Jonell Gottlieb wrote:
So any pretty girl can take an awesome image? You just click away? Just like anyone with a camera can take a great picture.    *cough* BS

Actually, yes.... in the hands of a skilled photographer any pretty girl can take an awesome picture.

However, if you aren't a skilled photographer a skilled model is a very strong asset to a shoot.

And...... a skilled model can take a skilled photographer in a direction they hadn't anticipated going in, and that can sometimes raise the level of creativity.

But getting back to the original question, yes just any pretty girl with no skill whatsoever can work with ten strong photographers in ten days and come out of it with a strong book and in high demand.


To answer the OP, yes I pay models on a regular basis, and I pay them quite a lot.  I also charge models on a regular basis.

B R E N N A N wrote:
But I was not going to insult him by asking him to do my head shots for free, since they add zero value to his book. I asked him what his rate would  be, and I'm going to pay it. Aaaand I didn't feel compelled to start a thread to bitch about it.

WHAT?!?! Why not!?!?!? Every photographer should shoot headshots or whatever you want for free and fuck them if they don't! Start a thread!!!!!

/sarcasm

Daniela Victoria wrote:

WHAT?!?! Why not!?!?!? Every photographer should shoot headshots or whatever you want for free and fuck them if they don't! Start a thread!!!!!

/sarcasm

And I'm going to put said thread in the photographer's forum, and title it: "I would never pay a photographer because I just don't see the point when you can get a photographer that's equal or greater in skill to shoot simply for the images but that's just me."

C L A V I C wrote:
.....
I've never paid a model and never will. I just don't see the point when you can get a model that's equal or greater in attractiveness to shoot simply for the images
but that's just me.

......

I have a novel idea for this line of thinking:
Go play in the critique forum.

B R U N O wrote:
You're just wanting to go off on tangents now. 

Regardless of the fact that there are a lot of attractive people who can't and don't photograph well, there are just as many who are attractive and do photograph well.

Because of the FACT that we agree that there are people who are attractive who don't photograph well, I think we can agree that there are people who are unattractive in person who do photograph well, correct?  I have seen it.  My conclusion is that there is more to modeling than looking pretty, and more to photography than clicking a shutter.  I consider modeling and photography to be skills.  Some are better at it than others. 

For having worked as a portrait photographer many years, I have hopefully learned to make the most attractive features of my subjects more prominent that their imperfections.  Out of hundreds of thousands of people I've met or/and photographed I have yet to meet anyone who is flawless.   Have you?

B R E N N A N wrote:

And I'm going to put said thread in the photographer's forum, and title it: "I would never pay a photographer because I just don't see the point when you can get a photographer that's equal or greater in skill to shoot simply for the images but that's just me."

I think it's fair to say that it takes more skill to be a great photographer than it does to be a great model.

I'm not saying there that it takes a small amount of skill to be a great model, I'm just saying it takes more skill to be a great photographer.

C L A V I C wrote:
I think it's fair to say that it takes more skill to be a great photographer than it does to be a great model.

I'm not saying there that it takes a small amount of skill to be a great model, I'm just saying it takes more skill to be a great photographer.

I think there are naturals on both sides of the lens, as well as people who work their asses of to be as incredible as they are on either side of the lens.  And there are people who think they're god's gift too...

C L A V I C wrote:
I think it's fair to say that it takes more skill to be a great photographer than it does to be a great model.

I'm not saying there that it takes a small amount of skill to be a great model, I'm just saying it takes more skill to be a great photographer.

That is debatable.  Being that I love to debate, I could argue the opposite. 

C L A V I C wrote:

I think it's fair to say that it takes more skill to be a great photographer than it does to be a great model.

I'm not saying there that it takes a small amount of skill to be a great model, I'm just saying it takes more skill to be a great photographer.

You've obviously never worked with a great model.  I'm pretty fucking sure of myself, and I've walked out of shoots thinking "she was so much more creative than me that we weren't even in the same league"

On some level I think you're right when it comes to being competent and hireable... but you threw the words great out there.... and greatness isn't achieved by the undeserving.

C L A V I C wrote:

I think it's fair to say that it takes more skill to be a great photographer than it does to be a great model.

I'm not saying there that it takes a small amount of skill to be a great model, I'm just saying it takes more skill to be a great photographer.

I was always told, if I can't say anything nice, I won't say anything at all, therefore.....

C L A V I C wrote:

I think it's fair to say that it takes more skill to be a great photographer than it does to be a great model.

It's certainly not fair to say. It's impossible to say. And sometimes a little rude.

