R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
Hello,

I occasionally pay models **but my artistic interests and photography gigs alone would never pay for models+studio+mua+gear**, honestly I only pay for the ease of booking and to remove the tacit obligation of sending photos in a reasonable amount of time.

This leads me to the my point here:

How exactly are photographers supposed to afford models, I mean how does that business plan work? Given that there is a general desire to work with the artistic teams with the best locations and gear and visions - there is no way that these people have steady income to consistently pay models desired rates. Statistically unlikely to say the least, if these were the people paying models then models wouldn't still be asking for the same rates as adult escorts. Efficient market theory 101.

so I'm still trying to figure out how this concept is intended to work

Now let me do a better comparison:

fact 1) ADULT ESCORTS ADVERTISE TO WEALTHY GENTLEMEN, the typical crowd being investment bankers and the upper tier of earners.

This is the polar opposite of what a photographer can expect to make. These are on opposite extremes of the salary range, even with your successful wedding business.

fact 2) MODELS FREQUENTLY CHARGE AS MUCH AS ADULT ESCORTS, OR PULLING TOGETHER ALL RESOURCES WILL COST AS MUCH

Now we already know there is a noteworthy overlap, since adult escorts need professional retouched pictures, but its WHO is being advertised to. (if you made it this far: no I'm not implying all models are sex workers.)

Models advertise to photographers, preferably the ones that put time and effort into their work - meaning they aren't spending their time closing the deal on that merger & acquisition.
----------

So, as long as this crowd IS advertising to photographers, instead of advertising to CEOs of companies with shareholders, how is this little economy of ours actually supposed to work?

Now I'm sure these upside-down economics contributes to the age of photographers booking models. Hint: Its a bell curve. But I would like to know how the "ideal" scenario was intended to work. Given model's hourly rates are rates reserved for "generous gentlemen".

Historically, models were with agencies for the most part. Some were independent. Howevever they all "made rounds" and showed you there "book" and often begged for "test shots". Those "test shots" are what photographers are paying models to do here. Some photographers covered expenses, or had MU for the "Test", even provided food and transportation when necessary. Sometimes the photographer spent quite a bit on a location or set building if it was in his/her interest.

Models really got paid through their agency or directly by a client if they worked that way.

With the internet, the paradigm has changed a bit as models post here with the intention of getting photographers to pay them for their hobby, or samples when historically it didn't work that way.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
Hello,

I occasionally pay models **but my artistic interests and photography gigs alone would never pay for models+studio+mua+gear**, honestly I only pay for the ease of booking and to remove the tacit obligation of sending photos in a reasonable amount of time.

This leads me to the my point here:

How exactly are photographers supposed to afford models, I mean how does that business plan work? Given that there is a general desire to work with the artistic teams with the best locations and gear and visions - there is no way that these people have steady income to consistently pay models desired rates. Statistically unlikely to say the least, if these were the people paying models then models wouldn't still be asking for the same rates as adult escorts. Efficient market theory 101.

so I'm still trying to figure out how this concept is intended to work

Now let me do a better comparison:

fact 1) ADULT ESCORTS ADVERTISE TO WEALTHY GENTLEMEN, the typical crowd being investment bankers and the upper tier of earners.

This is the polar opposite of what a photographer can expect to make. These are on opposite extremes of the salary range, even with your successful wedding business.

fact 2) MODELS FREQUENTLY CHARGE AS MUCH AS ADULT ESCORTS, OR PULLING TOGETHER ALL RESOURCES WILL COST AS MUCH

Now we already know there is a noteworthy overlap, since adult escorts need professional retouched pictures, but its WHO is being advertised to. (if you made it this far: no I'm not implying all models are sex workers.)

Models advertise to photographers, preferably the ones that put time and effort into their work - meaning they aren't spending their time closing the deal on that merger & acquisition.
----------

So, as long as this crowd IS advertising to photographers, instead of advertising to CEOs of companies with shareholders, how is this little economy of ours actually supposed to work?

Now I'm sure these upside-down economics contributes to the age of photographers booking models. Hint: Its a bell curve. But I would like to know how the "ideal" scenario was intended to work. Given model's hourly rates are rates reserved for "generous gentlemen".

A lot of models who charge charge as much as strippers make but don't have to give a cut to the house.  I felt that was done by the strip club customers who finally realized they were wasting all that money in strip clubs for very little quality time with a dancer.  Instead, they call themselves "photographers" and thrown the money at "models" and get hours of quality time with a cute naked girl - and pics to keep at the same time. Hardly any of the pics shot of the models are worth showing to anyone and they certainly can't be sold, but as long as rich guys are willing to throw money at young women to take their clothes off - it's like asking a cute girl to give you a table dance for free.  Sure - you might find some who would do it for you, but why should any girl give you a table dance for free when someone would be willing to pay them to do that? 

