Photography by BE wrote:

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Around here, we have a local artistic community of photographers (with all levels of experience, skill, etc.), and we do indeed talk with each other.  If one model burns a photographer, the word gets around, and that can lead to consequences.

Good question, and I wonder if the "community of photographers" always get the model's side of the story before the "consequences" are...... ?  led to?? 

Personally, I'd prefer not to hear every model's excuses.  If a model booked 40 shoots over a 2 year period within the group of photographers I know and followed through with everyone, I really don't care to hear anything from her.  Same thing with a model who canceled on half of the same 40.  It's an indicator of reliability.  Whether a model claims she missed half her shoots because she lost her car keys, had a grandmother die 20 times or was sick each time doesn't really matter.  What matters to me is how likely she is to show up if I book her.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
not if she costs me money. Business is business. I had a well known lingerie model booked for a workshop 3 months ago. She got extremely sick the night before and called to tell me about it. She was on the phone for 2 hours helping me find a replacement model. She's doing our July workshop. I'd recommend her to anyone. I've worked with her before so I knew when she said she was sick, it was true. 99% of the time the Grandmother dying stories are BS. They happen FAR too often to be true.

You need to get with Looknsee.  You have 3,000 photographers on your list and he has had only one flake in about 18 years.   An unbeatable combination I think.

Photography by BE wrote:

You need to get with Looknsee.  You have 3,000 photographers on your list and he has had only one flake in about 18 years.   An unbeatable combination I think.

We do completely different types of work. I RARELY have flakes.,..however I run a business doing workshops. I cannot use the same small group of models every month.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I strive to work with reliable people and I rarely work with "new" or "fresh" people...

Which is a great example of why I think one can't assume differences in follow through are due to the photographer not evaluting why people are acting the way they do.

You live in a major west coast metroplitan area, don't work with newer models and have a network of photographers.  I assume many models you work with travel less than 50 miles each way to work with you.  I on the other hand, live in a small midwest town, with no other photographers and most models are young, inexperienced and live at least 50 miles away.   

Doesn't it make sense that the differences we see in model follow through might be related to those differences and not due to differences in how we communicate with models?

The difference between the shoots I book and in which the model shows up and those in which the model cancels is not that I communicate with those models differently.  I don't.  The difference is that some models stick to their commitment while others do not.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

We do completely different types of work. I RARELY have flakes.,..however I run a business doing workshops. I cannot use the same small group of models every month.

I suspect some tongue in cheek humour there...

Looknsee does have a point we don't usually get the models side.   You
know why?   Because their flakes.   Flakes don't care about having a
good reputation nor do they worry about blacklists.   Two weeks ago for
my Free Beauty Shoot Sundays.   A MM model called the day before to
confirm.   She knew to be at my place by 12:00PM.   She had the address,
MUA and my phone number but flaked.

Did she think it was 12:00AM?   Doubtful as, I have the emails and
we spoke.  Wrong numbers?   She had mine and the MUA.  People do
what they want and whats important to them.   Here's the kicker.   Flakes
never write or call to ask about what happened.   Wrong day or time.
Wrong location.  You don't hear from them.   So much for the miscommunication
theory.   

You know why there are so few photographer flakes on models
threads.   That's because most of us are serious.   We actually
want to work.   I've waited at places for no show models.   Driven
to pick up models at their homes only to have them not be there.   
Most of the time shooters are detailed focused and emails are full of
information.   

Here's how, I see it.   Most of the models here are new and very
young.   Young people tend to not always be very responsible even
for paid work.   Don't defend this at any level for those that do.
While backlists are not my choice.  I do understand wanting people to
be held accountable for their actions.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Here's how, I see it.   Most of the models here are new and very
young....

I do understand wanting people to
be held accountable for their actions.

I don't disagree, but I'd ad a piece by tying those two things together.   I work with young people on a daily basis, but never see the irresponsibility I do with models of the same age.  I think the difference is one of consequence (your last pt.).  Most internet models who cancel will not have the consequences those that work with Looknsee's group of photographer have.  Many will give up modeling in a matter of weeks, so repuation has litttle consequence anyway.

I had a model cancel on me this weekend at the last minute because she decided she needed to do something with her daughter instead instead of honor her commitment to shoot with me.  I have little doubt that had I hired her through an agency and she might have lost her representation, her priorites would have been different and I would not have lost a shoot.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Looknsee does have a point we don't usually get the models side.   You
know why?   Because their flakes.

Is that true always (as in 100% of the time)?  I don't think so, myself.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
>

You know why there are so few photographer flakes on models threads.   That's because most of us are serious.   We actually want to work.

Is that true always (as in 100% of the time)?  I don't think so, myself.

Can we count the ton of "How Long Must I Wait For The TFP Images?" threads as the model equivalent of the "flake" threads?

I don't know why there aren't as many "photographer flake" threads, and I don't know whether photographers are less likely to flake than models.  (Remember, I am a skeptic -- I need to see scientific evidence before I formulate an opinion).  I could speculate as well as anyone else -- for example, perhaps models are more intimidated by photographers, or they are more dependent on photographers, or they realize that photographers (and their clients) hire models a lot more than models hire photographers, or maybe they realize that they are just screwed & complaining in the forums does more damage to themselves than to the photographers, or maybe they don't expect to change anything by complaining, or perhaps they are busy & have more constructive things to do, or... 

The bottom line is that we don't know the answer to your question.  You have one theory, I can think of others, and we may never know the real answer.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I do understand wanting people to be held accountable for their actions.

I don't mind people being held accountable; I do mind when people are punished simply because a stranger accused them.  Give me some kind of due process, and I'd be more open to the concept.  But at this point, I can't think of any fair, objective, and efficient process that would be satisfactory to anyone.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I work with young people on a daily basis, but never see the irresponsibility I do with models of the same age.

I blame Tyra Banks.










Maybe there's a kernel of truth somewhere here -- question:  how reliable were we photographers when we were 19 years old?  According to the movie stereotypes, we were all slackers at that age.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Maybe there's a kernel of truth somewhere here -- question:  how reliable were we photographers when we were 19 years old?  According to the movie stereotypes, we were all slackers at that age.

I remember working in my darkroom until the wee hours of the morning to get high school and college yearbook assignments done by the deadline, but I'm sure my memory gets biased with time.

The college students I hire, supervise or work with are on average not as good with commitments as older employees.  However, like everyone else, they vary.  I've hired serveral student managers over the years who are more reliable than most older adults I know. 

Hiring them is very different than hiring models however.  In contrast to the models I book, the students I hire will work repeated, regular shifts, making scheduling easier. They know being late or skipping will not only mean no pay, but may get them fired. They don't need to travel far and they have met me before I hire them. The fact that they know me means they know I'm serious, don't have the intimidation some new models have with meeting a new photographer and it also makes it personal if they cancel. It's much easier to cancel on a voice you've never met in person, than someone you have met and know you will meet again.

Like models, I find the reliability of students relates to what is at stake. My student employees who have their jobs on the line rarely cancel or no-show.  Students who sign up for a one-shot program are much, much more likely to cancel or no-show.

I certainly agree with Tony, at least in part that models and photographers tend to be of different ages, have different lengths of time they've been doing photography or modeling and this will affect how seriously they take their commitments.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Of course, I have quibbles.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Looknsee does have a point we don't usually get the models side.   You
know why?   Because their flakes.

Is that true always (as in 100% of the time)?  I don't think so, myself.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
>

You know why there are so few photographer flakes on models threads.   That's because most of us are serious.   We actually want to work.

Is that true always (as in 100% of the time)?  I don't think so, myself.

Can we count the ton of "How Long Must I Wait For The TFP Images?" threads as the model equivalent of the "flake" threads?

I don't know why there aren't as many "photographer flake" threads, and I don't know whether photographers are less likely to flake than models.  (Remember, I am a skeptic -- I need to see scientific evidence before I formulate an opinion).  I could speculate as well as anyone else -- for example, perhaps models are more intimidated by photographers, or they are more dependent on photographers, or they realize that photographers (and their clients) hire models a lot more than models hire photographers, or maybe they realize that they are just screwed & complaining in the forums does more damage to themselves than to the photographers, or maybe they don't expect to change anything by complaining, or perhaps they are busy & have more constructive things to do, or... 

