Ryoga Vee wrote:
I never said "I" would own the rights to the photo. I'm well aware of copyright law. That’s NOT the argument I’m making. I’m fully aware that what the photographer shoots is his and his alone to use as he sees fit (again, within reason).
The only thing I’m discussing in the mentality of some of the peoples post as if they have the final decision of what the model will or won’t receive in a TFP scenario. And I've already stated how I feel.   

I’m just not fond of the attitude behind some of this, the ego that is
“I’m the photographer, you get what I tell you, you can have, if you don’t like it, shut up, you’re only a dumb model”

p.s. I am thinking about things within reason. If during a shoot some 2-400 photos are taken, of course I’m (and I assume most people) are not entirely adamant about having every single one. However, if you can fit a majority of the shots on a CD, then let the model have a CD.

Ryoga Vee wrote:
Having the ludicrous idea that because you took the photo you are the sole owner and copyright holder is beyond me

If you are aware of copyright law the above statement wouldn't have been made.

As I said earlier, if you don't agree with the photographers terms then don't shoot with them, it's very simple and easy to understand. If you sign a contract stating that you only get 25 touched up images of the photographers choice you cannot come back later and cry foul and try and change the deal. As for the your only a dumb model statement, you haven't presented an educated arguement to sway the popular opinion.

Ryoga Vee wrote:
I never said "I" would own the rights to the photo. I'm well aware of copyright law. That’s NOT the argument I’m making. I’m fully aware that what the photographer shoots is his and his alone to use as he sees fit (again, within reason).
The only thing I’m discussing in the mentality of some of the peoples post as if they have the final decision of what the model will or won’t receive in a TFP scenario. And I've already stated how I feel.   

I’m just not fond of the attitude behind some of this, the ego that is
“I’m the photographer, you get what I tell you, you can have, if you don’t like it, shut up, you’re only a dumb model”

p.s. I am thinking about things within reason. If during a shoot some 2-400 photos are taken, of course I’m (and I assume most people) are not entirely adamant about having every single one. However, if you can fit a majority of the shots on a CD, then let the model have a CD.

You've stated several times that photog does NOT own the copyright, why you backpeddling now....hmmmm, maybe its because you've been here 11 months, have no friends and three tags, best o luck wushu man!

Ryoga Vee wrote:
I never said "I" would own the rights to the photo. I'm well aware of copyright law. That’s NOT the argument I’m making. I’m fully aware that what the photographer shoots is his and his alone to use as he sees fit (again, within reason).
The only thing I’m discussing in the mentality of some of the peoples post as if they have the final decision of what the model will or won’t receive in a TFP scenario. And I've already stated how I feel.   

I’m just not fond of the attitude behind some of this, the ego that is
“I’m the photographer, you get what I tell you, you can have, if you don’t like it, shut up, you’re only a dumb model”

p.s. I am thinking about things within reason. If during a shoot some 2-400 photos are taken, of course I’m (and I assume most people) are not entirely adamant about having every single one. However, if you can fit a majority of the shots on a CD, then let the model have a CD.

Sorry double post.

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.......

We're upfront about what a TFP and other shots (unless otherwise contracted for a different amount) will provide the model - a minimum of 10 edited images with our watermark on them.  They usually get 20 or so, because there are some great ones that I feel the model would like. Im no way will I ever give out unedited, unretrouched images to anyone.  The entire process of producing a killer images begins prior to the shoot with lighting, concept, backdrop, colors, props, etc ---> then the images are shot, then reviewed (would be nice to review them with the model, but few actually want to take the time to sit down and look at all of them)---->then post production (color correction, blemish removal, sizing, cropping, graphics (if required), and of course finding just the right 'feel' for the image.  I will not give a model or anyone images that stop at stage 2 - that means my work is not done.

Sometimes I will shoot 1,000 digital images in a three hour period, with different fstops, iso, lighting changes, clothing changes, makeup and/or hair changes, and such.  I never use 1000, of course, but that's how many my card holds, and I would rather shoot until the three hours is up than stop and potentially miss a great image.

If a model doesn't want to shoot under those circumstances, there are plenty more who will.  I will leave you with this great quote (on our profile page) from Tim Ricks, a photographer in California:

"Models: If your photographer gives you one image you love tip him $20; if he gives you two images you love tip them a lot--You don't know the mental work it takes to create images. And to other photographers, keep your creative eye and stay true to yourself. You only have one chance to express your creativity through your work:) add you to each shot." - Tim Ricks, Tim Ricks Photography, Los Angeles, California

EDIT: If I work with a model and know her/his photoshop skills, I will give the entire series of unedited images to her/him. However, if the images are edited using their PS skills, I request they sign a model release that states any images edited by a second party will credit both the photographer and who ever did the editing.  In a few cases, you may see one of my images that has a watermark that says 'Porland Filmworks. Graphics by: XXXXX'

vanscottie wrote:

You've stated several times that photog does NOT own the copyright, why you backpeddling now....hmmmm, maybe its because you've been here 11 months, have no friends and three tags, best o luck wushu man!

