Dan Epstein wrote:
And as photographers...why would any of you let anything other than your absolute very best out into the world.  Me?  I don't wish to be judged by the work I would have normally deleted; I want future clients to judge me by the very best that I am able to do.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
Exactly!!!!!

This has been my train of thought for years.  When you let go of half done work, that's what the public sees, half done work.  It isn't rocket science.

And it isn't a matter of NOT compensating models.  Those of us who hold up to our end of the deal are able to do that.  Then you have a few clowns who won't reply to emails or give up any images, etc but that's another story.

I trusted someone with some hi-res images twice I think where I was burned.  It isn't a matter of if it will happen.  It's a matter of when.  I even had someone take a cell phone picture of her computer screen so she'd have something to put online.

Being a model savior isn't very becoming of anyone.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
No, let's not test your limits! Remember I was married before...I know better. Hell hath no fury, and all... LOL!

Honestly, I think you would be a JOY to work with, because you would seriously "collaborate" from beginning to "finished product" end. Most don't seem to have that kind of serious focus.

Lately, it's been a lot of QUICK (2hr) Mayhem/Facebook portfolio shoots, and while it's fun...it's not as artistically productive as a REAL serious well-planned collaboration (like you mention) can be.
To me, the best shoots are with the planning, input and thoughts of the model included in the pre-shoot planning process. But those type of serious shoots seem fewer and fewer between. Everyone just wants stuff quickly to post online ASAP. "Speed Graphics" so-to-speak. I LOVE a more artistic shoot...with LOTS of model input.

My husband is major troll, and he can't make me mad. I just think there are so many bigger things out there why worry about the little ones.

Thanks I'm sure we would have nice time shooting.

Just got back from meeting with a photographer I'm shooting with next month. We talked for an hour and a half about the shoot, ideas we both have and what we want it to look like. I do enjoy being a part of the creative process, I don't see my role as just "look depressed and hungry" (that's the model look, lol) as camera snaps away, I have ideas and like sharing and helping in the execution.

Jojo West wrote:
My husband is major troll, and he can't make me mad. I just think there are so many bigger things out there why worry about the little ones.

Yeah, but if you're like me when you finally DO explode it's pretty destructive. LOL! I don't think I'd want to be around if/when it finally DOES happen!

Just got back from meeting with a photographer I'm shooting with next month. We talked for an hour and a half about the shoot, ideas we both have and what we want it to look like. I do enjoy being a part of the creative process, I don't see my role as just "look depressed and hungry" (that's the model look, lol) as camera snaps away, I have ideas and like sharing and helping in the execution.

That's the key! Collaboration and clear communication. I'm also a fan of the REAL look...not the "depressed-hungry" look! LOL! Well said. Not only does collaboration clarify what finished product is provided, but it builds the "energy" of the shoot AND prevents flakes.

Carolina Goddess wrote:
As a photographer No way am I giving out RAW's I agree with the 99% of you who prefer to have the best work out there and not have my name attached to a silly duck face photo on FB because the llama thought it was cute and decided to have their little brother make a banner out of it.

Anyone that does the silly duck face should be shunned from the llamaing world! When did people start thinking it was cute. My mother explains it best when she says it looks like a puckered bum area.

KonstantKarma wrote:
Inevitably, unless a model is very experienced she chooses a photo along the lines of this to represent our work.

LOL! That's what it seems like sometimes, but Damn, I hope I never provide anything like that! Was this after re-re-retouching by her significant other?

A M U L wrote:
Another photography argument, this might be more at home in the photography forum, I guess it's late for that.

No, it was originally supposed to be to help (newer) models understand why many of us like to keep control of our images. But, instead it turned into a couple multi-page length "rants" re-quoted again and again in their entirety...to produce 9+ pages.

But, I think there was some success in the communication. It seems that most models are on the same page and understand why we do control our product.

I would be fine if the mods /Thread if they choose. I'd lock it myself if I could. LOL! It was great to learn the various ways folks think about TF* shoots and what's a "Fair" trade. Seems 95% of us are on the same page. The other 5% seem to fit into the long rant category. It's all about good communication.

Carolina Goddess wrote:
I have been given my RAW files by 2 photographers. I had 400 -500 images each shot.

I think I love you.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

LOL! That's what it seems like sometimes, but Damn, I hope I never provide anything like that! Was this after re-re-retouching by her significant other?

