Photographer
PBK Photography
Posts: 1109
Dallas, Texas, US
Robert Randall wrote:
You are a somewhat confusing person. Your shoot criteria seems at least distorted, and some of the statements you made on your folio page escape me. For instance, what does this mean... "As you can see through my work, I am NOT your typical picture taking photographer. I direct all shoots." That is correct. I do direct all of my shoots. I'm not the typical photographer. Without going into numbers cause I have no idea of what they are, there are those who set up a tripod and have the models model while they push a button.
Being that my clients are not models, its easier for me to just direct a shoot vs having an experienced model in front of my camera and try to direct them as to what I see in my head. They are too used to modeling and I think it would be frustrating for both of us.
Photographer
R Michael Walker
Posts: 11987
Costa Mesa, California, US
PBK Photography wrote:
Was reading another thread and this question came to mind...
Do you (photographers) require all (or a majority) of your TF* work to be some form of nude? Full, implied, topless included
Do you (models) give in to photographers (that you really want to shoot with) who will only shoot under those conditions?
Me- I used to require them during my first year or so but only with those who were comfy doing them. Not that it makes it excusable but we all make mistakes. Currently, I no longer require nudes to shoot a model TF* (I just require a one time sitting fee and will shoot models TF* for as long as we want to continue working together). I shoot some that are minors and I see no reason to not keep it a level playing field.
So everyone, what are your policies/practices?
Again as usual, please keep the smart ass remarks to your self. Just want to see where everyone stands on this issue.
Thanks! Since I only shoot nudes I look for models who like my kind of work and want it for their book too. I CAN shoot other things for them too if they want it. And on occasion I will TFP with a fashion style model to upgrade my commercial book and no nudity is required there. But oddly enough those type models are harder to find.
Photographer
Gibson Photo Art
Posts: 7990
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Roxy Mae NFB wrote:
i can see it now
"No TF* unless you are willing to show me your tities, otherwise here are my rate:...."
so other words pay me to photographer you clothed which is not fun or exciting or show me your tities so i can be "excited" about the shoot. lol That's probably not it at all. I kinda have a similar policy. If a model has a good fashion/commercial look and then I will be asking to shoot them for what the fit. Most models are not so shooting them in that style is worthless to me. I will offer them one of my projects that usually does involve some stage of implied/nudity. There never seems to be a shortage of models who will pose nude
Other then that we have to starting talking about compensation. Models often do the same thing. If the shots are not valuable to them then they will starting talking about rates.
Pretty straight forward really. Nothing underhanded.
Photographer
Bill Mason Photography
Posts: 1856
Morristown, Vermont, US
PBK Photography wrote:
I would say it would be appropriate as long as he/she stated the reason. Otherwise it could look bad.
See how I'm getting bashed and I admitted to the policy and this was a few years ago! The smart thing would have been to not ever admit you had the policy in the first place. It does make you look a little pervy.
Photographer
PBK Photography
Posts: 1109
Dallas, Texas, US
c_d_s wrote:
I'm confused. Typical trainwreck starting. I asked a coupl eof simple questions and now I'm getting ganged up on. Why? My guess would be because a few people have nothing better to do. So....
Any reply not related directly to the op will now be ignored. If you care to try to attack me, do it in private and quit trying to make yourself look like a bigshot in front of everyone.
Thank you.
Photographer
Stephoto Photography
Posts: 20158
Amherst, Massachusetts, US
My profile here, and my other art nude profile www.modelmayhem.com/PsychoCybernetics is all trade, and the models choose to do the nudes with me, they asked me to shoot them with them; i never asked/forced, etc, and they most certainly aren't required. Art is art, and as long as we both have fun and get shots out of it, woot
Photographer
BodyartBabes
Posts: 2005
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
I think this is skewed in the wrong direction....
