Avicdar wrote:

Amber..

Business is business.  Sit down and calculate the cost of equipment investment, and toss in a profit to stay in business.  The numbers will pretty much bear out what I am telling you.

Similarly, if a model is in it for business, they should and do charge a rate that allows them to continue to buy clothes, get manicures, keep their tan going, etc etc.  It only makes sense.  Whatever business you are in, you need to figure in the cost of new purchases and maintaining what you have.  Otherwise, what you are doing is a HOBBY.

As for 'its not our fault you spend so much on your equipment' - its not a matter of fault, its simply business economics.   I doubt very much you would desire to shoot with, or have much confidence, in someone with a cheap point and shoot camera who runs to 'Photo Shack' right after the session to get the film developed.   All this equipment costs money, and again, we're not talking about a hobby.

Very well said!!! Most people don't realize the back end of doing business. I shoot TFP with models who have invested in clothing, props and the like. I need more than a pretty face and a good body to photograph. There are many models here who have that. I want something more.

When I first started I didn't have much equipment and took what models I could get to learn. But now I have invested in more equipment and want models who reflect the same in their abilities and resources. The better I get the better caliber of model I want. The same goes for models. If a model has been at it for several years then they want a photographer who has been as well. It is only fair. Granted there are the exceptions to the rule. There always will be.

"TFP" is a "test shoot" is an "exchange of equipment, wardrobe and services that benefit both parties involved". Plain and simple.

Brian Diaz wrote:
41

42 .... what game are we playing?

Zabrena wrote:

42 .... what game are we playing?

It's code for "I'd like to charge for TFP." 

CO Model Amber wrote:
What's the deal with that? I thought TFP meant TIME FOR PRINTS as in you give the photographer your time and you get the prints/cd for free.

Or what's with photographers who charge so much for so little? I've seen a lot of photographers charge $500+ for like 3-4 looks and then maybe 3-4 EDITED pictures and the same for prints 8x10 and sometimes all the raw images. I would expect a lot more for that kind of money!

Three part answer to a two part question:

TFP means "Time for Prints."  The model trades her time in exchange for prints from a photographer.

MFP means "Money for Prints."  That means you have to pay a photographer to take your pictures.

MFM means "Money for Modeling."  That means the photographer has to pay the model to model.

I really don't understand the question.  You are confusing two different issues.  Sometimes I really get confused.  There is nothing wrong with a photographer charging models to shoot them.  Indeed, I would expect that when a photographer gets good, if that is his aspiration, he will make at least part of his living doing portfolios.

L.A. is filled with wonderful photographers who make their living doing headshots for actors and portfolios for models.  Indeed, you comment on the price, I know some very sought after photographers who get referrals from the big agencies that charge, $5,000 or more to shoot a ten print portfolio for a model.  It is all relative and, so long as you are careful, you should get what you pay for.  Good photographers charge what their time is worth.

But the flip is I also hear photographers complaining about models wanting to get paid.  That is why they became models.  When they get to the point where they want money, they will either get bookings or not.  If they are good, they will move up the ladder and get fair value for their time.

Come on, this is a business.  Why do I keep reading posts complaining about models and photographers wanting to be paid?  The market will decide what they will get, and quite frankly, that is what this business is all about!

Avicdar wrote:

Amber..

Business is business.  Sit down and calculate the cost of equipment investment, and toss in a profit to stay in business.  The numbers will pretty much bear out what I am telling you.

Similarly, if a model is in it for business, they should and do charge a rate that allows them to continue to buy clothes, get manicures, keep their tan going, etc etc.  It only makes sense.  Whatever business you are in, you need to figure in the cost of new purchases and maintaining what you have.  Otherwise, what you are doing is a HOBBY.

As for 'its not our fault you spend so much on your equipment' - its not a matter of fault, its simply business economics.   I doubt very much you would desire to shoot with, or have much confidence, in someone with a cheap point and shoot camera who runs to 'Photo Shack' right after the session to get the film developed.   All this equipment costs money, and again, we're not talking about a hobby.

word! when i come across a model who has on an outfit that wasn't picked up at a local department store and out values my gear i'll pay them .
besides can you really charge a photographer for clothes and outfits that you were gonna wear anyway?

Avicdar wrote:

Amber..

Business is business.  Sit down and calculate the cost of equipment investment, and toss in a profit to stay in business.  The numbers will pretty much bear out what I am telling you.