The bottom line is that we don't know the answer to your question.  You have one theory, I can think of others, and we may never know the real answer.



I don't mind people being held accountable; I do mind when people are punished simply because a stranger accused them.  Give me some kind of due process, and I'd be more open to the concept.  But at this point, I can't think of any fair, objective, and efficient process that would be satisfactory to anyone.

I can't speak for other shooters but I can say that in  99% of my flakes
its been totally clear where, when and how.   I provide the MUA's
phone number, time, place and ask that they call to confirm.   Many of
the photographers, I know could provide email after email of confirmed
and detailed emails between themselves and models.  One in this thread
from my state of TX.   

So exactly what is going on.   There is a old saying.   Where there is
smoke there's fire.   If only a few people complain about a issue there
may not be a problem but when you hear the same complaint over and
over there is usually some truth there.   Models tend to complain about
no images or very few delivered months later if at all.   Is that true?
I suspect it is.   Why would they lie?   When a model a while ago started
a thread where she talked about being asked for a blow job.   Was she
fibbing.   I doubt it.  While on occasion some members my stretch the truth.
I bet most of the time its as they say it is.

However a Blacklist is almost pointless and here's why.   Models who
pose nude in lingerie are going to be asked to shoot and odds are most
photographers aren't going to look around to see who they've not shown
for.   Most of us don't check references or ask past credited photographers.
We see a pair of nice ones and we think, I want to shoot her.   
While photographers like you may take the time to vet their models.   Most
don't.   We take's 'em as we can get 'em.   That may often mean flakes.
Proving that to you or to others on this site would mean further debate.

I could see it now.   I know your email detailed time, day, location, payment,
type of images to be shot but you didn't mention you had bad breath.   So
her not coming or calling makes sense.   My point again.   I tend to take
photographers and models who come to MM forums about their issues.
True or not.  I do.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
=======================

However a Blacklist is almost pointless and here's why.   Models who
pose nude in lingerie are going to be asked to shoot and odds are most
photographers aren't going to look around to see who they've not shown
for.   Most of us don't check references or ask past credited photographers.
We see a pair of nice ones and we think, I want to shoot her.   
While photographers like you may take the time to vet their models.   Most
don't.   We take's 'em as we can get 'em.   That may often mean flakes.
==========

Spoken like a true gentleman    and a true Texan. 

Photography by BE wrote:
Spoken like a true gentleman    and a true Texan. 

BE, you could have another career.   You are FUNNY... LOL.
I remember one of my friends were talking about another friends girlfriend.
This woman was crazy.   Batshit crazy.   We were getting on his case
about her saying he could do better.   She wasn't all that good looking
either.   He simply hung his head and said, she's got some good puss%.

Shut us all up.   We understood.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I can't speak for other shooters but I can say that in  99% of my flakes its been totally clear where, when and how.      Many of the photographers, I know could provide email after email of confirmed and detailed emails between themselves and models.

I can't resist teasing:  I count four grammatical errors in the first sentence alone, which disputes your claim that your communications are "totally clear".  (But I'm just teasing -- that's not a serious response).

My point is 99% is not 100%, and there is a chance that there is something else going on, so in my mind, it's a rush to judgment to find the model guilty without even giving her a chance to respond to the claims against her.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
So exactly what is going on.   There is a old saying.   Where there is smoke there's fire.   If only a few people complain about a issue there may not be a problem but when you hear the same complaint over and over there is usually some truth there.

I'm not saying that there isn't a problem here.  But I would point out that if the problem persists after doing the same thing over & over, then why would anyone (with a scientific background like mine) expect anything to change or improve?  Further, the root cause of the problem hasn't truly been identified (and proven) -- you claim it's one thing, but it could be something else.  It could be a combination of factors, with a critical, unidentified factor making a significant contribution to the problem.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Models tend to complain about no images or very few delivered months later if at all.   Is that true?  I suspect it is.   Why would they lie?   When a model a while ago started
a thread where she talked about being asked for a blow job.   Was she fibbing.   I doubt it.  While on occasion some members my stretch the truth. I bet most of the time its as they say it is.

I'm not claiming that anyone is lying.  I'm simply saying ...
   a)  I have no reason to believe or disbelieve a stranger, and
   b)  I am not willing to condemn anyone on the word of a stranger,
especially when we have heard only one side of the story. 

If it were that simple, you would pay me the $50 you owe me for your VD test I paid for.  See -- suddenly, you owe me $50.  Are you going to call me a liar now?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Models who pose nude in lingerie are going to be asked to shoot and odds are most photographers aren't going to look around to see who they've not shown for.   Most of us don't check references or ask past credited photographers.  We see a pair of nice ones and we think, I want to shoot her.   While photographers like you may take the time to vet their models.   Most don't.   We take's 'em as we can get 'em.   That may often mean flakes.

Okay -- that all means to me that the photographer is partially responsible.  Anyone visiting these forums knows that sometimes models flake, and some models are simply more reliable that others.  If photographers aren't willing to filter models based on their expected reliability, then they need to take some responsibility for their disappointment & frustration if/when the model flakes. 

More importantly, if model flaking is an issue to a photographer, he needs to do something about it.  What's the old saying:  "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me".  The essence being that you can't expect different results if you insist on doing the same thing over & over.  Tired of unreliable models?  Find reliable ones to work with, and there are plenty of reliable models around.  But you have to look into them, you might find yourself working with more experienced models, and yes, sometimes that means paying them.



I would also like to reiterate a point I made earlier, and one that you kinda collaborated:  The OP's proposal was to add the name of the allegedly flaking model to his "Worked With" list so that he could tell the "truth" to any photographer who asked him for a reference.  In my opinion (and apparently in your opinion?), most photographers won't contact the OP for a reference; thus, adding the name to the "Worked With" is an implied endorsement for the model -- thus, this proposal could actually have the opposite of the intended effect.

Black Lace Photo wrote:
There are an almost infinite number of reasons why a person cannot honor their commitments. Most of those are valid and reasonable. There are roughly only four reasons not to inform the people you have made those commitments to that you will be unable to so:

1. You're in the morgue.

2. You're in the emergency room.

3. You're in handcuffs in the back seat of a police cruiser.

4. You're an asshole.

Most folks will forgive the first three.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I can't speak for other shooters but I can say that in  99% of my flakes its been totally clear where, when and how.      Many of the photographers, I know could provide email after email of confirmed and detailed emails between themselves and models.

I can't resist teasing:  I count four grammatical errors in the first sentence alone, which disputes your claim that your communications are "totally clear".  (But I'm just teasing -- that's not a serious response).

My point is 99% is not 100%, and there is a chance that there is something else going on, so in my mind, it's a rush to judgment to find the model guilty without even giving her a chance to respond to the claims against her.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
So exactly what is going on.   There is a old saying.   Where there is smoke there's fire.   If only a few people complain about a issue there may not be a problem but when you hear the same complaint over and over there is usually some truth there.

I'm not saying that there isn't a problem here.  But I would point out that if the problem persists after doing the same thing over & over, then why would anyone (with a scientific background like mine) expect anything to change or improve?  Further, the root cause of the problem hasn't truly been identified (and proven) -- you claim it's one thing, but it could be something else.  It could be a combination of factors, with a critical, unidentified factor making a significant contribution to the problem.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Models tend to complain about no images or very few delivered months later if at all.   Is that true?  I suspect it is.   Why would they lie?   When a model a while ago started
a thread where she talked about being asked for a blow job.   Was she fibbing.   I doubt it.  While on occasion some members my stretch the truth. I bet most of the time its as they say it is.

I'm not claiming that anyone is lying.  I'm simply saying ...
   a)  I have no reason to believe or disbelieve a stranger, and
   b)  I am not willing to condemn anyone on the word of a stranger,
especially when we have heard only one side of the story. 

If it were that simple, you would pay me the $50 you owe me for your VD test I paid for.  See -- suddenly, you owe me $50.  Are you going to call me a liar now?



Okay -- that all means to me that the photographer is partially responsible.  Anyone visiting these forums knows that sometimes models flake, and some models are simply more reliable that others.  If photographers aren't willing to filter models based on their expected reliability, then they need to take some responsibility for their disappointment & frustration if/when the model flakes. 