Basically TF* is about what is valuable or needed for each party. It's not about nudity, or "doing things" or such. It's not about what you can get out of someone, and it's especially not about trying to get "free" models. TF* is a trade, and BOTH parties (all parties) need to get something valuable -- be it nude images, fashion images. close ups of hands or toes, whatever.
If a photographer shoots nudes, or works mostly in nudes, the odds are that any TF* is going to be nude. Makes sense, right?
If a photographer *doesn't* usually shoot nude, or has a variety of work, *SOME* use the TF* ploy to get people naked. Some models actually fall for it, and do it. Others figure if they are going to do TF* they should do something different, so they try shooting nudes.
If a model isn't comfortable shooting nude, then why would they do it just to work with a photographer? There isn't *anyone* on this planet worth trading your comfort level to work with in the nude -- if that isn't what you are trying to do with your life/future.
Don't let people talk you into something you don't want to do -- for any reason. Life is long and getting longer.
This goes for both photographers and models.
So "get naked or get lost" is fine for some people -- and for people who do nudes, it's probably the only way to go. Shooting non-nude TF* is a waste of time -- and is not worth it on their end. But, simply shooting with a photographer is *not* going to "help a career" in 99.999999% of the cases, no matter who it is. Models are hired for their _LOOKS_ and _LOOK_ not who they worked with, or how much experience they have.
If you do nudes, _TRADE_ to get a good set of experiences and network. If you don't do nudes, don't compromise your comfort just because you think you have to. It's not worth it in the long run.
I shoot nudes, and have a long list of stuff I want to do. I'll shoot TF* all the time, but I'm only really interested in nudes, since that's what my needs are. I'll trade for other stuff -- such as use of a location, or skills, etc. But I need models comfortable and willing to do nudes. I'll trade them fully clothed sets if that's what they want/need out of it. A lot of my nudes are from models who never posed nude anywhere else, or before, or since, but needed/wanted some other images and were willing to trade work on my art projects for photos of the "looks" they needed for their port.
TF* is a way of life for a lot of people.
Scott
Model
Patrice Dark
Posts: 759
Tempe, Arizona, US
I've come across several photographers with a mix of clothed/nude images in their port who have some version of that policy (trade 1 hour of whatever the model wants to shoot for 1 hour of nudes, any TF* shoot requires nudity, etc.). I personally find those policies to be really tacky (just like the models who charge on the stripper sliding scale) and would really hesitate to work with those photographers.
It's the "requiring nudity" part that comes across as GWC-ish, because all it guarantees is that you'll get to see boobies. It doesn't mean that you'll get good nudes at all...in fact, you might get worse-than-average pictures because you're not specifically seeking out nude models.
If you're looking to build your nude portfolio, just say so. Don't try to force models to take their clothes off by making it a requirement.
Photographer
Manring Photo
Posts: 670
Portland, Maine, US
Nope. . .have never stated that in order to do a TF* shoot with me, models would have to do some level of nudity.
If I'm casting for a fine art figure shoot, or glam nudes, sure, but if a model approaches me out of the blue, likes the range and scope of my work and would like to trade, and I like her look and want to work with her, hell no, she does not *have* to do nudes to any degree in order to get the head shots, or whatever.
Photographer
Shutterbug5269
Posts: 16084
Herkimer, New York, US
PBK Photography wrote:
Was reading another thread and this question came to mind...
Do you (photographers) require all (or a majority) of your TF* work to be some form of nude? Full, implied, topless included
Do you (models) give in to photographers (that you really want to shoot with) who will only shoot under those conditions?
Me- I used to require them during my first year or so but only with those who were comfy doing them. Not that it makes it excusable but we all make mistakes. Currently, I no longer require nudes to shoot a model TF* (I just require a one time sitting fee and will shoot models TF* for as long as we want to continue working together). I shoot some that are minors and I see no reason to not keep it a level playing field.
So everyone, what are your policies/practices?
Again as usual, please keep the smart ass remarks to your self. Just want to see where everyone stands on this issue.
Thanks! I don't require nudity by any means.
It just happens to work out that way.
