George Ruge wrote:
Nobody gets RAW files from me, NOBODY!! WTF would a model need RAW's from a TF shoot for?? To have some hack "retoucher" make F'n Final Fantasy characters out of a photographers work??

No offense meant by this, but that is just an assumption on your end. Why on earth would someone do Final Fantasy, that's just tacky. As I mentioned previously, I've asked for them before. Why? To work on my own CS6 skills. I have a day job and use Photoshop but want to learn more about. I personally don't see anything wrong with wanting to expand on your own talent. I think someone else in the thread made an great point about some models having good retouching skills. Some photographers don't, it's the reality of it.

Everyone is different. Some photographers are ok with it, some aren't, back to my previous comment, communication is the key. I will say though, if I ask someone politely (which is how I always approach things) and I were to get a rude response...I would probably never work with that photographer in the first place or again and probably not showcase their work if I did because it's not just about their talent, their character plays a role too.

Jojo West wrote:

No offense meant by this, but that is just an assumption on your end. Why on earth would someone do Final Fantasy, that's just tacky. As I mentioned previously, I've asked for them before. Why? To work on my own CS6 skills. I have a day job and use Photoshop but want to learn more about. I personally don't see anything wrong with wanting to expand on your own talent. I think someone else in the thread made an great point about some models having good retouching skills. Some photographers don't, it's the reality of it.

Everyone is different. Some photographers are ok with it, some aren't, back to my previous comment, communication is the key. I will say though, if I ask someone politely (which is how I always approach things) and I were to get a rude response...I would probably never work with that photographer in the first place or again and probably not showcase their work if I did
because it's not just about their talent, their character plays a role too.

+1

Jojo West wrote:

No offense meant by this, but that is just an assumption on your end. Why on earth would someone do Final Fantasy, that's just tacky. As I mentioned previously, I've asked for them before. Why? To work on my own CS6 skills. I have a day job and use Photoshop but want to learn more about. I personally don't see anything wrong with wanting to expand on your own talent. I think someone else in the thread made an great point about some models having good retouching skills. Some photographers don't, it's the reality of it.

Everyone is different. Some photographers are ok with it, some aren't, back to my previous comment, communication is the key. I will say though, if I ask someone politely (which is how I always approach things) and I were to get a rude response...I would probably never work with that photographer in the first place or again and probably not showcase their work if I did because it's not just about their talent, their character plays a role too.

There is absolutely no excuse for anyone being rude to you or to any model if they *ask* for raw images.  (When they demand and threaten as some do, maybe another story, but I don't *do* rude myself...)

However, a photographer who takes his work very seriously should not be giving out RAW files to anyone, perhaps other than a professional retoucher with an excellent portfolio who is contracted for that purpose. (I do my own editing)

Giving away RAWs is giving away creative control of the final image. 

If you care about your brand, you don't do that.

However, when we are talking about newish photographers or hobbyists, these may perhaps not care about their brand or creative control. 

Ultimately to each his or her own I suppose -

but I do not give out RAW images nor let any images of mine see the light of day that I did not select edit and retouch.

Jojo West wrote:
As I mentioned previously, I've asked for them before. Why? To work on my own CS6 skills. I have a day job and use Photoshop but want to learn more about. I personally don't see anything wrong with wanting to expand on your own talent. I think someone else in the thread made an great point about some models having good retouching skills. Some photographers don't, it's the reality of it.

But didn't you choose your TF* photographer because you like his final work. And that is the "trade". Copies of his finished artwork (often watermarked) in exchange for your time and modelling skills.

Providing you with images to practice your CS6 skills is an EXTRA that was provided from the photographer's (often misguided) generosity...and should not be taken for granted in a normal TF*.

I do NOT provide EXTRA "practice files" for "free"...because I want final control of what happens to my artwork that has MY name on it. I will accept requests for additional retouching...in addition to the 15-20 FINISHED files already provided. And, if I have time and the chemistry is good...I will probably do a request or two.

But I do NOT feel the need to provide EXTRAS just because a model had to spend money on her gym membership or that it "costs money to be beautiful". I do not buy 8GB flashdrives (in BULK) to provide "practice" images for you. Sorry, but EXTRAS usually...cost extra.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

But didn't you choose your TF* photographer because you like his final work. And that is the "trade". Copies of his finished artwork (often watermarked) in exchange for your time and modelling skills.

