ChristianBehr wrote:
Most of the good photographers, make-up artists, and stylists won't trade at all.  If you want really strong images - be prepared to pay.  If you don't care as long as someone is clicking a camera at you... just wait, they'll find you.

Good points Christian.

Taneia wrote:
I am curious since I just became a member on MM. OK so how photographers trade for pics do make up artist  and stylist work in the same way...to exstend their ports?

If you are new to modeling and have no experience, look for photographer who are new and dont have much experience.

ChristianBehr wrote:
Most of the good photographers, make-up artists, and stylists won't trade at all.  If you want really strong images - be prepared to pay.  If you don't care as long as someone is clicking a camera at you... just wait, they'll find you.

I'd like to throw emphasis on the word: most.

The biggest piece of advice I can give you is to pay if you're comfortable paying. Don't, if you're not.

edit: if you choose to pay for a photographer (I'm not saying you should or shouldn't before I get crucified here...) make sure you have some TFP under your belt so you can practice. If the photographer is bringing his or her best to the table, you should do the same.

And always hire a MUA. ALWAYS.

Daniela V wrote:

edit: if you choose to pay for a photographer (I'm not saying you should or shouldn't before I get crucified here...) make sure you have some TFP under your belt so you can practice. If the photographer is bringing his or her best to the table, you should do the same.

Practice checkers to play chess?  I can't tell you how many times I've had to help models " unlearn " stupid moves they learned with GWC's... doing tfp's.

Daniela V wrote:
And always hire a MUA. ALWAYS.

Why is it "maybe hire(pay) a photographer"  but always hire(pay) a MUA

The vast majority of images I shoot for model's portfolios have little or no make-up as that is what agencies want.

ChristianBehr wrote:

Practice checkers to play chess?  I can't tell you how many times I've had to help models " unlearn " stupid moves they learned with GWC's... doing tfp's.

What sort of stupid moves?  I know it's kinda hard for you to demonstrate....  just wondering.... I mean are we talking "Model T" stance or.... 

Daniel Norton wrote:
The vast majority of images I shoot for model's portfolios have little or no make-up as that is what agencies want.

It depends on the type of agency.  The OP isn't in great danger of being signed by Elite.  If an agency is in her future it will be commercial, and they don't have the same "no makeup" desires.

Daniela V wrote:

I'd like to throw emphasis on the word: most.

The biggest piece of advice I can give you is to pay if you're comfortable paying. Don't, if you're not.

edit: if you choose to pay for a photographer (I'm not saying you should or shouldn't before I get crucified here...) make sure you have some TFP under your belt so you can practice. If the photographer is bringing his or her best to the table, you should do the same.

And always hire a MUA. ALWAYS.

Good advice. We don't shoot many TFPs; but do so by invitation only now if there's a killer model we just could really like to work with.  That said, the worst use of my day and the model's time is to not know what you're doing when you get in front of a camera. Practice with some amateur guys shooting for free first; you may get some amazing images, but mostly you will get what you 'don't pay for.'  However, you will get experience.  When you shoot with a professional glamour photographer, be prepared to relearn a lot of what you were 'taught' by the GWCs.  Great images don't just happen (usually); it takes a lot of hard work on both the model's team and the photographer's team to make it work.

Also, very good advice on the MUA.  However, not all MUAs do hair and Stylists don't do make up so find out what kind of MUA/stylist you're hiring before the shoot. 

Good luck, Tim

ChristianBehr wrote:

Practice checkers to play chess?  I can't tell you how many times I've had to help models " unlearn " stupid moves they learned with GWC's... doing tfp's.

Did I say practice with GWC's Christian?

Daniel Norton wrote:

Why is it "maybe hire(pay) a photographer"  but always hire(pay) a MUA

The vast majority of images I shoot for model's portfolios have little or no make-up as that is what agencies want.

Because I have yet to find a MUA as good as the one I use for free.

=CY MAGIC= wrote:

What sort of stupid moves?  I know it's kinda hard for you to demonstrate....  just wondering.... I mean are we talking "Model T" stance or.... 