Rachel Jay wrote:
Yea.  Many of the photographers I have seen who've had that "I won't pay and never will" attitude, who've been around for awhile, have work that's very stale and they don't seem to grow much as photographers.  I attribute it to having the same quality of models to choose from, which largely becomes new models who don't know much about how to pose, how to emote, etc, because the models that stick with modeling quickly outgrow their work.

It's an interesting issue you raise.  Do these photographers not grow because they don't hire good models or do they not hire good models, because their abilities and goals don't warrant paying for talent?

I personally find that hiring a better looking, more talented model will help me produce a better image, but it does little to help me grow as a photographer. In fact, the opposite is true. On my last shoot, I was playing with something new and later I discovered I had some noise in some of the shadows on some images.  It's more efficient for me to learn this from a trade shoot than having paid $200 for the same lesson with a more talented model.  Paying less for models, means more shoots and a faster learning curve.

I'd love to pay models and pay them well, but at present, my ability, goals and income from shooting models does not warrant that.  Yes, working trade means some models will outgrow me (though it's more likely they won't stick with modeling)but for me, spending more effort to find newer trade models and doing more shoots usually outweighs paying much more to work with the same model multiple times.

Rachel Jay wrote:

I think there are naturals on both sides of the lens, as well as people who work their asses of to be as incredible as they are on either side of the lens.  And there are people who think they're god's gift too...

Yes well I'm not one of those ' Gods Gift ' people.

Alot of people in this thread have lashed out thinking that by saying that I'd never pay a model it somehow means that I think I'm too good to pay a model, this is not the case. In actual fact I've never taken pay from a model either and my philosophy is that if a model and photographer are equal in skill then there should be no money exchanged, if the model however thinks she can do better than me and would make me pay then she can go and find the literally thousands of other photographers who would be willing to pay her and I'd wish her the best of luck because the reality is that I can find other models willing to work with me for tfp that are just as good, it's not as impossible as people are making it sound.

In reality there is only one model I'd pay to shoot and that's Vikki Blows. I respect her immensely and she's successful but she still does the odd shoot for photographers that are willing to pay her rates.

K E E L I N G wrote:
You've obviously never worked with a great model.  I'm pretty fucking sure of myself, and I've walked out of shoots thinking "she was so much more creative than me that we weren't even in the same league"

On some level I think you're right when it comes to being competent and hireable... but you threw the words great out there.... and greatness isn't achieved by the undeserving.

Chris, this thread started out as one asking questions about paying models, and if it is worth it.  I believe it's gotten off topic a bit.  So let me say a couple of off topic things first;

You are damn good!  I'd even say that you are great!  When you or I work with great models, it brings us up to their level.  Even when we work with models above us in ability, it can be a beneficial shoot. 

I was inspired to get into model photography when I was a teenager and saw the great model Gia's images on magazine covers.  Gia was amazing to me in her prime.  I'd heard from reading other photographers accounts that Gia just "had the look" that was hard to take a bad picture of her.   I wish I was able to shoot with her at that time.  If I had been able to shoot with a model of her caliber when I was young, I wonder where I'd be today?   Simply put, some models are well worth paying for!

Now for my "original answer" to the OP which got buried on the first page;

I pay models about 1 out of 3 shoots.  Then I'd say about half the shoots have been for trade, and a smaller percentage left (less than a third) is what shoots I get paid.

Most I paid is $125 for an hour which included the studio and rental.  Model and studio provided by an LA photographer.  Average that I pay for models is some where between $35 to $50 per hour.  Although the clothing, swimwear and fashion type shoots are usually trade, I always pay for all nude shoots I do.  It has always been worth it! 

I've been well paid for shooting content for a models "paysite" and I prefer not to divulge that.  Otherwise I have been paid an average of $150 for a long two hour shoot.  I'm known to be very generous with the pictures regardless if it's paid, me paying, or trade. 

Maybe you don't have any intention of making money from using the images you shoot, but I do!  I do "see the point" in paying models because I am able to get better models AND I have intentions to make money from those shoots I pay the models for.  To pay, get paid or shoot for trade it's all negotiable and FUN!  I love what I do! 

C L A V I C wrote:
Photographers - How often do you pay models?

I don't pay models.  Because of the work I do, the clients I work for pay the models through their agencies.  I sometimes shoot creatives with the agency models too, where no one gets paid.

I think it is completely legitimate that models and photographers sometimes pay each other, depending on the conditions of the shoot.  I merely post to add another dimension to the discussion; the "client pays the model/photographer" scenario is sometimes overlooked.

I think it is unfair to diminish any kind of model-photographer transactions based on experience or talent:  Business is business.  I think it's patently unfair, and quite arrogant, to suppose that photographers are somehow more worthy of pay.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
It's an interesting issue you raise.  Do these photographers not grow because they don't hire good models or do they not hire good models, because their abilities and goals don't warrant paying for talent?

