MikeyBoy wrote:
My comments were directed at his stated attitude/philosophy that it is him and his artistsic vision alone being the main reason the girls he shoots are beautiful... sorry ... news flash... but these girls were already beautiful when they walked in your studio door....

You are correct and he makes sure he lets those ladies know. his "attitude" was your perception and judgement, I didn't take what he said that way at all. And he doesn't behave that way at all. *I* would absolutely NOT work with anyone remotely behaving in the ways you are saying he does and he does not. I see enough of it here, check out this thread https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=13157
at least half of the photogs that posted there are the type you reffer too and come across as extremely unappreciative and unprofessional and rude and disrespectful......

MikeyBoy wrote:
they allowed you to work with them  .... and allowed you to attempt with your accumulated knowledge and investments to date to capture them visually in your own style... which you seem to do just fine.... no argument there either... just the expressed attitude that its all you......

thats how i see it... just me stickin up for the poor oppressed models and  expressing a little turnaround of the typically male "i'm the Boss cuz i got the camera, so you owe me big time"" attitude that pervades this industry.. i just dont subscribe to it... if that makes me a bad, awful person cuz i dare to disagree, then so be it .... 

I also consider it a privelege and an honor, not a constitutional right to make money, even though i do make my living from shooting, to be able to work on an equal level with models and I thank God that I have may have been blessed with a maybe a slight amount of ability to allow me to do so....

and as my Credits state on my MM bio... "i give ALL the credit to the models i have worked with.. all i do is push the button...... "

Happy Holidays !

Mikey

p.s.  The Canon 5D is one awesome camera....  ~~

I think the bottom line for *ME* is that if the model wants to make money, they should be selling their image and getting agents and working towards commercial marketing. A photographer and the pictures are a model's tool to get her money and her work.

If a photographer is taking pictures to sell commercially and has images to market, and he schedules a model and asks her to come and work for him/her, then by all means, he/she should be paying the model.

But as far as TFP goes, yes, you give credit to the model, but the photog keeps copyright unless the model puts forth ALL the effort as in gets her own MUA, provides the set, props, vision, and all the photographer does is push the button, in which case copyright should be shared. In any arrangement, the contract and consultation should clearly state what is the responsiblity and right of each person participating so everyone knows what they are getting into and there are no surprises at the end of the day. Who is getting paid, who is getting pictures, what is going to happen to the pictures, what the vision of the shoot is, ect ect.

Good topic guys, I just wish we could keep it resepctful and clean and not bash each other before really knowing the true intentions and personality of someone.

Kaire

MikeyBoy wrote:
"i give ALL the credit to the models i have worked with.. all i do is push the button...... "

so all you do is release the shutter..

so your models are organizing the shoots, scheduling an MUA, securing a location, setting up the lights, environments and camera..directing the MUA and choosing the wardrobe..posing themselves and after the shoot they clean up and do all the digital editing?

very cool..no wonder you have the outlook you have...i'm not sure i would even take half credit for the images, if i worked your system.....

(and yet another plug for your camera)

ThePoser wrote:
Doug is one of the most respectful, professional, passionate people I have ever met and he KNOWS the value of the model well and treats them VERY well.

kaire..
i hope you know there is no dollar value i could place on the inspiration you provided and images that were created with your participation...
thank you..

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
... then got her an appointment with a major fashion agency in New York - not a walk-in, but an appointment - on her way home.  We'd gotten her some decent test shoots and her book was pretty solid.

She did the Boston show (with at least one girl who is here), then both of them flew directly back to Texas from Boston and blew off the agency visit.  All of my credibility and connections were flushed down the toilet with that one decision.

Man, that blows. A reputation takes years to build and can be shattered by one idiot. *sigh*

One of the girls on America's Next Top Model went home last week because she wouldn't let them cut her hair. They'd already cut it from fairly long (below the shoulders, I think) to very short, but they wanted it shorter. She claimed they were trying "to change who she was," and walked off the set and went home.

The Hell?

You went through ALL THIS and you give it all up for another inch of hair?

While I am a *fierce* defender of the Zero Aggression Principle, even I must admit that there are times when it ought to be legal - nay, mandatory - to slap people.

M

MikeyBoy wrote:
chicken or the egg doug... i realize you truly believe the world swirls around your expensive cameras, and hey thats ok if thats your driving force behind what you do... ..... but check your whoppin mercenary ego at the door for a few seconds and think where you would be without the beautiful models who work in the presence of the Great One... ya just some guy standin on the beach with an expensive camera photographing seagulls... .. zzzzzzzzzzz

its wonderful you make money shootin pics.....  its just annoying to me... photogs who belittle the contributions a model brings to a shoot, which i believe outweigh their  expensive cameras..... and supersize their photographic end and on top of that whimper about how they should be paid for every breath they take when holding a camera because they spent a lot of money on it...... get over yaself

Happy Holidays !

Exactly - every photographer here wants to shoot the most beautiful models but bitch and moan about the model getting anything for their looks, let alone their time. 