More importantly, if model flaking is an issue to a photographer, he needs to do something about it.  What's the old saying:  "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me".  The essence being that you can't expect different results if you insist on doing the same thing over & over.  Tired of unreliable models?  Find reliable ones to work with, and there are plenty of reliable models around.  But you have to look into them, you might find yourself working with more experienced models, and yes, sometimes that means paying them.



I would also like to reiterate a point I made earlier, and one that you kinda collaborated:  The OP's proposal was to add the name of the allegedly flaking model to his "Worked With" list so that he could tell the "truth" to any photographer who asked him for a reference.  In my opinion (and apparently in your opinion?), most photographers won't contact the OP for a reference; thus, adding the name to the "Worked With" is an implied endorsement for the model -- thus, this proposal could actually have the opposite of the intended effect.

Lets all be frank for a moment.   In most cases shoots here are TFP.
We aren't paying the models.   I'm actually more surprised that shoots
happen at all.   These are our ideals, our locations and more for the shooters
then the models.    I understand if a model who isn't being paid decides
not to shoot.   I don't understand or condone those who don't say so.
Call , text or email me.

Because many of us aren't paying models.   Because most of us are
approaching new models.   Because many of the models who join MM
are also hobbyists this stuff will happen.   Its no fun but its going to happen
The sad fact is without a budget.   Without being able to offer models more
then images or make-overs we are asking people to work with us for just
images.    While, I think that my work has value.   If a model decides she
wants to sleep late or shop or go on a date then my shoot isn't going to
happen.   That's fine.  Just call or let me know.   

As for proving that a model is a flake.   Just as you've noted your flake less
record for years I accept people largely at their word.   I hope this
has no gramatical errors.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Lets all be frank for a moment.   In most cases shoots here are TFP.
We aren't paying the models.   I'm actually more surprised that shoots
happen at all.   These are our ideals, our locations and more for the shooters
then the models.    I understand if a model who isn't being paid decides
not to shoot.   I don't understand or condone those who don't say so.
Call , text or email me.

Because many of us aren't paying models.   Because most of us are
approaching new models.   Because many of the models who join MM
are also hobbyists this stuff will happen.   Its no fun but its going to happen
The sad fact is without a budget.   Without being able to offer models more
then images or make-overs we are asking people to work with us for just
images.    While, I think that my work has value.   If a model decides she
wants to sleep late or shop or go on a date then my shoot isn't going to
happen.   That's fine.  Just call or let me know.   

As for proving that a model is a flake.   Just as you've noted your flake less
record for years I accept people largely at their word.

1)  "TFP" + "New" + "Hobbyist" does not necessarily mean "unreliable".

2)  If you insist on working with models with unknown reliability, you have no right
     to complain if the model flakes on you.  If preventing model flaking is important
     to you, you simply have to put some effort into finding more reliable models.
     I do the occasional TFP session with a brand new model, and I have had
     a lot of fun with them.  I do this to pay back the karmic debt I have,
     because a lot of experienced folks worked with me when I was just
     starting out.  None of the new / TFP models ever flaked on me.

3)  If you want the kind of person who will call you before pulling a no-show;
     find the people who will do that.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I hope this has no gramatical errors.

Does misspelling "grammatical" count as a grammatical error?


(I was trying to tease/joke & lighten the mood.  I apologize if the grammatical error crack was offensive; it wasn't intended to be).

Black Lace Photo wrote:
There are an almost infinite number of reasons why a person cannot honor their commitments. Most of those are valid and reasonable. There are roughly only four reasons not to inform the people you have made those commitments to that you will be unable to so:

1. You're in the morgue.

2. You're in the emergency room.

3. You're in handcuffs in the back seat of a police cruiser.

4. You're an asshole.

Most folks will forgive the first three.

Exclusive Photo wrote:
+1 with the below list; well said. The person who flaked on Frank probably did not fit into any of the first 3 categories. But, private blacklisting is a great idea and does work to avoid those who fit category #4.

I found out for a fact that it wasn't any of the first three categories you posted. So if any local photographers want to know the deal send me an MM message.

However I will not be posting a public black list.

I figure local photographers have a right to know about models who "No Call, No Show".
They can easily ask the model for their side of the story and decide for themselves if they feel the model is trustworthy or not.

I'll share the model's MM number and my proof that she flaked.

For those who think that's unfair........Too Bad!

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Lets all be frank for a moment.   In most cases shoots here are TFP.
We aren't paying the models.   I'm actually more surprised that shoots
happen at all.   These are our ideals, our locations and more for the shooters
then the models.    I understand if a model who isn't being paid decides
not to shoot.   I don't understand or condone those who don't say so.
Call , text or email me.

Because many of us aren't paying models.   Because most of us are
approaching new models.   Because many of the models who join MM
are also hobbyists this stuff will happen.   Its no fun but its going to happen
The sad fact is without a budget.   Without being able to offer models more
then images or make-overs we are asking people to work with us for just
images.    While, I think that my work has value.   If a model decides she
wants to sleep late or shop or go on a date then my shoot isn't going to
happen.   That's fine.  Just call or let me know.   

As for proving that a model is a flake.   Just as you've noted your flake less
record for years I accept people largely at their word.

1)  "TFP" + "New" + "Hobbyist" does not necessarily mean "unreliable".

2)  If you insist on working with models with unknown reliability, you have no right
     to complain if the model flakes on you.  If preventing model flaking is important
     to you, you simply have to put some effort into finding more reliable models.
     I do the occasional TFP session with a brand new model, and I have had
     a lot of fun with them.  I do this to pay back the karmic debt I have,
     because a lot of experienced folks worked with me when I was just
     starting out.  None of the new / TFP models ever flaked on me.

3)  If you want the kind of person who will call you before pulling a no-show;
     find the people who will do that.


Does misspelling "grammatical" count as a grammatical error?


(I was trying to tease/joke & lighten the mood.  I apologize if the grammatical error crack was offensive; it wasn't intended to be).

No one can be proven to reliable unless someone gives them a chance.
If we decided not to take chances on people no one would work.
Many of the models who shooters may want to work with will be very
young and may have few to no past experience.   So if we used your methods
we wouldn't book them.

I don't put a lot of time into vetting models.   I assume that folks are
mature enough to at at least cancel the shoots they accept or ask for.
See most of my shoots come from models who contact me to work.   
As far as complaining.   I see these threads more as letting off steam.   
I bet the OP doesn't do a blacklist.   Most shoots have models showing up
and all is right with the world.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
No one can be proven to reliable unless someone gives them a chance.
If we decided not to take chances on people no one would work.
Many of the models who shooters may want to work with will be very
young and may have few to no past experience.   So if we used your methods
we wouldn't book them.

Well, first of all, I definitely do prefer working with experienced models (especially the traveling kind) -- they tend to be more talented & skilled, they are beautiful, they are worth it.  Since my web site brings in a bit of revenue, I can afford to pay them.

But I do appreciate all the talented folks who took a chance on me when I was just starting out, and I do do the occasionally TFP with brand new models -- I am often their first photographer -- that's how I pay back my karmic debt.

None of these newbies ever flaked on me.  And my methods do include working with 20 year old, inexperienced people who don't have anything more significant than cell phone snapshots.  No flakes.

How about that? 

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I don't put a lot of time into vetting models.   I assume that folks are
mature enough to at at least cancel the shoots they accept or ask for.
See most of my shoots come from models who contact me to work.   
As far as complaining.   I see these threads more as letting off steam.   
I bet the OP doesn't do a blacklist.   Most shoots have models showing up
and all is right with the world.

That's the crux of the matter.  As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't willing to vet your models, you don't have the right to complain about models flaking.  If you won't check your models out, and if you aren't carefully managing the whole experience, you are just taking a risk.  It's like putting all your money on "black" and blaming the casino when the roulette wheel comes up "red".

Sure -- you can "let off steam", but in my opinion, when the same people complain again & again & again & again without changing their approach, then I think that they are fools.  "Letting off steam", in this instance, has not really accomplished anything.

As far as the OP is concerned, I think he recently posted & implied that he's going to do what he was planning to do.  That's his right.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
No one can be proven to reliable unless someone gives them a chance.
If we decided not to take chances on people no one would work.
Many of the models who shooters may want to work with will be very
young and may have few to no past experience.   So if we used your methods
we wouldn't book them.