Providing you with images to practice your CS6 skills is an EXTRA that was provided from the photographer's generosity...and should not be taken for granted in a normal TF*.

I do NOT provide EXTRA "practice files" for "free"...because I want final control of what happens to my artwork that has MY name on it. I will accept requests for additional retouching...in addition to the 15-20 FINISHED files already provided. And, if I have time and the chemistry is good...I will probably do a request or two.

To be honest I have done TF shoots with a photographer even though all of his final images weren't great. I have seen potential and thought, let's give it a try and it's worked out.

A photographer can be amazing, but if his model sucks, the final images may not be as good. That's why it's a collaboration.

Like I said before, everyone's different, I respect that. If a photographer is not willing to give raw images, it's not a deal breaker for me. That would just be silly.

Jojo West wrote:
To be honest I have done TF shoots with a photographer even though all of his final images weren't great. I have seen potential and thought, let's give it a try and it's worked out.

A photographer can be amazing, but if his model sucks, the final images may not be as good. That's why it's a collaboration.

You nailed it JoJo! It's so much about positive communication and collaboration in advance, and during the shoot!

So many models and photographers ignore this part of it...and don't realize the amount to which that "good chemistry" actually SHOWS in the image! + it reduces flakes, avoids all the mis-communications, and helps develop a positive smooth-flowing photoshoot energy before the shooting even starts! Very soon you are throwing great poses naturally, and there is very little (if any) direction required. Win-win!

That's exactly why I ONLY shoot modelling as TF*...just because those type of shoots are all I'm interested in. Mutual respect and collaboration.

Without even looking at your portfolio, I know I'd shoot with you anytime! That positive energy almost guarantees good results!

BodyartBabes wrote:
Models need to stick to THEIR guns and NOT work with photographers who do not give them FAIR COMPENSATION for their time.

Photographer egos are way too big, and models put up with it.  Or some, do.  Some learn. 

The best way to avoid problems is to discuss BEFORE hand, and maybe get a CONTRACT in writing.  *NOT* a release, a CONTRACT.  After all, TF* is an agreement (CONTRACT) like any other.  THEFT of service applies to TF* just as it applies to a paid shoot.  In one, the "payment" is images, while in the other, it's cash, but it's *STILL* payment.

Photographers think one image is enough for a TF* shoot, but they are WRONG.  Dead wrong.  And, if that image is below par, has a watermark, etc, they are actually STEALING from the model, since the model has put in the *SAME* time as they have, and has not gotten anything she can use.  *THAT* is the key to a TF* agreement.

BOTH parties need to come away with something of value ot them.  If they don't, then there is NO REASON TO WORK TOGETHER TF*!!  NONE.

That "value" could be as little as good will, or networking, or it could be "testing" for another job/shoot, etc.   But it has to be of value to BOTH parties, EQUALLY. 

Photographers *think* that because they put a value of $100 on an image, the image is worth $100 of a _MODELS_ time.  It's *NOT*.   The models' time is worth as much as the photographers -- and if she is a working in-demand model, maybe more  THat whole "I've got $10,000 in equipment" is just bullshit.  It always was, and always will be.

The models' time is HERS.  If she wants to SPEND it doing a TF* shoot, that TF* shoot has to be worth that TIME. Maybe she could be cleaning her house.  Or reading a book.  Or sleeping in.  But it's HER TIME.  Not yours.  And if you want it, you need to PAY -- more than a few low res watermarked images.

The *REAL* problem is photographers are trying to use TF* as way of getting "FREE" models, *NOT* for what it was meant to be -- eg: a way to turn down-time into productive time.

TF* is *NOT* a means of "free" and many people have been surprised by what happened to them in court when a "FREE" shoot became commercialized --  especially if the model was "mis-informed" of the purposes, and intent.  That whole "release" thing where you claim commercial use, *ONLY* applies if the model was given FAIR compensation, and *IF* there was no intent to defraud.  Unfortunately, most TF* has become an intent to defraud.  Theft of services/time.  And more.