What gall to belittle the very thing you desire to photograph!!

Some have the stupidity and bad taste to call them all Internet hookers because they want more than photos.  I have done a hellava lot of TFP and it does beat shelling out cash.  But I've also paid some models too, if nothing else some gas money for the trip in addition to the photos.

At what point does the model get to charge a fee?  After she gets a cover shoot for Vogue?  Hey, a lot have gotten on the cover of Vogue - photographers who have contacted those ladies and shot with them, please step forward.

Another forum entry talked about what a trip it would be to photograph Angolina Jolie.  Try this - photograph Angolina and photograph Hillary Clinton, both wearing bikinis and then come back and show the rest of us just how magical your camera work was on Hillary.  That it really made no difference how they looked in reality, it was your expensive lights and camera that made them both Cosmo cover beautiful. 

I've said it before - no business deserves business just because it has a lot of up front costs.  The photographic equipment is your entry fee for getting into the game.   

How you want to play the game is up to you. Don't wanna pay? Don't pay.  But enough with putting down and belittling the very people this site is named after - it is MODEL MAYHEM, not photographer mayhem. 

As wisely said before, the market will eventually, and ruthlessly, cull out those who do not warrant the work.  And that goes for both sides of the camera.

Dreams To Keep wrote:
Exactly - every photographer here wants to shoot the most beautiful models but bitch and moan about the model getting anything for their looks, let alone their time. 

What gall to belittle the very thing you desire to photograph!!

These statements assume much.  You should probably stick to speaking for yourself, but maybe you are, I don't personally know you.

What I do know is this: 

If it's strictly tfp/portfolio work the model gets images, nothing more unless more is brought to the table on their part. 

If I plan on marketting for a commercial profit the model is offered a percentage commensurate with the amount the model has put in, if they put in half the work I'll gladly share half the sales.

Either way, I reserve my copyright.  If you think you can effectively duplicate what I see and what I do, by all means go ahead, you don't need me.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
i'll tell ya what....and i hope you all recognise if this is directed at you..

lots of attitudes spouting about art and business...

so hows this guys...put up or shut up...

i left a corp engineering job, consulting, with salary most of you would die for..
i earn a modest living these days..i do it to pursue my love of the art of photography..

i have made a comittment to my art that most of you, are unwilling or unable to do..i value my art and the work that goes into..

i haven't suggested i need to be paid becasue i have made a big investment or that i own a slick camera..i haven't made light of the contributions of my models..

i am suggesting, that very few models, bring to the table 50%...very few..
and the ones that do..earn my time..

so fuck you all that think i have no business expecting someone value my art as much as i do...especially when i am contacted by the models because they think my work is valid...

Whoa whoa whoa....Doug.

See,myou guys...look what you've done. You've upset Doug. lol.

Not to make ligtg, but, honestlyYES I am making ligh of it.

EVREYONE (that includess you, Dougie)
You are are entitle
to your opinions and your views will continue to reflect in your work. This will not and should not be heightened to a level of hostility. So, before this thread gets that far, lets calm down and come to an understanding. And, those on the opposite sides, let's agree to disagree.

Damn, this business is too serious and cutthroat as it is. We don't need provocation through threads.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
i'll tell ya what....and i hope you all recognise if this is directed at you..



so fuck? you all that think i have no business expecting someone value my art as much as i do...especially when i am contacted by the models because they think my work is valid...

GMH Images wrote:
There's this guy with an oven, and he isn't a bad cook. He wants to make a nice cake. Trouble is, he hasn't got any ingredients.
He looks on the web to see who's selling all the stuff that goes into a great cake. Only the best, top-class ingredients will do for this guy. {Phew}... he says, when he sees the price for the ingredients: " a bit dear!"

There's this girl on the web who's got all the ingredients and she could sell them but it seems that most of the cooks don't want to pay to make good cakes! She's hungry and doesn't have an oven.

The guy emails her: "hey, you've got the mix, I got the oven, why not bring your ingredients  'round to my place 50 miles away, and
we'll bake the cake together and share out the fine cake?!

The girl says: "Sure... I'm hungry. I'll drive over tomorrow."
The next day, the cook hears a knock at the door.

"I didn't know what kind of cake you wanted us to bake", the girl says, pulling a massive trolley case in through the door and lugging it up the stairs to the cook's kitchen.

The cook is overjoyed, eying the ingredients, and dreaming of the cake they'll soon make!

Three hours later, sweat and heat... a job done well. The cook opens up the oven, the girl is clearing up and putting away the unused cake mix, and pausing - looks over her shoulder, wipes back the sweat from her brow, and sees a great cake!

"Gee..." she says "that's a great cake we made!"

The cook turns around - barely able to wait as he cuts a great bit slice and crams it into his greedy mouth. "Heaven..!" he says, then takes a Polaroid snapshot of the cake.

