Ryoga Vee wrote:

So... on those terms (in the case of TFP) you get to make money, hold the copyright, and the model gets nothing but the few photos "you" think they should have. I dont agree.

TFP is a "shared" expense.  Both model and photographer volunteer their time - there shouldn't be the expectation that you would get the same equivalent if you paid a photographer.

Illustrated Imagery wrote:
theda
I'm waiting for your reponse. I'd love to here your definition of "RAW"

I did respond.  You didn't ask me to define it.

RAW: image format containing data directly read by camera without processing.

The brilliance of the RAW image is you do not painstakingly convert them pixel by pixel.  You have this neat-o computer program that does that at the click of a button.

Sarah_LasVegas wrote:
I personally always require photographers to give me a copy of all images...

LOLOLOL!!!

Thanks for making my day...

Illustrated Imagery wrote:
Then how is running a batch Action in PhotoShop going to do you any good? You've got to convert them first!

I didn't specify photoshop, but don't tricked out versions of PS have the capability to convert RAW data anyway?

Illustrated Imagery wrote:
Amen RRCPhoto! Could not agree more.

Thanks.  I do find it puzzling the more I hang out in MM's forums, the rather unrealistic expectations of some.  If someone from another planet were to review most forums, they'd think or wonder:

a) photographers are all sleazy
b) models are the only ones that can get paid.
c) what's an escort and why is he always going into the chipper

and they'd probably seriously wonder why the heck anyone would want to be a photographer.

To the models.  I don't doubt that it takes talent, bravery and skill to do what you do.  Just as it takes talent, skill and patience on the other side of the camera.  We devote our time, and the expensive gear we have into TFP shoots.  Alot of us even bring the MUA and stylist to the TFP shoot.

"Film is free" is the digital saying.  That isn't true - so forget you even heard that.

Every flash fired as a cost.  Each shutter click has a cost, everytime I prep my equipment and recharge all the batteries has a cost.  There is no free shoot from the photographer's perspective even in the digital era - then, I have to use my PC (again, costs) .. and burn a dvd / cd (again, costs) or print pictures (multiple costs).  If I'm printing you images, they have up to a 60 year lifespan on UltraChrome inks.  Try that at walmart and get back to me.  Photographers have a far longer period to "break even" in this than a model does - perhaps a longer "professional span" to do it in, but it's still not insigificant.  So before you state that we get "free" models and you get "nothing" but a few prints please think about this:

Spend 15,000 or so on equipment then have someone show up and demand everything that it produces and get back to me on how you feel about it.

Illustrated Imagery wrote:
Theda,

Do you know what a "RAW" image is?

Methinks that Illustrated Imagery picked a fight with the wrong person.

RRCPhoto wrote:

Thanks.  I do find it puzzling the more I hang out in MM's forums, the rather unrealistic expectations of some.  If someone from another planet were to review most forums, they'd think or wonder:

a) photographers are all sleazy
b) models are the only ones that can get paid.
c) what's an escort and why is he always going into the chipper

and they'd probably seriously wonder why the heck anyone would want to be a photographer.

To the models.  I don't doubt that it takes talent, bravery and skill to do what you do.  Just as it takes talent, skill and patience on the other side of the camera.  We devote our time, and the expensive gear we have into TFP shoots.  Alot of us even bring the MUA and stylist to the TFP shoot.

"Film is free" is the digital saying.  That isn't true - so forget you even heard that.

Every flash fired as a cost.  Each shutter click has a cost, everytime I prep my equipment and recharge all the batteries has a cost.  There is no free shoot from the photographer's perspective even in the digital era - then, I have to use my PC (again, costs) .. and burn a dvd / cd (again, costs) or print pictures (multiple costs).  If I'm printing you images, they have up to a 60 year lifespan on UltraChrome inks.  Try that at walmart and get back to me.  Photographers have a far longer period to "break even" in this than a model does - perhaps a longer "professional span" to do it in, but it's still not insigificant.  So before you state that we get "free" models and you get "nothing" but a few prints please think about this:

Spend 15,000 or so on equipment then have someone show up and demand everything that it produces and get back to me on how you feel about it.

Another good point taken.

I might add that if it were not so then take a look at other model portfolios on MM of the ones taken with a point and shoot or the cell phone camera etc. The model may be lovely but you'd never know it by the photos.