TF* is a way to shoot "STOCK" photos, to turn down-time into productive time (STOCK) or test out IDEAS, concepts, etc.  SOMETIMES it's a way of doing a "commercial" shoot on a shoestring budget, if EVERYONE agrees that it's a trade, and the goal is a published tearsheet.  But, even then, someone is paying more than others, or a makeup artist is consuming supplies, etc.  TF* OFTEN includes some compensation for materials and travel, it's TIME that is traded, *NOT* commercial goods.

There are a *LOT* of problems with TF* as practiced here, and  I've only a touched on a few that piss me off, time and again.  There are more.

But as for "RAW" images, if you consider the RAW to be a "NEGATIVE" then the models never got the negatives.  *BUT* since you can make high-res JPG files that are nearly as good, and more than adequate for most purposes, giving them the JPG files is *NOT* unreasonable.  I do.  I buy flash drives in bulk, or when I see them for $5.  And, 8 gig drives are now readily available "on sale" for $5-6.  I'm getting 16 gig drives for $9 locally in the big-box stores.  Sandisk, pony, HP, etc.  Not generic.

The thing is, you just have to get over the fact that *YOU* want to control everything.  Maybe as an old stock/news photographer, I'm used to turning photos in, and not having control over the final use.  But, I got my expenses paid, perks, and such.  I got to keep shooting. 

Decide what is most important to you.  Happy models and a full shoot schedule or tight control and an empty schedule.

Right now I'm at the point (I think because I do give so many images is part of it) where we have more models willing to work, than I can fit into the schedule, or find photographers for.   

(And before anyone starts up, *I* need to charge for use use of my studio space, lighting, overhead, equipment breakage, prop loss, insurance, etc.  So, while the models are willing to work TF* the photographers have to pay a little for what they get.  *I* don't get anything out of letting people use my stuff for free -- remember, "trade" has to be of value to BOTH parties.  "trade" doesn't replace that broken light or blown unit. Around here, photographers want stuff for free... not just models.  They want events, workshops, use of YOUR studio, even free food.  Pisses me the hell off.  I set up another group for the more serious photographers, willing to PAY for their hobby, art, etc.  It's much, much smaller, but we have a much,. much better time!)

TF* is *NOT* free.  It's a form of BARTER.  and Barter has rules going back millennia, to earliest man, which people here, in the last decade, seem to want to redefine.

Scott

+1
plenty for me to understand and learn from. Thankyou 

Miss Havisham Phtgrphy wrote:
From my years on both sides dealing with this.

New Models - wants all their images because they "are all so good I can't decide". And don't realize that no more than 1-2 images per a look should go in their portfolio anyway.

Photographers - Are nice guys and the models are pretty. "Sure, here are 72 dpi jpegs of the shoot so you can take a look at them."  Models response, "I want img_1947,img_1949,img_1953, img_1954,img_1959,img_1967, img_1972-77, img_1981, img_1983, img_1988, img_1992-94, img_1997, img_1900. That's from the first set. Also, can you get rid of that wrinkle in my shirt on all of those?"

New models - take advantage of nice photographer, take his work, edit it themselves (WTF?), have their bf edit it (I'm guilty of this, but my retouch work is actually pretty superb). Either way they hack it up and make it look like shit. Photographer ends up jaded and needs to go through this a few times before he realizes that all models will use their womanly (or manly) wiles to get what they want.

Experienced models - "Cool thanks for the images. How much would you charge to edit 4 more of those for me?" Love these models.

Experienced Photographers - "No, it's TFP. I will edit maybe 6 of your images. Oh you want them for your adult website? That's fine. You can pay me for the entire set of images. Keep my name off of them." (lol)

You are kidding, right?

I've been doing this since the late 60's, and this is *NOT* what I have seen.

How "many years" have you been doing this?

New models:  Yes, want all the photos, but because they are LEARNING. Some are doing FOR THE PHOTOS.  After all, they are not being paid cash with which they can buy food, pay a bill, or anything.

Photographers ... by these threads and posts, IMHO are *NOT* nice [guys/gals] they are out for themselves, trying to rip off the models, inflate their own egos, and make money off models, which to us old guys is the slimiest, scummiest thing you can do -- lower than trying to take naked pictures of the royals.