The girl, still struggling to pack everything she bought with her back into the case, whispers... "can I have a piece of the great cake we made together?'
The cook looks at her quizzically... before thrusting his hand out benevolently...

"Here...", he says. "This picture proves you have all the right stuff to make a great cake. Put it on your web site and tomorrow, everyone will want to buy your ingredients."

The girl looks at the photo. She loves the image of the cake they made.. and drives home the 50 miles happily, peeking at the photo of the cake nurtured on her lap.

She feels hungry as she arrives home, and remembering what the cook said, duly loads the cake picture onto her web site and puts the cook's name there in honor and respect for their great cooking together, and the great oven, and the great ingredients that made that great cake. Wow! They made this great cake together.

She goes to bed hungry, but happy - the picture of the great cake with her great ingredients, pinned to the wall above her bed.

Fifty miles way, the cook goes to bed - belly full  and even some  cake left for the morning. He sleeps a deep and satisfied sleep.
* * * *
A week later
* * * *
There's this guy with an oven, and he isn't a bad cook. He wants to make a nice cake. Trouble is, he hasn't got any ingredients.

There's this girl on the web who's got all the ingredients and she could sell them but it seems that most of the cooks don't want to pay to her for her ingredients to make great cakes! She's hungry and doesn't have an oven.

She wonders why:  if she has all of these great ingredients, and  a web site to sell them on, and all these lovely pictures to show what great cakes she helps to make... why does no-one ever buy them.

The moral of this story is TFP!
If you bake a cake with someone, take home half the cake.
If someone wants all the cake, charge them for the ingredients.
As long as cooks get all the cake, ingredient-owners sleep hungry!
But boy... do they have nice pics. Trouble is - the guy who took the picture - not only ate the cake.. but owns that picture too!

The guy with the oven has a big one. ( big oven,)   Big enough to make two cakes. He gives one cake to the woman with the ingredients, and keeps one cake for himself. Since she had to drive to his place he raids his piggy bank and comes up with enough money to pay her gas home. Both have big ones that night. (Full tummys)

Knowing that she was not taken advantage of, she tells all of her friends, with ingredients, about the nice guy with the big one, (Oven), and they all want to meet him and make cakes.

Iona Lynn wrote:
I love that story.

now how to you tell a cook his oven is crap?

Just tell him it's too small to do much baking.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
...the real image producer
is you. 
Photographers have to always remember its
your work being shown.  You are in
charge.  You set the tone of the shoot
and are responsible for everything
involved. 

There we go, again. Ego's. The world is mine.

I'm sorry Tony. But, you are soarly mistaken. YOU being in charge is not the way of the world.
That responsibility is shared. Unless, your model is inexperienced and uncreative.

In a TFP, a photographer may take the lead but ultimately it is up to the model to perform. And, if the make-up, lighting, emotion and energy are all on point. The most you'll have to do is color-correction. That's "Real Photography!"
This is what you get with an *experienced* model. You want to avoid PS as  much as possible. Otherwise, you just become a graphic artist with a camera.
If you want control, pay the model. But, if you're bossing around a model on a tfp or a project where she paid you. That's being egotistical at the least. "You're in charge" Ha. Surely you jest.

If the model is inexperienced then it's justified. But, how many eerienced models are going to allow that type of attitude? Hell, most won’t allow it even if they're bein paid. You're asking for a hardtime. And, note to theS st-production. If the energy isn't there...there's not a damn thing photoshop can do to create it.

What makes you think that because you hold a lense, you're top dog. If that model has mor experience than you. Or, she/he has designed the concept, how in the hell can YOU be in control. The person that came up with and is the major benefactor is the one in control. Whether that is the photographer, hiring model, or project manager hired by client (many times they do that), that is decided for each individual situation.

Ha. Don't set a shoot up with me talking about YOU're in charge. I'll laugh and walk out. Because, with those remarks it is always down hlll from there. Plus, I'm way beyond putting up with someone's ego and eccentricity.

Point is... your statement catered to a specific arrangment and does NOT go for every single TFP project *just because* it's a tfp. You and the model need each other. Start acting like it. Otherwise, do like another photographer in this forum stated and....
Go photographseagulls or palmtrees or something. Since that what you're amounting models up to.

How can you objectify the very thing you are trying to capture. Photography is an art, same as modeling. It has NO room for egos, belittling, superiority or controlling behavior. Art has to come from the heart. If you respect it that much then respect every part of it. Especially your subject. Which happens to be a human being.

Serious question: How many of you guys actually utilize humity and help the model during the shoot if she isn't getting it. Coach her.  All, I'm hearing from the opposers is the "Tar and Feather" approach. How in the hell does she learn? Coaching and humility will get you a much better product than attitudes and impatience ever will.

Angelus wrote:
In a TFP, a photographer may take the lead but ultimately it is up to the model to perform. And, if the make-up, lighting, emotion and energy are all on point. The most you'll have to do is color-correction. That's "Real Photography!"

