Tiffiney C wrote:

That's working 40 hour weeks. I doubt the photographers are paying for the entire 8 hour day or every day of the week for that matter. In retrospect it's making $40 in a day ($5/hr) by keeping that day empty for a shoot. Even doing 3 shoots that day (which I tend to do when traveling) will amount to $120, still less than the $40k average. Modeling is no comparison to a 9-5.

I look at this different, more like the post you are responding to.  When I resigned from a major company to start my own business I only had 1 client but they paid me very well on a daily rate.  However, I was only working a couple of days per week for that client. 

I have since picked up several new clients, some at the same rate as the first and some for a lot less.  The point is that I have a very expensive "standard" rate for my services but I know I am not going to get it all the time.  So when that work is not available I take what I can find (within reason).  My bigger clients tend to book me 1-2 months in advance and my smaller clients tend to book me 2-3 weeks in advance so I am in a position to schedule the lower paying work around my higher paying work.  At the end of the month I am a lot better off having worked 18 days at various rates than if I had only worked 8 days for the bigger clients.

If a model has the opportunity to go make $50-$100 per hour that is great but if that work isn't available then $20-30 / hour for even a couple of hours is better than not making anything that day.  The post you were responding to was just saying that a rate of $30/hr is actually decent money if you don't have something better lined up that day.

In Its Own Way wrote:
If a model has the opportunity to go make $50-$100 per hour that is great but if that work isn't available then $20-30 / hour for even a couple of hours is better than not making anything that day.  The post you were responding to was just saying that a rate of $30/hr is actually decent money if you don't have something better lined up that day.

I have to strongly disagree.

Combined with transportation cost (some shoots require you to travel to a location several hours away), cost of food and drink (many on location shoots have a gofer that runs out to a local eatery), and other expenses shoots can incur, I can very well end up losing money instead of making money.  Staying at home and searching the casting calls for better work, applying time to my other endeavors, or just plain cleaning and relaxing costs me $0.

Going to a shoot for any price is not always better than making nothing.

Little Alice wrote:

I have to strongly disagree.

Combined with transportation cost (some shoots require you to travel to a location several hours away), cost of food and drink (many on location shoots have a gofer that runs out to a local eatery), and other expenses shoots can incur, I can very well end up losing money instead of making money.  Staying at home and searching the casting calls for better work, applying time to my other endeavors, or just plain cleaning and relaxing costs me $0.

Going to a shoot for any price is not always better than making nothing.

Of course I would agree with you under those circumstances.  It certainly wouldn't make sense for a model to spend $40 in gas and 6 hours on the road for a job that pays $40 - just like it would not make sense for a model to fly cross country at their own expense for a 2 hour job that paid $150/hr.  I was talking about a local shoot where the options are stay home and earn $0 or make a reasonable drive and earn $40-60.

J Jessica  wrote:

$20 is a LOT of money, actually.

?? Lol

CRUIKSHANK PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
There are a lot worse jobs out there that pay a lot less than 20-40 an hour. You can get a university degree and you won't start at much more than 20 an hour.

BUT those are usually around 8 hours a day, 40 hrs or more a week.  I see this theory a LOT on MM and it's not even close to the same thing even for people who are regularly booked. So imo this reasoning is Fail.

Bare Essential Photos wrote:
To OP --

Of course much the same as been said for models who ask for $100 per hour. Do those models offer something the validates those rates?

It goes both ways.


Gabby

There is an old saying: Buy the best..forget the rest

And I'm not trying to sound like a bitch when I say that, but as with all things in life, you get what you pay for.

Rollo David Snook wrote:
Let's say you have no budget...

Which is better, posting in TF section or posting in paid, even if it's only what you can find in your pocket. Which gets the better response. I honestly don't know.

Well if you have no money you can still get the best models in the world just by virtue of being a very talented photographer.

Actually that's the only way to get the best models in the world. They will not test with unknown photographers, even for pay.

John Jebbia wrote:
The high paying jobs are great and all, but they don't come around every day.

Do the math.. If your rate was say $30/hr and you were able to schedule 20hrs/week at that rate, that's $31,000/yr. If your rate was $150/hr and you booked 12hrs/month, you're only at $21,000/yr.