Ryoga Vee wrote:
I think what we are getting at is unless you pay for it (money changing hands) you don’t own it (in theory). TFP means just that, you shoot we take the photos, good or bad.
You are paying for a models time by providing photos of the work done during that time. If you only give a portion of that then that’s reneging on the deal in my opinion. 
You pretty much have the mentality of,
"I'm the photographer, it’s mine, mine, mine, mine! You’ll eat bread and water and like it!"

Well, according to copyright law, I own the photo the moment I take it...It is not theory...It's a fact.

As for my mentality, you don't know anything about my mentality...No where did I mention whether I give all photos to the model or not..So you really don't know what your talking about. My posts have been in reference to copyright issues and asking an explaination in regards to it being unethical to delete a photo before a model sees it.

Reneging on a deal? So if the model signs a release stating she only gets a certain number of photos for her time and she receives those photos, how is that reneging on the deal? Sounds like the OP lived up to her end of the deal and the model wants more...Looks like the model is trying to changed the deal after the fact to me, and you want to accuse photographers of reneging on a deal and someone else calls us unethical...

D.

Olesja Mueller wrote:
I did a fashion TFCD shoot with a model, and now she wants to get all the pix from it to see if she can find something else for her book than what I have already picked and retouched (about 25 shots, some of them you can see in my port at the top). She says it's OK that they are not retouched, she just wants to see some more poses, etc. I think it's not OK, as the light was far from perfect (outdoors hoot) and I had to do quite a bit of levels, curves, contrast, etc. to make it look good.
I care about my reputation as a photog and I am not crazy about the idea. However, she is really bugging me now:)))) What would you do?

HELP!)

Unless you agreed to do this before the shoot, you are under no obligation to do so.

If you think there are any you do not mind releasing "as is" then do so (don't refuse "on principle").  But if you don't feel good about letting them go for fear of negative reflection on your work, then don't do so.

John Jebbia wrote:

Methinks that Illustrated Imagery picked a fight with the wrong person.

Not hardly,

To run a batch action on Raw images in place of editing them is rediculouis advice. First you can not edit RAW Images in PhotoShop because PhotoShop can not READ a RAW file until it has been converted or processed. So it would do the model no good to have them if they can not convert them.

Any more stupid questions.

Sarah_LasVegas wrote:
I personally always require photographers to give me a copy of all images done from a shoot for two reasons:

1.  Same as your model- to see if there are any other images that may be beneficial to my portfolio.

2.  Also, I know what images you, the photographer, have in your possession, so if anything pops up in the future (ie my face on a naked body), I know where it came from and who shot it.

This may seem inconvenient or silly to you, but perhaps you can express your concern for having "unapproved" or "unedited" images you took used for her portfolio, as it may tarnish your reputation.  Same goes for her side of the deal, she wouldn't want you to use unapproved images of herself.......

Personally if your so worried about what they do with your images why work with them? you should trust your photographer.

Olesja Mueller wrote:
I did a fashion TFCD shoot with a model, and now she wants to get all the pix from it to see if she can find something else for her book than what I have already picked and retouched (about 25 shots, some of them you can see in my port at the top). She says it's OK that they are not retouched, she just wants to see some more poses, etc. I think it's not OK, as the light was far from perfect (outdoors hoot) and I had to do quite a bit of levels, curves, contrast, etc. to make it look good.
I care about my reputation as a photog and I am not crazy about the idea. However, she is really bugging me now:)))) What would you do?

HELP!)

there was a point in time when I first got started in modeling that I thought I had the rigths to have every image. As I have gone along in this industry there is no point to have every image. If you get 4 to have outstanding images don't bitch!! Your only gonna use very few of them. I also started photography and begin to realize models don't have the slioghtest clue on hard it is, and then after the shoto we have to go in photoshop and fix what they don't like. As a model and as a photographer I think she is asking by far too much, and must be greatful for any images she gets!

Darkdesire wrote:
there was a point in time when I first got started in modeling that I thought I had the rigths to have every image. As I have gone along in this industry there is no point to have every image. If you get 4 to have outstanding images don't bitch!! Your only gonna use very few of them. I also started photography and begin to realize models don't have the slioghtest clue on hard it is, and then after the shoto we have to go in photoshop and fix what they don't like. As a model and as a photographer I think she is asking by far too much, and must be greatful for any images she gets!