You are joking right? Have you ever used a camera? Do you know how to get the setting correct on your camera to get the image you are looking for? Do you know how to position the subject or yourself to best utilize the light in the room? Do you know how to get the perfect emotion that the model is displaying in the picture without being a second too soon or too late?


I don't think it matters how experianced the model is in getting good pics sweetie, you can get some DAMN good pics of my 3 year old and she has NO experiance, you can photograph my sister all day long and 75% or more of the pics will be amazing, but you can photograph my friend who has been modeling for several years and get 3-4 usable images, and she is just as pretty but not as photogenic, but if you let another photog get a hold of that same difficult model, he may get the job done better. That is about experainced PHOTOGRAPHERS who know how to use their camera, how to adjust the lighting, how to speak to a person, how to get what they want in the view of the shutter, not about YOU standing there looking pretty. My mother in law has an AWESOME digital camera and she can't take pics for shit! Has no idea how to work it, just paid over $300 for it and thinks she can get great pics and she never puts that thing down, you would think she woulda learned by now.


Yes I agree the photog should coach the model to get what they want out of the session and help them, some people are easier at coaching then others, some people have a mind of thier own and don't take to coaching at all, and others just don't get it. In my experaice modeling, it does help to have the coaching with certian photogs and others seem to like it if you go at it yourself and get just as nice poses. Bottom line is this, I can line up 4 models and tell them all to pose the same way, they will all look similar but unless I manually pose them, they will still be different, that is the way it is and that is YOUR personal touch, the same goes for photographers, you could put an x on the floor and tell 4 photographers to stand there and take a pic of the same model, in the same pose with the same lighting and  they will all be different. Everyone brings something different to the table, if you want quality and experaince, likely you will pay for it, or you share a small percentage of the credits as a model.

I find one thing to be true about any industry, it is who you know, and whether it is tattoos, massage therapists, photographers, accountants, babysitters, whatever, if you are good to the right people and share a vision, it is highly likely you will get what you need from those people with little costs, but if you are a demanding punk, you will pay for what you want. People's attitudes shows in everything they do, and others catch wind of it.

Angelus wrote:
In a TFP, a photographer may take the lead but ultimately it is up to the model to perform. And, if the make-up, lighting, emotion and energy are all on point. The most you'll have to do is color-correction. That's "Real Photography!"
This is what you get with an *experienced* model. You want to avoid PS as  much as possible. Otherwise, you just become a graphic artist with a camera.
If you want control, pay the model. But, if you're bossing around a model on a tfp or a project where she paid you. That's being egotistical at the least. "You're in charge" Ha. Surely you jest.

I don't jest, and don't call me Shirley.

Keep talking. You're probably losing jobs as we speak with your attitude and lack of understanding about what photographers really do.

So, real photography only involves color correction if it's done right, huh? So, we should just leave zits and blemishes in all the photos? How about, no? That would make the model and the photographer look bad. I've worked with some pretty experienced models. The last girl I shot with has been in Playboy, Stuff, and does commercial work with agencies in Boston and NYC. Yes, she was a great model to work with, but now that the shoot is done and she's put her four hours in, I have to put in probably another eight to twelve hours of editing including choosing the shots to use, color correction, cropping, resizing, and removal of blemishes/skin wrinkles. For each picture. That's about eighteen hours of work for the same shoot she put about six hours into, including travel time. No, I couldn't have shot the pictures without the wonderful model, but in the end, once the product is finished, I have put far more work into it than she did. What's so wrong about wanting control of something I put that much time and work into?

I agree wholeheartedly with what Doug said earlier. It is our experience as photographers that make the models look good, not the other way around. Look at any models port. You will invariably see photos where he or she doesn't look as good as in other photos. This is a result of the photographer's style, choice of image, rapport with the model, and artistic vision. A bad photographer can make even a supermodel look dull, but a good photographer can make even a lackluster model shine.

So, put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Vita Brevis wrote:
Anyone who has to make a point that they gave up their day job and envious salary to pursue their love of photography is probably missing that salary, and the security that comes with it.  Go with the decaf latte.  Having a heart attack won't make you a better photographer.

you have to love something a great deal to give up comfort and security..

like i said..most are unwilling or unable to do it.....

so i imagine, you'll keep guessing what its like, to live ones dream..

i for one pity you..

ThePoser wrote:
You are joking right? Have you ever used a camera? Do you know how to get the setting correct on your camera to get the image you are looking for? Do you know how to position the subject or yourself to best utilize the light in the room? Do you know how to get the perfect emotion that the model is displaying in the picture without being a second too soon or too late?


I don't think it matters how experianced the model is in getting good pics sweetie, you can get some DAMN good pics of my 3 year old and she has NO experiance, you can photograph my sister all day long and 75% or more of the pics will be amazing, but you can photograph my friend who has been modeling for several years and get 3-4 usable images, and she is just as pretty but not as photogenic, but if you let another photog get a hold of that same difficult model, he may get the job done better. That is about experainced PHOTOGRAPHERS who know how to use their camera, how to adjust the lighting, how to speak to a person, how to get what they want in the view of the shutter, not about YOU standing there looking pretty. My mother in law has an AWESOME digital camera and she can't take pics for shit! Has no idea how to work it, just paid over $300 for it and thinks she can get great pics and she never puts that thing down, you would think she woulda learned by now.