The thing about common sense is that it's highly uncommon. If my significant other re-retouched me to look like that he'd be in a heck of a lot of trouble, lol.

Also...I don't think that experience necessarily determines what kind of images a model might choose to represent someone's work. It's an artistic eye, which not everyone has. I'm sure there are plenty of experienced models out there that would pick the wrong pictures out of the bunch. If everyone was artistic, those of us that are, wouldn't be unique.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
No offense, but if you are spending MORE than overnight retouching 15-20 images, I'd say you are being sloppy behind the camera, or have way too much free time to "fix" RAW files that I don't have

LOL! My goal is to be a Photographer...not a Retoucher. I don't WANT to spend HOURS at the computer, and I SURE don't want to develop that over-worked style or "canned" catalog "look". Thanks.

It's simple, I just make every effort to get it right in the camera. It makes editing 15-20 images a simple 2hr process, and that seems to be agreed to be fair in exchange for the model's 2hrs (maybe) getting ready for the shoot.

I turn down paid work. One, because I already get paid well to have fun with the camera as a Grand Canyon Tourguide. And two, because I don't like to fuk-up the artistic "chemistry" by taking money for the shoot...that's not why I shoot.

But, that doesn't mean my time is not valuable. I shoot for "fair trade".

There is no need to get all defensive... I am not the one that stated that I provide a "finished" product of 15-20 retouched images overnight.


You opened that can of worms, and now you don't want to deal with it...

People that keep throwing around statements like, "I make sure I provide finished products" to the face of the other side of the "trade", while showing an obvious and condenscending disregard for the other side's expectations have no business calling their dealings "trades." 

As I stated earlier, before your feelings got hurt, a trade does not mean that you offer what you consider fair, BUT what you agreed to trade. 

A couple of hours of extra time retouching 15-20 images for a modeling portfolio is fair, if and only if the images provided are what the model expects, otherwise you're not keeping your end of the bargain.

As far as turning down "paid" work... that's your prerogative. It is a competitive field, and some need alternative employment in order to enjoy it photography as an artistic hobby, but there are quite a few photographers, here on Model Mayhem included, that do not feel like exploited when they deliver what the model needs, which is usually at least what they have agreed to shoot.

I am glad that you have alternative employment to supplement your income, but for some people trades are likely the only way that they will get some professional images into their portfolios. Regardless of what the person's aspirations may be, never treat others in a condescending manner, simply because they are at a disadvantage. Life has a way of humbling people.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
Please do not paint us as sloppy or not 'busy' due to your areas of difficulty or lack of timely proficiency, sir.

Believe me, there is no risk of it happending for that reason., Sir.

But before you start taking on other people's fights, keep in mind that "areas of difficulty or lack of timely proficiency" are matters of opinion.

"Not wanting your name associated with bad work" works the other way around as well.

DG at studio47 wrote:
As an artist that put art in a gallery and sold it, took commissioned assignments, I did many art pieces over the years that wound up being destroyed and any salvageable parts stripped off--no one ever saw them but me. Not every "work" turns out to be "public quality". Does anyone think that each and every track that is laid down in recording studio goes on the final DVD? hell no. Does anyone think that someone submitting a paper for an advanced degree will hand in ALL the raw material and edits as the 'final product"? NO NO NO. then why would a photographer even think about providing all the images that preceded and followed the "killer" images that made the 'grade'?
I agree that llamas need to see the whole shoot for the purpose of self education. So.........I ALWAYS asked every llama to plan on time to sit down after the shoot and review everything. In 8 years I had two llamas actually do that and one of them did not make it all the way through. Several llamas that I trusted early on to take a RAW CD of the images home and choose 10 images struggled and struggled and finally admitted that they got mega confused in the process [none of them had editing software to review the images on for one thing] and returned a list of 30  image numbers for edit. One of my most "trusted" llamas took a complete shoot home on a CD and posted 10 unedited images that night, giving me credit for them! she stated that the ones she chose "did not need ANY editing". HMMmmmmm.........wrong.
That was the point when ALL images stayed with ME and I did the choosing, editing, and releasing.

Perfect selection of points, but only because they are selectively applied.

This thread is a perfect example of what is often categorized as a miscommunication, but ends of being nothing more than selective reasoning, based on flawed assumptions.