Well, first of all, I definitely do prefer working with experienced models (especially the traveling kind) -- they tend to be more talented & skilled, they are beautiful, they are worth it.  Since my web site brings in a bit of revenue, I can afford to pay them.

But I do appreciate all the talented folks who took a chance on me when I was just starting out, and I do do the occasionally TFP with brand new models -- I am often their first photographer -- that's how I pay back my karmic debt.

None of these newbies ever flaked on me.  And my methods do include working with 20 year old, inexperienced people who don't have anything more significant than cell phone snapshots.  No flakes.

How about that? 



That's the crux of the matter.  As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't willing to vet your models, you don't have the right to complain about models flaking.  If you won't check your models out, and if you aren't carefully managing the whole experience, you are just taking a risk.  It's like putting all your money on "black" and blaming the casino when the roulette wheel comes up "red".

Sure -- you can "let off steam", but in my opinion, when the same people complain again & again & again & again without changing their approach, then I think that they are fools.  "Letting off steam", in this instance, has not really accomplished anything.

As far as the OP is concerned, I think he recently posted & implied that he's going to do what he was planning to do.  That's his right.

A few weeks ago a MM model drove two hours to shoot with me.
Others flake and live minutes away.   Why is that?   What I'm, I saying
different or doing?   In most cases, my speech is the same.   Location,
time involved, what to bring, nude or fashions.  So what's going on?
Well it starts and ends with the models wanting to shoot.   

If they decide not too then they should call, text or at least email me to
say so.   I don't vet my models because I expect adults to act as such.
Checking up on them isn't my thing.   Call to confirm the day of the shoot
and if you don't then, I assume you aren't coming.   As for 'letting off
steam'.   At least once a week a model or MUA comes in with a thread
about not receiving her images.   What can fellow members do, nothing.
Its about venting.   

Of course you and other members are free to post or not to
express your views.   Key here is this.  Can't shoot,  change your mind
then call.  Again, I want to say.   That my conversation with 95% of
the models is the same.   I'm pretty clear on times, etc.   Most show
up and we shoot.  There is a small group that doesn't.   I don't waste my
time worrying about why.   I do note that they did however.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
A few weeks ago a MM model drove two hours to shoot with me.  Others flake and live minutes away.   Why is that?   What I'm, I saying different or doing?   In most cases, my speech is the same.   Location, time involved, what to bring, nude or fashions.  So what's going on?  Well it starts and ends with the models wanting to shoot.

So, what you are saying is that your "process" works some of the time, but not all of the time.  Since you are unwilling to change your process, then we should assume that your "flake ratio" is acceptable to you.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
If they decide not too then they should call, text or at least email me to say so.   I don't vet my models because I expect adults to act as such.  Checking up on them isn't my thing.   Call to confirm the day of the shoot and if you don't then, I assume you aren't coming.   As for 'letting off steam'.   At least once a week a model or MUA comes in with a thread about not receiving her images.   What can fellow members do, nothing.  Its about venting.

1)  "I expect adults to act as such" + "Checking up on them isn't my thing" is not compatible with "Call to confirm the day of the shoot and if you don't then, I assume you aren't coming".  If the other person is acting like an adult, they shouldn't need to call to confirm.  (And yes, I don't require a confirmation call, even for the first time models).  Requiring a confirmation call means that you don't trust them to act like an adult.

2)  "Letting off steam" and "venting" seems to do nothing to help, judging by the repeat threads.  Next time, try sacrificing a chicken, or lighting a votive candle, or maybe try being more selective about who you will work with.  Sooner or later something's bound to work, but I pretty much can guarantee that making no changes will lead to no changes.

3)  To be blunt:  I feel that...
     ...  Winners credit other people for their successes and blame themselves
          for their failures, and

     ...  Losers blame other people for their failures and credit themselves for
          their successes.

This is the world you live in -- some people interested in modeling (& makeup & photography) are not reliable.  If you insist on working with the unreliable people, you can't blame them for being unreliable -- you could have known that they are unreliable before you agreed to work with them..  It's your fault for not caring enough to filter those unreliable people out of your work.

I don't understand why people are so anxious to "vent" or to "let of steam" -- I can't see that venting & letting off steam is accomplishing anything except making them feel more miserable & preventing them from finding solutions to the problems that are bothering them.  So, vent away.  But I'll respect people more if they try to solve their problems.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I don't understand why people are so anxious to "vent" or to "let of steam" -- I can't see that venting & letting off steam is accomplishing anything except making them feel more miserable & preventing them from finding solutions to the problems that are bothering them.  So, vent away.  But I'll respect people more if they try to solve their problems.

There are some people who are complainers, but I don't think Tony is one of those people.  I'm with you on respecting those who solve their own problems but as you know, I try to help the newbies who post "rants" on here for the first time.  Many do not understand/or read that the same dramatic topics recirculate constantly in the mayhem forums.  There is absolutely nothing that you or I can do about that.

I had started a thread a while back which was meant as a positive exchange of ideas to reduce the chances of models flaking.  It was locked, but is still readable;  https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 526&page=1 Apparently threads that offer solutions are not as acceptable here as ranting threads are?

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
A few weeks ago a MM model drove two hours to shoot with me.  Others flake and live minutes away.   Why is that?   What I'm, I saying different or doing?   In most cases, my speech is the same.   Location, time involved, what to bring, nude or fashions.  So what's going on?  Well it starts and ends with the models wanting to shoot.

So, what you are saying is that your "process" works some of the time, but not all of the time.  Since you are unwilling to change your process, then we should assume that your "flake ratio" is acceptable to you.



1)  "I expect adults to act as such" + "Checking up on them isn't my thing" is not compatible with "Call to confirm the day of the shoot and if you don't then, I assume you aren't coming".  If the other person is acting like an adult, they shouldn't need to call to confirm.  (And yes, I don't require a confirmation call, even for the first time models).  Requiring a confirmation call means that you don't trust them to act like an adult.

2)  "Letting off steam" and "venting" seems to do nothing to help, judging by the repeat threads.  Next time, try sacrificing a chicken, or lighting a votive candle, or maybe try being more selective about who you will work with.  Sooner or later something's bound to work, but I pretty much can guarantee that making no changes will lead to no changes.

3)  To be blunt:  I feel that...
     ...  Winners credit other people for their successes and blame themselves
          for their failures, and

     ...  Losers blame other people for their failures and credit themselves for
          their successes.

This is the world you live in -- some people interested in modeling (& makeup & photography) are not reliable.  If you insist on working with the unreliable people, you can't blame them for being unreliable -- you could have known that they are unreliable before you agreed to work with them..  It's your fault for not caring enough to filter those unreliable people out of your work.

I don't understand why people are so anxious to "vent" or to "let of steam" -- I can't see that venting & letting off steam is accomplishing anything except making them feel more miserable & preventing them from finding solutions to the problems that are bothering them.  So, vent away.  But I'll respect people more if they try to solve their problems.

I used to co-manage property and I've learned to always re-confirm
appointments.   Things happen and people forget.   Its not my fault or
anyones fault if a model flakes.   As for filtering through unreliable people
even the 'reliable' models you've spoken of.   Some of the traveling nude
art models have flaked.   I know of two very active members who have.
As to solving the problem... well when you can make women do what
you want write a book and you'll be rich.

When you see the flake threads its not about solving problems its
often just about venting.   Just as the threads where models whine about
no images.   We don't know these people nor do we have a real solution
for their problems.   I mentioned something, I want you hear again.
A model drove over two hours to work with me.   Others won't come and
live minutes away.   What, I say or do isn't the underlying reason.
People do what they want.   All, I want is to know their plans.

Last and, I know this may be hard to understand because I suspect
you don't quite get why people bitc$ about things they can't change or
their own behavior that nets the same results.   Its just human nature.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I used to co-manage property and I've learned to always re-confirm
appointments.   Things happen and people forget.   Its not my fault or
anyones fault if a model flakes.   As for filtering through unreliable people
even the 'reliable' models you've spoken of.   Some of the traveling nude
art models have flaked.   I know of two very active members who have.
As to solving the problem... well when you can make women do what
you want write a book and you'll be rich.