A high rate is great for those of you who consistently book at that rate. But let's face it.. most of you don't and are lucky to get 8hrs/month.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with setting a low rate and requiring a minimum number of hours per booking. And there's nothing wrong with charging a premium for jobs that don't make sense at that rate (ie after all is said and done, it costs you money to do the job)

For me personally, I'd rather work every day for $20/hr than once a month for $200/hr.

To put this into a real life example, I recently started selling some of my photo sets in zip format online. I took a look at what the other guys were selling and they were charging $10, $20, Sometimes even $50 for the same type of stuff. I looked at a listing of all of their items for sale and their "sold" ones were few and far between.

I went the other way and listed mine for $2/item. And they sell like mad. Over and over again and often as soon as I post them.

Point is, I'd rather charge less and sell volume all the time than charge more and sell sometimes.

The same concept applies to MOST models on this site.

I also live by the motto Fast, Good, Cheap -- Pick two.

This is so true.

Most of it has to do with pride though.
A lot of the traveling models that I have seen coming through here and ask me for work say "It's 100/hr" and they MIGHT get a gig here or there.. but if they charged half that rate they would make twice as much (yes, working 'longer hours' but the end result is making $1000 per trip vs $300 per trip..

It just goes back to pride and saying "I'm worth 100/hr" and sticking with that price no matter what.

However.
The models that make the same amount whether they charge 100/hr or 50/hr... why not charge the higher rate... the trick is to find the balance where they are making the maximum amount for least amount of hours put in to it.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
$20 and $20/hour are two very different things... and I've never heard of a photo shoot that takes only one hour.

I am very specific in my shoots and know exactly what I want.. sometimes my total shoot time only needs 30 minutes.

It just depends.

Tiffiney C wrote:
Hey all. I have a serious question. Lately I've been seeing more and more casting calls "paid" in the amount of about $20-30 or $20-30/hr. My question to the photographers who post these castings is who is you're target market for these castings? Is it hobbyist models who are excited to get any kind of compensation for a shoot? Are you looking for serious models who can give you the images that you are looking for? Do you get a lot of responses for these castings? Would it be more beneficial for you to post the casting as TFP with a small stipend for gas/travel then insert the $20-40.

In my opinion, paid assignments are for those looking to get a particular result, have the ability to use/sell for whatever they want, and not HAVE to give model images unless stated (whether you do or not is your preference). That being the case, do you believe that $20/40 dollars is enough to buy out images or is that the reason you get models harassing for images, asking for discs, concerned about what you are later doing with the images.

Not venting at all. I personally ignore the castings but would like to know the train of thought you all have when posting. I look forward to hearing what you all say!

Edit: 20/hr for 2 hr shoots

I suspect that a casting for $20-30 an hour would get a pretty reasonable response unless there's something negative about it.  I having done paid castings in a while, but I got an excellent model for $125 for 4 hours a couple years back, fashion to art nudes.  I've recommended to several novice photographers that they pay excellent non nude models (who seldom get paid offers) something like $50 for three hours or $100 for a half day; it would make a remarkable difference in the quality of model they could work with.

As far as the $20 TOTAL offers, I would hope that's plus images, and more like a "pay for gas" type thing.

J Jessica  wrote:
$20 is a LOT of money, actually.

Tiffiney C wrote:
I hope you are being facetious. I guess $20 is a lot of money if your job pays $8/hr, or you live with your mom, or you don't have to provide clothing, shoes or wardrobe for the $20 comped shoot. Not saying that you are any of the above, but do you think that $20 is worth 2-4 hours of your time?

In NYC, $20 is not much, especially $20 total, the cost of living and commuting is too high.  Out here in the wilderness, $20 for a couple hours, if you don't have to drive far, isn't bad.  And $20/hr for a few hours beats a day at McDonalds.

Tiffiney C wrote:
Primarily I was talking about $20-30 flat

The Grace Gabbana wrote:
Geez that's about $4 per hour for a full day. No effing way.