Although this rant thread started off with a perfectly valid title, it became obvious that what the OP had in mind, is based on assumptions, due to bad use of technical and colloquial terms.

A lot of folks made a list of assumptions based on pesonal experiences, and flew with them. totally disregarding the possibility that the photographer was not clear during his negotiations, or whether the main point is more hype than fact.

These are the most predominant narratives that I was able to discern from this entire thread:

1. Models want raw image files. RAW being interpreted one way by a photographer, and in another by the llama. It goes without saying that 8 years ago, RAW image files almost always got processed by the photographer, before anyone even saw them. Whether it was online, or on a CD, you simply couldn't display them without converting them, and most likely reducing the file size. Unfortunately, some llamas that have been given tiny images, feel that RAW means larger, or printable images - OR that it means images where their skin does not look like molten plastic, or a firefly's butt.

2. Models want ALL files. llamas are their own worst critics, and they feel that if they view all of the images, then they will have some input into the final product. NOT A CHANCE, if they are hired, but in trades, they expect to provide some input. In this case, they think that ALL gives them the ability to edit (i.e., select images [old terminology]).

3. A good (or fair) trade, is a trade where the photographer tells the llama what she needs....hence disregards the possibility that the llamas has specific expectations (e.g., images for retouching). Some hobbyist llamas CAN be retouchers, just as some hobbyist photographers have revealed that they are actually tour guides, who use Photography as an artistic outlet.

4. The idea that any work that you shoot via TFP/trades with amateur talent on a social networking website (Yes. I'll call it as I see it), will somehow define you as an artist and supercede the work that you might be shooting on a professional level outside of llama Mayhem, is a huge mistake.

And last not but not least (and my favorite)...

5. The idea that you can control what someone does to an image after you release it wins the prize.

There are plenty of folks here that live by the adage that your portfolio is as good as your worst image

The key word is YOUR portfolio, not someone else's portfolio. If someone does not give you a job or a contract, because they saw a bad image somewhere else, then you don't want to work with that person.

You want to work with people that value your work based on what YOU present, because ultimately that is what represents YOU. (Not some half-assed, wreck of bad lighting, with an instagram look).

Lola Magdalene Scott wrote:
As a model I never ask for the raw images. I may ask to see a few from the camera if I am trying a new pose, but as with most models, I don't need 200 crappy shots..just a few good ones per look, and the photographers that I work with usually download them to a webpage where i can pick out the images i want. I do however, take offence to the photographer who said he does all the work and the model just does 2 hrs getting ready. I come up with the concepts, I scout out the locations,and think up great poses and body orientation, I find the props, I search out the costumes, I assemble the components..yea, much more than putting on lipstick and pantyhose...but I digress..The models that ask for all the images may be afraid of what will be posted..we as well don't want crappy images with our name attached to it flying around in cyberspace, and if there is not good communication beforehand as to what will be done with the finished product...then the  mind wanders to dark places.....communicate what you intend to do with the pictures, and you may get less call to give them all up. IMHO....

There are always two sides to an argument, and this is a perfect example of why a holier-than-thou argument will never fly.

Blanket statements regarding each person's participation in a trade shoot are likely to disregard participants in a trade (i.e., makeup artists, hairstylists, clothing designers) that want THEIR work to be displayed in the best light possible, while minimizing their involvement.

If a makeup artist put in the time to prepare for a shoot, and then spent time standing up doing makeup, then I better spend sufficient time working on those images after the shoot is done.

If a wardrobe stylist, or clothing designer, hauled a trunk out to his/her car, and brought it all the way to the studio, then I better spend sufficient time making sure the clothes look great.

If the model is exercising, and eating properly. Getting rest instead of going out to party, and making sure her skin looks good, then I hope to provide her with images that make her look better (not worse.)

If people are REALLY asking to look at ALL of the sample work prior to it being published (either print or online) then it speaks more about the photographer's work, and less about unrealistic expectations.

My plane is boarding... gotta run.

MnPhoto wrote:
No offense, but if you can fully retouch 15-20 test shoot images overnight, then you are either being sloppy, or have way too much free time.

No offense, but if you are spending MORE than overnight retouching 15-20 images, I'd say you are being sloppy behind the camera, or have way too much free time to play "fix" RAW files that I don't have. LOL!

