 5000 dollars on a convention which did not help my career and I have spent money on photos from the infamous "modeling" school Barbizon. I did not know anything about these things.

the only thing I would say is that even though those places did scam me, I have a series of photographs which are actually quite well done and I also know how to runway walk, and I have a comp card. I have learned alot from the industry by going to I.M.T.A.

Should I use these barbizon things. Should I be using the comp card they made for me, all the photographs, and put I.M.T.A in my resume or should I throw all these things away? Are they going to lowe my chances of getting an agent/jobs?

IMO a  formal resume is only good for if you are a actress/model. You put down what plays /roles you have done, acting abilites,acting schools you have attended , trained with , ect .Your photo portfolio together with your comp card IS your resume

Fadeline wrote:
well i didn't really mean "resume" in that sense but i guess it came across like that (now that i reread that. i did say it like that) but I am just wondering if I should bother telling people about that stuff if they ask me if I have had any modeling experience. I usually say yes and list i.m.t.a but now I am not sure.

no... for models its a question of credits not training or 'experience' -- unless its spokesmodelling work.

Marksora wrote:
Simply put.
If someone wants to hire you and ask for a resume.
Are you going to listen to the advice above and tell the person hiring you that they are foolish?

well said. it is a good notion to keep a credit sheet available. yes, some people do care about credits -- for one thing is helps show that you can show up for a shoot and do the job. no if you have an agency you don't/shouldn't need to worry about this for modelling.

Marksora wrote:
Do you understand the point that people hiring often ask for real resumes?
Expecting them to be written in the proper form not just a list of credits.
Two different things.

Yes, it is stupid but it is asked for.
If the first words out of your mouth on a interview is "you sir are clueless about the industry"
then good luck getting hired.

personally i would say if a client is seriously asking for a resume that would benefit from the mention of barbizon or competitions and we're not talking about spokesmodelling/promos etc etc., then getting hired seems fairly meaningless cause nothing will ever happen for this client. you actually have to have some knowledge or understanding of the industry in which you work to be accepted.
BUT... point is well taken

FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
You can fudge resumes.......some even outright lie......but in our visual world....either you got it or you don't......forget the resume....

Many of these smaller modeling jobs which really are just promotional jobs, do not even require a go-see.   A photo and resume is mailed in.

So.........

Photoshop?

Aaron S wrote:
Because people are asking for them is not a good reason. For both models and photographers.

I'm beginning to see Mark's point.

Of course it's a good reason if you want to get hired.  You do what the client asks for, or he will find someone who does.  That's true throughout business, not just photography or modeling.

If you want to pass on jobs like that, fine.

TXPhotog wrote:

I'm beginning to see Mark's point.

Of course it's a good reason if you want to get hired.  You do what the client asks for, or he will find someone who does.  That's true throughout business, not just photography or modeling.

If you want to pass on jobs like that, fine.

I will, because I'm not desperate for money, But the problem is many won't.

But, here's the thing, try and think of another industry where the client is fully in control of what he is hiring.

Think of this situation. An advertising agency approaches you because they want you to do an ad. Chances are they came to you because they think your work suits their product. And, the photo is going to be the most important piece of an ad. You are the key element, why should you bend to their will completely?

This isn't saying that you shouldn't make concessions. But the industry as a whole needs to stop letting the client walk all over them.

Aaron S wrote:
Think of this situation. An advertising agency approaches you because they want you to do an ad. Chances are they came to you because they think your work suits their product. And, the photo is going to be the most important piece of an ad. You are the key element, why should you bend to their will completely?

Ok, let's look at that.

They don't normally "come to you" - they send out a request for proposals solicting bids, and you are one of several (or more) candidates.  If they don't find what they want on the first pass through the herd, they widen the search.

Fundamentally, a photographer is chosen to shoot an ad for one of two reasons:

1.  He had (apparently) demonstrated the technical and management ability to do the kind of work they want done, (the vast majority of commercial photographers) or

2.  He has a distinctive style that they want, and they intend to use him to infuse creativity into a very general idea (think David LaChappelle).

In the first case, which is by far the more common, there are almost always a number of people who are capable.  In a strong media city like NYC, or even Atlanta, there are probably hundreds of qualified candidates.  Any one of them could be chosen.  So the job goes to the one (a) who is cheapest, while being credible, or (b) whose presentation most closely approximates what they want, or (c) who is someone they have used before that they know they can count on because he did what the wanted the last time, or (d) who is a friend of the account exec or creative director.  In that first case, the guy whose presentation fails to meet their stated requirements is the least likely to get the job, barring reason (d).

In the second case, it's very unlikely that the client will be unsophisticated about how the industry works, but the photographer has a stronger hand.  He can be more "creative" to some degree - but even then, unless the photographer is one of the few who has extraordinary clout, he will do and be what the client needs him to do and be - just with more creative control over the shoot process.

It's not much different for models (remember, this thread is about models).  For the great majority of jobs there are many acceptable and available candidates.  Telling the client how to go about the client's job (setting selection criteria) isn't a good way to get to the top of the stack of comp cards.