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.

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.

Here's my issue with this statement Ed, your message here suggests that these models will NEVER be at or above your skill level.  Perhaps that is true, and perhaps it isn't...we won't know until time has passed.  You talk about the fact that you've got to be well connected or damn good at marketing to avoid free shoots.  I view free shoots as part of my marketing.  Just because a model's book is weak when they come to you doesn't mean that it has to be weak when they leave.

A mentor of mine once said, "your only purpose in the shoot is to make that subject look better than they have ever looked before."  Think about it.  You take a model's marginal portfolio and make your images stand out compared to all others.  Don't you think that will result in some serious goodwill?  If the model moves up the chain, and you've treated her well, I think she's likely to remember you.  Now she may not be able to hand pick you for her paid shoots, but she can certainly give your name to other models.  With the reference, you might find a few paying jobs coming your way.  Hell I have, and I still consider myself a hack.

Stop lamenting, treat it as you would any opportunity, and recognize that not all payments are made on the day of the shoot.  Just my two cents.

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

If you are here at MM to make money- than you need to be FAR more specific with your intentions in your 'about me' thing- If you are here for 'PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT' of models and your rates are XX for XX looks, than you need to market yourself for that- good luck. (PS- people often dont equate realistic dollars with 'semi pro' or 'pro-am', they then think you are a hobbyist, which degrades to GWC (which I am not saying is you))

If you are here to launch some sort of professional commercial career- you are in the WRONG place.
You would need to get a printed portfolio together, and get a proper rep in your area for commercial Ad work, spend lots of dough in The Workbook, etc...

TFP does have amateur implications, BUT I WILL TRY TO SHOOT TFP FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. And that is from a perspective that is 180° from yours. I don't expect to be paid- conversely, I WILL NOT PAY.

People are definitely after different things here- you simply need to re-tune your radar to work with those that need you, and that you need....

You have nice pictures and have skills- the only problem I see with why it's difficult for you to find LOADS of paid shoots is, your market IE: your location. Might not be enough aspiring models in your area- that are also on MM-
MM in your case might be a very limited resource.
Good Luck

Carpe Imago Photography wrote:
Here's my issue with this statement Ed, your message here suggests that these models will NEVER be at or above your skill level.  Perhaps that is true, and perhaps it isn't...we won't know until time has passed.  You talk about the fact that you've got to be well connected or damn good at marketing to avoid free shoots.  I view free shoots as part of my marketing.  Just because a model's book is weak when they come to you doesn't mean that it has to be weak when they leave.

A mentor of mine once said, "your only purpose in the shoot is to make that subject look better than they have ever looked before."  Think about it.  You take a model's marginal portfolio and make your images stand out compared to all others.  Don't you think that will result in some serious goodwill?  If the model moves up the chain, and you've treated her well, I think she's likely to remember you.  Now she may not be able to hand pick you for her paid shoots, but she can certainly give your name to other models.  With the reference, you might find a few paying jobs coming your way.  Hell I have, and I still consider myself a hack.

Stop lamenting, treat it as you would any opportunity, and recognize that not all payments are made on the day of the shoot.  Just my two cents.

Actually, although I agree with much of the marketing view you mentioned, I read his lament as meaning an insufficient 'look', meaning insufficient physical attributes, as opposed to insufficient quality within existing work.

John

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

I did. I stopped saying TFP and now call it a "test."

Wow.  My entire life is different now.  Everything has changed!  Just like the good ol' days now.

Everyone needs to make this semantic change for the better. Don't knock it till you try it.  I feel like it's downhill from here.  I can see the end of the tunnel.

yippee!!

Nemi Bea wrote:

How about this one?

Ok, I haven't seen that one yet. 2 points.

Capt Stu Beans wrote:
cmon man, arent you bored of this topic?

My dead horse is better than your dead hourse. So there



Discuss!