MnPhoto wrote:
A couple of hours of extra time retouching 15-20 images for a modeling portfolio is fair, if and only if the images provided are what the model expects, otherwise you're not keeping your end of the bargain.

Yeah...there are no guarantees in a photoshoot, and rarely does either get EXACTLY what one expects. That's the importance of good chemistry...it builds a good energy to help ensure good images. And that's what makes the whole process FUN! The surprises.

It's VERY simple! As was mentioned, my policy is to provide a minimum of 15-20 images, but it often develops into more than that if the model has good chemistry and I FEEL LIKE editing more than the minimums. Good chemistry = more better photos, all around. It's very simple. I think you over-complicate it...just like the editing, I guess.

The model and I pretty much choose images ON CAMERA as we shoot, then I get finished Jpegs out to her in +/- 24hrs. No RAW files, no proof-sheets, no-hassles, just finished product quickly. Happy models that way. Simple, and no Fuss. Dropboxed to them in +/-24hrs because I work as best I can at the shoot so I don't have to do a lot of editing.

That's the (SIMPLE, efficient) way that I choose to do it. But, each photographer does whatever works for them. To each his own. If you choose to take a week to edit 150 images, and provide them on flashdrives in BULK, that's your choice. If that's what works for you..more power to you. It's all good!

Jojo West wrote:
Lighting...horrible; Angles...even worse; and the list goes on. I'm not sure if it was a time issue, bad day, didn't like the model as much or they do a lot of post processing. I will be sending my top 10 pics for post to the photog today, and my husband and I have been doing some at home/work as well and starting to feel better about the whole thing.

Jojo, you and your husband had permission to edit the hires copies of ALL the images? If not, to my understanding...you broke the law.

Jojo West wrote:
Oh and...I don't need RAW files to do some editing on pictures, you can do it just fine on hi-res jpegs, so if someone wanted to completely destroy your work by turning it into some retouching disaster, they could do it just fine with the jpeg file.

This is true! You can edit the HiRes Jpegs almost as well as RAW format files. So whether the photographer provides the RAW files or the "raw"(jpegs directly out of the camera) files, a model or husband or significant other CAN retouch and manipulate them....WITH PERMISSION...and many (most?) photographers don't provide this.

But, one of the points of the thread is that IF you edit any of those images without the photographer's permission, you have broken copyright law. I'm not saying it's not done all the time...I'm just saying that IF you do it (at all!) without permission, to my understanding you have broken copyright law.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

You and your husband had permission to edit the hires copies of ALL the images?


This is true! You can edit the HiRes Jpegs almost as well as RAW format files. So whether the photographer provides the RAW files or the "raw"(jpegs directly out of the camera) files, a model or husband or significant other CAN retouch and manipulate them....WITH PERMISSION...and most photographers don't provide this.

But, one of the points of the thread is that IF you edit any of those images without the photographer's permission, you have broken copyright law. I'm not saying it's not done all the time...I'm just saying that IF you do it without permission you have broken copyright law.

Nope, I decided to break copyright law and just do it. Come on now, I've mentioned this before, I always ask first

I tell EVERY photographer beforehand that I enjoy CS5, and they're ok with me doing some editing on images. Also, I think you may misunderstand MY definition of working on an image. This is a shot I just finished working on:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/2817543#30703463

That's my idea of post work, and most photogs I work with, don't have an issue with it, in fact another photog just sent me the raw files for my top picks so I work on them.

Jojo West wrote:
Nope, I decided to break copyright law and just do it.

Many models do EXACTLY that!

One of the points of the thread was to make sure folks know that IF they do the editing without permission it IS against the law. Many seem to NOT know that fact. With permission it's OKAY, but without permission...it's a crime.

And it's a RISK both parties take with every "trade" photoshoot ...hoping that the "product" will be worth your time. And that RISK is the same for the photographer as it is the model.  No matter how beautiful the model....sometimes the shoot ("chemistry") just doesn't work.

I had a photoshoot that didn't produce a single picture because I wasn't smart enough to ask about the exact type of heels the model was going to bring...and the wardrobe just didn't work...no matter what we tried. Or, it can be as simple as one person being 15-minutes late and blowing the "energy/connection/respect" between the model and photographer. To me, that "connection" (chemistry) is EVERYTHING to the images. More important than the poses or the technical side of the shoot.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
To me, that "connection" (chemistry) is EVERYTHING to the images. More important than the poses or the technical side of the shoot.