Photographer
Chuckarelei
Posts: 11271
Seattle, Washington, US
The Main Man wrote:
My first ever shoot here was for nudes. I wouldnt say I gave in, but I felt that I had to start somewhere Did you think you giving in helps to foster photographers' bad behavior?
Photographer
PBK Photography
Posts: 1109
Dallas, Texas, US
Mizz Joa wrote:
I wouldn't give in to photographers if those were the conditions even if I really really wanted to work with them.
I think nude is beautiful but my family is super religious so . . .yeee, I'm the "rebel" because I party and have a belly ring . . like, wtf? lol
Photographer
Svend
Posts: 25143
Windsor, Colorado, US
PBK Photography wrote:
Typical trainwreck starting. I asked a coupl eof simple questions and now I'm getting ganged up on. Why? My guess would be because a few people have nothing better to do. So....
Any reply not related directly to the op will now be ignored. If you care to try to attack me, do it in private and quit trying to make yourself look like a bigshot in front of everyone.
Thank you. Psh... you knew what you were doing with that OP 
Photographer
Wananga
Posts: 260
Atlanta, Georgia, US
For TF*, I never require the model to do any specific shot. If they're willing to do some nudes, great. If not, no problem.
Photographer
Magic Image Photography
Posts: 3606
Temple City, California, US
In the words of my old forien friend Belkey "ReDickulise"
Photographer
PBK Photography
Posts: 1109
Dallas, Texas, US
BodyartBabes wrote:
I think this is skewed in the wrong direction....
Basically TF* is about what is valuable or needed for each party. It's not about nudity, or "doing things" or such. It's not about what you can get out of someone, and it's especially not about trying to get "free" models. TF* is a trade, and BOTH parties (all parties) need to get something valuable -- be it nude images, fashion images. close ups of hands or toes, whatever.
If a photographer shoots nudes, or works mostly in nudes, the odds are that any TF* is going to be nude. Makes sense, right?
If a photographer *doesn't* usually shoot nude, or has a variety of work, *SOME* use the TF* ploy to get people naked. Some models actually fall for it, and do it. Others figure if they are going to do TF* they should do something different, so they try shooting nudes.
If a model isn't comfortable shooting nude, then why would they do it just to work with a photographer? There isn't *anyone* on this planet worth trading your comfort level to work with in the nude -- if that isn't what you are trying to do with your life/future.
Don't let people talk you into something you don't want to do -- for any reason. Life is long and getting longer.
This goes for both photographers and models.
So "get naked or get lost" is fine for some people -- and for people who do nudes, it's probably the only way to go. Shooting non-nude TF* is a waste of time -- and is not worth it on their end. But, simply shooting with a photographer is *not* going to "help a career" in 99.999999% of the cases, no matter who it is. Models are hired for their _LOOKS_ and _LOOK_ not who they worked with, or how much experience they have.
If you do nudes, _TRADE_ to get a good set of experiences and network. If you don't do nudes, don't compromise your comfort just because you think you have to. It's not worth it in the long run.
I shoot nudes, and have a long list of stuff I want to do. I'll shoot TF* all the time, but I'm only really interested in nudes, since that's what my needs are. I'll trade for other stuff -- such as use of a location, or skills, etc. But I need models comfortable and willing to do nudes. I'll trade them fully clothed sets if that's what they want/need out of it. A lot of my nudes are from models who never posed nude anywhere else, or before, or since, but needed/wanted some other images and were willing to trade work on my art projects for photos of the "looks" they needed for their port.
TF* is a way of life for a lot of people.
Scott Thank you! VERY well put!
Photographer
James Andrew Imagery
Posts: 6713
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
PYPI FASHION wrote:
For shoots that do not require nudes, I do not require nudes.
For shoots that require nudes, I require nudes. Couldn't have put it better, so I won't even try.
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
Avicdar - Toronto wrote:
Couldn't have put it better, so I won't even try. Sometimes 1+1 does equal 2.