I'm all for people doing whatever they want.  But if a photographer complains about doing something & it's not working, then they are foolish to insist on doing that same thing over & over and hoping that the world will adapt to them.

I will also note that some people have claimed that they don't bother "vetting" candidate models.  So, just because a model is traveling, that doesn't guarantee that they are reliable, and if you don't check into the candidate, well you'll just have to accept what you get.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
When you see the flake threads its not about solving problems its
often just about venting.   Just as the threads where models whine about
no images.   We don't know these people nor do we have a real solution
for their problems.   I mentioned something, I want you hear again.
A model drove over two hours to work with me.   Others won't come and
live minutes away.   What, I say or do isn't the underlying reason.
People do what they want.   All, I want is to know their plans.

People do what they want, including agreeing to work with people who are likely to disappoint.  I'll repeat -- if a photographer doesn't want to check out the reliability of a model, that's his choice.

I'll also repeat -- "venting" really doesn't accomplish anything.  What success I've achieved in my life is mostly due to my ability to solve problems and make incremental improvements to my processes.

Warning:  people "vent" on these forums because they expect commiseration from the population.  Sometimes they'll hear dissenting opinions.  Sometimes people simply not agree with the person venting.

Finally -- I did hear you.  But the distance a model travels is not an indicator of reliability. 

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Last and, I know this may be hard to understand because I suspect
you don't quite get why people bitc$ about things they can't change or
their own behavior that nets the same results.   Its just human nature.

I understand plenty.  For example:  you seem to think that I'm trying to make unreliable people reliable, and I'm not -- I'm advocating that if flaking models annoy a photographer, then the photographer should learn how to find more reliable models to work with.  If the unreliable models get less & less work, they will either have to become more reliable or find something else to do.

Also, when you talked about "people bitc$ about ... their own behavior that nets the same results" -- I agree.  Of course, you might be talking about models who flake and I might be talking about photographers who vent.  My position is that if a photographer insists on not vetting their models, then they have no right to complain.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I used to co-manage property and I've learned to always re-confirm
appointments.   Things happen and people forget.   Its not my fault or
anyones fault if a model flakes.   As for filtering through unreliable people
even the 'reliable' models you've spoken of.   Some of the traveling nude
art models have flaked.   I know of two very active members who have.
As to solving the problem... well when you can make women do what
you want write a book and you'll be rich.

I'm all for people doing whatever they want.  But if a photographer complains about doing something & it's not working, then they are foolish to insist on doing that same thing over & over and hoping that the world will adapt to them.

I will also note that some people have claimed that they don't bother "vetting" candidate models.  So, just because a model is traveling, that doesn't guarantee that they are reliable, and if you don't check into the candidate, well you'll just have to accept what you get.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
When you see the flake threads its not about solving problems its
often just about venting.   Just as the threads where models whine about
no images.   We don't know these people nor do we have a real solution
for their problems.   I mentioned something, I want you hear again.
A model drove over two hours to work with me.   Others won't come and
live minutes away.   What, I say or do isn't the underlying reason.
People do what they want.   All, I want is to know their plans.

People do what they want, including agreeing to work with people who are likely to disappoint.  I'll repeat -- if a photographer doesn't want to check out the reliability of a model, that's his choice.

I'll also repeat -- "venting" really doesn't accomplish anything.  What success I've achieved in my life is mostly due to my ability to solve problems and make incremental improvements to my processes.

Warning:  people "vent" on these forums because they expect commiseration from the population.  Sometimes they'll hear dissenting opinions.  Sometimes people simply not agree with the person venting.

Finally -- I did hear you.  But the distance a model travels is not an indicator of reliability. 



I understand plenty.  For example:  you seem to think that I'm trying to make unreliable people reliable, and I'm not -- I'm advocating that if flaking models annoy a photographer, then the photographer should learn how to find more reliable models to work with.  If the unreliable models get less & less work, they will either have to become more reliable or find something else to do.

Also, when you talked about "people bitc$ about ... their own behavior that nets the same results" -- I agree.  Of course, you might be talking about models who flake and I might be talking about photographers who vent.  My position is that if a photographer insists on not vetting their models, then they have no right to complain.

In large part its very difficult to vet models on this site because most
have few to little work and may have just started.   Many of those shooters
want to work with are young.   Asking those she's worked with is
often fruitless because many won't answer emails and those the
model might provide are still folks she showed up for.   As for a right to
complain.   We all have the right and should express ourselves.   I
expect those who agree to shoot with me to do so and we will disagree
here but I don't believe in 'checking up' on people.


I also don't care how many shoots a models done or how many people
she's worked with.   I only care about my shoot with her.   I fully expect
models to cancel if they can't come and to confirm.   So when a model
flakes I can express my feelings.   Its not my fault she flaked even though
you feel I am partly to blame.   None of us are responsible for the
actions or words of others.   Thinking we are is to give ourselves more
credit then we are due. 

Is it my fault you don't agree with me?   Can, I make you not post?
I can only control my actions and words.   I want to mention something.
You've spoken of models not showing as affecting their work.   Most of the
models on MM are not working for cash.   This is world of the TFP.
Most shooters here aren't vetting their models because as, I pointed
out its not easy nor would mean much anyway.   Accept a shoot and can't
come, call or email me.   I'm not sure why you don't agree with that
but oh well....

Looknsee Photography wrote:

That's hilarious!  A childish & sarcastic response to a person calling the behavior childish & spiteful.  QED!

Have not seen QED in a long time.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
In large part its very difficult to vet models on this site because most
have few to little work and may have just started.   Many of those shooters
want to work with are young.   Asking those she's worked with is
often fruitless because many won't answer emails and those the
model might provide are still folks she showed up for.   As for a right to
complain.   We all have the right and should express ourselves.   I
expect those who agree to shoot with me to do so and we will disagree
here but I don't believe in 'checking up' on people.

I think you are missing my point.  What I am advocating is this:  Work with models with a known track record of being reliable.  If you want to work with models with no track record, that's on you.  Worse, if you refuse to even try to vet the model's track record, then it's your fault entirely.

BTW:  The "right to complain" is not guaranteed in the Constitution.  Want to call it "freedom of expression", you are welcome to.  But for many of us, we lose respect for people who complain & complain & complain while refusing to do anything to address the issue that they are complaining about.  You can express yourself, and similarly, we can disagree, and we can formulate an opinion based on your complaint.

Like I said, a confirmation call the night before is "checking up on people".  And I reiterate -- if you are unwilling to check out the people you work with, you are responsible.  Period.

Look -- as the photographer, you usually are the project leader -- you create a team that could be as little as you & the model, or as big as a dozen or so people.  As the project leader, you are only as reliable as the least reliable member of your team.  Try telling "the model didn't show up" to a client -- do you think the client will blame the model or blame you, especially if this sort of thing happens to you more than rarely?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I also don't care how many shoots a models done or how many people
she's worked with.   I only care about my shoot with her.   I fully expect
models to cancel if they can't come and to confirm.   So when a model
flakes I can express my feelings.   Its not my fault she flaked even though
you feel I am partly to blame.   None of us are responsible for the
actions or words of others.   Thinking we are is to give ourselves more
credit then we are due.

So, fine -- you are unwilling to change your ways.  You assume the world to work a certain way, even when you have ample evidence that your assumptions are not reality.  So, you are welcome to continue to use your hard & fast ways, but you should expect the same results if you continue to do the same old things. 

So, here's my opinion:  You will continue to experience flakes, and no amount of venting / ranting / complaining on the forums is going to change that.  By your actions, I take it that you've accepted that position, too.  If, however, there are photographers listening in who want to reduce their flake ratio, I'd say to them to make the effort to work with reliable models.  It's not impossible, and it's much more rewarding to work with those models who show up.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Is it my fault you don't agree with me?   Can, I make you not post?
I can only control my actions and words.

I'm not blaming you for disagreeing with me.  I'm not trying to stop you or anyone from posting.  You've made a choice regarding those actions, and that choice includes continuing to work with random models without vetting them.  That's your choice.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I want to mention something.
You've spoken of models not showing as affecting their work.   Most of the
models on MM are not working for cash.   This is world of the TFP.
Most shooters here aren't vetting their models because as, I pointed
out its not easy nor would mean much anyway.   Accept a shoot and can't
come, call or email me.   I'm not sure why you don't agree with that
but oh well....