I completely agree!!! It's just not there with some folks. In this particular case it wasn't there for me. From beginning to end it just felt to forced and stiff. Plus I enjoy working with a photographer who knows what he's looking for in his shots and is vocal about it.

I have a vision of the shot I want when I pose, but I don't know how the photographer is angling his camera if he's getting the shot I want, if he even has the same vision, brings us back to COMMUNICATION, lol. It's all a learning experience. I went from being completely disappointed with the shoot to seeing potential in shots I didn't like at all, and learning what kind of lighting and backgrounds work best for ME. Just let's me bring more to the table each time I have another shoot.

Jojo West wrote:

Nope, I decided to break copyright law and just do it. Come on now, I've mentioned this before, I always ask first

I tell EVERY photographer beforehand that I enjoy CS5, and they're ok with me doing some editing on images. Also, I think you may misunderstand MY definition of working on an image. This is a shot I just finished working on:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/2817543#30703463

That's my idea of post work, and most photogs I work with, don't have an issue with it, in fact another photog just sent me the raw files for my top picks so I work on them.

Then you AREN'T working with Professional Photographers, you're working with guys who hope to get into your pants...it really is that simple.

Jojo West wrote:
It's just not there with some folks. In this particular case it wasn't there for me. From beginning to end it just felt to forced and stiff. Plus I enjoy working with a photographer who knows what he's looking for in his shots and is vocal about it.

That is why I EMPHASIZE pre-shoot "collaboration", and exactly why I like to just show the model ON_CAMERA (after each "look") while we are shooting! It actually HELPS the model build "energy" and "connection". I wish you were closer to shoot with! LOL!

Eridu wrote:
Then you AREN'T working with Professional Photographers, you're working with guys who hope to get into your pants...it really is that simple.

I'm sorry, but I have to COMPLETELY DISAGREE with you. Every photographer I've worked with has been nothing less than professional, and in many cases married with kids, whom I meet after the shoot. Perhaps you don't work the same way they (photogs I've worked with) do but to assume that it's because they want to get in my pants is just wrong.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

That is why I EMPHASIZE pre-shoot "collaboration", and exactly why I like to just show the model ON_CAMERA (after each "look") while we are shooting! It actually HELPS the model build "energy" and "connection". I wish you were closer to shoot with! LOL!

Ha! Yeah I agree, I think we'd work well together. Well...as long as you're not just trying to get in my pants, hahaha.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
LOL! Not defensive at all ^, because I don't need to be. I KNOW my product. The only person I have to please is the model and myself. But I'm not shooting the same old canned "catalog" crap that has to somehow strive to look different from warmed-over repetition. I never want to be "the assembly line" of photographers. LOL!
No thanks. Collaboration is the key!


No offense, but if you are spending MORE than overnight retouching 15-20 images, I'd say you are being sloppy behind the camera, or have way too much free time to play "fix" RAW files that I don't have. LOL!


Yeah...there are no guarantees in a photoshoot, and rarely does either get EXACTLY what one expects. That's the importance of good chemistry...it builds a good energy to help ensure good images. And that's what makes the whole process FUN! The surprises.

It's VERY simple! As was mentioned, my policy is to provide a minimum of 15-20 images, but it often develops into more than that if the model has good chemistry and I FEEL LIKE editing more than the minimums. Good chemistry = more better photos, all around. It's very simple. I think you over-complicate it...just like the editing, I guess.

The model and I pretty much choose images ON CAMERA as we shoot, then I get finished Jpegs out to her in +/- 24hrs. No RAW files, no proof-sheets, no-hassles, just finished product quickly. Happy models that way. Simple, and no Fuss. Dropboxed to them in +/-24hrs because I work as best I can at the shoot so I don't have to do a lot of editing.

That's the (SIMPLE, efficient) way that I choose to do it. But, each photographer does whatever works for them. To each his own. If you choose to take a week to edit 150 images, and provide them on flashdrives in BULK, that's your choice. If that's what works for you..more power to you. It's all good!

That's the problem that a lot of amateur photographers have when it comes to collaborations, and more specifically trades.

They want to have one foot in the commercial market and one foot in the "artistic" world.I know that this sounds offensive to a lot of people that fall into your category (i.e., tour guide by day, artist  by night, or weekend warrior), but the idea of "protecting your brand" is deeply rooted in your market value.