My hero....

Illustrated Imagery wrote:
Not hardly,

To run a batch action on Raw images in place of editing them is rediculouis advice. First you can not edit RAW Images in PhotoShop because PhotoShop can not READ a RAW file until it has been converted or processed. So it would do the model no good to have them if they can not convert them.

Any more stupid questions.

Let me educate you.

I shoot with a Nikon. The Nikon comes with a program called NikonView. I can open NikonView, select all the RAW files, and dropdown the "Tools" menu and select convert to JPG. I can run that task & go make a sandwich. When I come back in a couple minutes and my old RAW files are now re-sized, converted, and placed in a new folder so as not to overwrite my original files. Now I can run my Photoshop batch action and create said contact sheet with "Proof" stamped on all of the images.

Using this process, I can do one of three things:

1. Give the model unedited jpg images she can use right away (I never do this, but it's an option.)
2. Create a hardcopy contact sheet.
3. Create a web gallery for the model to view.

And it's all automated. Canon probably comes with something similar.

So, put that in your pipe and smoke it, BEYOTCH!

Darkdesire wrote:

there was a point in time when I first got started in modeling that I thought I had the rigths to have every image. As I have gone along in this industry there is no point to have every image. If you get 4 to have outstanding images don't bitch!! Your only gonna use very few of them. I also started photography and begin to realize models don't have the slioghtest clue on hard it is, and then after the shoto we have to go in photoshop and fix what they don't like. As a model and as a photographer I think she is asking by far too much, and must be greatful for any images she gets!

Now that is well said...

RRCPhoto wrote:
actually photoshop can handle RAW's - it's just not something I'd want to do with alot of them.and doesn't have the power of real tools to be used for the job..there would be alot of *headbanging on desk* if I had to use it more than on one or two images.
Edit:  the program is included with PhotoShop, but is outside of the normal operational capacities (ie: batch) to photoshop.

Whee...Thank you.

I think CS1 & CS2 come with the conversion program. Earlier versions I think it was a plugin option???

I do not use it so I may be wrong.

John Jebbia wrote:

Let me educate you.

I shoot with a Nikon. The Nikon comes with a program called NikonView. I can open NikonView, select all the RAW files, and dropdown the "Tools" menu and select convert to JPG. I can run that task & go make a sandwich. When I come back in a couple minutes and my old RAW files are now re-sized, converted, and placed in a new folder so as not to overwrite my original files. Now I can run my Photoshop batch action and create said contact sheet with "Proof" stamped on all of the images.

Using this process, I can do one of three things:

1. Give the model unedited jpg images she can use right away (I never do this, but it's an option.)
2. Create a hardcopy contact sheet.
3. Create a web gallery for the model to view.

And it's all automated. Canon probably comes with something similar.

So, put that in your pipe and smoke it, BEYOTCH!

John's in the house!!!!!!!!!!

John Jebbia wrote:

Let me educate you.

I shoot with a Nikon. The Nikon comes with a program called NikonView. I can open NikonView, select all the RAW files, and dropdown the "Tools" menu and select convert to JPG. I can run that task & go make a sandwich. When I come back in a couple minutes and my old RAW files are now re-sized, converted, and placed in a new folder so as not to overwrite my original files. Now I can run my Photoshop batch action and create said contact sheet with "Proof" stamped on all of the images.

Using this process, I can do one of three things:

1. Give the model unedited jpg images she can use right away (I never do this, but it's an option.)
2. Create a hardcopy contact sheet.
3. Create a web gallery for the model to view.

And it's all automated.

So, put that in your pipe and smoke it, BEYOTCH!

Your an idiot......

Go back and read her comment and her suggestion. What you have just described is not at all waht her recommendation was.

Just another example of someone putting there nose in where it does not belong.

Now having said that I'm not going to hijack this thread and responed to any more of your comments so knock your self out.

How's that smoke?

John Jebbia wrote:

Let me educate you.

I shoot with a Nikon. The Nikon comes with a program called NikonView.



And it's all automated. Canon probably comes with something similar.

So, put that in your pipe and smoke it, BEYOTCH!