Experienced models -- would say"If We work another hour, can I get some additional edits?"   Their TIME is valuable, and since this is a TF*, they would trade more TIME for service.  NEVER would they offer money, especially at first.  After all, they are EXPERIENCED and *know* how things work.

Experienced Photographers  Would never be in *that* situation, since they do a little more fine-picking of MODELS, and know what they are going into a shoot for, and so does the model.  When the shoot is over, everyone is happy (usually) and there is no "re negotiation."  Usually, if there *is negotiation it's DURING the shoot, as a pose comes up, the model asks "Can we do this/that/the other so I have some shots for this/that/the other".

====

Now back to the OP and this post.


We are talking TF*.   

Innovative Imagery wrote:
Scott,

You continue to demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about.  You cannot copyright an idea.  Look it up.

I did not say you could copyright an idea.   But, ideas are copyrighted all the time.. As soon as you put it down, or set up a stage, you have created a tangible representation of your idea, which is what the photographer shot, and stole.  And there were a few lawsuits over that even just last year, I believe.

I said the idea belonged to someone else, and you stole it.

There are many, many lawsuits in the entertainment industry over this.

So, while you may own the "copyright" on the image of the stolen idea/concept you took, you do not own any rights to use that image.

This is the idea of collaborative works.  Everyone is contributing, so no one person "owns' the whole idea, which is why commercial shoot contracts are often measured in pounds, not even pages.

TF* is a collaborative work.  Since people are contributing their time/effort in lieu of pay, no one "owns" it.  You would need a lot of paperwork to get around that.

There are, and have been, going back to the film days, suits over unfair compensation for a "test" that was sold for a major use.   Contract law over lays copyright, and that is why people keep talking about USAGE RIGHTS not copyrights.

You can have all the copyright you want. But if you have no usage rights, you are dead in the water.  And, there are a lot of times copyright holders have been stripped of usage rights.  Just look at the whole situation with the royals and rights to publish.  that has nothing to do with copyright.

CONTRACT LAW is much more important in this than copyright law.  Seriously.

You may own the copyright, and find the person who paid you for the images has all the usage rights, while you have none. 

Scott

JR in Texas wrote:
One of the best ways to remain a lackluster photographer (or model) is to show everything you shoot. The people at the top of the market got there by showing only the work that moves their career forward.

Whether you are a model or photographer the best way to get to the top is to shoot a lot, edit ruthlessly, and show only your very best work.

What is in *MY* portfolio is what matters.  What is in the models' portfolios doesn't. 

What is in a model's portfolio should be changing ever 3 months or at least every 6 months.  Older than that is really useless for anything.  She's changed.

People judge me by what I do, who I am, and most importantly what I give them -- on time, under budget, and with low-editing requirements.

If your work really needs that much editing, maybe do better work.  Learn your lighting and cameras, work on capturing better poses, and dealing with problems BEFORE they happen. 

People don't give a crap about your bad photos.  They can see 100 bad photos, but the ONE that takes their breath away is all that matters.  It's all they remember.

Other than you had 1000 photos they could look at, and choose from

Scott

Alixx Rose wrote:
some models might not understand the "offensive" bit of their request.
I like seeing all of the raw images, so I can see what poses I did that didn't work so I can improve on them, or not do them again.
If you, the photographer, didn't use a third of the photos because, for example, the model kept leaning one shoulder forwards and all of those photos looked bad/awkward, the model should be able to see those pictures and correct herself in future shoots.

When I shot film, I gave models copies of all the shots I did (contact prints).  They could learn to correct mistakes from those. 

Today I give models low-res copies of all the images I shoot on a CD or DVD.  I usually give them both color and B&W grayscale conversions.  RAW means the high-res images.  Sort of like giving away negatives - something I never did.

howard r wrote:
same would obviously apply to a movie director. no director in the world would give an actor all the outtakes so they could put together an alternative version of the movie.

And, the studio is pulling the strings and paying the bills and OWNS the movie.

They can decide in the end, what is, and isn't in it.  Very few directors can negotiate around this.  Spielberg, I'm sure, can.  But joe blow cannot.  Even Roger Corman in his early days could not, which is why he set up his own company.  Even then, he was subject to who was paying the bills.