OUCH!

vanscottie wrote:
You've stated several times that photog does NOT own the copyright, why you backpeddling now....hmmmm, maybe its because you've been here 11 months, have no friends and three tags, best o luck wushu man!

Um.. maybe its becuase im not intersted in adding people just for the sake of adding them. This aint MySpace. Great way to show your maturity. Nice to know I'm talking to 12 year olds.

Ryoga Vee wrote:

Um.. maybe its becuase im not intersted in adding people just for the sake of adding them. This aint MySpace. Great way to show your maturity. Nice to know I'm talking to 12 year olds.

Typical...When you cannot debate on facts you resort to personal attacks, and you call vanscottie and others twelve year olds...

Truth must hurt.

David Holloway wrote:

If you are aware of copyright law the above statement wouldn't have been made.

As I said earlier, if you don't agree with the photographers terms then don't shoot with them, it's very simple and easy to understand. If you sign a contract stating that you only get 25 touched up images of the photographers choice you cannot come back later and cry foul and try and change the deal. As for the your only a dumb model statement, you haven't presented an educated arguement to sway the popular opinion.

As dumb as this may sound, that comment was taken out of context, I was more so replying to the tone of words used by the previous poster. I should have elaborated more. All in all I do agree with you, and with everyone that has mentioned the use of a contract.

David Holloway wrote:
Typical...When you cannot debate on facts you resort to personal attacks, and you call vanscottie and others twelve year olds...

Truth must hurt.

I resort to Personal attacks? WHAT?!
Mentioning my friends list as a defense to the topic is a personal attack.
It’s juvenile. Its something an elementary school kid would say.

Ryoga Vee wrote:

I resort to Personal attacks? WHAT?!
Mentioning my friends list as a defense to the topic is a person attack.
It’s juvenile. Its something an elementary school kid would say.

That could be true, however, IMHO his post was to show your lack of experience and that your portfolio including your lack of people in your friends list contributes to that...lack of experience as evidence of your portfolio and posts in regards to this thread..I could be wrong only vanscottie can tell you why he made the comment.

vanscottie wrote:
to be honest I was being a lil mean, but this the guy who in a previous post referred to all photogs as "technicians" and that the only reason why we're there is for HIM, ummm yeah...

I said that to make a point.
I was not pleased with Archer's tone or his comment "Know your place"

Sarah_LasVegas wrote:
I understand the many opinions that have been posted here and I have learned from it over the past day.  I have been modeling for about 8 months and I was given a large amount of advice from many people (photographers and models) when I started and the point I made earlier about my head being photoshopped onto naked bodies was one something that I was warned about from a photographer!  NOW, I understand that the likeliness of this happening to me is about 0.0000001%.

Dee wrote:
Here is how I do TFP...

I shoot.....Then I resize every image from the shoot 72 dpi and around 400x600 set to medium quality..then I send an email to model with usernam,e and password so they can look at all of them...they dont get to use them, in the email i make sure they know this is for proofing only..then I let them pick their 10 favs and do those and then send out their cd with all of the editted web ready versions. I put the best 2 images from the shoot in high res so they can print them for their portfolio too...

I have never had a problem yet!!

hope it helps....my model release says all of this and I also have a whole packet I give them explaining the way things work and they initial it so I know they understand...`

Ditto.

Annia wrote:
I understand what everyone is saying about keeping "bad" photos out of circulation, but why not just have her sign a different release for anything you haven't approved? It might seem like a little bit of a hassle, but how hard is it really to write and sign a piece of paper? I prefer to look at all my shots (although I don't demand it unless it's agreed upon before hand) simply to see what I did wrong and learn how to better myself. How can you grow and improve your technique if you only see the best of what you do? How are you supposed to see what works for you? What if a picture came out badly but you can see real potential for that particular pose? You wouldn't use the picture, but you could use the idea/pose in a future shoot.

I don't think the photographers are against the idea of models looking at the photos...It's giving all unedited photos to the model. The consensus I got is that quite a few models have been posting the bad ones with the photographers name attached to it and since one of the reasons a photographer is in business is to make money. If bad photos start popping up with a photogs name attached to it then it could affect his ability to get those paying jobs.

Yes it could be easy to sign a piece of paper, however, it is even easier to sign the initial contract stating what the model gets for her time and if it is not suitable to the model don't sign and don't work with that photographer.