Yes canon does.  But that is licensed by the owner of the camera and not for redistribution - I'm willing to bet that Nikon is the same way.

So a model would be forced to use either shareware, or PhotoShop (if they have the real version of it), or some other tool - which none of them do as good of a job as a professional tool for it.  Which is why I can't understand some photogs handing out RAW's ... I doubt that very few models have color corrected monitors.

Melissa Lynnette wrote:
Wait.  You've already retouched 25 photos for her and she wants more?!  That's easy.  Tell her sorry, but that will not be possible.  I assume you came to an agreement beforehand and therefore, that's all there is.  25 should be plenty.

No kidding 25 is a LOT! Especially when I pay out the a** for a paid shoot then still haven't gotten one photo yet....and I've been waiting two weeks already. I should stop paying until I get my photo's first, ya know? Photog release anyone????

RRCPhoto wrote:

Yes canon does.  But that is licensed by the owner of the camera and not for redistribution - I'm willing to bet that Nikon is the same way.

So a model would be forced to use either shareware, or PhotoShop (if they have the real version of it), or some other tool - which none of them do as good of a job as a professional tool for it.  Which is why I can't understand some photogs handing out RAW's ... I doubt that very few models have color corrected monitors.

I will admitt my monitor sucks!!

Darkdesire wrote:
Here is a crazy thought!! Next time models give you shit about how hard they have it, and get bossy! Put them to test and tell them to play photographer for a day so they get it through there skulls!!

Or the hours afterwards doing post processing to produce final images professionally? there's an idea.  I've had a few sit beside me as I did up their final images .. the comment was atypically "wow...I didn't know there was that much to it..."

Illustrated Imagery wrote:
Your an idiot......

Go back and read her comment and her suggestion. What you have just described is not at all waht her recommendation was.

Actually, it's pretty much exactly what I suggested, except for burning the CD.

And no name calling.

Visions Of Excess Studi wrote:
It's simple. Unless I'm being contracted out and paid, this is a non-issue. Copyright is mine and a model isn't going to dictate terms to me. So, I guess the ones who think they can just won't work with me. And, our poster from LV will discover most photographers will have the same policy.

RRCPhoto wrote:
Yes canon does.  But that is licensed by the owner of the camera and not for redistribution - I'm willing to bet that Nikon is the same way.

So a model would be forced to use either shareware, or PhotoShop (if they have the real version of it), or some other tool - which none of them do as good of a job as a professional tool for it.  Which is why I can't understand some photogs handing out RAW's ... I doubt that very few models have color corrected monitors.

I thought we were discussing how much of a pain in the ass it is to provide all of the images to a model in contact sheet form (with "PROOF" stamped on each image) if they were shot in RAW. That's what my response was aimed at.

RRCPhoto wrote:

Or the hours afterwards doing post processing to produce final images professionally? there's an idea.  I've had a few sit beside me as I did up their final images .. the comment was atypically "wow...I didn't know there was that much to it..."

Thats how I learn that it was not a piece of cake! One of my first photographers sat me down and educated me on the work, and we played around in photoshop, and we tore down the studio. Plus lets not mention how much photographers spend on the camera lights, and any other gear! Studios too! I think I should be lucky if I work with a photography tfp when he does outstanding work.

Darkdesire wrote:

I will admitt my monitor sucks!!

A good calibrated monitor is half the battle...talk to some of your photofinishing places that deal with pros in your area..some of them will have a calibration service that they do if you can't afford to get a Spyder to do it.

Jay Farrell wrote:
No you sanctimonious prick, follow the threading....

Treja wrote:
I get 2 cd's. One is the finalled edited pics that are for my use in my portfolio, etc. The second cd is for me only. Not for public use. I use this to study the 'bad' pics and learn from then so that I can grow as a model. No one other than me ever sees them though.
Well Said

My point was that if every model kept their word like that one did, maybe more of us would be flexible on the raw image release.....understand what the hell you are accusing me of before you do it. The war isn;t against me, until you ran your mouth towards me for no reason, I agreed with pretty much every post you made in this thread.

OK, sorry Jay, but it certainly SEEMED like you were agreeing that every model should get two CDs and that we should all follow that

My apologies

The Sanctimonious Prick