In other words, if your work is consistently good, not random or largely dependant on the model's look or fun personality, then you are likely to land contracts and get commercial work because your customer trusts that you can deliver what they need, and not assume that you are depending on factors beyond your control.

Regarding the image retouching aspect. Commercial photography (i.e., photography that is mostly catalog work) has involved retouching as far back as when terms like dogding and burning represented a physical process.

There is nothing wrong with being a purist, but when your work looks like 99% of the amateur work that anyone else can shoot in auto-mode, then there is no "brand" to protect. Chances are your model or anyone else can shoot exactly the same image.

If your workflow involves converting raw image files into JPEGs and dumping them online or into discs, then you run the same risk as someone that provides raw image files.

Why is that the case, you ask? Well, unless you are providing tiny thumbnails, then the model has the same chances of retouching the high resolutuon JPEGs as the raw image files. If the model has competent retouching skills. I don't mean adding angel wings, or railroad tracks, BUT color correction/skim blemish corrections, and re-composition (removing items from the backgroubd or cropping for composition), then it is very likely that your in-camera image will improve.

There is no disagreement that if you provide finished products, then the  trade is.fair. If you are actually hiring the participants, then they cpuld care less about the final image. But a cavalier "Take it or leave it attitude"  without any interest of providong the best images after a trade shoot is just sneaky.

My time is money, you say? With the assumption that the model's (and the rest of the participant's) isn't (to you)...

...unless your going rate is in the thousands (either in your day job or professional photography work) then you are deluding yourself, and not really helping the people that hope to benefit from trading their time in order to work with you.

This isn't a rant or accusation to the general Mayhem population of photographers. There are plenty of truly skilled photographers here that don't have their butts halfway up their torses...

...it could be that these truly-artistic photographers do not define themselves via Model Mayhem. Model Mayhem and similar websites are artistic outlet for them. They seriously see it as an venue to help rising talent improve and possibly move into the commercial side of the market. That commercial side, mainly advertising (which includes catalog work) is actually where you tend to make most of your income in commercial photography.

It is kind of like being a tour guide, but you use photography and graphic design to sell a product.

This isn't a critique forum, so I won't refer to your work in a direct way and self-righteous wayas you did to mine.

It is obvious that you enjoy photographing women, even if it isn't as important to you to provide several excellent shots instead of a couple of dozens of simple images.

Just make sure that your work is at a level that attracts praise, before being pumpous with people that disagree with the flawed premise of your original post.

MnPhoto wrote:
Your post...

Overall good post, and well thought out...just very wrong.
I rate it a 9 for effort (and semi-good spelling), but a ZERO for accuracy.

This isn't a critique forum, so I won't refer to your work in a direct way and self-righteous way as you did to mine. ~ It is obvious that you enjoy photographing women, even if it isn't as important to you to provide several excellent shots instead of a couple of dozens of simple images ~ Just make sure that your work is at a level that attracts praise, before being pumpous with people that disagree with the flawed premise of your original post.

LOL! Huh? I was not critiquing your work in any way. I never mentioned your work at all. What "self-important/pompous" notion gave you that idea? LOL! When I said the "canned catalog/assembly line" look did you assume I was referring to YOU?

It seems that somehow YOU are the person who got their "feelings hurt". Sorry about that, that was not intentional. I am VERY comfortable with my own work (so far), so you can't hurt my feelings.

I don't rely on other photographer's critiques (here) for validation. Except maybe a few of them, that I respect. So, I do this for artistic fun and so it-is-what-it-is. Win-win.

But, you might be careful about the offensive ways that you phrase things unless you want your own words quoted back to you...

MnPhoto wrote:
No offense, but if you can fully retouch 15-20 test shoot images overnight, then you are either being sloppy, or have way too much free time.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
No offense, but if you are spending MORE than overnight retouching 15-20 images, I'd say you are being sloppy behind the camera, or have way too much free time to play "fix" RAW files that I don't have. LOL!

Jojo West wrote:
Ha! Yeah I agree, I think we'd work well together. Well...as long as you're not just trying to get in my pants, hahaha.

No worries...but I DO like some (well ALL) of your implied work!

Not a critique but a compliment: I love a look that comes across as natural and real. You have that look (x100!).

So about the second part, no...and yes. LOL!

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

MnPhoto wrote:
Your post...