Photographer
PBK Photography
Posts: 1109
Dallas, Texas, US
Svend wrote:
Psh... you knew what you were doing with that OP Nope! But it didnt take long to figure it out though!
I did learn one thing though...
NEVER ask a serious question on a forum where a majority of the people on here that LIVE on them have nothing better to do than to make others look like shit. Why? Cause it makes them look better!
And to reply to someone elses comment...
EVERYONE is a perv to some degree. It all depends upon which side of the circle upon which you stand and who is directly across from you. To each other, you're total oposites and what one thinks is normal, the other perverted.
Model
The Main Man
Posts: 4135
Sacramento, California, US
Chuckarelei wrote:
Did you think you giving in helps to foster photographers' bad behavior? Honestly no. The photographers port was full of nudes and I understood what I was getting myself into. He wasnt a guy who just wants to shoot naked people, his work actually looked awesome to me. Plus, I was competing in BodyBuilding and I felt they would be great shots for me and could lead to other things(see the shot of me pushing a boulder uphill in my port. He shot that)
When I started, I lived in an Area that 99% of the photographers in a 5 mile radius had ports full of Women in Bikinis or naked. You really think they would want to shoot a guy fully clothed?  I still asked and was turned down, but a few helped me out. I didnt want to have a port of MYSPACE style shots and be taken as a joke.
Photographer
c_d_s
Posts: 7771
Lubbock, Texas, US
c_d_s wrote:
I'm confused. PBK Photography wrote:
Typical trainwreck starting. I asked a coupl eof simple questions and now I'm getting ganged up on. Why? My guess would be because a few people have nothing better to do. So....
Any reply not related directly to the op will now be ignored. If you care to try to attack me, do it in private and quit trying to make yourself look like a bigshot in front of everyone.
Thank you. I'm no longer confused. OP started a troll thread and now he's lashing out at those who called him on.
Photographer
PBK Photography
Posts: 1109
Dallas, Texas, US
c_d_s wrote:
I'm no longer confused. OP started a troll thread and now he's lashing out at those who called him on. No, I asked a couple of what I though were legit questions. Then everyone avoided them and attacked me.
Edit- A couple of people seen them for what they were and answered them.
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
PBK Photography wrote:
That is correct. I do direct all of my shoots. I'm not the typical photographer. Without going into numbers cause I have no idea of what they are, there are those who set up a tripod and have the models model while they push a button.
Being that my clients are not models, its easier for me to just direct a shoot vs having an experienced model in front of my camera and try to direct them as to what I see in my head. They are too used to modeling and I think it would be frustrating for both of us. It seems to me that your self proclaimed atypicality is nothing more than an assumption. How could you possibly know the on set machinations of all other photographers. I would offer, based on what I've seen, that you are all too typical. Mind you, I'm not saying your work is bad, but it isn't what I would consider ground breaking or creative genius. Its the same thing you can see on 2 million other folios on the internet. Which begs the question... why do you delude your self into thinking your not typical? What is the upside for you in thinking that way?
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
PBK Photography wrote:
Nope! But it didnt take long to figure it out though!
I did learn one thing though...
NEVER ask a serious question on a forum where a majority of the people on here that LIVE on them have nothing better to do than to make others look like shit. Why? Cause it makes them look better! You're doing just fine on your own.
PBK Photography wrote:
And to reply to someone elses comment...
EVERYONE is a perv to some degree. It all depends upon which side of the circle upon which you stand and who is directly across from you. To each other, you're total oposites and what one thinks is normal, the other perverted. That's really deep. You should put it on a plaque.
Model
Jessyka Ann
Posts: 10660
Hyannis, Massachusetts, US
"hey! lets shoot together! I love your work!"
"sure! but you need to do a nude shoot right away"
*scratches head*
Photographer
Svend
Posts: 25143
Windsor, Colorado, US
PBK Photography wrote:
Nope! But it didnt take long to figure it out though!