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

I have a problem with the GWC sound of "TFCD" but I have MORE of a problem with the semantics of the word "test". My situation is that I shoot fine Art nudes and feel the images are more than sufficient pay in themselves. I'm NOT testing anything, especially by the second or third shoot with the same model. I NEED to shoot with the same person as many times as possible to get the intimacy I want in my images. But then calling most people models if they let you take their picture or photographer is they take them is also a matter of semantics. When do they earn those tags? Damn word game!
Mike

Capt Stu Beans wrote:
cmon man, arent you bored of this topic?

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.

Dude Don't you know by doing tfp with a model she will now not pay Bob Randal for his uber mad photography skills....

Allure Vision wrote:
I really don't understand what all this craziness about FREE shoots is all about. If you are an amateur photographer and your trying to build your portfolio or learn photography yes TFP is acceptable. If you are a professional photographer then why do you need to "test" shoot any one? My point is how can you even call yourself professional if you are not in business? "Hi I'm a professional photographer and I work for free." That's crazy! Am I missing something here? Too many amateur models have gotten to the point where their first question to a professional is "Do you do TFP"? When teenagers contact you about senior pictures would you tell them "I'll only shoot you TFP"? I guess the point I am getting at is that no matter how great a photographer you are some people will only shoot to get images for free. If there is a price tag they will walk away. Amateur models who think they should get paid from a photographer is even more ridiculous. The only time TFP should be done with a model from a professional photographer is when the photographer is getting paid by another entity. In some instances the photographer will even swing a deal to get the amateur model some money as well for her work. If not she gets images.


Photography is a business for the professional photographer. I've seen some professionals who do terrible work but they are well respected and they get business all the time. I've seen amatuer photographers who do great work and do TFP because they are still building their portfolios. My point

If you are not professional you are not in business call yourself an amatuer and do TFP.
If you are professional and you are in business you shouldn't be doing any TFP.

Um I know several high end agancy photographers who still do TFP they are still testing after shooting for over 20 years.

They buy new lights, have to TEST them. before they charge a client 1500 day rate and the lists don't work as planned.
They find a new location, they want to TEST out the location, so when they do a catalouge shoot at said location they know what to expect.
They want to TEST a new shooting style, The best photographers are always learning new way to shoot.
They have a super cool idea and want to TEST the idea before they get paid 1500 a day to shoot it for a client.

Each of these TESTS needs a model and she shows us for the test and gets a print or two for her time instead of paying 1500 day rate. she inputs her Time For Prints.

Iona Lynn wrote:

Um I know several high end agancy photographers who still do TFP they are still testing after shooting for over 20 years.

They buy new lights, have to TEST them. before they charge a client 1500 day rate and the lists don't work as planned.
They find a new location, they want to TEST out the location, so when they do a catalouge shoot at said location they know what to expect.
They want to TEST a new shooting style, The best photographers are always learning new way to shoot.
They have a super cool idea and want to TEST the idea before they get paid 1500 a day to shoot it for a client.

Each of these TESTS needs a model and she shows us for the test and gets a print or two for her time instead of paying 1500 day rate. she inputs her Time For Prints.

Duh - huh???????????????

John

John Allan wrote:
Duh - huh???????????????

John

Are you telling me you don't just pickup your camera and test out a new theme or idea at times?


Every job you do is paid?

Iona Lynn wrote:

Are you telling me you don't just pickup your camera and test out a new theme or idea at times?


Every job you do is paid?

That's not why I was laughing....
It was your definition of testing. That's not what it means (at least at the agency street level).
There are postings in other threads - including from myself that define it.

John

J Schumacher wrote:
Sounds like logical definitions of testing to me. I test models, too. And equipment. And locations.

So I guess I'm outside your definitions, too. (O well, I hate to be limited to the popular opinions; guess I'll continue being different.)

I know it sounds logical - that's half the problem.
I test to see if my paint is dry yet. I used to test if my little sister was done yet by poking at her. I test to see if my door lock works. I test to see if my sneakers still tie.