I shot a model last week who had only shot with GWCs.  All she would do was smile when she said she wanted edgy, sexy photographs. Took me an hour just to wipe that cute smile off her face and slowly get her into a sensual pose. It finally worked.  Also, she wanted implied - and the first thing she did was grab herself.  I worked with her for another 20 minutes on moves that would result in implied images but wouldn't look like she was into physically squeezing her boobs into unnatural lumps of flesh.  She didn't know about standing on her tip toes or why she should wear high heals. No one had told her; she had just been shot.  When I turned on the lights, she said "Gee, the last guy had twice as many lights as you do.  I said, and I bet your images were all flat and no dark shadow to them, huh? She said yes, but had never attributed the pose (she kept moving her face away from the side light) and the level of light with sensuality.

The list goes on.

Cheers, Tim

TXPhotog wrote:
Please note:  TFP does not equal "shoot with GWCs".  .

Yes. That's what I'm saying...Christian :-P

ChristianBehr wrote:
Most of the good photographers, make-up artists, and stylists won't trade at all.  If you want really strong images - be prepared to pay.  If you don't care as long as someone is clicking a camera at you... just wait, they'll find you.

Ocasionally a reaaly good photographer will do a TFP shoot with, but it depends on your experience, whether both parties will truly benefit, and whether or not you have a look that the photographer really wants in his port.  Most experienced MUA's and stylists will charge for their time, but a good stylist and MUA are definitely beneficial and necessary if you want a professional port, not just good photos.

Daniela V wrote:

Because I have yet to find a MUA as good as the one I use for free.

You are very lucky that you found a good MUA for free.  Is she getting copies of the images that you are shooting?  There are many great MUAs that will do TFP/TFCD.  I think it's the same with photographers.  You maybe lucky to find someone that's great and just starting out  that will do your shoot fro free but once these artists get better at their craft and people start to pay them then they will expect payment. 

If you love your makeup artist and want a good photographer you should pay them. 

You get what you pay for.

Starlight Makeup wrote:

You are very lucky that you found a good MUA for free.  Is she getting copies of the images that you are shooting?  There are many great MUAs that will do TFP/TFCD.  I think it's the same with photographers.  You maybe lucky to find someone that's great and just starting out  that will do your shoot fro free but once these artists get better at their craft and people start to pay them then they will expect payment. 

If you love your makeup artist and want a good photographer you should pay them. 

You get what you pay for.

I think you misinterpreted my sentance. What happens if I add a comma?


Because I have yet to find a MUA as good as the one I use, for free.

I'll translate: I pay my MUA, and no one is as good as her and doesn't charge. Got it?

And she gets photos. Because that's the right thing to do.

And you're right. I'm getting what I pay for. She's an amazing MUA.

And the photographers I shoot with deserve every penny they charge.

TXPhotog wrote:

It depends on the type of agency.  The OP isn't in great danger of being signed by Elite.  If an agency is in her future it will be commercial, and they don't have the same "no makeup" desires.

Agreed, she is certainly more along the lines of a commercial model. That being said, I shoot for commercial agencies as well as fashion agencies, they all want minimal make-up at least here in New York..

  I know in Texas they like the big hair  

Daniela V wrote:

Because I have yet to find a MUA as good as the one I use for free.

ummm ok. The best MUA in the world, coupled with bad lighting/composition still makes a crappy image.

Daniel Norton wrote:
That being said, I shoot for commercial agencies as well as fashion agencies, they all want minimal make-up at least here in New York..

No they don't. 

And the "big hair" comment was hardly appropriate for someone trying to show his expertise.

I'm very confident that I know more about commercial agencies in New York than you do, and "no makeup" is certainly NOT what they want.  Commercial print is perfectly happy to use makeup, and in fact makeup artists are recommended for commercial print test shoots, as they should be.

Further, the OP isn't in any danger of being signed by a commercial agency in New York, either, so that's an inappropriate standard.  When I have worked with the commercial agencies in Tampa, and I have, they weren't big on the "no makeup" look either.

Let's be clear:  what commercial agencies and client generally want to see is what makeup artists call "clean" makeup.  That is not at all the same thing as "no makeup", and in fact is difficult for even makeup artists to achieve properly.

TXPhotog wrote:
I'm very confident that I know more about commercial agencies in New York than you do, and "no makeup" is certainly NOT what they want.  Commercial print is perfectly happy to use makeup, and in fact makeup artists are recommended for commercial print test shoots, as they should be.

