joephotonyc wrote:
To me its a value statement.
What value do I get out of paying a model.
And the obverse is what value does a model get from doing TFCD with me. .

Yes, this is really what paying a model is all about.  You should pay a $125/hour model $500 for a four hour shoot instead of $25/hour model $100 when/if you feel you will value the results by $400 more than the less expensive option.  You should shoot the $25/hour model instead of a free landscape or free product subject when you value the results by at least $100 more.

Obviously considering what value the pay or images has to the model, affects what you need to pay to attract models.

2020 Photography wrote:
The short answer is that you are not supposed to pay models, they pay you.

I think I'd like to call "bullcrap" on that statement.

If a photographer is depending on pay from models for their livelihood, I'd probably assume that we are talking about a lower tier photographer.  Models are often young & cash poor, and they are probably a very unreliable source of income for a photographer.

Instead, I'd say that ...
   ...  Models are part of the photographic team that creates the photographs, and
   ...  Everyone gets paid (directly or not) by clients and/or patrons.

That team concept is central to my point of view.  Think about MUAs -- how often do MUAs pay photographers (maybe sometimes but not very often).  Think about a general contractor building a house -- how often do plumbers, electricians, and other subcontractors pay the contractor for the opportunity to build the house -- I'd say never. 

My bottom line -- the photographer gets to retain the copyright.  Therefore, all future earning potential typically benefits the photographer.  The photographer serves as the general contractor, at least in the typical TFP situation.

Finally, photography (and modeling) is a competitive business, and most models can find adequate photographers who will either pay them or work with them for TFP.  If a photographer wants to earn their living by getting models to pay them, well, more power to them, but there will always be people who can do the job for less.

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".

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".

Comparing models to sex workers- I don't even know where to start :-)
Models sign contracts permitting the infinite use of their image.....
My rates are very competitive!

It's supply verses demand, I have many ideas that I would
like to play with, but they all involve high end locations, props, etc, it is expensive to shoot, on all sides. You can't expect to shoot an expirienced model for free when you're starting out, and visa versa.

Vampire Black Cat wrote:
This should read... how are models supposed to afford photographers.

I have $20k in equipment in my trunk at any one gig.  Homie gotta pay for that.

So, it's the cost of doing business, use it as a tax write-off.

I got $20k in equipment in my trunk too homie :-)

Nedah Oyin wrote:
i think you missed the part where it was stated that no one cares about your expenses.. namely, what you spent on your equipment..

+1
Everyone has overhead costs...

DragonFly Photo wrote:
the model I am currently working with I pay... also compensate her for fuel... I love working with her and she actually works, shows up on time and goes above and beyond... unfortunately I think many of the "models" in Montana just love having the title of "model."  Am I saying they are flakes?  No, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a.... you get the idea.  So when you find a hard working model you take care of her... down the road this will benefit both of us.

+1

There are so many threads complaining about models flaking or models acting unprofessional.  Yet often times these are photographers who wear "I never pay models!" like a badge of honor.  You get what you pay for, if you're going to hire pretty girls who think modeling is just a cool idea you have to deal with the possibility that they won't behave like a professional.  Hiring a professional decreases the likelihood of such behavior.  That being said there are still "professionals" out there that no amount of money will make them behave properly, but it does beat the whole "my grandma died!" bit.

xaveir wrote:
If for some reason your paying a model your in the wrong business.
Unless its for a client.
Otherwise you might as well start giving your money to me.

When a business opens do they give stuff away.  Ocasionally but those give aways are a tax write off.   

Eh HA!

Being an art photographer is not the same as being a regular ol portrait, wedding, editorial, fashion etc shooter.

xaveir wrote:
If for some reason your paying a model your in the wrong business.
Unless its for a client.
Otherwise you might as well start giving your money to me.

When a business opens do they give stuff away.  Ocasionally but those give aways are a tax write off.   

Eh HA!

cinema photography wrote:
Being an art photographer is not the same as being a regular ol portrait, wedding, editorial, fashion etc shooter.

+1

This is Model Mayhem, MM is a network for freelance industry, not an agency.  The majority of people on MM are not signed with an agency and therefore do not have the options that agency people do.  In an agency your work is coming from a client, in the freelance world client jobs are few and far between.  Most freelance people profit this way:

Newbie models pay experienced photographers for portfolio photos.
Experienced models pay highly experienced photographers who don't want to trade for portfolio photos.
Newbie photographers pay experienced models for portfolio photos.
Photographers pay experienced models for their time to try out a new technique.
Photographers pay experienced models to be featured in workshops.
Newbies and experienced photographers pay photographers to attend workshops.
Models pay photographers to attend group events.
Photographers pay photographers to attend group events.
Ect.

This is how the freelance world mainly survives.  Some people think the cycle of photographers and models paying each other is stupid and doesn't work, but clearly it does since some people are able to make a modest living off it.

Applying agency "rules" to the freelance world is like applying soccer rules to a rugby game, it's just a totally different game.

cinema photography wrote:

Being an art photographer is not the same as being a regular ol portrait, wedding, editorial, fashion etc shooter.

Agreed.  Without a foundation or rich sugar mama (that hopefully my wife would tolerate), I don't know how to fund the art that's more expensive than I can afford right now.