I think it's a combination of multiple things, to be honest, but I think that largely, it's their attitude that's holding them back more than anything.  Those who are willing to learn and realize they make mistakes, and realize that sometimes, both come at a price, are more likely to grow than those who say "I'll never [do whatever], I never have, and I never will".  That applies to various things, even, not just paying a model.  In general, I think a closed mind can only take a person so far. 

If someone's goals don't warrant paying for talent, then that's fine.  Those are their goals and their decisions, and no one else's business.  It's equatable to a model making the decision to not model nude, or not get involved in a certain genre.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I personally find that hiring a better looking, more talented model will help me produce a better image, but it does little to help me grow as a photographer. In fact, the opposite is true. On my last shoot, I was playing with something new and later I discovered I had some noise in some of the shadows on some images.  It's more efficient for me to learn this from a trade shoot than having paid $200 for the same lesson with a more talented model.  Paying less for models, means more shoots and a faster learning curve.

I certainly get what you're saying here, though.  That makes sense to me. 

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I'd love to pay models and pay them well, but at present, my ability, goals and income from shooting models does not warrant that.  Yes, working trade means some models will outgrow me (though it's more likely they won't stick with modeling)but for me, spending more effort to find newer trade models and doing more shoots usually outweighs paying much more to work with the same model multiple times.

You're being realistic.  And not snobbish either.  Right now, paying a model doesn't suit your work or your goals, and that's fine.  Certainly there are models here who feel the same way you do when it comes to paying photographers.

It's the "never have never will" people who say it with an attitude that, eventually, seem to plateau when it comes to their work.  And that could be said about models as well.

Richard Dubois wrote:
I don't pay models.  Because of the work I do, the clients I work for pay the models through their agencies.  I sometimes shoot creatives with the agency models too, where no one gets paid.

I think it is completely legitimate that models and photographers sometimes pay each other, depending on the conditions of the shoot.  I merely post to add another dimension to the discussion; the "client pays the model/photographer" scenario is sometimes overlooked.

I think it is unfair to diminish any kind of model-photographer transactions based on experience or talent:  Business is business.  I think it's patently unfair, and quite arrogant, to suppose that photographers are somehow more worthy of pay.

That is very true, and was the much more traditional scenario back in the day!

Thank you for the reminder!

C L A V I C wrote:
Photographers - How often do you pay models? What's the most you've ever paid a model per hour? Was it worth it? ....

....I've never paid a model and never will. I just don't see the point when you can get a model that's equal or greater in attractiveness to shoot simply for the images
but that's just me.....

Im sorry, this is a real bad attitude to have if you are serious about your craft and if you want to grow as an artist.

You are completely wrong about finding models that are equal or greater for free.
Remember, you get what you pay for.

Try hiring a very experienced model sometime, you might be surprised at what you will get and how your compositions will improve... but if you don't care about real quality then stick to your selfishness and mediocre subjects.

To answer your OP (question), I pay models I scout for my projects because I want the best experience for the effort. It's better to book someone who knows what they are doing rather than trying to teach someone who has no clue.
I TF* models who have something worthwhile for me and herself, maybe something different that I am interested in...I do a lot of these.
I get payed if it has no value to my portfolio or if I am commissioned.

K E E L I N G wrote:

Actually, yes.... in the hands of a skilled photographer any pretty girl can take an awesome picture.

However, if you aren't a skilled photographer a skilled model is a very strong asset to a shoot.

And...... a skilled model can take a skilled photographer in a direction they hadn't anticipated going in, and that can sometimes raise the level of creativity.

But getting back to the original question, yes just any pretty girl with no skill whatsoever can work with ten strong photographers in ten days and come out of it with a strong book and in high demand.


To answer the OP, yes I pay models on a regular basis, and I pay them quite a lot.  I also charge models on a regular basis.

+1

Art Silva Photography wrote:

Im sorry, this is a real bad attitude to have if you are serious about your craft and if you want to grow as an artist.

You are completely wrong about finding models that are equal or greater for free.
Remember, you get what you pay for.

Try hiring a very experienced model sometime, you might be surprised at what you will get and how your compositions will improve... but if you don't care about real quality then stick to your selfishness and mediocre subjects.

To answer your OP (question), I pay models I scout for my projects because I want the best experience for the effort. It's better to book someone who knows what they are doing rather than trying to teach someone who has no clue.
I TF* models who have something worthwhile for me and herself, maybe something different that I am interested in...I do a lot of these.
I get payed if it has no value to my portfolio or if I am commissioned.

So basically you're saying that no model willing to work for prints or the images on a disk will ever be as good as a model that takes money instead?
Pretty much all models that arn't looking for pay to you are all less experienced than models looking for pay.

