John Allan wrote:
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

You can't shit on something then expect us to use it.

You stated to go scearch forums for a defination of testing.
several of us did and brought back quotes you dismissed  those quotes.

So how about some real help and giving us a name on who to ask for this ever elusive definaition.

As for me  I'll pick up my phone and see where that gets me.

you may be tired of trying to teach us lowly internet whores and wanabe models about the agency world, but in some venues I'm tired of teaching you angency photographers how is works in the internet world.

If you are going to bemoan the internet, do something usefull and unplug your computer.

adapt or die.

Stephen Moskop wrote:
Hi all.  I'm new to this site and to this phenomenon of "internet modeling."  But I am not new to the real business of photography and agency models.  I have shot retail fashion and advertising since the early nineties, and assisted top shooters before that.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation about usage, copyright, and testing on this site.  Some photographers and models here do understand, but most do not.

Here is how it works in the real world.  The photographer owns the copyright.  He sells usage rights to that work.  The model sell his or her time for some compensation.  The model, or no one else for that matter, has rights to use the image without the photographer's consent.

The photographer however cannot sell usage without the model's consent.  That's what a model release is for.  The model signs the release, the photographer pays the model- we all happily go our separate ways.  It gets confusing when we talk about "testing."

"Testing" is profolio work.  Sort of like "TFP."  But there is no such thing as TFP in the real world.  TFP is PAID work.  The payment is the prints.  The model signs the release, the photog delivers prints.  The photog can then sell usage based on what is agreed in the release.  This seems confusing to models on this site, and understandably so.  They believe they are doing work just for both the photographer's portfolio and their portfolio, only to find the images used in magazines or on pay sites.  And they have no rights to publish the images themselves.  Disappointing for all the effort they have put in.  But it is the law.  Photographers own the copyright.

In the real world there is no TFP.  Only "Testing."  Work done expressly for portfolio.  Top models will do this and so will top photographers.  NO release is signed.  NO money is exchanged- there is no TFP contract signed.  Both the photographer and model collaborate and agree to use the images only for both parties self-promotion.

The model has great shots for her book, but since neither can sell the image, she doesn't have to worry the image showing up on some pay site she doesn't want. And the photographer in turn has access the very best models, to get that great shot to attract the best clients.

This system has worked for top professionals for decades.  Leaving both with something valuable.

Yep - that's how it works.
...and it works so well because all participants are within the industry and understand the definition of "test". It's a concept with great beauty in its simplicity.
The fact that the model has an agency "wrapper" also helps.
I've used it with independents however where I explained the concept.


John

Experimental Photoworks wrote:

You can't shit on something then expect us to use it.

You stated to go scearch forums for a defination of testing.
several of us did and brought back quotes you dismissed  those quotes.

So how about some real help and giving us a name on who to ask for this ever elusive definaition.

As for me  I'll pick up my phone and see where that gets me.

you may be tired of trying to teach us lowly internet whores and wanabe models about the agency world, but in some venues I'm tired of teaching you angency photographers how is works in the internet world.

If you are going to bemoan the internet, do something usefull and unplug your computer.

adapt or die.

blah blah blah blah

John Allan wrote:
Oh come on.... Anyone (including myself), certainly knows the Internet has a lot of talent. They also know there is a huge representation by the group I just described.
I also know commercial photography is not the only legitimate form of imaging....

Maybe there is no value to you to have a simple elegant and established and understood solution to producing images for book building with the option of everyone getting compensated if they are sold at a later date. For those that would find this beneficial, I think testing (as defined within the industry), is the way to go, rather than re-inventing an overly complex wheel.

John

KM Von Seidl wrote:
John --the theory of testing makes me weep with joy.  Who doesn't like coming together for art and a greater purpose?

The problem is if you are not a pro, and by that I mean in a small close knit circle, then walking away with photos with no releases and renegotiation as some later date isn't feasible.  Where is the model 10 years from now, do you have to everyone's email updated?

What I'm saying to you is this professional commerical model of testing works for you guys because of the size and familiarity of members in your community AND because the way the system works becausse you are higher up on the status food chain.   

Fine art photographers don't get the same perks unless they've crossed the line from silent output to celeb status.  I'm just telling you how it works down under.

So all the commercial shooters in the world can talk about the "real world" and trust me I've heard it and seen it before, but for those who don't live in your "real world" a different set of realities come into play.

With increasing legal age proof requirements, people who don't have a firm grasp on agreements, grifters even,  it just seems stupid to me to invest the time and effort into a work of art, and not have the understanding between the parties ironed out ahead of time.

Black Ricco wrote:
Yep - that's how it works.
...and it works so well because all participants are within the industry and understand the definition of "test". It's a concept with great beauty in its simplicity.
The fact that the model has an agency "wrapper" also helps.
I've used it with independents however where I explained the concept.

LOL Man, talk about a distinction without a difference. That's exactly what folks have been saying all along. Testing is exchanging services for services. No money changes hands.

As far as model releases go, there's nothing carved in stone regarding that subject. Releases may be signed, or they may not. It depends on the situation.

Oh for crying out loud!

Black Ricc wrote:
As far as model releases go, there's nothing carved in stone regarding that subject. Releases may be signed, or they may not. It depends on the situation.

Nope. If there is a release involved, it's not a test. It's something else (like TF-whatever)

John

Black Ricco wrote:
Nope. If there is a release involved, it's not a test. It's something else (like TF-whatever)

LOL Yeah, okay, have it your way. After all you're street level with real agency girls in his book. LOL

Oh, man...

What is your problem? I didn't invent the paradigm. I'm just explaining it to you and correcting a misunderstanding you have.

John

John Allan wrote:
And here's the post from KM Von Seidl, after a long discussion, where she 'got it'.
Of course this was a time when her boobies weren't in such a bunch and she wasn't in such a trolling mood.

John Allan wrote:
Oh come on.... Anyone (including myself), certainly knows the Internet has a lot of talent. They also know there is a huge representation by the group I just described.
I also know commercial photography is not the only legitimate form of imaging....

Maybe there is no value to you to have a simple elegant and established and understood solution to producing images for book building with the option of everyone getting compensated if they are sold at a later date. For those that would find this beneficial, I think testing (as defined within the industry), is the way to go, rather than re-inventing an overly complex wheel.

John

What is your malfunction today?

The ONLY issue in play was your assertion that "testing" has NOTHING ever to do with testing out gear,experimenting etc.   

You seem to be in a fucked up mood today, so dude, okay, you're king of the internet.  Or agency world, or whatever you need to have people believe you're tops in and everyone on MM agrees with you that no photographer worth their salt ever "tests" their gear.

KM von Seidl wrote:
What is your malfunction today?

The ONLY issue in play was your assertion that "testing" has NOTHING ever to do with testing out gear,experimenting etc.   

You seem to be in a fucked up mood today, so dude, okay, you're king of the internet.  Or agency world, or whatever you need to have people believe you're tops in and everyone on MM agrees with you that no photographer worth their salt ever "tests" their gear.

WTF!?
I'm not your enemy.
Why can't you just listen and learn what the established definition is within the industry for decades, rather than feeling the need to destroy the presenter of the information?
When I want to do a project focusing on an Orange Sunshine view of a wrought iron fence, I'll certainly bow to your expertise.


John