G

Well, I had a model offer me $50 for a shoot, and she wanted 20 retouched images, for commercial use to promote herself as a "gogo dancer."  So, it kinda goes both ways.

AJScalzitti wrote:
$20/hr is about $40k per year, just below the median household income in the US.

$30/hr is about $60k per year, just below the median household income in Manhattan,

This is also usually unreported income (over 2.5 times minimum wage)  So factor in a US fed tax rate of at least %25 and I fail to see how that is low pay.  Yes there are jobs that pay more and many of our have been truly fortunate in our lives.

Jen Somerfield wrote:
This is a ridiculous comparison.

1) A 4 hour shoot might involve 2 hours travelling, 2 hours replying to emails/calls
2) A model may not expect to get 40 hours a week at that hourly rate, so it is not a full working wage
3) No sick pay, or paid holiday leave
4) No pension, or maternity leave
5) Often weather-dependent, if snowed in and the trains stop running = no shoot or pay
6) You can't model forever, your pay probably won't increase like it would working up the ranks of a company

This is why freelancers always charge more, computer men have a callout charge, the burglar alarm fixer charges an arm and a leg, cleaners are £10ph, because they are not working the entire week, often not even a full 8 hour day.

And the proof of the pudding is, how many rich models have you met?

..just my two pence.

The comparison is iffy, but so is yours.  How many 18-22 year olds have jobs with pensions, maternity leave, or paid holidays?

Jessie Shannon wrote:
There is an old saying: Buy the best..forget the rest

And I'm not trying to sound like a bitch when I say that, but as with all things in life, you get what you pay for.

The first part has merit, depending on the circumstances.

The second is nonsense for a highly inefficient market like model photography, in either direction.  I just had TWO excellent models quote me a rate of $20 (total, plus pictures) for a shoot.  That is, they will both come shoot for about 3 hours for one payment of $20.  Meanwhile, I've had plenty of models who I'd barely consider for a trade quote me $75-100 per hour.  There are models who are worth that, and I've paid it, but demanding that rate doesn't mean you're worth it.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
$20 and $20/hour are two very different things... and I've never heard of a photo shoot that takes only one hour.

When I shot with Brennan, it was two, one hour, sessions on different days.  The "location" day, we shot at three different places, and I got 2-3 excellent images at each location.  And that's hardly unique.  Normally, I work much more slowly, but normally, I'm not working with the likes of Brennan.

Art of the nude wrote:

AJScalzitti wrote:
$20/hr is about $40k per year, just below the median household income in the US.

$30/hr is about $60k per year, just below the median household income in Manhattan,

This is also usually unreported income (over 2.5 times minimum wage)  So factor in a US fed tax rate of at least %25 and I fail to see how that is low pay.  Yes there are jobs that pay more and many of our have been truly fortunate in our lives.

The comparison is iffy, but so is yours.  How many 18-22 year olds have jobs with pensions, maternity leave, or paid holidays?

I had paid holiday in the job I left, if I'd been there longer I would've got maternity too. That's not the point I'm trying to make though, full time jobs in many companies is guaranteed work often with company benefits. Freelancers don't have guaranteed work so charge more and generally work less hours. So comparing high hourly rates with a yearly 40hrs/week wage is folly.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
BUT those are usually around 8 hours a day, 40 hrs or more a week.  I see this theory a LOT on MM and it's not even close to the same thing even for people who are regularly booked. So imo this reasoning is Fail.

.   Ya I get that. I didn't really mean for my statement to support the concept of $20 castings... Just stating that as an hourly wage it could be worse. I don't really look at paying llamas as a simple hourly wage... The way I look at it: A llama isn't only being compensated for their time in front of the camera, but for all the prep work that they must do behind the scenes such as keeping fit, keeping their skin healthy, etc. if I'm going to pay a llama $$$ I am going to pay top dollar for a pro llama. That's just how I justify the $100  llama rates... For the most part I'm pretty sure I can get the same results from a newbie tf llama as I can from a $20/ht llama (if they even exist).

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
$20 and $20/hour are two very different things... and I've never heard of a photo shoot that takes only one hour.

.   My tf art shoots can be done in less than an hour... I know the location, pose, everything before hand... Model shows up, I tell her where/how to stand and I take my shots... Boom! Done!