That is why there are "director's" cuts. 

But, the *big* and biggest difference here, is the actors are all members of SAG, and are getting at least day rates, if not higher.

This thread was about TF*, so your whole argument here, while potentially illustrative, is not at all applicable -- since the ACTORS WERE PAID.

And, more importantly, the goal is to release the movie, as a whole collaborative work, *NOT* as a set of independent, stand alone scenes, so again, the analogy falls apart.

And, you hear the actors saying they picked a film because of who was directing... that is part of it.  Video/Film is not quite the same as Still photography.  The right director/vision can make/break a film as a whole, even if individual shots are stunning.  And, those shots are shot by camera men/women, not the director..... and the moving cameras are driven by other people, etc, etc.  So, not quite the same.

Scott

Alixx Rose wrote:
some models might not understand the "offensive" bit of their request.
I like seeing all of the raw images, so I can see what poses I did that didn't work so I can improve on them, or not do them again.
If you, the photographer, didn't use a third of the photos because, for example, the model kept leaning one shoulder forwards and all of those photos looked bad/awkward, the model should be able to see those pictures and correct herself in future shoots.

I (sort of) understand when a model feels this way, but.......

a model can promise me 1,000 times that those unusable pics will never be shared with anyone, but all I need is for one crappy photo to be seen by someone, and their reaction is, 'THAT'S what his work looks like!' and I am then seen as 'the crappy photographer who took that crappy picture...'

Part of the 'tf* experience' is that there is trust between the photographer and the model. The model trusts that the photographer will select images that work and the photographer trusts that the model will be able to pose in such a way that there is a sufficient number of good pics generated.

IMHO

BodyartBabes wrote:
Then PAY for it.  Simple.

Trading only for what YOU want to give away, is not a valid form of barter (unless the person trading with you agrees to it).

You can OFFER that, but most people when they understand the issue will not opt to work with you.   Their time.  Their effort.  Their investment.  And *YOU* make all the decisions?  That is not what TF* is about.

Scott

Art of the nude wrote:
I do PAY for it.  With image rights.  Just as the model pays for those rights with a release.

Some of us are able to get models to trade for what we offer.  Others are not.  If you're in the second category, perhaps it isn't the number of images you provide that is the problem.

Yes, and some of us have been trading -- FAIRLY -- since the late 60's, or even longer, if you are older than me.

As I've said time and again, TF* is a form of payment.  It's an exchange of goods/services.   If models are happy with what you give them, fine.  If they are not, fine.

As was pointed out, there are different tpes of models, just as there are different types of photographers.  Some models just want a lot of images.  Others just want a "good" image.  Some models go into a shoot with an idea in mind, and they are happy.  Others go in wanting 200 images.  That's fine too.

Sometimes, models get paid, if there is a commercial purpose.

Most of my model work is not commercial.  It's art, fun, hobby, etc.   It's the release from the "paid" work of shooting people, events, food, whatever.

I often "trade sets."  The model works for me for a certain period of time on my images, and I shoot with her for a time on images for her.

Works wonders what being nice, flexible, and not controlling can do.

Scott

ChaiNoir wrote:

+1
An amazing insight and plenty for me to understand and learn from. Thankyou Scott

This is only good advice if your plan is to work with photographers that place little value on their images... and imagine how much value those images will have for you. 100 rotten apples are not more valuable than one good one.

A photographer giving 100s of low value images in not helping you. He is just helping himself by being the so called 'nice guy'. He is saying you shouldn't work for free but by giving you useless images he is actually stealing your time. What are you going to do with 30 images of the same look?

As "Scott" says it is all about the exchange of VALUE. A bunch of images of the same look are NOT value. Why do you test/tfp/etc? Isn't it to get images for your book to showcase your look and talent? Images that do that have VALUE.. anything else was just part of the process to get the good ones. That is all.

Your book is not to show your growth as a model... it is to show your best. Even if your goal is not to have a real 'book' this applies. If all you want to do is to create images for fun, etc... the better your 'page' looks the better your chances to work with people that can help you create these images becomes.

