Kymberly Jane wrote:
and without us.. ya'all are taking pictures of trees and rocks..

I cannot argue that.

Rick Fink wrote:
I really think that photogs should generally pay models for shoots!

I try to get paid work for a lot of the models I work with but keep running into the fact that many experienced photogs want to do trades or get paid themselves!

My feeling is that the model and I co-create the images but since I ask her to sign a release form she should get paid.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because I see talented models and photogs butting heads over should a nude shoot be paid or trade.

Then there's the implication that any photog worth his salt won't pay models and only the GWC's pay.

Even if it's a totally trade shoot I'll offer the model $25 for her signature on the release form.

I can't even begin to understand your logic, you and the model co-create an image but the model should be paid??? Who is paying you then??  If it is trade for services and talent then you are saying your side is inadequate and should include cash?? 

This isn't a critique of your work as I have not even looked at it, it just what you are saying doesn't make any sense to me.

The client pays both of us, end of story.  In some cases the photographer may also be the one hiring the MUA, stylist, prop service, catering, etc. but in general the only one the photographer "should" be paying is their assistants; the rest differs based on the client.

Models and Photographers should not look at each other as customers but as creative partners trying to get the attention of the actual customers.  This site is for us to network with each other, share information, and maybe find some work.

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
From GWC or content shooters?

and i was ALSO paid o be published on the cover of professional photography magazine..

im glad you all choose to bash me instead of the newer models on this thread.. most of those girls cant laugh it off like i do.

Bree Addams wrote:

Got a rough date yet? And you know you're welcome to my guest room

Driving down to FL, so I'll come through between the... hmm... 22-27 sometime.

Kymberly Jane wrote:

your insults just show how hateful you are towards women...why would we want to pose for someone who doesnt respect us?

Hit that nail on the head.

Stephen Markman wrote:

If you kidnap AJ and bring her with you to NYC, I will personally deliver your coffee-stained shirt to my dry cleaner.

But while we wait for the return of your shirt, I insist on drunken debauchery.

/end threadjack

For someone who says they are not a GWC you keep chattering more about fun drunken debauchery then actual images. I'm sure your intentions are pure, but you come across as nothing more then a guy who takes models out on the town and spends money on them rather then creating images.

MisterC wrote:
I think you should definitely keep paying every model.

But I also think you should not define how others work.

Rick Fink wrote:
I'm going to continue paying models.

Do whatever you think is best.

That's all I'm saying.

Bree Addams wrote:

Now Stephen, you know I love you, but you do realize this appears as if you look down upon internet models. So, if a brand new photographer in my area pays my day rate for me to be in front of his camera, this is not modeling? Yes, I make more money off of "real modeling", but I don't fair so poorly off of GWCs either. All money spends the same.

But this thread is about established shooters should pay models and no one should tf for a photographer.

Stephen Markman wrote:
I learned a long time ago: just because someone SPEAKS with an accent, don't assume that they THINK with an accent. 

The point I was making was not that complex.  It was stated in simple terms.  The fact that English is not your first language does not, de facto make you an IDIOT.

Be proud: there are people for whom English IS their first language for whom the analogy was a) wasted; and b) (apparently) insulting.

Stephen, in case you are still reading this, I posted in a forum making a joke (and analogy) about what the op was saying in terms of "why would I pay for photos if I can get them for free?"

Anyway, in that thread... you attacked me for my analogy about downloading music, books, and movies... and therefore being the problem.  I just wanted to make sure you knew I was using an analogy, and not serious... I don't believe in ripping off other people's work. 

Best Wishes,
Jason

AJScalzitti wrote:

I can't even begin to understand your logic, you and the model co-create an image but the model should be paid??? Who is paying you then??  If it is trade for services and talent then you are saying your side is inadequate and should include cash?? 

This isn't a critique of your work as I have not even looked at it, it just what you are saying doesn't make any sense to me.

The client pays both of us, end of story.  In some cases the photographer may also be the one hiring the MUA, stylist, prop service, catering, etc. but in general the only one the photographer "should" be paying is their assistants; the rest differs based on the client.

Models and Photographers should not look at each other as customers but as creative partners trying to get the attention of the actual customers.  This site is for us to network with each other, share information, and maybe find some work.