I think you need to re-read what I said

Daniel Norton wrote:
they all want minimal make-up at least here in New York..

maybe "clean" is a better word it than minimal in your mind, but we are saying the same thing.

You can be as confident as you want about your knowledge of New York, I only know what I know from living and working here now and minimal or clean make-up is what commercial girls get at least on my shoots. I'm obviously not talking scrub faced polaroids, besides the fact that my point was that I can't understand why models would feel having a great MUA is more important than having a great photographer.

Daniel Norton wrote:
maybe "clean" is a better word it than minimal in your mind, but we are saying the same thing.

No, I don't think we are.  "Clean" is a term of art that means something very specific to a professional makeup artist, and is very different from "minimal" makeup.  It takes a good artist to achieve it.  And that is why I differ with your implication that a good makeup artist is not needed on commercial shoots.

Daniel Norton wrote:
You can be as confident as you want about your knowledge of New York

Thank you, I will.

Daniel Norton wrote:
I only know what I know from living and working here now and minimal or clean make-up is what commercial girls get at least on my shoots. I'm obviously not talking scrub faced polaroids,

I understand that.  I still do not feel that you understand the difference between "minimal" and "clean".  If you do, then I don't understand this:

Daniel Norton wrote:
my point was that I can't understand why models would feel having a great MUA is more important than having a great photographer.

As you noted above, reading what was actually said is important.  Nobody said or meant that "a great MUA is more important than having a great photographer".  Clearly both are necessary for great shots.  What was said was more or less accurately characterized by you earlier:

Daniel Norton wrote:
Why is it "maybe hire(pay) a photographer"  but always hire(pay) a MUA

Daniella's statement simply reflected the very accurate facts that:

1.  It's often possible for a model to work on a TFCD basis with a good photographer, so it may not be necessary to pay one, and

2.  It is usually not possible for a model to get a good makeup artist to work for free if the model isn't a "fashion type", and

3.  Many photographers who will work for free will not pay for the makeup artist, and in fact will shoot without one if allowed to.

Given that you claim you now understand the need for "clean" makeup, and that a good makeup artist is necessary to achieve it, that says in all probability the makeup artist will have to be paid, even if the photographer does not.  Nowhere in there is there any implication that a bad photographer and a good makeup artist will make good pictures.

Daniel Norton wrote:

ummm ok. The best MUA in the world, coupled with bad lighting/composition still makes a crappy image.

This is true. No one said a MUA will save you from a bad photo. Please do not put words in my mouth

And I'm truly hoping this isn't a backhanded smack at my portfolio.

TXPhotog wrote:
Daniella's statement simply reflected the very accurate facts that:

1.  It's often possible for a model to work on a TFCD basis with a good photographer, so it may not be necessary to pay one, and

2.  It is usually not possible for a model to get a good makeup artist to work for free if the model isn't a "fashion type", and

3.  Many photographers who will work for free will not pay for the makeup artist, and in fact will shoot without one if allowed to.

what he said. exactly.

No one said one and not the other. I think it is you that need to read what everyone is saying.

-D

ChristianBehr wrote:
Most of the good photographers, make-up artists, and stylists won't trade at all.  If you want really strong images - be prepared to pay.  If you don't care as long as someone is clicking a camera at you... just wait, they'll find you.

Who are these "good" photographers that "won't trade at all" ?
If not tfp then most do testing.
As previously mentioned, a photographer that does tfp
does not necessary equate to a GWC.



Robert

U240Robert wrote:

Who are these "good" photographers that "won't trade at all" ?
As previously mentioned, a photographer that does tfp
does not necessary equate to a GWC.



Robert

me, for one.

and... word to the wise... do not mistake TXPhotog for a rube. You would do well to listen and learn while his patience allows him to offer his expertise here (for free).

Daniel Norton wrote:
Why is it "maybe hire(pay) a photographer"  but always hire(pay) a MUA

Because the odds of getting viable images from a shoot increases dramatically if you have a good makeup artist.

Daniela V wrote:
And I'm truly hoping this isn't a backhanded smack at my portfolio.

