Jay Farrell wrote:
I can't say I disagree.....but unless enough people actually do something about it, the value of our work will be cheapened across the board!

I'm not quite sure what your point is...

If I'm interpreting you correctly, this is my reply.

If "doing free shoots with GWCs who don't know an f-stop from a stop sign" is somehow a problem for the "pros" then I think part of the problem is that the "pro" quality isn't sufficiently distinctive from the free shoot photographers. It's a market economy. I have no idea what you might mean by "enough people actually do something about it" but I think what photograhers could do about it is improve their quality and develop more of a distinctive style.

Ed Selby wrote:
Doing free shoots with GWCs who don't know an f-stop from a stop sign, or with models who can't move or convey emotion, is a waste of time.

I don't know.  Maybe it's less of  a waste of time than sitting on one's ass watching football or NASCAR all weekend.   So maybe in a way it's a good thing, this TFP, GWC, wannabe model thing.

Ed Selby wrote:
I posted a Casting Call for the Labor Day weekend, trying to fill my weekend with shoots. I got a dozen responses from girls whose look wasn't better (some not even close) to what I already have in my book. Shooting them would not have been beneficial to me or my book, or even as a learning exercise.

I loathe the term "TFP/TFCD". It does diminish what we do - as photographers and as models. The truth is, however, that if we want to do what we do, unless we're well connected, signed, or damn good at marketing, we're going to do a BUNCH of free shoots. But those free shoots should always be to advance our skills and talents and book.

I don't understand you here. Wouldn't shooting with one of these girls ( who you think don't have a great look) be a chance to enhance your skills at getting good shots?

Wouldn't it be a chance for them to get better shots than what they have ?

It might even be a chance to teach them something, or possibly learn something from them.

I know I'd rather be shooting TFP than not shooting at all.

Red Sky Photography wrote:

I don't understand you here. Wouldn't shooting with one of these girls ( who you think don't have a great look) be a chance to enhance your skills at getting good shots?

Wouldn't it be a chance for them to get better shots than what they have ?

It might even be a chance to teach them something, or possibly learn something from them.

I know I'd rather be shooting TFP than not shooting at all.

Amen little brother.

Ed Selby wrote:
I posted a Casting Call for the Labor Day weekend, trying to fill my weekend with shoots. I got a dozen responses from girls whose look wasn't better (some not even close) to what I already have in my book. Shooting them would not have been beneficial to me or my book, or even as a learning exercise.

I think you're buying into the whole net model thing too much, with its promise of easy access to quality models. It's just not true. Probably 90% of the internet models have no business modeling at all - and out of the 10% that's left, 8% are so so - But there is that 2% or so.... [ The same probably holds true for internet photographers ].

So rather than posting 'casting calls', do the leg work and schedule individual projects with the best models you can find - quality not quantity.

John

Red Sky Photography wrote:
I don't understand you here. Wouldn't shooting with one of these girls ( who you think don't have a great look) be a chance to enhance your skills at getting good shots?

That might be good for a beginner, but otherwise, why would one knowingly do a shoot that will produce images below the quality you could use.

John

John Allan wrote:
I think you're buying into the whole net model thing too much, with its promise of easy access to quality models. It's just not true. Probably 90% of the internet models have no business modeling at all - and out of the 10% that's left, 8% are so so - But there is that 2% or so.... [ The same probably holds true for internet photographers ].

So rather than posting 'casting calls', do the leg work and schedule individual projects with the best models you can find - quality not quantity.

John

I disagree whole heartedly with half your statement. Probably 99% of all the models on this site are well worth shooting with. While many of them may not have the attributes that most of the photographers on this site are looking for, most of the photographers on this site fall into the part of your statement I do agree with. I say if you have an opportunity to shoot with anyone, take it and learn from it. It sure beats sitting here typing.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
I disagree whole heartedly with half your statement. Probably 99% of all the models on this site are well worth shooting with.

Really Bob, 99%???
Are we on the same site? lol

John

Curt Burgess wrote:
I'm not quite sure what your point is...

If I'm interpreting you correctly, this is my reply.

If "doing free shoots with GWCs who don't know an f-stop from a stop sign" is somehow a problem for the "pros" then I think part of the problem is that the "pro" quality isn't sufficiently distinctive from the free shoot photographers. It's a market economy. I have no idea what you might mean by "enough people actually do something about it" but I think what photograhers could do about it is improve their quality and develop more of a distinctive style.

I wasnt the one who made the initial comment.....but all of us have 2 choices.....do TFP or don't....you have to be at peace with your own policy. My comment should be self explanatory....

J Schumacher wrote:
Dangit, put that photo away. You use it every damn post.

How about this one?

John Allan wrote:

Really Bob, 99%???
Are we on the same site? lol

John

Yeah, we are on the same site and actually I'm being serious for a change. And I did make the disclaimer about what was it, fashion or whatever silly word we need to use here. Since I don't shoot fashion, my needs are different, and most all of the models here would fulfill many of my photographic needs.

Nemi Bea wrote:

How about this one?

I love this one!!