I did learn one thing though...
NEVER ask a serious question on a forum where a majority of the people on here that LIVE on them have nothing better to do than to make others look like shit. Why? Cause it makes them look better!
And to reply to someone elses comment...
EVERYONE is a perv to some degree. It all depends upon which side of the circle upon which you stand and who is directly across from you. To each other, you're total oposites and what one thinks is normal, the other perverted. See that bolded section? That is just a sample of being combative in the eyes of those that "live on forums and have nothing better to do". That's trolling and it's what you've done from the start You're waiting to find people that will react to those type of comments and then play the victim as if you've been wronged and these people will not stick to the topic, etc... I've seen it a million fuckin times and it gets SO old and predictable *sigh* Yet you people continue to pop up by the dozen and start this shit over and over and over and over and there will ALWAYS be people that dive on it and feed the frenzy. Sometimes I just can't help but be the one to point out the obvious and shake my head in disgust at the sociopathic nonsense that goes on in the interwebs.
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Svend wrote:
See that bolded section? That is just a sample of being combative in the eyes of those that "live on forums and have nothing better to do". That's trolling and it's what you've done from the start You're waiting to find people that will react to those type of comments and then play the victim as if you've been wronged and these people will not stick to the topic, etc... I've seen it a million fuckin times and it gets SO old and predictable *sigh* Yet you people continue to pop up by the dozen and start this shit over and over and over and over and there will ALWAYS be people that dive on it and feed the frenzy. Sometimes I just can't help but be the one to point out the obvious and shake my head in disgust at the sociopathic nonsense that goes on in the interwebs. If you guys keep attacking him like this, he won't answer my questions, and I won't learn anything. And you shaking your head in disgust is nothing more than an affirmation of entitlement or a sense of superiority. the internet truly is a confusing dynamic.
Photographer
Svend
Posts: 25143
Windsor, Colorado, US
Robert Randall wrote:
If you guys keep attacking him like this, he won't answer my questions, and I won't learn anything. And you shaking your head in disgust is nothing more than an affirmation of entitlement or a sense of superiority. the internet truly is a confusing dynamic. Indeed. Don't think I don't agree... about all of that 
P.S. I said my piece, so I'll leave Bob to his fun 
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45205
San Juan Bautista, California, US
PBK Photography wrote:
Was reading another thread and this question came to mind...
Do you (photographers) require all (or a majority) of your TF* work to be some form of nude? Full, implied, topless included
Do you (models) give in to photographers (that you really want to shoot with) who will only shoot under those conditions?
Me- I used to require them during my first year or so but only with those who were comfy doing them. Not that it makes it excusable but we all make mistakes. Currently, I no longer require nudes to shoot a model TF* (I just require a one time sitting fee and will shoot models TF* for as long as we want to continue working together). I shoot some that are minors and I see no reason to not keep it a level playing field.
So everyone, what are your policies/practices?
Again as usual, please keep the smart ass remarks to your self. Just want to see where everyone stands on this issue.
Thanks! In general, my policy is just the opposite. I pay for nudes, and I TFP the other stuff. I would rarely TFP nudes. Sometimes I get paid for the shoot, and that includes nudes too. I make money off the nudes, I don't as much off the other stuff.
Photographer
Quay Lude
Posts: 6386
Madison, Wisconsin, US
Robert Randall wrote:
If you guys keep attacking him like this, he won't answer my questions, and I won't learn anything. And you shaking your head in disgust is nothing more than an affirmation of entitlement or a sense of superiority. the internet truly is a confusing dynamic. Mr. Randall, surely you are not trolling. Again.
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Cuica Cafezinho wrote:
Mr. Randall, surely you are not trolling. Again. Asking questions. If you ever truly paid attention, you would notice that's pretty much all I ever do. Then someone takes exception to one of my questions, and blammo, war!
But your post begs the question... what could I possibly get out of trolling? What reason would I have to keep my name in lights in this place?