Yes I agree the photog should coach the model to get what they want out of the session and help them, some people are easier at coaching then others, some people have a mind of thier own and don't take to coaching at all, and others just don't get it. In my experaice modeling, it does help to have the coaching with certian photogs and others seem to like it if you go at it yourself and get just as nice poses. Bottom line is this, I can line up 4 models and tell them all to pose the same way, they will all look similar but unless I manually pose them, they will still be different, that is the way it is and that is YOUR personal touch, the same goes for photographers, you could put an x on the floor and tell 4 photographers to stand there and take a pic of the same model, in the same pose with the same lighting and  they will all be different. Everyone brings something different to the table, if you want quality and experaince, likely you will pay for it, or you share a small percentage of the credits as a model.

I find one thing to be true about any industry, it is who you know, and whether it is tattoos, massage therapists, photographers, accountants, babysitters, whatever, if you are good to the right people and share a vision, it is highly likely you will get what you need from those people with little costs, but if you are a demanding punk, you will pay for what you want. People's attitudes shows in everything they do, and others catch wind of it.

The second half of what you'rre saying falls in linevwith most of what I said. But, now I can tell you weren't reading properly. And, YES I do know. And, if you're a good experienced model then you should know, too.

first half of what you said...You must be silly.
You speak to me as if I don't know or that I said othewise. I've beeb doing this shit for over 10 years. In front of and behind the camera.  A photograppher thinking that he is in charge and allows his ego to ay a part never will get anywhere. Start doing 45k covers or 25k spreads. Then, you may have a right to be this way.

With my  modeling contract my average job each covered the cost of these
photographer's equipment.

Yes, a photographer sets up lighting and scenes. But, he cannot make a model be great.

With coqching and prctice, she may get it. My thing is if you've got a model who's work is great with everyone and yours is sub0par. Then, the two of you work together with you *being the boss* and it looks like shit. Then, who's to blame?
But, if you work together in a collaborative effort, and it comes out great. Who gets the credit?

I never once said a model IS in charge. I'm saying that just because you're a photographer...that doesn't mean you're the boss. The client is boss. If you don't believe tgat, you'll never have many cents. I've made my mark. I'm no longer a seeking model begging for your guys' help or to work with me. My career is in a nuch higher level than all this. Read my st over again...but, pay attention to what I wrote. Don't take three s ntence
out of a paragraoh and assume what I'm saying. That's called being uninformed.

John Lavery wrote:
blah blah  lah

You need to go read ag in, too.

And, I'm not looosing jobs, because for one...when
I DO accept an
assignment Im 'experienced and open enough to work ith the phitographer on whatever he/she needs.
And, two...I don't get hired by photogr phers. I'm hired by the actual client.
Three, t is is by  o neans my career, nor main source of income. Ii own my own company where I am the one who hires models and photographers.

And, keep in mind...I've been othe hifh0road and I've suffered and had funin the same trip. I don't evervspeak on one side nor the other.

A photographer is NOT boss. A model is NOT boss.
A photographer should take the lead always. But, if a model KNOWS something is not working and is good to help fixit, then he/she should.

With one or the other asduming *I'm in charge* that doesn't allow this as an option and the whole damn thing gets ruined.

It's amazing how you'll get defensive because something doesn't sound exactly the way you want. Most of you guys are wonderful and do fabulous work. But, others you still do great or good work
but your attitudes and egos really suck. w do you attack my character when I'm making an unbiased honest statement, while you parade around with your self-serving judgments and egos.

Get you a 64k+ Soprt Illustrated Cover or a 100k timeazine cover. Then, you can sit there with your dick hanging out while you photoaph the models.

*And, yes there was a photographer [New York and Paris based] who did this. But, I won't publicly name him here. For obvious reasons.

Angelus wrote:
A photographer is NOT boss.

a photographer gets paid to deliver an image...they're are hired for thier art, style, skill and reputation.

once hired by a commercial client...you are way mistaken if you think the photographer is not in charge...

Doug Swinskey wrote:

a photographer gets paid to deliver an image...they're are hired for thier art, style, skill and reputation.

once hired by a commercial client...you are way mistaken if you think the photographer is not in charge...

