twoharts wrote:
around here there's a bunch of good photographers (experienced, excellent equipment, good retouching skills) who will do trade or even pay the models. so models really have no excuse for lousy photos. one photographer i know has trouble getting models because he prefers the non-ALT variety. for my part i can't get anyone to show up TF except for my zivity sets. and i don't require nudity.

anyway, i don't think the problem is lack of good photographers. i think it's the choices models make regarding those photographers. if they are just in it for dating then it is what it is and their portfolios may reflect that.

What??? I said nothing about dating.. or a lack of good photographers.. im just annoyed that photographers are unwilling to pay a good model and models are unwilling to pay a good photographer.

Heather Elizabeth M wrote:
What??? I said nothing about dating.. or a lack of good photographers.. im just annoyed that photographers are unwilling to pay a good model and models are unwilling to pay a good photographer.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
And yet I think that for some of the younger and less experienced, being wanted is just too flattering to pass up -  and from what I hear, honestly, a bit of a turn-on.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
I've had this same discussion with a few models who shot their first real studio work with me.   I agree.   

And yet I think that for some of the younger and less experienced, being wanted is just too flattering to pass up -  and from what I hear, honestly, a bit of a turn-on.  Some if not many do not have the larger perspective and are not really serious about portfolio building or taking their modeling anywhere beyond seeing their images on the internet.

I completely agree with you. I feel like that is the only goal of many "models" these days.

Motordrive Photography wrote:
It does seem that 75% of the problem threads are about T/F shoots.
One party is disappointed that the other didn't invest all they should
in a trade shoot.

It just seams to me like everyone is so willing to trade. If you always trade how do you expect to ever be paid? I mean, i have traded of course, but only with photographers who can really enhance my port. If a photographers work doesnt meet up with the work i currently have in my port i then quote them my rates.

Heather Elizabeth M wrote:

It just seams to me like everyone is so willing to trade. If you always trade how do you expect to ever be paid? I mean, i have traded of course, but only with photographers who can really enhance my port. If a photographers work doesnt meet up with the work i currently have in my port i then quote them my rates.

I pay models who are worth being paid.  So far the models that I have paid have been worth it.

David Shinobi  wrote:
Things would a lot different if we were still in the film age.

I have a film image in my portfolio.

Image Magik wrote:
I agree on this one. I see a lot of llamas trying to make it with bad pictures.
I guess they don't see how a better picture can get them more work but when I see
a picture of a llama and I have to imagine how she might look in a good picture-I'm not
going to hire her.

I completely agree!!

Heather Elizabeth M wrote:

It just seams to me like everyone is so willing to trade. If you always trade how do you expect to ever be paid? I mean, i have traded of course, but only with photographers who can really enhance my port. If a photographers work doesnt meet up with the work i currently have in my port i then quote them my rates.

Heather, there aren't a lot of compelling reasons to pay models here.   If you're focused on shooting fashion or commercial work then you  need to focus on agency models and tests.   Those shooters who pay tend to pay for nudes.    Paying models isn't a good business plan nor is it for amateur models who stand little chance of being signed.   Another point is that many agency models test all the time and many times with photographers who some might not feel are at their level.   Lets say I had a book filled with pretty models on MM who I paid.   What difference would it make.   Especially if they are not agency level faces.

This is largely going to be a hobby for most here.   I like your work with Joe.

Heather Elizabeth M wrote:

If a photographers work doesnt meet up with the work i currently have in my port i then quote them my rates.

that seems fair and the way things would work for ones learning,
or trying something new.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I have a film image in my portfolio.

My point being was if this was still the film age, TF would not be anywhere as rampant and there would probably be ¼ or less of the people you see here on MM.
Theres no instant gratification of viewing a photo then throwing it up in FB or wherever just to get 'Oh baby You're So Hot" comments with 2 minutes of snapping the image.

The affordability of digital had made every Tom, Dick and Harry a 'photographer'.

Film costs money from buying, processing and prints or scans.
Thats a lot of money to do TF all the time unless your name is Rockefeller.