But.... To industry professionals (models and photographers), that work in the street level imaging industry, "testing" has a very specific definition. It has nothing to do with testing equipment, etc.
If you use the search function you will find threads on this where industry people including myself have taken the time to explain this in great detail. I'm not going to repeat it here for the sake of my weekend

John

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.

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.

John Allan wrote:
I know it sounds logical - that's half the problem.
I test to see if my paint is dry yet. I used to test if my little sister was done yet by poking at her. I test to see if my door lock works. I test to see if my sneakers still tie.

But.... To industry professionals (models and photographers), that work in the street level imaging industry, "testing" has a very specific definition. It has nothing to do with testing equipment, etc.
If you use the search function you will find threads on this where industry people including myself have taken the time to explain this in great detail. I'm not going to repeat it here for the sake of my weekend

John

Hmmm.  I searched and here's what I found in regards to testing and gear: https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=68174

Photographer Test - this can be the test of a concept, a new model, a new makeup artist, a new stylist, a new piece of equipment, a new technique, or some or all of the above.  Can be paid towards the makeup artist, or model, or both, or neither.  If the photographer is typically a really good photographer no one is paid because the results will benefit everyone's book.  If the photographer is just working out issues and ideas and doesn't think s/he'll get anything usable then s/he'll probably give everyone a little compensation for their time and travels. (in the "real world" of photography and the industry models and makeup artists working with a photographer of sufficient renown usually do photographer tests just for the chance to network and work with the photographer/makeup artist/stylist/model/etc...)  Again typically no release is involved because most times it's just for portfolio work if it comes out well, and not really any sort of use where likeness rights will be needed.

This was written by Mr. Jackson, who I believe, is an respected member of the commercial photographic profession....someone can correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Definitions have changed over time.

It used to be that "testing" was something all photographers did.  They called in a model and "tested" her or a process or light setup or something.  Often he'd give her a polaroid or maybe even a print.  This was of benefit to him because he had a chance to check the model out for possible real work later or at least have a warm body to see if his new process or whatever worked.  The model benefited because she got seen by someone who could further her career, and maybe got a polaroid or two shot by someone important.  They went into her portfolio.

Then there was a glut of models all wanting to shoot with Avedon, laChapelle and whoever, and the real fashion shooters couldn't accomodate everyone.  Some would agree to test if the model paid for their labor.  This is where "test photographers" started showing up.  They established relationships with agency bookers and were able to produce what the bookers wanted to see in their models' books, but without the big name attached. 

About the same time the new term "TFP" showed up on the web, followed by "TFCD".  They are ONLY web terms.  This has pretty much displaced "testing" as the way to get free pictures or modeling. 

These days "testing" usually means paying a photographer that the model's booker has sent her to.   (There are exceptions.  D'Arazio's and others' books are made up of "tests" of the top models, where no money changed hands.)

What used to be "testing" is now called "TFP" except by us old guys who still call it "testing" and still do it like in the olden daze.

-Don

I'm pretty sure this guy knows what he is talking about as well.

I do apoligise for leaving out the testing the model herself I thought that was obvious...

KM von Seidl wrote:

Hmmm.  I searched and here's what I found in regards to testing and gear: https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=68174

Photographer Test - this can be the test of a concept, a new model, a new makeup artist, a new stylist, a new piece of equipment, a new technique, or some or all of the above.  Can be paid towards the makeup artist, or model, or both, or neither.  If the photographer is typically a really good photographer no one is paid because the results will benefit everyone's book.  If the photographer is just working out issues and ideas and doesn't think s/he'll get anything usable then s/he'll probably give everyone a little compensation for their time and travels. (in the "real world" of photography and the industry models and makeup artists working with a photographer of sufficient renown usually do photographer tests just for the chance to network and work with the photographer/makeup artist/stylist/model/etc...)  Again typically no release is involved because most times it's just for portfolio work if it comes out well, and not really any sort of use where likeness rights will be needed.

This was written by Mr. Jackson, who I believe, is an respected member of the commercial photographic profession....someone can correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.