No need to get personal here.  This is a constructive debate.

People vent here because they want to do something about models who flake.  We've heard all sorts of schemes to address flakes -- we've heard about blacklists, rating systems, outing them on these forums, leaving them a nasty & childish tag,  even listing the model on a "Worked With" list so that the photographer can "tell the truth" if/when someone else calls for a reference.  None of these are fair.  None of these will work.  Some of these may even be actionable legally.  Nearly all of them require that we take the word of a stranger without even giving the accused the opportunity to respond.

But if people work only with reliable models (even if they are working with them for TF*), then only reliable models will get work, and those unreliable models will either have to become reliable or they will have to find something else to do.  That would work.  If there are those who insist on working with models with no track record, then they need to accept whatever they get.  But eventually, those brand new models will get a track record, and if they are unreliable, people won't work with them.

So, if you want to work with Suzy, and she has no track record, send an e-mail to your distribution list of local photographers & ask, "Has anyone worked with Suzy?".  Sometimes, that's all it takes.  Sure, that's not a zero effort prospect, but neither is a blacklist, outing, a rating system, or (dare I say it?) venting on these forums.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
In large part its very difficult to vet models on this site because most
have few to little work and may have just started.   Many of those shooters
want to work with are young.   Asking those she's worked with is
often fruitless because many won't answer emails and those the
model might provide are still folks she showed up for.   As for a right to
complain.   We all have the right and should express ourselves.   I
expect those who agree to shoot with me to do so and we will disagree
here but I don't believe in 'checking up' on people.

I think you are missing my point.  What I am advocating is this:  Work with models with a known track record of being reliable.  If you want to work with models with no track record, that's on you.  Worse, if you refuse to even try to vet the model's track record, then it's your fault entirely.

BTW:  The "right to complain" is not guaranteed in the Constitution.  Want to call it "freedom of expression", you are welcome to.  But for many of us, we lose respect for people who complain & complain & complain while refusing to do anything to address the issue that they are complaining about.  You can express yourself, and similarly, we can disagree, and we can formulate an opinion based on your complaint.

Like I said, a confirmation call the night before is "checking up on people".  And I reiterate -- if you are unwilling to check out the people you work with, you are responsible.  Period.

Look -- as the photographer, you usually are the project leader -- you create a team that could be as little as you & the model, or as big as a dozen or so people.  As the project leader, you are only as reliable as the least reliable member of your team.  Try telling "the model didn't show up" to a client -- do you think the client will blame the model or blame you, especially if this sort of thing happens to you more than rarely?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I also don't care how many shoots a models done or how many people
she's worked with.   I only care about my shoot with her.   I fully expect
models to cancel if they can't come and to confirm.   So when a model
flakes I can express my feelings.   Its not my fault she flaked even though
you feel I am partly to blame.   None of us are responsible for the
actions or words of others.   Thinking we are is to give ourselves more
credit then we are due.

So, fine -- you are unwilling to change your ways.  You assume the world to work a certain way, even when you have ample evidence that your assumptions are not reality.  So, you are welcome to continue to use your hard & fast ways, but you should expect the same results if you continue to do the same old things. 

So, here's my opinion:  You will continue to experience flakes, and no amount of venting / ranting / complaining on the forums is going to change that.  By your actions, I take it that you've accepted that position, too.  If, however, there are photographers listening in who want to reduce their flake ratio, I'd say to them to make the effort to work with reliable models.  It's not impossible, and it's much more rewarding to work with those models who show up.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Is it my fault you don't agree with me?   Can, I make you not post?
I can only control my actions and words.

I'm not blaming you for disagreeing with me.  I'm not trying to stop you or anyone from posting.  You've made a choice regarding those actions, and that choice includes continuing to work with random models without vetting them.  That's your choice.



No need to get personal here.  This is a constructive debate.

People vent here because they want to do something about models who flake.  We've heard all sorts of schemes to address flakes -- we've heard about blacklists, rating systems, outing them on these forums, leaving them a nasty & childish tag,  even listing the model on a "Worked With" list so that the photographer can "tell the truth" if/when someone else calls for a reference.  None of these are fair.  None of these will work.  Some of these may even be actionable legally.

But if people work only with reliable models (even if they are working with the for TF*), then only reliable models will get work, and those unreliable models will either have to become reliable or they will have to find something else to do.  That would work.  If there are those who insist on working with models with no track record, then they need to accept whatever they get.  But eventually, those brand new models will get a track record, and if they are unreliable, people won't work with them.

So, if you want to work with Suzy, and she has no track record, send an e-mail to your distribution list of local photographers & ask, "Has anyone worked with Suzy?".  Sometimes, that's all it takes.  Sure, that's not a zero effort prospect, but neither is a blacklist, outing, a rating system, or (dare I say it?) venting on these forums.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
In large part its very difficult to vet models on this site because most
have few to little work and may have just started.   Many of those shooters
want to work with are young.   Asking those she's worked with is
often fruitless because many won't answer emails and those the
model might provide are still folks she showed up for.   As for a right to
complain.   We all have the right and should express ourselves.   I
expect those who agree to shoot with me to do so and we will disagree
here but I don't believe in 'checking up' on people.

I think you are missing my point.  What I am advocating is this:  Work with models with a known track record of being reliable.  If you want to work with models with no track record, that's on you.  Worse, if you refuse to even try to vet the model's track record, then it's your fault entirely.

BTW:  The "right to complain" is not guaranteed in the Constitution.  Want to call it "freedom of expression", you are welcome to.  But for many of us, we lose respect for people who complain & complain & complain while refusing to do anything to address the issue that they are complaining about.  You can express yourself, and similarly, we can disagree, and we can formulate an opinion based on your complaint.

Like I said, a confirmation call the night before is "checking up on people".  And I reiterate -- if you are unwilling to check out the people you work with, you are responsible.  Period.

Look -- as the photographer, you usually are the project leader -- you create a team that could be as little as you & the model, or as big as a dozen or so people.  As the project leader, you are only as reliable as the least reliable member of your team.  Try telling "the model didn't show up" to a client -- do you think the client will blame the model or blame you, especially if this sort of thing happens to you more than rarely?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I also don't care how many shoots a models done or how many people
she's worked with.   I only care about my shoot with her.   I fully expect
models to cancel if they can't come and to confirm.   So when a model
flakes I can express my feelings.   Its not my fault she flaked even though
you feel I am partly to blame.   None of us are responsible for the
actions or words of others.   Thinking we are is to give ourselves more
credit then we are due.

So, fine -- you are unwilling to change your ways.  You assume the world to work a certain way, even when you have ample evidence that your assumptions are not reality.  So, you are welcome to continue to use your hard & fast ways, but you should expect the same results if you continue to do the same old things. 

So, here's my opinion:  You will continue to experience flakes, and no amount of venting / ranting / complaining on the forums is going to change that.  By your actions, I take it that you've accepted that position, too.  If, however, there are photographers listening in who want to reduce their flake ratio, I'd say to them to make the effort to work with reliable models.  It's not impossible, and it's much more rewarding to work with those models who show up.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Is it my fault you don't agree with me?   Can, I make you not post?
I can only control my actions and words.

I'm not blaming you for disagreeing with me.  I'm not trying to stop you or anyone from posting.  You've made a choice regarding those actions, and that choice includes continuing to work with random models without vetting them.  That's your choice.



No need to get personal here.  This is a constructive debate.

People vent here because they want to do something about models who flake.  We've heard all sorts of schemes to address flakes -- we've heard about blacklists, rating systems, outing them on these forums, leaving them a nasty & childish tag,  even listing the model on a "Worked With" list so that the photographer can "tell the truth" if/when someone else calls for a reference.  None of these are fair.  None of these will work.  Some of these may even be actionable legally.  Nearly all of them require that we take the word of a stranger without even giving the accused the opportunity to respond.

But if people work only with reliable models (even if they are working with them for TF*), then only reliable models will get work, and those unreliable models will either have to become reliable or they will have to find something else to do.  That would work.  If there are those who insist on working with models with no track record, then they need to accept whatever they get.  But eventually, those brand new models will get a track record, and if they are unreliable, people won't work with them.