Similarly, if a model is in it for business, they should and do charge a rate that allows them to continue to buy clothes, get manicures, keep their tan going, etc etc.  It only makes sense.  Whatever business you are in, you need to figure in the cost of new purchases and maintaining what you have.  Otherwise, what you are doing is a HOBBY.

As for 'its not our fault you spend so much on your equipment' - its not a matter of fault, its simply business economics.   I doubt very much you would desire to shoot with, or have much confidence, in someone with a cheap point and shoot camera who runs to 'Photo Shack' right after the session to get the film developed.   All this equipment costs money, and again, we're not talking about a hobby.

I was in the middle of typing a similar reply, but you have stated the points much better than I could have.  Kudos.

Mary wrote:

I have a clue as well who you are talking about and yea, the bait and switch is nasty.  If it's a paid test you call it a paid test if it's TFP call it a TFP.

completely agree.  I have dealt with confusing photographers before on this.  Now I make a point to ask them "is this a paid test or a free test/TFP?" just to get things straight.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Three part answer to a two part question:

TFP means "Time for Prints."  The model trades her time in exchange for prints from a photographer.

MFP means "Money for Prints."  That means you have to pay a photographer to take your pictures.

MFM means "Money for Modeling."  That means the photographer has to pay the model to model.

I really don't understand the question.  You are confusing two different issues.  Sometimes I really get confused.  There is nothing wrong with a photographer charging models to shoot them.  Indeed, I would expect that when a photographer gets good, if that is his aspiration, he will make at least part of his living doing portfolios.

I'm assuming she's concerned that some photographers in her experience called a shoot a "TFP" and then turned around and told her she needs to pay for the shoot, which makes the concept of the shoot different from a "TFP" by definition.  or at least that's how I interpreted it.

CO Model Amber wrote:
What's the deal with that? I thought TFP meant TIME FOR PRINTS as in you give the photographer your time and you get the prints/cd for free.

Or what's with photographers who charge so much for so little? I've seen a lot of photographers charge $500+ for like 3-4 looks and then maybe 3-4 EDITED pictures and the same for prints 8x10 and sometimes all the raw images. I would expect a lot more for that kind of money!

If this has been asked, sorry!

I'm just really curious!

Ok, first, you're right. Charging for TFP is a contradiction in terms. Charging for portfolio testing is not. However, for $500 getting 3-4 looks and 3-4 final images is not at all overcharging. Before all the digital cameras brought the amateur internet crowd in who did not know what they were doing, this was standard practice. Still is in many places with the agency crowd. 8x10 prints, I don't know what the hell is up with that except for typical internet amateurism, unless it's actors' headshots. 9x12 is model portfolio size.

What good does having all the raw images do you? When someone shoots film, do you want a print of each neg?

Believe me, I'm not the only one who works that way, and most of my colleagues in my area of the field work very much the same.

Zach Watkins wrote:
word! when i come across a model who has on an outfit that wasn't picked up at a local department store and out values my gear i'll pay them .
besides can you really charge a photographer for clothes and outfits that you were gonna wear anyway?

I think you completely missed Avicdar's point, as he was saying models SHOULD charge a rate which reflects, among other things, wardrobe costs. Your logic is really bad here. By the same token, a model should be able to say, "Can a photographer really charge a model for a camera and equipment he'd have anyway? I mean, photographers love to shoot."

Assuming a model would own an extremely large wardrobe of various and sundry styles that she would constantly update to seem cutting edge is a lot like assuming you'd buy your lights, pay for a studio, and still get that nice camera and top-notch glass if all you were shooting were your kid's little league games.

Don't begrudge a model their tools. There are models on this site I would kill to PAY to pose for me, and while their look is part of the reason, what they bring to the table in terms of wardrobe, makeup, accessories and experience is worth their weight in gold. Look at Yaya's portfolio. Do you think a shoot with her and her gigantic black hand-made angel wings should not reflect the cost of making, time of making, and wear and tear on those wings because.. she would have worn them anyway?

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Three part answer to a two part question:

TFP means "Time for Prints."  The model trades her time in exchange for prints from a photographer.

MFP means "Money for Prints."  That means you have to pay a photographer to take your pictures.

MFM means "Money for Modeling."  That means the photographer has to pay the model to model.

I really don't understand the question.  You are confusing two different issues.  Sometimes I really get confused.  There is nothing wrong with a photographer charging models to shoot them.  Indeed, I would expect that when a photographer gets good, if that is his aspiration, he will make at least part of his living doing portfolios.