I TF* with models to build our portfolios up and experiment with new styles and ideas, I'm getting from what you're saying that there's absolutely no way that anyone can achieve a great image this way?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
That is very true, and was the much more traditional scenario back in the day!

The internet makes everything so complicated. 

rfordphotos wrote:
Photography is how I relax and have fun now.

I dont mind paying for my hobby--- I would have to pay greens fees if I was a golfer, for instance...

So spending bit on a model works fine for me... I dont have to worry about getting them trade pix on time (although I usually do anyway), and in general I can get more experienced models.

And I remember all too well what it was like to be a poor college student--- so I like to chip in a bit.

By the time you figure in the cost of a camera, a bunch of fast glass, lights/modifiers, computers, wacom tablets, software etc etc etc.... a few hundred dollars now and again for models just doesnt look out of place to me...

My feeling exactly +

B R E N N A N wrote:

I was always told, if I can't say anything nice, I won't say anything at all, therefore.....

I wasn't told that. He's a jackass that's a little too high on himself...and maybe on something else too.

Facts are facts. I said it for you

C L A V I C wrote:
I've never paid a model and never will. I just don't see the point when you can get a model that's equal or greater in attractiveness to shoot simply for the images
but that's just me.

I have done shoots with paid models and have done shoots with models TF (never for free).

I have never had a "paid" model not show and I have never had a paid model who didn't pose well.

Richard Dubois wrote:
I think it's patently unfair, and quite arrogant, to suppose that photographers are somehow more worthy of pay.

I like that this statement came from a photographer far more talented than the one he was addressing.

I like it a lot. Four stars.

C L A V I C wrote:
So basically you're saying that no model willing to work for prints or the images on a disk will ever be as good as a model that takes money instead?
Pretty much all models that arn't looking for pay to you are all less experienced than models looking for pay.

I TF* with models to build our portfolios up and experiment with new styles and ideas, I'm getting from what you're saying that there's absolutely no way that anyone can achieve a great image this way?

No you're not getting it.
I am simply saying that if you want the best, expect to pay!
Yes there are great TF models but it's a two way street with that. I experiment a lot with TF models and get amazing photos but If I am doing a particular project say on film, I am going to search out the best model I can find that will fit what I exactly want and I check their experience in that look and their overall portfolio and 99% of the time they are professional models.

You have to understand that Trade shoots benefit BOTH model and photographer to an extent. Now if you are an exceptional photographer and a payed model likes your concept, she may very well TF instead but agreements change for the overall project intentions for the photographer.

I agree with your second paragraph about collaborating in trade but I did not say there is absolutely no way that anyone can achieve a great image this way.
No, absolutely you can, but the odds of that are less compared to someone you hire FOR that job that can deliver based on her experience.

Daniela Victoria wrote:

I wasn't told that. He's a jackass that's a little too high on himself...and maybe on something else too.

Facts are facts. I said it for you

Explain how I'm ' high on myself ' for not paying models when I can just as easily shoot with models who are looking to update their portfolios and are just as good as the ones that want pay.

KC King wrote:
What I've learned from filmmaking is that if you want your projects to elevate in quality you HIRE quality talent.

EXACTLY! well put.

C L A V I C wrote:
Explain how I'm ' high on myself ' for not paying models when I can just as easily shoot with models who are looking to update their portfolios and are just as good as the ones that want pay.

Arrgggh!
I'm just going to say it guys:

You are coming off as arrogant because almost any model willing to do TF with you is far more lacking in industry knowledge than most full time pro models who would request pay from you for their time.

So basically it seems you are saying, "it doesn't matter what kind of talent I get in front of the lens because I'm soo awesome that I can make her look like a top-dollar super model."

There I said it.

C L A V I C wrote:
Photographers - How often do you pay models? What's the most you've ever paid a model per hour? Was it worth it?

How much do you charge if a model is paying you?

I pay models once a month.

The most I have paid a model was $320 (for workshop work) and $100 out of my own pocket work.

It was worth it both times.

I would never charge a model because this is more of a hobby and I would not work with the model if it would not be beneficial to my portfolio... I have been paid twice as a photographer.

I hated the obligation of editing boring photos.. so If I was to be paid, it would be A LOT to make my time worth it... Probably upwards to about $300-$400 depending on how boring the idea is.

Christie Gabriel wrote:

Arrgggh!
I'm just going to say it guys:

You are coming off as arrogant because almost any model willing to do TF with you is far more lacking in industry knowledge than most full time pro models who would request pay from you for their time.

So basically it seems you are saying, "it doesn't matter what kind of talent I get in front of the lens because I'm soo awesome that I can make her look like a top-dollar super model."

There I said it.

Win. Thank you.