FTR:  It is ENTIRELY possible for a photographer to be the client (content shooters, art shooters looking for new print/gallery submissions) or for the model to be the client (hiring photographers to shoot sets for sites, private collector content or com cards/promotional materials).

Nothing is ever black and white, unless it's notarized.

Kymberly Jane wrote:
and i was ALSO paid o be published on the cover of professional photography magazine..

im glad you all choose to bash me instead of the newer llamas on this thread.. most of those girls cant laugh it off like i do.

No bashing I am asking a legit question

MisterC wrote:

I cannot argue that.

all you need is a naked lady in the middle and BAM.. its a that appeals to masses.

Rick Fink wrote:
Should we wrap this up?

We have all had our say everyone is happy with the diversion!

Some of you I have argued with have super talented work and my hat's off to you!

I'm going to continue paying models. Do whatever you think is best.

Unfortunately, it doesn't end just because you want it to.

I do find your last sentence very funny, because for the past 8 pages you have been others we should do what YOU think best.

Death of Field wrote:

Kymberly Jane wrote:
wrong. i have been a paid model for 10years.. i depend on money for my work

Don't be so fucking above it all Angela, Kym has worked right along side me as a hired model for a very good photographer that is currently being published in Germany.
Yes, sometimes we work for GWC's sometimes we do content, and other times we work for companies like EA Games.
Spend enough time in your Agency and you will see the GWC's don't just disappear.

I asked a question

Stephen Markman wrote:

And Bree, you know I'd personally don chainmail and slay dragons for you BUT, every now and again, some models and some photographers need to be reminded of the differences between the "real" world of modeling and internet modeling.  YES, I have an enormous amount of respect for working internet models and though I do shoot with some Agency models (and aspiring agency-standard models) you know --as I think most people in this thread do-- that I primarily work with internet models and am, in fact, very good friend with many many internet models. I think you (and some others) know that I open my home, nearly every weekend to traveling internet photographers and models, because I understand that there is a huge difference between the real industry world and the world of internet modeling.  I think you know there is also a vicious rumor that I might have dated one or two internet models.

The point is: You have CORRECTLY stated that internet models derive a good portion of their income from GWCs. 

If you go back and read this thread, you'll see that the OP is advocating that photographers --of any/all skill level-- should ALWAYS pay their models.

Now, I know where the vast majority of your REAL modeling income comes from and for those that don't, I think it's sufficient to say that you get paid, by check, drawn on the accounts of multi-national corporations.  These checks are not likely to bounce.  The rest of your modeling income, as I understand it, comes from GWCs.  (I don't know if you do any site "content" work.)  These guys SHOULD pay you because you're way out of their fuckin' league and they should be willing to sacrifice cash (if not their left testicle) for the privilege and honor of shooting with you.

As someone who HAS shot with you, I can verify that it is, indeed, a privilege, honor and total pleasure working with you.

Many of us are NOT GWCs and don't have those same limited options.  Sorry. 
Bree, I adore you, but I think you may want to read the entire thread, in context.

I never said you did look down upon internet models, but your wording made it appear so.

Now, chainmail pics or it didn't happen.

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:

No bashing I am asking a legit question

and your legit question is answered. who cares who i work for.. who cares what movies im in *mainstream AND porn* bottom line.. I have Never dont TFP.. and i dont think it right for photographers to demand it.. when in My case.. the photographer has ample resale value and can make a very large profit off my images.. as they are in demand..

Greg Kolack wrote:

Unfortunately, it doesn't end just because you want it to.

I do find your last sentence very funny, because for the past 8 pages you have been others we should do what YOU think best.

Feel free to keep talking!

Death of Field wrote:
For someone who says they are not a GWC you keep chattering more about fun drunken debauchery then actual images. I'm sure your intentions are pure, but you come across as nothing more then a guy who takes models out on the town and spends money on them rather then creating images.

Well, given that Conceptually Black doesn't fit any of my modeling needs, I think I'd be more inclined to grab a drink with him than shoot him.

But you are free to feel that makes me something less than serious about my photography. 

I will note that I probably shoot and update my portfolio more than most of the people I know on this site, but YMMV.