Lily Darling wrote:
I personally don't need 100+ photos 1-2 per look works for me, I don't care to have the RAW images. But to only get 1-3 photos per shoot is not worth my time. My time is valuable just as much as yours.

I think the amount of photos generated by a shoot, depends on the shoot.  Short, simple headshot shoots often only generate one or two images, because you are looking for the best shot with not many wardrobe and set changes.

Obviously, the less variety in shoot, the less quantity in the outcome.

Eridu wrote:
I just had a "cell phone Dive" ask me if I would provide all RAW for a nude shoot and I told her to piss off.

Just say no.

I'd "just say no" to your attitude. Maybe if photographers dropped the entitlement sass, more models would be willing to hear out your reasons for not wanting to give her RAW images.

Jolly Rauncher wrote:

I'd "just say no" to your attitude. Maybe if photographers dropped the entitlement sass, more models would be willing to hear out your reasons for not wanting to give her RAW images.

Not sure where the "self-entitled" slant is originating from dear but I have found it unusualy prevelant in the lower end of the modeling talent pool.

Innovative Imagery wrote:

I think the amount of photos generated by a shoot, depends on the shoot.  Short, simple headshot shoots often only generate one or two images, because you are looking for the best shot with not many wardrobe and set changes.

Obviously, the less variety in shoot, the less quantity in the outcome.

I agree. I stated 1-2 per look works for me. If its just a standard headshot shoot. I understand that. However most photographers I work will live a good distance from me so with only 2 shots, I'm wasting my time. 4 from a normal headshot shoot I'd be fine with. Gives me a bit more options.

Eridu wrote:

Not sure where the "self-entitled" slant is originating from dear but I have found it unusualy prevelant in the lower end of the modeling talent pool.

Telling someone to "piss off" for asking a simple question is something a pompous jerk does, and it usually seems to come off as a photographer who thinks he's all that and a box of crayons, and can't be bothered with answering something so trivial. THAT'S where it comes from "dear".

If it's prevalent in the "lower end" of the talent pool, why are you working with them if you have such disdain for their questions, and obviously view them as sub-par?

BodyartBabes wrote:

Then PAY for it.  Simple.

Trading only for what YOU want to give away, is not a valid form of barter (unless the person trading with you agrees to it).

You can OFFER that, but most people when they understand the issue will not opt to work with you.   Their time.  Their effort.  Their investment.  And *YOU* make all the decisions?  That is not what TF* is about.

Scott

That's cool. Or they can pay the photographer. Depends on who needs who more. Smart people work out the terms of a trade before shooting.

I agree some images do not have any value -- why not leave that up to the parties involved?

Kelleth wrote:
Thinking that photographers owe you more than a couple images per look shows inexperience in my opinion. If you're bothering to shoot a test/creative/tf/whatever with someone in the first place, then it should be because you trust that they can deliver excellent work and have a great eye for picture selection and retouching. If you're so-so about somebody's work, expect so-so results. 1 or 2 great photos from a great photographer will procure more future work than a hundred photos from a so-so photographer.

Sadly, 90+% of the "models" I have encountered in my area via MM don't seem to realize this fundamental fact.

Kelleth wrote:
Thinking that photographers owe you more than a couple images per look shows inexperience in my opinion. If you're bothering to shoot a test/creative/tf/whatever with someone in the first place, then it should be because you trust that they can deliver excellent work and have a great eye for picture selection and retouching. If you're so-so about somebody's work, expect so-so results. 1 or 2 great photos from a great photographer will procure more future work than a hundred photos from a so-so photographer.

hello

*note to people look at her portfolio and then compare to people that say you need all the raws

Jolly Rauncher wrote:

Telling someone to "piss off" for asking a simple question is something a pompous jerk does, and it usually seems to come off as a photographer who thinks he's all that and a box of crayons, and can't be bothered with answering something so trivial. THAT'S where it comes from "dear".

If it's prevalent in the "lower end" of the talent pool, why are you working with them if you have such disdain for their questions, and obviously view them as sub-par?

One, I have long ago given up providing "photography insudtry, 101" seminars to the uninitiated, so further elaboration as to why no reputable photographer would give anyone RAW filee is/was unnecessary.