And you're way mistaken if you think the client isn't in charge. They write the check. If the photographer doesn't come through, just see how long that photographer is "in charge"

Think of yourself as "middle management"

John Lavery wrote:
So, real photography only involves color correction if it's done right, huh? So, we should just leave zits and blemishes in all the photos? How about, no? That would make the model and the photographer look bad. I've worked with some pretty experienced models. The last girl I shot with has been in Playboy, Stuff, and does commercial work with agencies in Boston and NYC. Yes, she was a great model to work with, but now that the shoot is done and she's put her four hours in, I have to put in probably another eight to twelve hours of editing including choosing the shots to use, color correction, cropping, resizing, and removal of blemishes/skin wrinkles. For each picture. That's about eighteen hours of work for the same shoot she put about six hours into, including travel time. No, I couldn't have shot the pictures without the wonderful model, but in the end, once the product is finished, I have put far more work into it than she did. What's so wrong about wanting control of something I put that much time and work into?

I agree wholeheartedly with what Doug said earlier. It is our experience as photographers that make the models look good, not the other way around. Look at any models port. You will invariably see photos where he or she doesn't look as good as in other photos. This is a result of the photographer's style, choice of image, rapport with the model, and artistic vision. A bad photographer can make even a supermodel look dull, but a good photographer can make even a lackluster model shine.

So, put that in your pipe and smoke it!

RIGHT ON!
I actually took about 2 years worth of photography courses in college, JUST SO I could gain a better perspective of what you guys (and gals!) go through and holy moly - good golly - needless to say, I have a tremendous respect for the photographers and their jobs. I agree I hold a part of the artistic process (basically 25%), but come on! I get to go home and wait for the images (not to mention do other shoots) while you guys work your tooshies off editing way more than just MY images.

Hee hee, well .. that's my $0.04

Doug Swinskey wrote:
once hired by a commercial client...you are way mistaken if you think the photographer is not in charge...

Well, go ahead and be the boss, then. But, are you WILLING to allow that model to input some creative direction? If it's good creativuty,  that is.

What is so tough about you guys wanting control. When the image goes bad, the first person thatpeople discredit is the model. The same way models get all these coments and the photographers don't get as many for the same image. It works the opposite way as well.
If the image is horrible, it's more likely that only the model will get the negativity.

You can argue all you want. But, the truth is the model and photographer have to be comfortable with eacch other. And, if either one walks in thinking he/sheruns the show...it's just not going to turn out good.

Please, just understand, you as the photographer take the lead, but, allow room for the model to have some say (if it is good input...- I'm stressing this part because some models will single-handedly ruin the whole shoot) Loosen the reins a bit.

Senario:
Are you still assuming you're in charge if the model hired you or chose you as the photographer for her next gig? Will you just take over a situation where you were invited into?

David Moyle wrote:
And you're way mistaken if you think the client isn't in charge. They write the check. If the photographer doesn't come through, just see how long that photographer is "in charge"

Think of yourself as "middle management"

"once hired"..i am in charge..otherwise, you need another photog...but then you dont get my art, style, skill or rep...
and after all thats why i am hired...i'm not ever lowest bidder
i was contacted and hired for a reason...

i'm dead on target...thank you

dont like my work..dont hire me...easy
like my work..let me create it..

Angelus wrote:

Well, go ahead and be the boss, then. But, are you WILLING to allow that model to input some creative direction? If it's good creativuty,  that is.

What is so tough about you guys wanting control. When the image goes bad, the first person thatpeople discredit is the model. The same way models get all these coments and the photographers don't get as many for the same image. It works the opposite way as well.
If the image is horrible, it's more likely that only the model will get the negativity.

You can argue all you want. But, the truth is the model and photographer have to be comfortable with eacch other. And, if either one walks in thinking he/sheruns the show...it's just not going to turn out good.

Please, just understand, you as the photographer take the lead, but, allow room for the model to have some say (if it is good input...- I'm stressing this part because some models will single-handedly ruin the whole shoot) Loosen the reins a bit.

Senario:
Are you still assuming you're in charge if the model hired you or chose you as the photographer for her next gig? Will you just take over a situation where you were invited into?

what is it your not understanding...if we as photographers were "painters" or "scupltures" would you still want some creative input?...being a model for a photog is not differnet...so you gonna pick out brushes and blends, or chisels and hammers..no your not..

how is a photographer different in your mind?..

well there shouldn't be any difference..its only a different medium

Doug Swinskey wrote:

"once hired"..i am in charge..otherwise, you need another photog...but then you dont get my art, style, skill or rep...
and after all thats why i am hired...i'm not ever lowest bidder
i was contacted and hired for a reason...

i'm dead on target...thank you

Ok, just checkin, cuz I know when my clients hire me for my artistic vision, they also like to have final approval. Good for you that you are entrusted completely with the client, publisher, or art director's vision of what they want with no approval from them. You are in a place we all strive to be in someday.

She did the Boston show (with at least one girl who is here), then both of them flew directly back to Texas from Boston and blew off the agency visit.  All of my credibility and connections were flushed down the toilet with that one decision.

Ouch!

The floor's messy.  The showbiz bromide has been "the higher you go, the better the people you work with," but like many old saws, it probably has a lot of holes in it.