Heather, there aren't a lot of compelling reasons to pay models here.   If you're focused on shooting fashion or commercial work then you  need to focus on agency models and tests.   Those shooters who pay tend to pay for nudes.    Paying models isn't a good business plan nor is it for amateur models who stand little chance of being signed.   Another point is that many agency models test all the time and many times with photographers who some might not feel are at their level.   Lets say I had a book filled with pretty models on MM who I paid.   What difference would it make.   Especially if they are not agency level faces.

This is largely going to be a hobby for most here.   I like your work with Joe.

Thank you! He is awesome. Really knows how to use lighting. But i wouldnt expect a photographer to pay for a model unless he cannot get the same quality for TF. Which i see alot. There are plenty of models who stand out above the rest who have amazing work, but still shoot for TF and then turn arround and complain that they are not paid enough for their work. Thats what is annoying to me.

David Shinobi  wrote:

My point being was if this was still the film age, TF would not be anywhere as rampant and there would probably be ¼ or less of the people you see here on MM.
Theres no instant gratification of viewing a photo then throwing it up in FB or wherever just to get 'Oh baby You're So Hot" comments with 2 minutes of snapping the image.

The affordability of digital had made every Tom, Dick and Harry a 'photographer'.

Film costs money from buying, processing and prints or scans.
Thats a lot of money to do TF all the time unless your name is Rockefeller.

I used film for years.  Since I switched to digital I haven't touched my Nikon F2.

Heather Elizabeth M wrote:
Okay so this has been driving me crazy for awhile now so i figured i might as well get others opinions. You hear models complaining about not getting paid all the time, but those are the same models that say yes to every TF offer they get! I see so many models who are shooting TF with photographers that are not up to their level. Why? Its not benifiting your port at all. You should be charging that photographer! Same goes the opposite way though. When your just statting out pay a good photographer! You cant show your abilities as a model with a point and shoot photographer who doesnt know how to edit. (Which is what 90% of TF shoots are)
Basically bottom line if your good at what you do stop doing TF for lower quality work. Its driving me nuts to see good models have crappy pictures because there too cheap to pay a photographer. And its driving me nuts to see good photographers have models with awkward poses and faces because there too cheap to pay a good model.
Your thoughts?

On a side note, I'd just like to say that not all photographers can afford to pay models, or, like in my case, can afford to constantly pay models, for every shoot.  If I didn't do TF* arrangements then I'd not be able to afford to learn, in the first place.

Mind you, I still do pay models, but it's difficult for me to afford to do so more than once per one or two months here.

Heather Elizabeth M wrote:

Thank you! He is awesome. Really knows how to use lighting. But i wouldnt expect a photographer to pay for a model unless he cannot get the same quality for TF. Which i see alot. There are plenty of models who stand out above the rest who have amazing work, but still shoot for TF and then turn arround and complain that they are not paid enough for their work. Thats what is annoying to me.

I can't speak for everyone but I suspect a lot of folks here are broke.   After rent, food, car note, gas and other stuff they just don't have a few hundred to pay.   As for models.   I know several who are paid only and never shoot.   Their portfolios remand stagnant.   The ideal is to find clients.   Photographers really shouldn't be clients nor should models.   Artists charging each other is like a dog chasing its tail.    There are lots of guys here who would benefit by using better looking models as in a better looking portfolio but unless they plan to market themselves to editors , AD agencies or modelling agencies its not money well spent.   IMHO.

To be candid those going that direction need to head to Ford or Factor here in Chicago.   Models seeking paid work from shooters have to network like crazy and in many cases be willing to pose nude.   So models can try and always charge, shoot less or not at all or do nudes.   Photographers can try and charge models they feel aren't up to snuff or people can try to create art and work they can try to market to those with actual money.

Heather Elizabeth M wrote:
There are plenty of models who stand out above the rest who have amazing work, but still shoot for TF and then turn arround and complain that they are not paid enough for their work. Thats what is annoying to me.