Clearly, some girls give crappy table dances, just like some girls are terrible models and some guys are terrible photographers.  But as long as a terrible photographer is willing to give a terrible model money to pose - how is such a female "model" ever going to do or learn to do good work that could actually be sold so a photographer can make money from the work - except to shoot and sell porn?

Robert Sawin wrote:
I don't beg they usually come to me.  I just do TFs with models.  If they want payment then thats the clients job.  Not mine.  No client No pay.

Ditto.  And judging from the numerous e-mails I get from models telling me they are traveling to my area and want me to book them for paid shoots, it's obvious that many can't read.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:

Ya! I've seen the door price of your workshops! I'll come out some time

oh wait... i just noticed - you're local now...

holy shit, there goes the neighborhood

Philipe wrote:
Slice your self a piece of cake..
Oops you dropped it.
Take another slice.
You dropped it again.

I guess you can't have your cake and it it too.

I never paid a model. I've had some of my clients pay models.
But not me..

Have models pay you, that way you have money...
Don't like editing in a timely fashion?

Read my first fifth line............

damn you... now i want cake

Alisyn Carliene wrote:
The truth is, many photographers are retired or work very competitive careers that pay well.

Uhhhhhh rightttttt. I think MANY isn't the right word here.

Erick Prince wrote:

Uhhhhhh rightttttt. I think MANY isn't the right word here.

....many that hire models... she means.

NC Art Photos wrote:
A lot of models who charge charge as much as strippers make but don't have to give a cut to the house.

You're assuming that strippers at clubs make a lot of money. In truth, they don't. I know a few of those, too. The clubs take so much out of their pay at times that it's ridiculous. One of them in particular worked a ten hour shift and walked away with $70. I've attended clubs myself and I've worked with her before doing private shows and she's gorgeous, has an amazing personality and has pretty good business sense. Doing shows like that rakes in about $200/hr.

That being said, $7/hr is cheap for any hire in any industry. I know I wouldn't work for that. $200/hr is not, but I'd never expect a photographer or small-time client to be able to afford that. They're completely different worlds.

Jessica Vaugn  wrote:

....many that hire models... she means.

OK. That makes more sense then. lol

Erick Prince wrote:
OHHHH SNAP. I love Model vs Photographer threads. Kind of like siblings fighting. No matter what either one says your stuck with each other.As a photographer am I obligated t take sides here or can I just watch? lol

Its too bad huh? The real thing to remember is no one makes anyone pay for anything...if you WANT it for your own reasons... you'll pay. Getting fundamental about it is a waste of time. Some models simply seek people who pay. Some photographers seek only people to shoot who will pay. Oh well. Both groups miss out if they do not properly book build in the right situations waving their normal fees. I don't see it as a model vs photographer situation if we all remember people are at different places in their lives/finances...etc. Many people just target people in the most beneficial financial situation for themselves.

Alisyn Carliene wrote:
So Here's the solution, since you keep comparing models to adult escorts, why not just hire an adult escort? I'm sure she'll pose for you.

The truth is, many photographers are retired or work very competitive careers that pay well.
Some also sell the pictures or have clients they sell the work to.
and to hire a model, you do not need a whole team. Hire a model who can do it all.

A model told me the real $$$ are in the GWC market and indeed it amounts to pretty much a stripper getting naked and more in an intimate setting for older guys who get to not only enjoy a pretty young woman but have someone orders of magnitude more attractive than the average hooker.

Simple market reality... money flows and a demand is fulfilled.

I won't even go into "adult" with 2257 sanctioned sex on camera for money, where the video is for "private" use, which is straight up legal prostitution.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
Statistically unlikely to say the least, if these were the people paying models then models wouldn't still be asking for the same rates as adult escorts. Efficient market theory 101.

For the prices I've seen from most models on here, if you are getting an escort for that price you had better double up on the condoms and get a penicillin shot.

I guess you just opened the door for comparing photographers to johns.

Ginger Ryan wrote:

You're assuming that strippers at clubs make a lot of money. In truth, they don't. I know a few of those, too. The clubs take so much out of their pay at times that it's ridiculous. One of them in particular worked a ten hour shift and walked away with $70. I've attended clubs myself and I've worked with her before doing private shows and she's gorgeous, has an amazing personality and has pretty good business sense. Doing shows like that rakes in about $200/hr.

That being said, $7/hr is cheap for any hire in any industry. I know I wouldn't work for that. $200/hr is not, but I'd never expect a photographer or small-time client to be able to afford that. They're completely different worlds.