Angelus wrote:
blah blah blah

Wow, you didn't even address a single thing I actually said in my post. You just keep talking without actually saying anything. Did you even read what this entire thread is about? It's about TFP sessions and someone's misconceptions about what's going on with them and what a photographer vs. a model puts into a given photo shoot and the relative value of what they get out of it respectively. This has nothing to do with commercial photography where the client hires both photographer and model, and neither of them get anything but a paycheck and maybe a tearsheet.

But since you've opened the door... On a commercial shoot, the photographer is in charge, not the model. Why? Because the client puts him or her in charge. Because the client hired the photographer to achieve a particular look that said photographer is probably experienced at or known for providing. No one is trying to belittle any of the models we've worked with or their roles in our work. But it is our work. Even the law recognizes this by awarding copyright of an image to the photographer the second that image is produced. Why is that, do you think? Because the photographer has more influence on the finished image than the subject of that image does. We control the angle, lighting, crop, sharpness, and depth of field, all of which can drastically alter the feel of an image.

You can keep talking, but you've already done an ample job of demonstrating your ignorance. I'm done listening.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
what is it your not understanding...if we as photographers were "painters" or "scupltures" would you still want some creative input?...being a model for a photog is not differnet...so you gonna pick out brushes and blends, or chisels and hammers..no your not..

how is a photographer different in your mind?..

well there shouldn't be any difference..its only a different medium

You're egotistical and ignorant to the full spectrum.
The definition of ignorant= uninformed. Don't get offended.

If a photographer and model are hired. It is for the purpose and creativity of them both. Not, just you. And, yes you do have models to select backdrops, choose locations and props. Correct lighting, inforYOU which angles work and what poses or expression THEY can perform.

TFP: Do you know how many  odels leave from working with photographers wit
nothing but a raw image with BAD lighting, color, blurred and everything else.

They have to go home and do the same damn work you're claiming is YOUR responsibility. Or hire someone to do it, if they don't know how. Why do you think there are just as many graphic artitics and phoho-editors as there are photographers?


So, if every photographer felt like you, we wouldn't have an industry.


If your work speaks for itself then let it speak. For YOU! You taking your experiences and trying to convince people that isaw. When, you're the farhest thing from  the norm. *if you're telling the truth* You may just *want* to be in charge but neve  are.


And, Doug, I've met, networked and shot with many experienced and sought-after photographers.
(client-hired.) And, most of them always allowed the model to be natural and they captired the moment. And, I've yet to see ONE high profile photographer who had absolute control. Clients ALWAYS have final say.

And, you're right if someone doesn't like your work ethic then DON'T WORK WITH YOU.

I know now that I won't. I communicate with the photographer AND the model. If the photographer in anyway made the model feel uncomfortable or disrespected the model, (and vise versa) then I will fire that photographer or model and hire someone else. I as a client and my experience with former clients, I know that both elements are just as important. It's easier to select a photoapher than its a model. Through the lense, so many photographer's styles are so similar than unless there's an extremely specific look I need, I can usually bid from a good number and ca t quickly. Models othe other hand, it's an on-going experience to find the one who's versatile enough and conveys something of feeling that that is always an intensive experience. Especially since models are far less reliable than photographers. 

Without the right model, I have nothing.
Nd, not all models and photographers are compatible. I've seen it.
The best model can't do a great job with every photographer.
And, same goes for a photographer.

In truth, a granduous and fabulous model may need a less photographe  to get only the feel andccreativity of that model. Which means the client will pay her 30k for a single print and the photographer will recieve an day rate going on 5k.
Vise versa...a Groomed, unmatchably creative photographer may need a fresh face. So, that his creativity and style comes theough clearly and
untainted. He's paid 65k for that print and the fresh face gets exposure or maybe 1k.

How many of you actually know how much a single print in a magazine costs an advertiser? Talent/staff not included...

I have a national magazine and international swimwear company as my clients. So, of course I know. It definately isn't cheap.

And, to the clients the model is far more important than the photographer. Because the PUVLIC relates to the model, which is why she earns the title *supermodel*. The most famous, expensive and sought after photographers are the one's for Time, World News Today, and other magazines of this nature. In thse same prints and covers the subject is the image. No model present. One photographer from '99-'00 average day rate was 120k and he shor for three news mags and papers. When he was asked to shoot for a fashion/ent. mag, he turned them down. First reason, they couldn't afford or just wouldn't pay his dayrate. Second reason, those prints focus more on the model and not his work.

Keep this stuff in mind when you're saying you are in charge. If want to always be in charge then Change your subject (especially when you seem to not even respect her) Follow in the path of the Current events photogs.

If you wish to be a celebrity photographer in the commercial/ fashioworld you're going to need to respect and work with that model. I can guarantee you that her name will be famous before yours. And, since you were egotistical when working with her and *johnny* was understanding, coaching and friendlybwi her. He becomes her personal pgotographer and/or all of a sudden he's contacted for higher-end work. Then, he can turaround and with his reputationbbring up a model. He''s reached that point thanks to her.