I'm not addressing your portfolio at all, more the concept that a model is more than willing to pay for a good make-up artist, but not a good photographer.

NewBoldPhoto wrote:
Because the odds of getting viable images from a shoot increases dramatically if you have a good makeup artist.

That's a rather silly statement. A good MUA will increase the odds of an exceptional image, but a "viable" image? Whatever.

TXPhotog wrote:
1.  It's often possible for a model to work on a TFCD basis with a good photographer, so it may not be necessary to pay one, and

2.  It is usually not possible for a model to get a good makeup artist to work for free if the model isn't a "fashion type", and

3.  Many photographers who will work for free will not pay for the makeup artist, and in fact will shoot without one if allowed to.

ok, I'll take that as a well though out answer.

We can disagree over terms (clean vs minimal) but we do agree the entire package is what makes for a complete and thus (usually) better shoot.

All I'm trying to do it figure out why a MUA is considered worthy of pay but not photographers, and I think you have nailed it pretty well.

-Daniel

Daniel Norton wrote:

I'm not addressing your portfolio at all, more the concept that a model is more than willing to pay for a good make-up artist, but not a good photographer.

Let’s face it, given the images we see here in new model portfolios, the model is likely to realize more benefit from the price of a pro mua  than (s)he would from the same investment in a pro photographer.

Daniel Norton wrote:

I'm not addressing your portfolio at all, more the concept that a model is more than willing to pay for a good make-up artist, but not a good photographer.

As has been addressed before...much easier to find a very talented photographer to do TFP, than it is to find a MUA for free.

I wouldn't trade my MUA for the world. She's brilliant.

Daniel Norton wrote:
All I'm trying to do it figure out why a MUA is considered worthy of pay but not photographers, and I think you have nailed it pretty well.

-Daniel

No one said a photographer isn't worth of pay. In fact, I said that my photographers are worth every penny they charge- because, sometimes, they do charge.

I'm speaking from personal experience- which constantly gets me into trouble, but whatever- I pay my MUA and I would not ask her for TFP because she doesn't need it, and she doesn't charge much. I've been blessed to work with some amazing photographers, and I haven't had to pay them.

The number of talented photographers on here outnumbers the amount of talented MUAs by like 500 to 1.

Stephen Melvin wrote:

That's a rather silly statement. A good MUA will increase the odds of an exceptional image, but a "viable" image? Whatever.

I will accept the label of silly- as I failed to define the context of the statement.
If the image is to be useful to the model it must present the model in a manner that her market can relate to. As we seem to be talking about a commercial type model...Having recently looked at many, many, and a few more agency models' digital comps, I feel very confident that the commercial market is able to relate to and likely expecting to see images that:
1 are boring ( I should say generic)
2 involve pro make-up
3 don’t necessarily involve a pro photographer.

Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
Every new person that comes here gets TXs free information packet. He refuses to tell his name in the open for some reason, but you still get to think how mysterious it all is.
Look for photgraphers that will work with you,its not hard to find one. But first look into the mirror and think long and hard if this is really what you want to do. Judge too for yourself what you think your chances are. Then go for it if you still want to.
And now TX will get up on his high horse and rant and rave and try to impress everyone with his mystical past career.

If the information is sound, there's no point to knocking it or the giver.

Btw, how is a newbie model supposed to decide for herself if she's qualified to be a model?  There are plenty of deluded people out there.  I'm not saying the OP is deluded, but looking in the mirror isn't going to magically provide her with all the information necessary to judge herself - like what her market is, is she living in an area that matches her market, does she have the wherewithal to pursue this - even only as a hobby... that sort of thing.  Mirrors are not going to help her.  What she needs to do is to get educated, and talk to someone who is impartial and knows the business.  That person can discuss with her the realities of the type of model she can be in the location she lives in.

Starlight Makeup wrote:

You are very lucky that you found a good MUA for free.  Is she getting copies of the images that you are shooting?  There are many great MUAs that will do TFP/TFCD.  I think it's the same with photographers.  You maybe lucky to find someone that's great and just starting out  that will do your shoot fro free but once these artists get better at their craft and people start to pay them then they will expect payment. 

If you love your makeup artist and want a good photographer you should pay them. 

You get what you pay for.

AMEN!!!