Edit: and since you and I have never met and my post to Conceptually Black hardly suggests what you are implying it suggests, I'd think you might want to stop listening to bitter rumors.  My life is far more boring than your "friends" may have led you to believe.

The Original Sin  wrote:

Driving down to FL, so I'll come through between the... hmm... 22-27 sometime.

March?

Stephen Markman wrote:

And Bree, you know I'd personally don chainmail and slay dragons for you BUT, every now and again, some models and some photographers need to be reminded of the differences between the "real" world of modeling and internet modeling.  YES, I have an enormous amount of respect for working internet models and though I do shoot with some Agency models (and aspiring agency-standard models) you know --as I think most people in this thread do-- that I primarily work with internet models and am, in fact, very good friend with many many internet models. I think you (and some others) know that I open my home, nearly every weekend to traveling internet photographers and models, because I understand that there is a huge difference between the real industry world and the world of internet modeling.  I think you know there is also a vicious rumor that I might have dated one or two internet models.

The point is: You have CORRECTLY stated that internet models derive a good portion of their income from GWCs. 

If you go back and read this thread, you'll see that the OP is advocating that photographers --of any/all skill level-- should ALWAYS pay their models.

Now, I know where the vast majority of your REAL modeling income comes from and for those that don't, I think it's sufficient to say that you get paid, by check, drawn on the accounts of multi-national corporations.  These checks are not likely to bounce.  The rest of your modeling income, as I understand it, comes from GWCs.  (I don't know if you do any site "content" work.)  These guys SHOULD pay you because you're way out of their fuckin' league and they should be willing to sacrifice cash (if not their left testicle) for the privilege and honor of shooting with you.

As someone who HAS shot with you, I can verify that it is, indeed, a privilege, honor and total pleasure working with you.

Many of us are NOT GWCs and don't have those same limited options.  Sorry. 
Bree, I adore you, but I think you may want to read the entire thread, in context.

this

Kymberly Jane wrote:

and your legit question is answered. who cares who i work for.. who cares what movies im in *mainstream AND porn* bottom line.. I have Never dont TFP.. and i dont think it right for photographers to demand it.. when in My case.. the photographer has ample resale value and can make a very large profit off my images.. as they are in demand..

EDIT :

cover and centerfold of Mexican Maxium.. april 2011.. just found out.

Kymberly Jane wrote:

and your legit question is answered. who cares who i work for.. who cares what movies im in *mainstream AND porn* bottom line.. I have Never dont TFP.. and i dont think it right for photographers to demand it.. when in My case.. the photographer has ample resale value and can make a very large profit off my images.. as they are in demand..

+1

Kymberly Jane wrote:
and your legit question is answered. who cares who i work for.. who cares what movies im in *mainstream AND porn* bottom line.. I have Never dont TFP.. and i dont think it right for photographers to demand it.. when in My case.. the photographer has ample resale value and can make a very large profit off my images.. as they are in demand..

Well I asked because the OP in the thread said all photographers should pay models no matter what is for. But if your photo doesn't have a resale value to me why should I pay you? That's when the client comes in and they are the one who have to pay you. I'm being hired by the client you are being hired by the client, I the photographer am never the client.

Erlinda wrote:
This is the kind of threads you start to get when MM lets anyone that can hold a camera in here or anyone that can smile in front of one in here....  This is what happens when MM became less exclusive and more focused on the quantity instead of the quality...

MM welcome to your down fall?

MM was NEVER exclusive.
It was NEVER a place for professionals.
In fact it has become MORE restrictive in the years I have been here due to advertisers demands.

MM has always been based upon size and ad revenue not quality.

Rick Fink wrote:
I really think that photogs should generally pay models for shoots!

I try to get paid work for a lot of the models I work with but keep running into the fact that many experienced photogs want to do trades or get paid themselves!

My feeling is that the model and I co-create the images but since I ask her to sign a release form she should get paid.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because I see talented models and photogs butting heads over should a nude shoot be paid or trade.

Then there's the implication that any photog worth his salt won't pay models and only the GWC's pay.

Even if it's a totally trade shoot I'll offer the model $25 for her signature on the release form.

Rachel Jay wrote:
That's great and all, but everyone's ways of doing things are different, and each individual has the right to throw their policies out the window if the right opportunity arises. 