CRUIKSHANK PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
There are a lot worse jobs out there that pay a lot less than 20-40 an hour. You can get a university degree and you won't start at much more than 20 an hour.

Well said professor!!

sdgillis wrote:
$20/hr is not appealing to top models, but about right.

Consider a min 3 hrs of work, you only have to get out of bed and still have time to do other things in a day.

There are many who pass at those low offers who are marketing themselves and work hard to get good gigs. But there are so so many more who haven't had an updated image on MM in months, or only take 1 gig every 2 months for $200 instead of a steadier 15 gigs at @$60 in 2 months for a total of $900. tax free.

Models on this site too often have stars in their eyes and not reality in their shoes.

I really have to disagree with that statement.  If you are dealing with "models" where that's all they do, then I'm very sorry.  Real models do a lot more before and after the shoot.  Even shoots that do not require clothing still require prep time.  Any model who just rolls out of bed and shows up as is clearly does not have consideration.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
$20 and $20/hour are two very different things... and I've never heard of a photo shoot that takes only one hour.

CRUIKSHANK PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
.   My tf art shoots can be done in less than an hour... I know the location, pose, everything before hand... Model shows up, I tell her where/how to stand and I take my shots... Boom! Done!

The actual act of shooting may in some cases take an hour or less, but not the photo shoot as a whole.  I think it's a self-centered idea that what the photographer does is what constitutes as how much time the shoot takes.

I recently had a photographer who wanted me to do TF with him, he explained that he knew I have rates, but it would "only take an hour."  I kindly explained to him that unless I had a time machine and a teleporter, there was no way this shoot would only require one hour of my time.  He wanted a concept that would involve elaborate clothing, elaborate makeup and hair done by me at my expense, and then to travel to a location that would take about 2 hours round trip.  A total of about 4-6 hours total time including shoot time.

That is why TF or certain rates for shoots is not justifiable by saying "it will only take an hour!"

Comparing a regular wage job to freelance modeling is unfair, as others have explained.  This is not a wage job, this is more of a consultant type job.  You get paid when you land a gig.  Just because the payment for the gig is measured out in how many hours times $$ does not make it a wage based job.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
There's always somebody who needs the money, even $20 per hour. It's a lot better than minimum wage, or nothing.

I'm guessing that's the general thinking behind these castings.

+1

To add, there are always people who are willing to pay but don't have much money, and have nothing to barter.  Those who are short on cash, or not cash obsessed, will find each other and make it work.

None of this "devalues" the modeling or photography markets in any way, neither is it a reflection of the quality of work being produced - people shoot pro bono all the time, after all.

Little Alice wrote:

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
$20 and $20/hour are two very different things... and I've never heard of a photo shoot that takes only one hour.

The actual act of shooting may in some cases take an hour or less, but not the photo shoot as a whole.  I think it's a self-centered idea that what the photographer does is what constitutes as how much time the shoot takes.

I recently had a photographer who wanted me to do TF with him, he explained that he knew I have rates, but it would "only take an hour."  I kindly explained to him that unless I had a time machine and a teleporter, there was no way this shoot would only require one hour of my time.  He wanted a concept that would involve elaborate clothing, elaborate makeup and hair done by me at my expense, and then to travel to a location that would take about 2 hours round trip.  A total of about 4-6 hours total time including shoot time.

That is why TF or certain rates for shoots is not justifiable by saying "it will only take an hour!"

Comparing a regular wage job to freelance modeling is unfair, as others have explained.  This is not a wage job, this is more of a consultant type job.  You get paid when you land a gig.  Just because the payment for the gig is measured out in how many hours times $$ does not make it a wage based job.

.  Scroll up a couple posts and read my response to Jessie.

CRUIKSHANK PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
.  Scroll up a couple posts and read my response to Jessie.

Yes, I read your post, but I still feel my point is valid.  While you see the value in pre-shoot and post-shoot time on both ends, there are many photographers who don't think that models do anything before or after the shoot.  I just wanted to reiterate it for the sake of photographers who really do think that a complete shoot only takes an hour.