L.A. is filled with wonderful photographers who make their living doing headshots for actors and portfolios for models.  Indeed, you comment on the price, I know some very sought after photographers who get referrals from the big agencies that charge, $5,000 or more to shoot a ten print portfolio for a model.  It is all relative and, so long as you are careful, you should get what you pay for.  Good photographers charge what their time is worth.

But the flip is I also hear photographers complaining about models wanting to get paid.  That is why they became models.  When they get to the point where they want money, they will either get bookings or not.  If they are good, they will move up the ladder and get fair value for their time.

Come on, this is a business.  Why do I keep reading posts complaining about models and photographers wanting to be paid?  The market will decide what they will get, and quite frankly, that is what this business is all about!

Well stated.
The internet has turned mediocre girls (at best) who could never model with an agency-
into "supposed models",
it's really quite laughable.
There are so few models on here that justify paying them,
and when I see average girls who would probably only look good nude,
and state "I don't do nudes....so don't even ask",
that's even more amusing.
Alittle off point,
but just a few observations.

tampabayphotos wrote:
I know one FL photographer who "targets" new-to-the-business unknowing models who appear on "new model" lists on OMP and other sites. (he snags them before they know what hit them) At that point they are too new to modeling and don't know any other models to network with so that they will know who (especially him) to avoid.

He tells girls he is doing a "free" TFP shoot for them and then after he does the "free" TFP shoot he fast-talks them into paying him $400 to make, and upload 5 photos, to a FREE OMP page that all models can do and get for free for themselves. He has done this more than once....and is probably still doing it today to any newbie he can sucker out.

Talk about a used car salesman with a camera! Phewwwwww

He's even worse than a GWC!

We've got a few vultures like that here in Chicago.

RED wrote:
Photographers, model, wardrobe people, and stylist put alot of time and money into doing what they do. SO they can charge what they want to charge and if you don't like it go somewhere else thats all there is to it.

That's it. Discussion Over.

CO Model Amber wrote:
What's the deal with that? I thought TFP meant TIME FOR PRINTS as in you give the photographer your time and you get the prints/cd for free.

let me correct you

TFP = Time For Payment

TFCD = Time for Creative Development

CO Model Amber wrote:
Or what's with photographers who charge so much for so little? I've seen a lot of photographers charge $500+ for like 3-4 looks and then maybe 3-4 EDITED pictures and the same for prints 8x10 and sometimes all the raw images. I would expect a lot more for that kind of money!

That is pretty much what I charge, but I dont give edited pictures or prints. I give a cd with all images RAW, and with websized images. I m not a graphic artist to do the retouching work and Im not a lab to print images. If the model wants retouching, I refer her to a guy I work with, if she wants prints I can print them at the lab I use or refer her to different labs.

Before digital, you would get the rolls of film and some prints or contact sheet. The cd takes the place of all that.

tampabayphotos wrote:
I know one FL photographer who "targets" new-to-the-business unknowing models who appear on "new model" lists on OMP and other sites. (he snags them before they know what hit them) At that point they are too new to modeling and don't know any other models to network with so that they will know who (especially him) to avoid.

He tells girls he is doing a "free" TFP shoot for them and then after he does the "free" TFP shoot he fast-talks them into paying him $400 to make, and upload 5 photos, to a FREE OMP page that all models can do and get for free for themselves. He has done this more than once....and is probably still doing it today to any newbie he can sucker out.

Talk about a used car salesman with a camera! Phewwwwww

He's even worse than a GWC!

Hmmmmm Sound familiar.. is he out of Miami ?

George ephrem wrote:
Well I have said this before, and was also stated today, tfp/cd is time for print, photog give shooting time, model gives her time.
after the shoot, model goes on her way to do what she wants, that's fine.
after the shoot, the photog, eventually has to sit behind the computer for
several hrs1-2 / 2.5 hrs, "working the images.
Is that time suppose to be free also?? I mean I could find something else to do with that tiime.
Yes I do tfcd, i give the model a cd with almost all (unless some of the shots are really bad) lo res cd ready for internet. I tell the model this up front.
I still have to be behind the computer don't forget.

what do you guys think about that.?????

And that I think is the issue.. Once the shoot is over the models time is done. THe photographers time still goes on. That's why I don't see a problem with a small charge for basically doing editing and retouching. If the model took the files to a retoucher to get rid of blemishes or to even out skin tone or whatever, she/he would have to pay.. So what's wrong with paying the photographer for that??  Assuming the photographer knows what they are doing..