Ryoga Vee wrote:
I said that to make a point.
I was not pleased with Archer's tone or his comment "Know your place"

I think the only point you are making IMHO is that you really don't know much about what you are talking about yet you keep these venomous attacks going because your ego will not let you (I say ego based on the statement you wrote in your port about feeding your huge ego) stop.

Based on my experience a technician is a technical expert in their field so going by that, you as a non technician in this field of photography are trying to tell these "technicians" how to do their job. I also remember you making the accusation of these "Technicians" reneging on the deal if you didn't get all the photos from a shoot, although, giving the impression that is not what was agreed upon.

I know I haven't been doing this nearly as long as other photographers and I haven't even scratched the surface of what I need to learn about the indusrty but you have less time then I do (based on when you signed up on MM) and you act like a know-it-all with a bad attitude. Try sitting back and listening to these "Technicians" and learn something before you drive potential contacts and in turn potential paid jobs away. One thing among many things I have learned here on MM is that the photogs on here are brutally honest, if you can't handle that, then you are going to have a hard time here.

Jessie Coleman wrote:
just like you don't like the lighting in some, she may not like her hair/body/facial expression in the ones you chose.  it's only fair she gets to pick out of all of them as you did.  tfp should be 50/50

I know I already replied to this post but wanted to add somethng to add to my disagreement with it being a 50/50 split.

I noticed a model on this site whose image caught my attention. I went to her portfolio and when reading her portfolio stated that for a TFP shoot the photographer will provide a MUA and if not the model will bring one but the photographer must re-imburse the model for the expense. So if the photog is the one shelling out the money for the shoot and the additional time spent in post production how can you expect a 50/50 split. Hmmm....Models investment=Time, the photogs investment=Time and then more time and money.

David Holloway wrote:
I know I already replied to this post but wanted to add somethng to add to my disagreement with it being a 50/50 split.

I noticed a model on this site whose image caught my attention. I went to her portfolio and when reading her portfolio stated that for a TFP shoot the photographer will provide a MUA and if not the model will bring one but the photographer must re-imburse the model for the expense. So if the photog is the one shelling out the money for the shoot and the additional time spent in post production how can you expect a 50/50 split. Hmmm....Models investment=Time, the photogs investment=Time and then more time and money.

Actually most of the times a convo has started between a model and myself in regards to TFP - they have always asked...I need an MUA, you have to provide one.  Now luckily I have one that I call on for these jobs who's rates are very low.  So I don't necessarily mind.  But I still have this distinct feeling that models have this over-inflated aspect of their contribution with respects to all the other work that goes into a TFP shoot.  This thread and several model's opinions really don't change that.

Let's look at this 50/50 split.

Assumptions:
- travel time is equal.
- no out of pocket expenses on either side (ignoring MUA for now)
- 3 hour shoot, approximately 300 images in total.
- on location shoot, three unique looks or seperate locations within the area.

Time for model (real time):  3 hours - actual model time: 2.5 hours (they aren't modelling if we changes looks, locations, etc)
Time for photog (prep, setup,etc prior to shoot): 1.5 hours
Time for photog during shoot: 3 hours
Post Processing: initial cuts: 1 hour
Post Processing: touchups: 1.5 hours

So we have here....around really 2.5 hours for the model and around 7 hours for the photographer.

So that's a 1/3 split not including assests (because that is in effect part of this equation).

Average model assests brought to shoot: 
- 1,000 clothing / makeup (probably high on that one..)

Photographer:
- 5,000 camera and assorted props, lighting, etc (probably low on that one)

Taking in considering assest value, we end up with approximately:

7 images out of every 100 as a equal 50 / 50 split.

So if I look through the images, and 80 of them I deem exceptional, great photos, the model should get around 5.

If course, that depends just as much on the model as it does the photographer, so the total # of images at the end would vary.  It's safe to say that you'll at least get 5 or so...might get more if you and the photog click.

Now we await the arguements on the math

Edit: now before I see rants about how expensive makeup is, etc,etc..I bring a LIGHT on location setup with 7,000 in equipment - so I lowballed that.  Also there is no additional photog time taken there for location scouting, etc (didn't include that because photogs use the same location more than once).  also no time added for additional post processing if required by model.  also no costs added for delivery of the final images to the model.  yes, camera is not a one time deal - neither is clothing.

KRB Photography wrote:
Create a disc with all the pictures on it - Untouched.

Naw!

If the model DEMANDS the outtakes tell her no.

If she gets nasty as has happened in the past, do this.  Give her the RAW camera files.  let her figure out what to do with a .CR2 file.

Jessalyn_54 wrote:
this is the new THE THREAD. I see this continuing on...and on...and on.....

...This is the new thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started writing in it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue writing in it forever just because...