It actually depends heavily on the club. I know the house cut here in Austin is pretty light since a poker buddy of mine owns two. Having lived with strippers on three different occasions I can say your argument is largely true AND largely false. It totally depends on the girl, club, and economy and any definitive statement either way on the topic is easy refuted and hard to validate either way. However, you are correct for the most part. BYOB clubs take larger cuts because of no drinks sales. Also you have to factor in the bad economy and "superstar" dancers cutting into profits. All industries have peaks and valleys. I HOPE that I won't have to hire models and as my work evolves they will come to me for trade. I do however feel that at times you have to pay to progress properly. If I am really trying to build my port I want experienced models that take minimal effort from me to direct and know what to do so I can focus on my work. For establish photographers I'm sure this may not be the case.

Art and Light wrote:
I guess you just opened the door for comparing photographers to johns.

Pretty insulting, yep.

Inner Vision Images wrote:
I'm not sure why a photographer would ever pay a model. 

If he's a hobbist and not a photographer that's different... he's paying for his hobby... like paying to play golf rather than being paid to play golf.

A photographer doesn't normally pay the model, the client does or if the photogrpaher does, it's included in his bill to the client.

For me, models pay me to shoot them just like any other of my clients would.

And at this point, with this well observed comment, the thread should have stopped.  :  )

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
But I don't WANT to shoot TF, because this means I am obligated to editing the photos in a reasonable time frame.

So I pay to remove that obligation.

TF with the model and pay a retoucher instead.

Could work out a lot cheaper




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

RKD Photographic wrote:
Easy: you pay them by doing other forms of work that fund the non-commercial side of things.
I do industrial, product and catalogue work to pay the bills and fund the more artistic side of my photography.
Catalogue and product work truly sucks the soul out of you but it pays a fortune...I easily clear 115,000-€ per year just doing this kind of thing... I alleviate the tedium by shooting portraits and glamour at least once a week...

I also have another job.  Last week I photographed 2 models.     

Star wrote:
the same reason some gwc can "afford" 25,000 in gear, cause they want it.

/thread

Alisyn Carliene wrote:
The truth is, many photographers are retired or work very competitive careers that pay well.
Some also sell the pictures or have clients they sell the work to.
and to hire a model, you do not need a whole team. Hire a model who can do it all.

Photographers have different business models. An art nude photographer may be more inclined to pay a good model if he feels he will get the shots that he can market.

Art of the nude wrote:

Actually, there are few, if any, models on this site who seriously quote "real industry" rates of $400-$2000/hr for freelance work.  I've paid from $15 to $100/hr for models, and seen rates from $7.50/hr to $200/hr, not counting trades of course.

$2000 per hour?! I only do agency work and it's more like $2000 per day... if I'm lucky, that is. Of course, I am not at all a famous top booker, so what do I know? *cough, cough*

OP, I would not worry too much about the rates you and other MM photographers are being quoted. Many of these girls have done internet modeling for years and are very skilled negotiators: they know if they start sky high, in the end they will get something that is at least decent/acceptable. And once in a while they will get the clueless newbie GWC with $$$ who will just pay what he's being quoted since he hasn't learned the internet modeling game yet.

Zoe SS wrote:
My rates are as much as the crackhead hooker down the street at the Motel 6. Except, I kick way more ass in photos than that chick. Plus- I do my makeup way more awesomely.

So, you can hire either one of us! Just depends on what you want in the finished product. Awesome clothed pictures, or pictures of a vagina.

Noting that the vagina is on the inside...

I trade for awesome nudes

I'd shoot with you Zoe, if you wanted to pose nude

Malin_ wrote:

$2000 per hour?! I only do agency work and it's more like $2000 per day... if I'm lucky, that is. Of course, I am not at all a famous top booker, so what do I know? *cough, cough*

OP, I would not worry too much about the rates you and other MM photographers are being quoted. Many of these girls have done internet modeling for years and are very skilled negotiators: they know if they start sky high, in the end they will get something that is at least decent/acceptable. And once in a while they will get the clueless newbie GWC with $$$ who will just pay what he's being quoted since he hasn't learned the internet modeling game yet.

Models haven't quoted me any sky high rates yet.  If they do I won't waste my time working with them.

Janos - wrote:
A wise photographer understands that he needs to befriend people at top modeling agencies and he/her will be able to shoot their models free of charge, just by doing tests and he will be able to build a portfolio that will kick major ass and will allow him or her to get high paying jobs...

Unless the photographer has zero interest in fashion or commercial work or in trying to hustle for jobs. In which case he'd be an idiot to bother with agencies.

I do stock and art nude work- both of which don't mesh with traditional agencies, I have zero use for agency models and they have pretty much zero use for me.

Don't assume that your world is where everyone lives. Most of us don't and so your advice isn't very helpful.