Rue 99 wrote:
I don't need f-stops. When I want some blur in the background, I gently shake the camera, violently so for really artistic effects.

F-what?

John

D Robert Gray wrote:
My turn on that horse

I like the TFP concept It has been working well for me. I went to my mechanic and asked him did he want to practice repairing my transmission because I was cute he said “yes I need the practice.” Then I  called Georgia Power (local utility ) and inquired about them practicing giving me  electricity and I was not shocked when the answer was yes. So I fell that I should practice giving away my work for free


…BTW does anyone have Cannon 5D they want to practice giving away?

Oh My!
Post #1
You're on the slippery slope now...

John

D Robert Gray wrote:
My turn on that horse

I like the TFP concept It has been working well for me. I went to my mechanic and asked him did he want to practice repairing my transmission because I was cute he said “yes I need the practice.” Then I  called Georgia Power (local utility ) and inquired about them practicing giving me  electricity and I was not shocked when the answer was yes. So I fell that I should practice giving away my work for free


…BTW does anyone have Cannon 5D they want to practice giving away?

You realize that by posting this statment with all it's incumbent snubs and baiting  that you open yourself up to all manner of abuse. Are you ready?

Bob Randall Photography wrote:

I disagree whole heartedly with half your statement. Probably 99% of all the models on this site are well worth shooting with. While many of them may not have the attributes that most of the photographers on this site are looking for, most of the photographers on this site fall into the part of your statement I do agree with. I say if you have an opportunity to shoot with anyone, take it and learn from it. It sure beats sitting here typing.

You got that right!

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
You realize that by posting this statment with all it's incumbent snubs and baiting  that you open yourself up to all manner of abuse. Are you ready?

I am wearing my nomex thong so I am ready.... do these thongs have and front or back ? this thing keep cutting of my circulation

REOO Arts wrote:
I have never seen this pic before. It is freakin awesome!!!

No Camels were actually injured in the filming of this motion picture.

Mark Key Studios wrote:

No Camels were actually injured in the filming of this motion picture.

I'm glad to see that there is someone else who thinks this is a camel.

John

D Robert Gray wrote:

I am wearing my nomex thong so I am ready.... do these thongs have and front or back ? this thing keep cutting of my circulation

I have no idea why a grown woman would want to wear a nomex thong, especially over her eyes during a photoshoot. They get in the way of clear vision through the viewfinder and cause all manner of blood loss to the head when the right leg hole becomes entwined around the neck under the chin which results in numerous distractions and unclear thinking, hence silly everything (I'm being generous here because we don't know each other yet and I've found that many of my initial targets become friends later).

John Allan wrote:

I'm glad to see that there is someone else who thinks this is a camel.

John

It's either a camel or the ugliest horse I've ever seen.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
I have no idea why a grown woman would want to wear a nomex thong, especially over her eyes during a photoshoot. They get in the way of clear vision through the viewfinder and cause all manner of blood loss to the head when the right leg hole becomes entwined around the neck under the chin which results in numerous distractions and unclear thinking, hence silly everything (I'm being generous here because we don't know each other yet and I've found that many of my initial targets become friends later).

Only problem with the above statment I am 7'3" hairy man   i have to leave now i am doing a TFP for a one leged monkey but I think the monkey has what it takes

D Robert Gray wrote:
I am wearing my nomex thong so I am ready....

Just a thong? I fully suit-up for the day job:

rp_photo wrote:

Just a thong? I fully suit-up for the day job:

cool. three games of ms pacman all at once. now THAT is skill !

Mark Key Studios wrote:
It's either a camel or the ugliest horse I've ever seen.

Well when they've been dead this long, they tend to decompose a bit.

Ed Selby wrote:
I posted something similar in the Model Matter section earlier to a model who wants to get paid (who doesn't!)

Simply, do "TFP", if offered, with photographers whose work is better than what you already have in your book. Charge the others, but charge them a reasonable fee based on experience, location, and content.

I now turn to the photographers.

I posted a Casting Call for the Labor Day weekend, trying to fill my weekend with shoots. I got a dozen responses from girls whose look wasn't better (some not even close) to what I already have in my book. Shooting them would not have been beneficial to me or my book, or even as a learning exercise.

I loathe the term "TFP/TFCD". It does diminish what we do - as photographers and as models. The truth is, however, that if we want to do what we do, unless we're well connected, signed, or damn good at marketing, we're going to do a BUNCH of free shoots. But those free shoots should always be to advance our skills and talents and book.

Doing free shoots with GWCs who don't know an f-stop from a stop sign, or with models who can't move or convey emotion, is a waste of time.

Stop calling it a TFP and call it a "Test", like it use to be.

Pixel Fisher wrote:

Stop calling it a TFP and call it a "Test", like it use to be.

Best I can tell, the primary difference with this new-fangled Internet-coined "TFwhat-ever", is that released images are expected. So it's not really testing...

John

Pixel Fisher wrote:
Stop calling it a TFP and call it a "Test", like it use to be.

That doesn't sound very progressive.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:

I love this one!!

...you gotta love youse guys!