Heather Elizabeth M wrote:
But i wouldnt expect a photographer to pay for a model unless he cannot get the same quality for TF.

Kent Art Photography wrote:
I feel, without any evidence to back it up, that the quality of the pics in a model's MM portfolio has nothing to do with how successful that model will be on MM.  If there is the line 'Shoot Nudes:  Yes' then the model could have pictures of her pet gerbil in her portfolio and she'd probably get lots of work.  If the model doesn't shoot nudes, then the model should really have a niche look to offer, like the OP.

I understand where the OP is coming from, and a few people have alluded to the 'good old days,' which I do remember.  Back then, some photographers actually made a living shooting models' portfolios.

Thank you for the sweet comment but if it wasnt for my port on MM i wouldnt have any paid work! I dont shoot nudes, but im am paid about 80% of the time. I refer everyone to my MM profilr as my port. So for me the quality of my images determins my success. Because of my photos i have have interested magazines, clothing lines, bands and more interested in using me for some kind of paid work. But i also agree that you can be a terrible model but have "i shoots nudes" posted on your profile and still be bery successful.. nudity sells.

twoharts wrote:
the thing i get when i pay a model is that they actually show up. and that's definitely worth something!

Yes... the second thing that annoys me.. no shows.. very unprofessional.

AJScalzitti wrote:
Why the hell does every model here think pay=photographer.  Photographers are not usually the ones hiring mdoels and if they are it's chump change.  Clients hire models and photographers.

I dont.. about 90% of my paid work is from companies, bands, or publications. I only get pay from a photographer when they need my look for something -usually a project they are getting paid for. Im just saying to build a good port pay a good model. Or opposite if you are a model, pay a good photographer.

Heather Elizabeth M wrote:
It just seams to me like everyone is so willing to trade. If you always trade how do you expect to ever be paid? I mean, i have traded of course, but only with photographers who can really enhance my port. If a photographers work doesnt meet up with the work i currently have in my port i then quote them my rates.

Sometimes it's not always about money. Like for me, I will work trade with photographers who I admire, who I've worked with before and enjoyed their style, or if I have free time on my hands. So who knows. Perhaps the models enjoy getting random pictures, maybe they're just doing it for art's sake, or whatever.

David Shinobi  wrote:

My point being was if this was still the film age, TF would not be anywhere as rampant and there would probably be ¼ or less of the people you see here on MM.
Theres no instant gratification of viewing a photo then throwing it up in FB or wherever just to get 'Oh baby You're So Hot" comments with 2 minutes of snapping the image.

The affordability of digital had made every Tom, Dick and Harry a 'photographer'.

Film costs money from buying, processing and prints or scans.
Thats a lot of money to do TF all the time unless your name is Rockefeller.

Have to agree. Fifty percent of my portfolio is film, hell my digital camera is only 6.1 MP. If a model is serious about what she does I will gladly break out the film stock any day!

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
I've had this same discussion with a few models who shot their first real studio work with me.   I agree.   

And yet I think that for some of the younger and less experienced, being wanted is just too flattering to pass up -  and from what I hear, honestly, a bit of a turn-on.  Some if not many do not have the larger perspective and are not really serious about portfolio building or taking their modeling anywhere beyond seeing their images on the internet.

I am finding that most want the attention of being offerd a photo shoot. Then there are the ones who are not employed or just think that joining MM will get them easy money (especially the nude for money models) and expect to get paid with just a few camera pic or pictures from a crappy photographer and as Fotografica Gregor said "many do not have the larger perspective and are not really serious about portfolio building or taking their modeling anywhere beyond seeing their images on the internet". They just want to tell thier friends they are models in social settings. They do not value of a good portfolio or paying thier dues or even sometimes paying a good photographer.

Now I have no real problem doing TF shoots (I am in the process of reevaluating that position) with models because models act like they don't have money to pay for anything even if I am doing TF they act like they can't even pay for a MUA or Hair stylist....WTF. The think photographers are ATM Machines.