   In general, with digital, the photographer will put in 2-4 hours additional that the model never puts in.. With film the lab in essence did the post work..   MHO...

Dax wrote:

Hmmmmm Sound familiar.. is he out of Miami ?

lll wrote:
My opinion remains the same, and I wish the original poster understands a little about business and economics.  Mostly, it is summed up in one word:  VALUE.

I think that summed it up nicely...
My situation is such that I have no interest in hiring models or being hired to shoot models...I've worked as a commercial/editorial/portrait photographer for over 20 years, and I simply shoot people I find interesting.  I tend to find attractive females interesting, so I shoot a lot of them...but some are models, some are beginner/amateur/wannabe models, and many are just people I meet.
My own pet peeve, and I think this is relevant to the "charging for tfp" question, are the "photographers" with point and shoots who write 500 word bios and list dozens of spurious "projects" they are working on as a means to self-aggrandize.  What amazes me more is when I see said "photographers" with crap images and a list of "ooooh, nice work" tags...usually from mercenary models with several similarly spurious credits who are looking to play some poor middle aged sucker into forking over the bucks for what amounts to 2 hours of private time with a strip...er, model.
That said, it's a free market, so have at it...

Vita Brevis wrote:
What amazes me more is when I see said "photographers" with crap images and a list of "ooooh, nice work" tags...usually from mercenary models with several similarly spurious credits who are looking to play some poor middle aged sucker into forking over the bucks for what amounts to 2 hours of private time with a strip...er, model.

Vita, well said, it's called "the likes attract".  One of the few exceptions from the law of "opposites attract".    I love that stripper analogy.  ROFLMAO.

lll wrote:
[...]

Does this make ANY sense at all? 

[...]

yes, you make perfect sense, and you stated it very clearly and accurately.  if the skill levels are somewhat different, either money or generosity flows to provide equity....

unless it's actors' headshots. 9x12 is model portfolio size.

In the interest of being complete, that's not completely fair either Marko.  It really depends on your market.  Some do 9x12, some do 9.5x13, etc.  Your market may vary.

I guess to make it fair we need a rating system on portfolios, that way we know who we have to pay to work with

That's a scary thought Mary.  That's exactly in my opinion what brought down OMP.  The problem is that you have too many people with no clue who vote strictly base on what's "pretty".  Thus you have those guy who were extremely popular on OMP bubbling up to the surface as being the "best", when in all actuality they're really good, but have no interest in shooting what the industry wants or expects.

It's a good idea in theory, I just don't think it works on the Internet.

A Hamilton

Paul Ferrara wrote:
It obviously wasn't an offer for TFP.  If the price is too high, it's too high.  Just ignore it and go on to the next one.

Paul

p.s. and suck your tummy in on those artistic nude shots.

How nice of you to add that bit o' advice.......(grin)

Mary wrote:

It isn't unscrupulous to charge for a portfolio test.  TFP stands for Trade for prints, nowadays that would probably be TFCD.  Testing is different, paid testing is when a model pays a photographer for shots for her or his portfolio.  Some photographers do this for a living, they don't need shots for their books they just do this for a living and some are very good at consistantly giving the agents what they want. Agents in fact send their models to this kind of photographer often.   I work with a photographer in LA that charges $800.00, including makeup artist but he is very good, too good to be doing model testing in my opinion but he needs the money and LA is very competitive, it's hard to make a living in photography there.

I think it's time for people to expand into the real world, what you see reflected on these pages doesn't reflect what goes on in the real world of professional modeling and photography.  If you ever email a very good working photographer and ask about a TFP there is a good chance he or she is going to delete your email not even knowing what they hell you are talking about.  If you ask about testing he or she will probably come back with a price....if he or she is really successful you just insulted him or her by even asking about a test and probably won't even get a reply.

Sorry people, thats the way it is...I am not intending to insult the nice people here that do test and do TFP but it's important for models to know that this isnt standard industry jargon.

AMEN!!!

Amber.....and that was not comming from a photographer!!

TO be honest, I regularly hear those "top" photographers make fun of all the people here! Models And Photographers!!  This is just how the real world works. If the model is good enough, the agency may cover the cost. If the model finds a well respected, published photographer, she would have to pay. Situations vary, but many great photographers DO charge for their time, and its worth every penny! Just stop looking here and start looking around town and youll see.