SmartAz Photography wrote:

Naw!

If the model DEMANDS the outtakes tell her no.

If she gets nasty as has happened in the past, do this.  Give her the RAW camera files.  let her figure out what to do with a .CR2 file.

Naw, convert them all to 16 bit TIFF's . I'm willing to bet most model's computers would gasp for air, roll over and beg for mercy loading them up into photoshop.

RRCPhoto wrote:

...This is the new thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started writing in it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue writing in it forever just because...

thanks Shari Lewis.

Jessalyn_54 wrote:

thanks Shari Lewis.

even after 10 years has passed I STILL can't get that damn song out of my head...sigh.

dfstudios wrote:
If the shots are truly no good, just erase them. We all erase shots from the card as we are going along during a shoot, what's the difference?

Actually, I never erase as I go through.  I don't want anything deleted until I've seen it on a 17" screen.

And yes, some are bad and you know that you will erase them.  Even so, why risk inadvertently hitting "Erase All" when you are caught up in the moment of the shoot?  Sorry, I'll look at them later once they are off the camera and I can't lose a day's work due to the slipping and sliding of my big fat thumbs.

RRCPhoto wrote:

Actually most of the times a convo has started between a model and myself in regards to TFP - they have always asked...I need an MUA, you have to provide one.  Now luckily I have one that I call on for these jobs who's rates are very low.  So I don't necessarily mind.  But I still have this distinct feeling that models have this over-inflated aspect of their contribution with respects to all the other work that goes into a TFP shoot.  This thread and several model's opinions really don't change that.

Let's look at this 50/50 split.

Assumptions:
- travel time is equal.
- no out of pocket expenses on either side (ignoring MUA for now)
- 3 hour shoot, approximately 300 images in total.
- on location shoot, three unique looks or seperate locations within the area.

Time for model (real time):  3 hours - actual model time: 2.5 hours (they aren't modelling if we changes looks, locations, etc)
Time for photog (prep, setup,etc prior to shoot): 1.5 hours
Time for photog during shoot: 3 hours
Post Processing: initial cuts: 1 hour
Post Processing: touchups: 1.5 hours

So we have here....around really 2.5 hours for the model and around 7 hours for the photographer.

So that's a 1/3 split not including assests (because that is in effect part of this equation).

Average model assests brought to shoot: 
- 1,000 clothing / makeup (probably high on that one..)

Photographer:
- 5,000 camera and assorted props, lighting, etc (probably low on that one)

Taking in considering assest value, we end up with approximately:

7 images out of every 100 as a equal 50 / 50 split.

So if I look through the images, and 80 of them I deem exceptional, great photos, the model should get around 5.

If course, that depends just as much on the model as it does the photographer, so the total # of images at the end would vary.  It's safe to say that you'll at least get 5 or so...might get more if you and the photog click.

Now we await the arguements on the math

Edit: now before I see rants about how expensive makeup is, etc,etc..I bring a LIGHT on location setup with 7,000 in equipment - so I lowballed that.  Also there is no additional photog time taken there for location scouting, etc (didn't include that because photogs use the same location more than once).  also no time added for additional post processing if required by model.  also no costs added for delivery of the final images to the model.  yes, camera is not a one time deal - neither is clothing.

That just goes to show that the 50/50 split is just crazy..Your breakdown clearly shows the time and money a photographer invests far out weighs the models..

Oliver Cole wrote:
My clients get what they pay for. If they pay for ALL of the images, they get all. If they pay for a session & print, they get a session & a print.

Of course ALL of this is talked about BEFORE a shoot and signed via contract at the beginning of a shoot.

Oliver

As it should be.

David Holloway wrote:
That just goes to show that the 50/50 split is just crazy..Your breakdown clearly shows the time and money a photographer invests far out weighs the models..

I know.  I'm curious on what the major proponents to the 50/50 "model gets all images on a TFP" come back with.  Heck, life is a learning experience.  You either take the information and try to learn and see something from another perspective rationally - or decide sit in your sandbox and think that the world runs your way.  Some I would hope will take this and go..yes that makes sense and now I see why some photographers don't want to do it.  But I fear that the major proponents in this will look at it and go, so what..doesn't matter - I'm a model. 

Then you find those that are incredible to work with and that really is what this is all about.

Oliver Cole wrote:
My clients get what they pay for. If they pay for ALL of the images, they get all. If they pay for a session & print, they get a session & a print.

Of course ALL of this is talked about BEFORE a shoot and signed via contract at the beginning of a shoot.

Oliver

We're not talking about "paid" work..this is TFP..the concept of pay / return for value consideration is why this is a long thread

David Holloway wrote:

Now that is well said...

Oh, can I just quote your response in the email to her?)) Soul soothing words:)