Model
Marcia Wood
Posts: 1770
New York, New York, US
I don't shoot nudes.If you want to do tfp for nudes that is your business.I am not here to judge.If a photographer whose work I like refuses to shoot tfp me with me unless I am nude,I go out and find another photographer to shoot with.
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19020
Key West, Florida, US
PBK Photography wrote:
Was reading another thread and this question came to mind...
Do you (photographers) require all (or a majority) of your TF* work to be some form of nude? Full, implied, topless included
Do you (models) give in to photographers (that you really want to shoot with) who will only shoot under those conditions?
Me- I used to require them during my first year or so but only with those who were comfy doing them. Not that it makes it excusable but we all make mistakes. Currently, I no longer require nudes to shoot a model TF* (I just require a one time sitting fee and will shoot models TF* for as long as we want to continue working together). I shoot some that are minors and I see no reason to not keep it a level playing field.
So everyone, what are your policies/practices?
Again as usual, please keep the smart ass remarks to your self. Just want to see where everyone stands on this issue.
Thanks! No. I prefer to shoot my models with their clothes on
Photographer
todas_las_caras
Posts: 699
San Francisco, California, US
my current avatar is nude except for her socks.
Photographer
Abbitt Photography
Posts: 13564
Washington, Utah, US
Much of my work with models includes art nudes, so yes, I usually want models who are willing to do that, even if most of the images are not 18+ It may turn out even none are.
Most shoots may also require wearing something black, something white or going without sunglasses so I usually want models willing to do that as well.
Most models willing to do art nudes are also willing to wear clothes, so it's rare I need clothes only models. When I work trade with someone who is not willing to do nudes, it's usually because they have a background in a certain activity I wish to shoot.
Photographer
Quay Lude
Posts: 6386
Madison, Wisconsin, US
Robert Randall wrote:
What reason would I have to keep my name in lights in this place? I've been wondering about that since I noticed your assault on us amateurs on Model Mayhem. Isn't there a big boy forum you can play in somewhere on the interwebz? A place full of your peers? Instead of a place like MM where you soar like a turkey vulture, scooping up the chipmunks?
Photographer
Compass Rose Studios
Posts: 15979
Portland, Oregon, US
PYPI FASHION wrote:
For shoots that do not require nudes, I do not require nudes.
For shoots that require nudes, I require nudes. +1
Photographer
Compass Rose Studios
Posts: 15979
Portland, Oregon, US
Robert Randall wrote:
Asking questions. If you ever truly paid attention, you would notice that's pretty much all I ever do. Then someone takes exception to one of my questions, and blammo, war!
But your post begs the question ... what could I possibly get out of trolling? What reason would I have to keep my name in lights in this place? For somone who once felt compelled to correct me on my grammar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Photographer
PBK Photography
Posts: 1109
Dallas, Texas, US
Svend wrote:
See that bolded section? That is just a sample of being combative in the eyes of those that "live on forums and have nothing better to do". That's trolling and it's what you've done from the start You're waiting to find people that will react to those type of comments and then play the victim as if you've been wronged and these people will not stick to the topic, etc... I've seen it a million fuckin times and it gets SO old and predictable *sigh* Yet you people continue to pop up by the dozen and start this shit over and over and over and over and there will ALWAYS be people that dive on it and feed the frenzy. Sometimes I just can't help but be the one to point out the obvious and shake my head in disgust at the sociopathic nonsense that goes on in the interwebs. I set out to ask a simple question. Thats all. Nothing more, nothing less. Trust me, I have better things to do that to sit here and be attacked for asking a SIMPLE DAMN QUESTION!
Now, if it hits a little too close to home for ya, then quit trying to turn it back on me.
And yes, some of you DO live on these damn forums. How the hell else do you have 10, 20 30k posts in 3 years? Thats about 30 a day!
|
I still asked and was turned down, but a few helped me out. I didnt want to have a port of MYSPACE style shots and be taken as a joke.