Darkroom Art wrote:
I strive to make art. My images are shopped to galleries & juried shows. Nothing commercial, whichs means no profit for me. That's ok, I'm not doing this for money.
I'll pay a models $50. an hour with a $200. minimum if it goes 4 hours or not. I have models lose interest as soon as I state rates. BUT, I look for local talent. Someone I can hire repeatedly. Someone with business savy to think, "He's local, it's an easy shoot, I'm not booked that day. Hmm, stay home & make nothing or go get a couple hundred in cash?"  But, that's just my logic. I'm open for TFCD as well.

If I had to pay models, I wouldn't have been able to shoot enough to become practiced at shooting, lighting, and editing.

D M M  wrote:
Most models are not making (and do not charge) the same amount as an adult escort. Not nearly. Also, know that this comparison may offend some.

You know how everything's cheaper on craigslist? There's some cheap hookers out there.

I'm honestly puzzled by the girls who charge $100+ per hour. Modeling is absolutely a skill, and models should be paid according to their skill, but on average, a neurosurgeon makes $47 per hour. Why knowing how to emote prettily is more valuable than neurosurgery on a financial level is completely baffling.

BlackArts - Jenna Black wrote:
I'm honestly puzzled by the girls who charge $100+ per hour. Modeling is absolutely a skill, and models should be paid according to their skill, but on average, a neurosurgeon makes $47 per hour. Why knowing how to emote prettily is more valuable than neurosurgery on a financial level is completely baffling.

A little more than $47/hr., but your point is still valid.
http://www.healthcaresalaryonline.com/n … alary.html

Black Lace Photo wrote:

A little more than $47/hr., but your point is still valid.
http://www.healthcaresalaryonline.com/n … alary.html

The site I found quoted $47 and change. As with anything else, surveys are limited in their own sampling.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

I think I'd like to call "bullcrap" on that statement.

If a photographer is depending on pay from models for their livelihood, I'd probably assume that we are talking about a lower tier photographer.  Models are often young & cash poor, and they are probably a very unreliable source of income for a photographer.

In the good old days of film the photographer who had the studio next to the one I worked in made a very good living out of model folios and he was defo not lower tier.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I think I'd like to call "bullcrap" on that statement.

If a photographer is depending on pay from models for their livelihood, I'd probably assume that we are talking about a lower tier photographer.  Models are often young & cash poor, and they are probably a very unreliable source of income for a photographer.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
In the good old days of film the photographer who had the studio next to the one I worked in made a very good living out of model folios and he was defo not lower tier.

I don't understand why everyone thinks models are so poor. They all have iphones (not all, but I haven't seen many young people without a smart phone),  they obviously can afford what they really want.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I think I'd like to call "bullcrap" on that statement.

If a photographer is depending on pay from models for their livelihood, I'd probably assume that we are talking about a lower tier photographer.  Models are often young & cash poor, and they are probably a very unreliable source of income for a photographer.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
In the good old days of film the photographer who had the studio next to the one I worked in made a very good living out of model folios and he was defo not lower tier.

No one makes a living off models.  As pointed out, they have the LEAST amount of money in the whole industry chain.  If someone was, or was trying to, they had an in with an "agency" or were living off some prior rep that aspiring models felt would help them some how.   This is stil lower teir, bottom rung, bottom feeding, etc.  I would be suprised if he was actually making his living off it.  Very few ever did, even in the film days.

Rule of thumb, if an angency asks for ANY money from a model hopeful in any way, they are not really interested.  Why?  Again, models have the least amount of money of anyone in the industry, and the last thing an agency would want is a rival agency snapping up a model because they were waiting for her to come up with some "fee."

Models DO NOT PAY.  That is the basic rule of thumb.  Models who pay are CLIENTS.  Photographers pay in limited circumstances.  But in general CLIENTS pay.  That is how things work.

Scott

Julian  W I L D E wrote:
I've never really thought of this as an issue.

In fact, I've Never paid for a model out of my own pocket.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't.  ;-)

It's just that in almost 20 years...  I haven't.

-JULIAN

In my original post where I say 'statistically unlikely' originally I was going to say 'not everyone is julian wilde!' As I had deduced that you had the means to based on your sets, some things you've said, and being in portland with ye olde money

Fotofolios  wrote:
I pay all my models - is that wrong?

David

No it is not wrong...it just upsets broke "artists".

Fotofolios  wrote:
I pay all my models - is that wrong?

David

Whatever floats your boat.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
How exactly are photographers supposed to afford models, I mean how does that business plan work?

Have clients.

I pay models when clients pay me.

Last month, I shot a fashion catalog. 4 models, 1 mua. All (and me) got paid. All by the client.

That's how that business plan works.

Dark Shadows wrote:
I've never been quoted rates by any model except on MM. I would suggest trying more traditional sources where the culture (business) is very different than in the 'online world'.

good tip!  I get trade requests all the time when I show cute girls my website on a smartphone or tablet

Yum Yum Photo wrote:
This is a stupid discussion. I a photographer am seeking clients to pay me to take pictures they also pay the model....and what ever cost are incurred in shoot.

I also get paid to portraits.

Photographers and models who need portfolio pieces should work together for trade because it's a even trade.

Sorry, but it's not always an "even" trade, that's why I (and plenty of other models) get paid.  It's not even if the photographer's work is not up to par with mine, it's also not even if they are shots I don't need (photos of JUST my feet, photos that are photographically nice but you can't see my face or my figure clearly, etc).  It's also not even if I know the photos are going to turn a profit for the photographer, why TF when I know my gallery photos will make about $400?  (real example)  There are plenty of reasons why TF doesn't always cut it, hence the whole idea of payment being introduced.  If you can't afford it then work with someone else.  Simple.