You've participated in numerous discussions that defined what testing is at the agency level. You've chosen here to  quote an art-photographer's interpretation, so I can only assume you just want to bait me, rather than re-learn the actual definition.
Search on 'testing' within the forums for the complete discussion. Pay attention to what the photographers say that actually have major agency girls in their portfolio.

The 2nd quote is partially correct.

John Allan wrote:

You've participated in numerous discussions that defined what testing is at the agency level. You've chosen here to  quote an art-photographer's interpretation, so I can only assume you just want to bait me, rather than re-learn the actual definition.
Search on 'testing' within the forums for the complete discussion. Pay attention to what the photographers say that actually have major agency girls in their portfolio.

The 2nd quote is partially correct.

This came from James Jackson
Mayhem #22443

He listed 4 different types of testing.  Are you saying that James Jackson is an art-photographer who lack major agency girls and isn't sufficiently commercial to know what he was talking about????

That's going to be news to him I suspect.

KM von Seidl wrote:

This came from James Jackson
Mayhem #22443

He listed 4 different types of testing.  Are you saying that James Jackson is an art-photographer who lack major agency girls and isn't sufficiently commercial to know what he was talking about????

That's going to be news to him I suspect.

Troll.
Like I said, some of what he's said is correct at the agency level. Testing has a very specific meaning on the street. It's not one of 4 meanings.

John

John Allan wrote:

Troll.
Like I said, some of what he's said is correct at the agency level. Testing has a very specific meaning on the street. It's not one of 4 meanings.

John

Oh, stick it up your tight ass and make some diamonds dude.

You were laughing at Iona when in effect what she said is right.

I have no idea why every other post you make you feel compelled to discuss your connections to "the industry," but you got caught at trying to make fun of someone who got it right.


You want to look at a troll, look in the mirror.

Iona Lynn wrote:

I'm pretty sure this guy knows what he is talking about as well.

I do apoligise for leaving out the testing the model herself I thought that was obvious...

Really? Based on what exactly?
A good share of it's accurate but vague. Some of it is just incorrect.
Search the forums - there are some good definitions from photographers who actually have extensively tested with agencies.

Don't take my word for the definition, I only had it defined for me early on by the head booker at arguably the top fashion agency.

John

KM von Seidl wrote:

Oh, stick it up your tight ass and make some diamonds dude.

You were laughing at Iona when in effect what she said is right.

I have no idea why every other post you make you feel compelled to discuss your connections to "the industry," but you got caught at trying to make fun of someone who got it right.


You want to look at a troll, look in the mirror.

Nice talk troll.

No they didn't get it right, even though it may appear so to you.

John

Black Ricco 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.

Yabbut, golly gee willickers, Mr. Randall, do you think yer qualified to make that statement? I mean, do you have actual, live, all growed up an' everything, real  "agency" models in yer book like Mr. Allen?

I gotta go play now.

Why would Bob not be qualified to make this statement. And what in the world does this have to do with my attempts to actually propagate the correct definition of 'test'.

John

Black Ricco wrote:
No they didn't get it right, even though it may appear so to you.

Then why don't you tell us how they're wrong instead of blowin' smoke?

Because, it's been explained in detail by people actually involved with agency level testing sufficiently. It just seems the trolls want to have me spend the next 2 hours explaining it again.

John

Black Ricco wrote:
Why would Bob not be qualified to make this statement.

LOL Oh jeez...

I'll take clueless for $500, Alex.

I regret that you are clueless.

John

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.
In many ways I am that GWC that doesnt know shit from shinola

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.

I never look at a models port and judge her by the merit of what another photographer had done, I look at her and wonder what I could do with the subject, I have no problems finding models and have been able to shoot with some models that have done some really good work, I just try to do my thing and yes I am GWC, dont know shit from shinola, but I do make pretty pictures. Is that not all that matters?

Capt Stu Beans wrote:
cmon man, arent you bored of this topic?

this is so kool, beat that dead hoarse sir