Not saying this is how it always works. But, it is the norm. There aren't a whole lot of celebrity photogs and then most of them aren't even US photogs. But, we do have them here.

NOW HOW MANY YOU ACTUALLY READ THIS ENTIRE POST BEFORE REPLYING??

Angelus wrote:
NOW HOW MANY YOU ACTUALLY READ THIS ENTIRE POST BEFORE REPLYING??

I have.  Angelus, points taken.

Read my last post.  It's obvious that you guys are not on the same wavelengths and are in different markets.  There is little reason to argue apple with orange.

Everyone go get a drink...

Doug Swinskey wrote:
so i imagine, you'll keep guessing what its like, to live ones dream..

i for one pity you..

You imagine quite a bit, Doug.  Good for you...I hear it leads to creativity.  Or delusions of grandeur. 
No need for pity, dear boy, I lead a fairly comfortable life.  I've been a photographer all my life, not always making an enviable salary, but I've always had fun.
I'm happy that you're living your dream, and I'm sure you take your photography very seriously.  Actually, you seem to take a lot of things pretty seriously...but that's okay.  Forums wouldn't be half as much fun without the serious types.

lll wrote:
It's obvious that you guys are not on the same wavelengths and are in different markets.  There is little reason to argue apple with orange.
Everyone go get a drink...

hear hear

John Lavery wrote:
Wow, you didn't even address a single thing I actually said in my post. You just keep talking without actually saying anything.

But since you've opened the door... On a commercial shoot, the photographer is in charge, not the model. Why? Because the client puts him or her in charge. Because the client hired the photographer to achieve a particular look that said photographer is probably experienced at or known for providing.

No one is trying to belittle any of the models we've worked with or their roles in our work. But it is our work. Even the law recognizes this by awarding copyright of an image to the photographer the second that image is produced. Why is that, do you think? Because the photographer has more influence on the finished image than the subject of that image does. We control the angle, lighting, crop, sharpness, and depth of field, all of which can drastically alter the feel of an image.

You can keep talking, but you've already done an ample job of demonstrating your ignorance. I'm done listening.

My *ignorance* comes from the actual experience, John.
And, commercial clients don't JUST hire the photographers. Half of the time, they cast for both. Why? Because the client is looking for a certain look.
You guys must have never dealt with a major client.
Otherwise, you'd know this.


And, the mention of commercial work was provoked of another photog and you made reference to his and my debate. I only added clarity.


You have to read, bro. Serioisly. Skimming through trying to find ammo doesn't work for you. You respind to me like I'm invooking a New World Order.

Tfp's are a collaborative effort. Period. And, MOST photographers do not reset, touch up, resize, reformat, color correct or anything esle to images. You guys may. But, most do not. Hell, thas even if the model can get the images. For years there have been photographers who have never relinquished images owed to models. And, then the images most models bet they have to take  o someone to do any editing if the model him/herself canno. These are the points I'm making. You guys act as if this stuff NEVER happens.


Belittling models.. hmm.
I'm not saying you directly belittle models, I don't know if you do or not. But, photographers representing the same views you're voicing do.

Yes!
There are clients who hire photographers and let the photographer hire the model.

Yes!
The model should let the photoapher take lead and the model take dirction.

No!
This is NOT the only way it works.

No!
This is NOT law.

Yes!
You made valid points in the beginning. But, you have major discrepencies.

Yes!
It is your creatve work, if you fully do YOUR job. But, what about the one's who don't?

No!
Your experiences and work ethics are NOT the same as mos photographes.

No!
You are NOT icharge. What is this high school or the military?
The model leaves because you're being agressive and now you've gotta call your back up or spend the rest of the day finding a replacement.

No!
Acting like you're the top dog will NOT get you far.

Yes!
Communication and comfortabilty is the MOST important.
Tfp or Paid.

Yes!
If you hired the model it's your project and you are *boss*.

No!
You are not in charge if the client hired the model AND you.

No!
You are not in charge if the model hired you.

What is so hard to understand?
Loosen your reins. Are you that power-struck that you feel you're superior to the model?


John, alot of what you originally said I agreed with. If you read my posting you'd see that. But, because I note a discrepency in what you stated, you attack EVERYTHING I say. That is like walking into a battle with one gun, one bullet and no clue who's the enemy.

Nothing is wrong with photographers taking lead, and models taking direction.

But, how is that an absolute when you have just as many BAD photographers as you have BAD models.
Two evils.

JohnNOT all photographers behave the way you do. And, theefore they cannot and shoukd not have the same power or authority that you may have.

If your image was in the hands of someone else who could ruin it, would you feel comfortable knowing that when you don't like something, that person WILL NOT respond to you accordingly? Or is it easier knowing that you're looked at as a partner in this peoject? Maybe, not an equal partner...but, enough to know that you can address any concerns you may have.

That is my and the original poster's only point.

TFP is an agreement by both parties to create something will FAIRLY benefit both of you.

That's it.