So, if you want to work with Suzy, and she has no track record, send an e-mail to your distribution list of local photographers & ask, "Has anyone worked with Suzy?".  Sometimes, that's all it takes.  Sure, that's not a zero effort prospect, but neither is a blacklist, outing, a rating system, or (dare I say it?) venting on these forums.

Never ment anything personal.   I'm in Chicago and I don't know of any
networking or lists or other local shooters to ask about models.   A few
have asked me about models and were surprised when I replied because
as one guy noted.   Most photographers never reply.  As far as people
not working with unreliable models.   All a girl has to do is to mention
nudes or have some provocative shots and we come running.   

Usually it works like this.   Tony, I want to shoot.  I say, yes or no and
we go from there.  I don't start asking around about the model. 
I don't network or use a distribution list (not quite sure what that is)
Either she shows up to shoot or she doesn't.  So if she doesn't its my
fault for not checking her out?  I'm not asking her to marry me.  Its just
some images.  There is a MM model who has had several different profiles.
She's never actually shown for any shoots she's asked me for.

I didn't take her serious after her first flake.   A photographer not
familiar with her new profile so he might not know who she was.
A flake could get away with her crap in a large market like Chicago for
a long time.  Besides you say not to take the word of strangers anyway.
So other shooters who might say she was a flake shouldn't be believed?
How many people should we ask.  How much time should we devot to this?

Reliable is only that to the people she actually worked with.    Look,
I understand some of the risks of working with new models with
unproven track records.   I just disagree with you.   I still respect your
views however and while you may not agree or think that complaining is
the way to go for many its just cathartic.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
What I am advocating is this:  Work with models with a known track record of being reliable.  If you want to work with models with no track record, that's on you.  Worse, if you refuse to even try to vet the model's track record, then it's your fault entirely.

What I think you don't understand is while you are able to do that, that is not always a realistic option for all photographers.

Many don't have the budget to hire agency models or other proven models.  Many new models who are willing to accept reasonable rates or trade do not have any notable track record to check, and even if they did checking a model's record is not easy.  How do you find out who a model canceled on?  Most photographers don't have the comprehensive network of local photographers you do.  Photographers a model credits most likely do not include photographers she booked, but canceled on.

I also disagree with you about fault.  Saying it's a photographers fault that a model flakes or cancels on him because he did vet well enough is like saying it's a woman's fault she was raped because she did not know a neighborhood she walked through as well as she should have.  People should do their best to understand the risks they take.  I know that many of the models I book are at a higher risk of flaking, but that does not mean it's my fault if they cancel.  It's not.  They are the one's breaking their commitment.  The fault is theirs.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I'm in Chicago and I don't know of any networking or lists or other local shooters to ask about models.   A few have asked me about models and were surprised when I replied because as one guy noted.   Most photographers never reply.  As far as people
not working with unreliable models.   All a girl has to do is to mention nudes or have some provocative shots and we come running.

Networking doesn't happen without effort.  Sure, many photographers will choose not to participate, but many will.  If the only criteria for choosing to work with a model is her willingness to pose nude or provocatively, then you are not filtering based on a criteria of reliability.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Usually it works like this.   Tony, I want to shoot.  I say, yes or no and we go from there.  I don't start asking around about the model.  I don't network or use a distribution list (not quite sure what that is) Either she shows up to shoot or she doesn't.  So if she doesn't its my fault for not checking her out?  I'm not asking her to marry me.  Its just some images.

(A distribution list is a feature of many e-mail programs -- it is a named list of multiple e-mail addresses.  You can "broadcast" one message to the multiple e-mail addresses by sending it to the distribution list).

If you don't ask around, if you don't network, then I guess you've given up.  There is nothing preventing you from choosing to work with a model who is likely to disappoint you.  Yes, it is your fault, because by your behavior, you don't care whether you work with flaking models or not, and your local community is still encouraging flaking models by providing them with work over & over & over.  If you made an effort to filter out the flaking models & she still flaked, then perhaps it's less your fault, but nonetheless, she's a member of your team, and you are the team leader.  If the shoot doesn't happen, the team has failed.  A team is only as good as its weakest leak.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
A flake could get away with her crap in a large market like Chicago for a long time.  Besides you say not to take the word of strangers anyway.  So other shooters who might say she was a flake shouldn't be believed?  How many people should we ask.  How much time should we devote to this?

A flake gets away with it only because the local community doesn't talk with each other.

The difference between taking the word of your network and taking the word of a random stranger posting on these forums is that you should know the people in your network.  In the network, you share, you exchange information, you exchange favors.  Feedback from people you know simply mean a lot more than feedback from strangers.

How much time should we devote to this "filtering"?  Well, how much time are we devoting to discussing flakes ad nauseum on the forums?  How much time do we devote to giving feedback to the people who want a blacklist or a rating system? 

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Reliable is only that to the people she actually worked with.    Look, I understand some of the risks of working with new models with unproven track records.   I just disagree with you.   I still respect your views however and while you may not agree or think that complaining is the way to go for many its just cathartic.

No, "reliability" means something to the people she's flaked on, too.

Look -- you take your chances -- more power to you, but sometimes the risk doesn't pan out.  If you flip a coin & you call "heads", whose fault is it if it comes up "tails"?

Abbitt Photography wrote:
What I think you don't understand is while you are able to do that, that is not always a realistic option for all photographers.

Many don't have the budget to hire agency models or other proven models.  Many new models who are willing to accept reasonable rates or trade do not have any notable track record to check, and even if they did checking a model's record is not easy.  How do you find out who a model canceled on?  Most photographers don't have the comprehensive network of local photographers you do.  Photographers a model credits most likely do not include photographers she booked, but canceled on.

I also disagree with you about fault.  Saying it's a photographers fault that a model flakes or cancels on him because he did vet well enough is like saying it's a woman's fault she was raped because she did not know a neighborhood she walked through as well as she should have.  People should do their best to understand the risks they take.  I know that many of the models I book are at a higher risk of flaking, but that does not mean it's my fault if they cancel.  It's not.  They are the one's breaking their commitment.  The fault is theirs.

Sure, models who are trying to earn their living with their modeling really can't afford to get a bad reputation.  But there are tons of wonderful & reliable models who are willing to do TF* or who have reasonable rates. 

"How do you find out who a model canceled on?"  Well, ask around.  There are tons of people you can ask about a model:
   >>>  The people credited in her portfolio.
   >>>  The people in her "friends" list.
   >>>  The photographers who are local to her.
   >>>  The models who are local to her.
   >>>  The photographers & models who are local to you.

You are right -- networks don't happen naturally.  They take a little work to establish, and they take a little work to sustain.

Your "rape" analogy is awful & inappropriate & not accurate.  If you want an analogy, try this:  you go into the casino, and you bet all your money on "red" but the roulette ball falls on "black".  You lose all your money.  Whose fault is that?  If you are unwilling or unable to vet your models, you are taking a risk, and if you lose on a gamble, you've got to take the responsibility.

Look -- some photographers simply have a larger "flake ratio" than others, even when they are working within the same pool of models & the same budget constraints.  It seems to me that those with the highest flake ratios have a few things in common: 
   1)  The flaking is always the model's fault, even when it isn't,
   2)  They complain a lot,
   3)  They are unwilling or unable to change their methods,
   4)  They don't communicate with the other people in their area,
   5)  They treat most models with hostility,
   6)  They treat most models like children,
   7)  and other things.

So, yes, it's the photographers fault.  If they want to improve their flake ratio, it will take a bit of work.  If they aren't going to do that work, then I have no sympathy for their poor flake ratios.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
"How do you find out who a model canceled on?"  Well, ask around.  There are tons of people you can ask about a model:
   >>>  The people credited in her portfolio.
   >>>  The people in her "friends" list.
   >>>  The photographers who are local to her.
   >>>  The models who are local to her.
   >>>  The photographers & models who are local to you.

Credit and friends lists probably don't include the photographers a model canceled on and they probably don't brag to other models that they are unreliable. 

Most of the models around here that answer positively to TF offers have very little experience so there's not really any history to evaluate anyways.  You can't assume that because you have an easy time finding TF models with enough experience to evaluate that other photographers have the same option.