I've seen plenty of models who will work nude TF* with the right photographer.  I also know that some of the folks with huge glaring "NO TF*!!" banners have worked TF* with the right model.

1

I don't pay models, nor do models pay me.  We both are paid by whoever is hiring us.

I will also happily shoot pro bono on a project that is useful to me for marketing and portfolio development.  This is why I have "Depends on Assignment" selected on my profile.

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
Well I asked because the OP in the thread said all photographers should pay models no matter what is for. But if your photo doesn't have a resale value to me why should I pay you? That's when the client comes in and they are the one who have to pay you. I'm being hired by the client you are being hired by the client, I the photographer am never the client.

you live in the little blessed world we call the 2% who make a living at photography..
most of them shot us..pay us.. and are Reimbursed for publications..
I am NOT an agency model.I do NOT wish to be. so your line of work Differs from Mine quite a bit.. therefore you should have No opinion of how i do buisness..nor do I have an opinion of how you do yours.

Death of Field wrote:

MM was NEVER exclusive.
It was NEVER a place for professionals.
In fact it has become MORE restrictive in the years I have been here due to advertisers demands.

MM has always been based upon size and ad revenue not quality.

You are right on one thing it was never exclusive but they did keep a tighter lead on who can come to this site...

It was never a place for professionals? really? have you read this? "Where professional models meet model photographers"

Stephen Markman wrote:

Well, NO, you obviously do NOT "get it."  If you "GOT IT" you'd see that I was drawing an analogy between Sluggos and Pimps.

It was not intended as a joke.  It was intended to be somewhat sardonic but was intended to convey a very serious point about the premise of this entire thread.







(When you're done Googling "Sardonic" - I'll be off in the corner, slashing at my wrists that it was necessary to even post an explanation)

In other news: People, we seriously need to support increased funding for public education.  SERIOUSLY!

I'm well familiar with the term "sardonic" and don't need to Google it, but I appreciate the advice. Your punctuation, by the way, is deplorable and shows that the need for public education funding is even more urgent than you suggest. (Something about glass houses and stones comes to mind here, but I can't quite put my finger on it, probably owing to my lack of education.)

As for your comparison of photography to the sex industry, it wasn't nearly as cryptic as you might think, and I'll bet it's about three times as clever to you as it is to the majority of people who work in this business.

You're obviously a very talented photographer, but your talent doesn't give you the right to condescend to a complete stranger who failed to find the humor in your analogy.

Erlinda wrote:

You are right on one thing it was never exclusive but they did keep a tighter lead on who can come to this site...

It was never a place for professionals? really? have you read this? "Where professional models meet model photographers"

That is the "new" tagline, it used to say a place to talk smack...

Kymberly Jane wrote:

and your legit question is answered. who cares who i work for.. who cares what movies im in *mainstream AND porn* bottom line.. I have Never dont TFP.. and i dont think it right for photographers to demand it.. when in My case.. the photographer has ample resale value and can make a very large profit off my images.. as they are in demand..

You (and every model) has every right to only work for money. I support and respect that, whatever the reasons. And I also support and respect your decision to do whatever kind of work you want - more power to you.

But I also think those who choose to work TF should not be lectured for doing so. If both agree on the terms, it certainly isn't hurting you (or anyone else.)

Eric Walton wrote:
You're obviously a very talented photographer, but your talent doesn't give you the right to condescend to a complete stranger who failed to find the humor in your analogy.

Again, if you're looking for humor in my analogy, you missed the point.

Death of Field wrote:

That is the "new" tagline, it used to say a place to talk smack...

When I signed up about 5 years ago it had that saying can't be that new

Rick Fink wrote:
I really think that photogs should generally pay models for shoots!

Speak for yourself.

If 3 hours of my time for shooting, 20 for editing, and at least 25 images aren't enough than so be it.

Erlinda wrote:
You are right on one thing it was never exclusive but they did keep a tighter lead on who can come to this site...

It was never a place for professionals? really? have you read this? "Where professional models meet model photographers"

Well you can say THAT until you're blue in the face, but if we were to take a poll in 2006 and then another today, I'd bet the same VERY small percentage of people on this site are making their living by modeling/photgraphing.

Miller High Life says it's the "Champagne of beers".