Two, as stated in the original comment, I am aware of why and under what circumstances almost all "models" ask or demand RAW files and that also merits no further explaination when refusing someone.

Acumen is a wonderful thing but often sorely lacking in the self-entitled but you seem to already know that.

Le_Demimonde wrote:

Sadly, 90+% of the "models" I have encountered in my area via MM don't seem to realize this fundamental fact.

When you were asked about RAW images, did you take the time to explain this to them? Do you pre-discuss what the stipulations are of your TF shoot BEFORE you shoot it?
I feel lucky to have worked with understanding photographers when I was first starting out, who explained the process to me before I shot, and explained what things meant in the releases I signed if I had any questions.
90+9% of photographers expect models to just know ALL the things, and show little desire to want to educate the poor girls who think they need a million shitty photos. Do you tell the new model when she is making a bad pose? Do you bother to show her on the back of the camera so that she may fix it instead?
The n00bs ask silly questions sometimes, but taking the time to answer prevents any more of them.

Le_Demimonde wrote:

One, I have long ago given up providing "photography insudtry, 101" seminars to the uninitiated, so further elaboration as to why no reputable photographer would give anyone RAW filee is/was unnecessary.

Two, as stated in the original comment, I am aware of why and under what circumstances almost all "models" ask or demand RAW files and that also merits no further explaination when refusing someone.

Acumen is a wonderful thing but often sorely lacking in the self-entitled but you seem to already know that.

So don't work with people who you know will have questions.
I'm sick of "common sense 101" classes, but at least I'm not telling you to piss off.

Jolly Rauncher wrote:

When you were asked about RAW images, did you take the time to explain this to them? Do you pre-discuss what the stipulations are of your TF shoot BEFORE you shoot it?
I feel lucky to have worked with understanding photographers when I was first starting out, who explained the process to me before I shot, and explained what things meant in the releases I signed if I had any questions.
90+9% of photographers expect models to just know ALL the things, and show little desire to want to educate the poor girls who think they need a million shitty photos. Do you tell the new model when she is making a bad pose? Do you bother to show her on the back of the camera so that she may fix it instead?
The n00bs ask silly questions sometimes, but taking the time to answer prevents any more of them.

Yes dear, all terms (including compensation) were meticulously laid out both in conversation and a series of emails, she was hustling and I wasn't biting, dig?

Jolly Rauncher wrote:

So don't work with people who you know will have questions.
I'm sick of "common sense 101" classes, but at least I'm not telling you to piss off.

I don't recall asking you to either work with me or contribute your sophmoric-childish opines to my response.

BodyartBabes wrote:
The models' time is worth as much as the photographers
Scott

if all you wanted to say was that photographers have a moral obligation to models to be upfront about what they are offering in trade so models can make an informed decision, i would agree 100%.

and do some photographer's take advantage of testing? absolutely.

and do some photographers on mm have an inflated sense of how good they are? of course.

but to act like "time is time" is ridiculous. of course one person's time can be more valuable than another's when you're talking about a business transaction. it's based on things like skill, experience, demand, etc.. my time is absolutely more valuable than a beginning model's and an hour of Dean Johnson's time is probably worth a month of my time. that doesn't make Dean Johnson a better person than me, but the reality is that her time is a more valuable commodity in the marketplace than mine.

as far as how this applies to testing - if i offer a model a small set of final images in exchange for a test, it's because i'm confident that those images are of real value to her. if a model feels that she would rather have 1 of my images than 100 of yours, then she's going to happily shoot with me. if not, she'll shoot with you. either way - i don't see the problem. we are bartering as you describe it with both parties are getting something they believe to be of equal value.

Le_Demimonde wrote:
Yes dear, all terms (including compensation) were meticulously laid out both in conversation and a series of emails, she was hustling and I wasn't biting, dig?

Quit calling me "dear". I am not your dear, and I'm not one for bullshit sarcastic pseudo-flattery either.


So what you should tell her is "Sorry, but the stipulations of this shoot were pre-discussed and I'm unable to provide you with the RAW images you've requested". That's it.

Seems like it's a common problem for you, maybe you should save it as a default text every time someone wants a "modeling 101" class from you.