That's been my basic point all along.  You are criticizing everyone else as if they have the same options available to them that you do.  Most don't.  They have different options and will consequently see different results.


I had a model cancel on me this weekend.  She doesn't have me credited or listed as a friend.  She lives 50 miles away.  She's not even a MM model.  How would any other photographer who wants to work with her reasonably know she's canceled?

Also, your analogy is much worse than mine.   People not showing up for committed appointments is not at all the same as casino gambling.  People are expected to keep their appointments.  People are not expected to win at gambling.  Loosing at gambling isn't caused by someone breaking their commitment.  In gambling, you are not a victim to someone else's action.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Sure, models who are trying to earn their living with their modeling really can't afford to get a bad reputation.  But there are tons of wonderful & reliable models who are willing to do TF* or who have reasonable rates. 

"How do you find out who a model canceled on?"  Well, ask around.  There are tons of people you can ask about a model:
   >>>  The people credited in her portfolio.
   >>>  The people in her "friends" list.
   >>>  The photographers who are local to her.
   >>>  The models who are local to her.
   >>>  The photographers & models who are local to you.

You are right -- networks don't happen naturally.  They take a little work to establish, and they take a little work to sustain.

Your "rape" analogy is awful & inappropriate & not accurate.  If you want an analogy, try this:  you go into the casino, and you bet all your money on "red" but the roulette ball falls on "black".  You lose all your money.  Whose fault is that?  If you are unwilling or unable to vet your models, you are taking a risk, and if you lose on a gamble, you've got to take the responsibility.

Look -- some photographers simply have a larger "flake ratio" than others, even when they are working within the same pool of models & the same budget constraints.  It seems to me that those with the highest flake ratios have a few things in common: 
   1)  The flaking is always the model's fault, even when it isn't,
   2)  They complain a lot,
   3)  They are unwilling or unable to change their methods,
   4)  They don't communicate with the other people in their area,
   5)  They treat most models with hostility,
   6)  They treat most models like children,
   7)  and other things.

So, yes, it's the photographers fault.  If they want to improve their flake ratio, it will take a bit of work.  If they aren't going to do that work, then I have no sympathy for their poor flake ratios.

The casino analogy is a poor one because no one makes you
gamble.   Losing your money is your fault because you shouldn't
gamble if you can't afford to lose.   However booking models isn't like
being at a casino.   Your methods work for you but many shooters aren't
willing to share information about models because most won't want
you to shoot them.   That's because many see other shooters as
competition.   I've asked fellow shooters about models and most
just give the stock answer, she was cool.   However that's still those
she worked with.   Your email lists sounds great but getting people to
respond not so great.

Our methods and views really do differ though.   In a past thread you
asked if people call the plumber to confirm.   Some people said, yes.
I call and expect a call to confirm.   Is that treating the plumber
as a child or the model.   I don't know but a call lets me know your
showing up.   Lets take the sexual assault example.   As horrible as that
is.   Its never the woman's fault.   I don't care what she has on its not
her fault.   I don't care how poor her judgment was.  Its not her fault.

In my world people are responsible for their actions and words.
Accept a shoot and change your mind then let me know.   I don't
care if you come or not.   I do care if you don't let me know.   
What we can agree on is this.   Doing the same thing over and over
but expecting different results is madness.  Oh and by the way.
My flake ratio isn't all that bad.   I accept that some models just aren't
coming through.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Credit and friends lists probably don't include the photographers a model canceled on and they probably don't brag to other models that they are unreliable.

Well, don't you want to hear both good stuff & bad stuff?  Also, I think you might be surprised -- sometimes the credited photographers or friends might surprise you.  If you never ask, you'll never know.  I also note that I listed a half-dozen sources of references, but you only commented on two.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Most of the models around here that answer positively to TF offers have very little experience so there's not really any history to evaluate anyways.  You can't assume that because you have an easy time finding TF models with enough experience to evaluate that other photographers have the same option.

"Little experience"  >  "No experience", meaning if they have any experience, then there is someone who has an opinion.  Even with "no experience", sometimes local models know the newbie. 

On the other hand, if you choose to take the risk to work with a model with no track record, you will get what you get.  Some of them will be fantastic.  Some of them won't show.  If you hate the no-show models, filter them out.  If you won't filter them out, they will be a part of your life, so accept that.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
That's been my basic point all along.  You are criticizing everyone else as if they have the same options available to them that you do.  Most don't.  They have different options and will consequently see different results.

Maybe.  Or maybe people don't understand their options.  Or maybe people are expecting that these options are going to be handed to them.  Don't have a local community?  Build one.  Yes, it takes an effort.  To me, it's worth it.  To you, maybe not.  But my basic point is that if you don't want to deal with flaking models, you need to be able to avoid them, and if you are not willing to make the effort to avoid them, then you are basically inviting them to flake on you.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I had a model cancel on me this weekend.  She doesn't have me credited or listed as a friend.  She lives 50 miles away.  She's not even a MM model.  How would any other photographer who wants to work with her reasonably know she's canceled?

You tell all your local photographer friends about it.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Also, your analogy is much worse than mine.   People not showing up for committed appointments is not at all the same as casino gambling.  People are expected to keep their appointments.  People are not expected to win at gambling.  Loosing at gambling isn't caused by someone breaking their commitment.  In gambling, you are not a victim to someone else's action.

People not showing up for committed appointments is not at all the same as casino gambling.  Well, people not showing up for committed appointments is not at all the same as rape, either.  That's the problem with analogies.

How 'bout this:  you get an e-mail from a prince from Nigeria who offers you $10,000 & all you have to do is send in $500.  You send the $500 but you never get the $10,000.  Who's fault is that?  Okay -- first time, maybe it's the scammer's fault.

Then you get an e-mail from a prince from Botswana who offers you $10,000 & all you have to do is send in $500.  You send the $500 but you never get the $10,000.  Who's fault is that? 

Then you get an e-mail from a prince from Ethiopia.  You send the $500 but never get the $10,000 back.  Who's fault is that?

The old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  If flakes happen to you rarely, well, crap happens.  But if flakes happen to you often, then it's your fault if you refuse to take steps to avoid them.  Or on the other hand, if you refuse to take steps to avoid flakes, you will not get sympathy from me.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
The casino analogy is a poor one because no one makes you gamble.   Losing your money is your fault because you shouldn't gamble if you can't afford to lose.

No one makes you hire models with no experience, either.  Similarly, if you can't afford to have a model stand you up, then you need to be more selective about the models you choose to work with.  See my post above for a new analogy involving an African prince.

Look -- I really don't like analogies:  they are usually imperfect.  I prefer fables.  Can we have a story involving a turtle and a squirrel?  I was only responding with an analogy because someone brought up a rape analogy, which I thought was horrible.  Sorry about that.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
However booking models isn't like being at a casino.   Your methods work for you but many shooters aren't willing to share information about models because most won't want you to shoot them.   That's because many see other shooters as competition.   I've asked fellow shooters about models and most just give the stock answer, she was cool.   However that's still those she worked with.   Your email lists sounds great but getting people to respond not so great.

Sure, some photographers aren't willing to share information about models.  Some photographers are too busy to respond.  Some photographers don't see any value in a local supportive community. 

But some might.  If you never ask, you'll never know.

(BTW:  A local community is good for more than just passing on references.  We share info about traveling model schedules, locations, shared resources, shows & events, meet & greets, etc.).

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Our methods and views really do differ though.   In a past thread you asked if people call the plumber to confirm.   Some people said, yes.  I call and expect a call to confirm.   Is that treating the plumber as a child or the model.   I don't know but a call lets me know your showing up.   Lets take the sexual assault example.   As horrible as that is.   Its never the woman's fault.   I don't care what she has on its not
her fault.   I don't care how poor her judgment was.  Its not her fault.

Suzy goes alone to the Club Sleaze bar on skid row, gets drunk, gets slipped a roofie, and gets assaulted.  Yes, not her fault.

But then Suzy goes back, alone, to Club Sleaze.  She gets drunk, gets slipped a roofie, and gets assaulted.

Then Suzy goes back a third, a fourth, a fifth time, and she gets assaulted each time.

At what point does it start being a bit of Suzy's fault?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
In my world people are responsible for their actions and words.

Except, of course, for the people who are not, like the flaking models.