Overall good post, and well thought out...just very wrong.


LOL! Huh? I was not critiquing your work in any way. I never mentioned your work at all. What "self-important/pompous" notion gave you that idea? LOL! When I said the "canned catalog/assembly line" look did you assume I was referring to YOU?

It seems that somehow YOU are the person who got their "feelings hurt". Sorry about that, that was not intentional. I am VERY comfortable with my own work (so far), so you can't hurt my feelings.

I don't rely on other photographer's critiques (here) for validation. Except maybe a few of them, that I respect. So, I do this for artistic fun and so it-is-what-it-is. Win-win.

I only have to be better than myself of yesterday! Show some continuous improvement...not warmed-over same-ol' canned assembly-line catalog crap. That's all I'm saying. What made you assume ANYTHING about that premise was referring to YOU?

But, you might be careful about the offensive ways that you phrase things unless you want your own words quoted back to you...

This isn't going to go anywhere, and I wasted enough valuable tme trying to explain the perception of fair from a commercial/professional sense, and fair from a self-righteous faux artistic sense.

You obviously have your mind made up as to what you think is "fair trade" in terms of quantity over quality, and artistic self-expression vs. what would actually benefit the other person's portfolio.

Let's agree to disagree. As most threads go, albeit based on a deficient premise, this thread is full of opinions. Fortunately, opinions are like @ssholes... everyone has one.

MnPhoto wrote:
Let's agree to disagree. As most threads go, albeit based on a deficient premise, this thread is full of opinions.

Sounds GREAT! Maybe we can return to the topic of the thread instead of your semi-long "rants" about only what YOU perceive as "fair" and "righteous", and filled with insults to the rest who don't agree. 

Nobody was critiquing your work....well, except your use of the word "albeit" LOL! ...And "pumpous", of course. So your getting all "butt-hurt" and insulting is not necessary. Lots of folks here are courteous even in disagreement. You may want to try it.

And yes this thread is ALL about opinions...that's what a forum is!

fo·rum/ˈfôrəm/ Noun:   
A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

ALL opinions (even those outside the box) are welcome!
Even if they don't agree with your's (or mine).

MnPhoto wrote:
Regarding the image retouching aspect. Commercial photography (i.e., photography that is mostly catalog work) has involved retouching as far back as when terms like dogding and burning represented a physical process.

I believe this (above) is your mistaken premise. You have a very narrow view of "commercial" photography if you think it ALL fits into your narrow genre of "mostly catalog work".

There is no "right" answer except what works for each model and photographer on the "Trade" shoot. My (15-20 images) is just what works for ME.

Jojo West wrote:

I'm sorry, but I have to COMPLETELY DISAGREE with you. Every photographer I've worked with has been nothing less than professional, and in many cases married with kids, whom I meet after the shoot. Perhaps you don't work the same way they (photogs I've worked with) do but to assume that it's because they want to get in my pants is just wrong.

Okay, they're enamored withthe idea of getting into your pants then.

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

I want to hug you.

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.

While the photographer *MAY* hold copyright on the physical/virtual image that was created when he pressed the shutter, he may have NO RIGHTS at all to use that image, because what he photographed/captured was COPYRIGHTED by other people, the IDEA belonged to other people, or other restrictions apply.

Your photographing someone elses idea, and passing it off as your own, just because you pressed a shutter, may be very actionable.

So, feel free to be an A** about things, but realize, you may have just shot a whole day with not a single image you can show anyone without legal repercussions.
Those of you who have used the "quote" feature, to put words in my mouth that I did not say, have just violated the law you so loudly proclaim is on your side.

You have taken your ideas/words, and attributed them to me -- as a QUOTE. That is slander/libel and defamation. And, is simply the mirror image of copyright theft. Be careful.  Your actions are yours, and yours alone. You can have your opinions, just don't put your opinions in my mouth.

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.

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*.   

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Hell, Let's get it all on one page if we're going to re-quote in it's entirety...LOL!

Not cool, lol. I scrolled down for nothing, haha.

Jojo West wrote:
Not cool, lol. I scrolled down for nothing, haha.

I know...huh!? LOL! It's getting comical!

Poor guy says he has been around Mayhem since "the beginning".

If we just changed all those re-quotes to:

BodyartBabes wrote:
your post...

This entire thread would be about 2 pages.