Art of the nude wrote:

Shaun Tia wrote:
But those looking for quality over frugality can choose to book someone who can deliver art in motion.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Yes, but...paying a model does not guarantee someone who can deliver.
(or who "wants" to deliver!) I'm guessing about 1/10 are worth payment.


It's "hit-or-miss" here on Mayhem, because too many "models" will give you "rates" but that's no guarantee of experience or professionalism.

Too many "wannabes" think they should be paid just to show up, and don't really give a shit, or have a real investment in the shoot or the "art" (and it shows in their expressions).

No thanks. I made that mistake once. Too many models show up thinking you should pay their "gym membership", or their "new shoes"...and don't really give a shit about the images...in a paid shoot.

I have MUCH better luck with collaborative "trade" shoots with more mature models, where BOTH model and photographer are "invested" in the shoot.

Choosing who to pay, and who NOT to pay, is part of your job.  I get all sorts of models who may have never SEEN an image as good as my work asking for pay.  I decline.  But that has nothing to do with the potential value of hiring a fantastic model, such as Ms. Shaun Tia.  As it happens, I know plenty of people who have worked with her.  While I'd love to trade, if I could pay, and she was available, I have no doubt that she'd be worth it.

Sure, that is, if it is a job for you.  That's the greatest factor of conflict I'm seeing in this thread:  The more professional type of photographer who's attempting to make a living at it vs. those who do it solely for the creative enjoyment of it.  With the former, the justification for paying models is plainly obvious.  With the latter, not so much.  I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other, just that they're different (and I'm certainly NOT saying that those who try to make a living at it don't also do it for the creative enjoyment of it).  And really, unless you have a lot of money to invest in it, the cost of the trial and error process that would be involved in learning what types of models to hire and which ones not to is pretty steep.

Now if a photographer is making money from the photos he takes, it only seems ethical and fair that the model in the photos be paid as well.  And as I said earlier, the primary reason I can see for wanting to pay models is the fact that doing so gives you a wider array of options of models to work with.  But if you're willing and able to work with what you can get, I just don't see the point, especially if you're making no attempt to make money of the photos yourself.

Besides, be honest, did you pay models when you first started out?

Ovariancyst wrote:
Sure, that is, if it is a job for you.  That's the greatest factor of conflict I'm seeing in this thread:  The more professional type of photographer who's attempting to make a living at it vs. those who do it solely for the creative enjoyment of it.  With the former, the justification for paying models is plainly obvious.  With the latter, not so much.  I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other, just that they're different (and I'm certainly NOT saying that those who try to make a living at it don't also do it for the creative enjoyment of it).  And really, unless you have a lot of money to invest in it, the cost of the trial and error process that would be involved in learning what types of models to hire and which ones not to is pretty steep.

Now if a photographer is making money from the photos he takes, it only seems ethical and fair that the model in the photos be paid as well.  And as I said earlier, the primary reason I can see for wanting to pay models is the fact that doing so gives you a wider array of options of models to work with.  But if you're willing and able to work with what you can get, I just don't see the point, especially if you're making no attempt to make money of the photos yourself.

Besides, be honest, did you pay models when you first started out?

The reason one pays models with cash is so one does not have to provide them with images. They come, they pose, they sign, they go... and they leave happy cash in hand. If they were great you hire them again if not you never think about it again. If they don't appear to be able to deliver what you need then don't hire them.
When I first started out I offered TF or images + gas money. Over time I learned what a pain it was to have to deliver images that I did not love, to maintain my reputation... the value and ease of cash became obvious.  Cash is easy if only all models had Square wouldn't life be truly simple.

NewBoldPhoto wrote:

The reason one pays models with cash is so one does not have to provide them with images. They come, they pose, they sign, they go... and they leave happy cash in hand. If they were great you hire them again if not you never think about it again. If they don't appear to be able to deliver what you need then don't hire them.
When I first started out I offered TF or images + gas money. Over time I learned what a pain it was to have to deliver images that I did not love, to maintain my reputation... the value and ease of cash became obvious.  Cash is easy if only all models had Square wouldn't life be truly simple.

Eh, I honestly wouldn't feel right about not providing the model with the images even if I did pay them.  I get why it may be an issue since giving the model the images allows said model to use images the photographer may not particularly like or even be embarrassed by, or ones that, as you put it, may hurt the photographer's reputation.  But the model is taking the exact same risk, so it seems perfectly fair to me.

Of course, I also see the issue of copyright involved, but that matters far more when a photographer is attempting to make money at what they're doing, and I'm not, so it's not really an issue for me.

Ovariancyst wrote:

Eh, I honestly wouldn't feel right about not providing the model with the images even if I did pay them.  I get why it may be an issue since giving the model the images allows said model to use images the photographer may not particularly like or even be embarrassed by, or ones that, as you put it, may hurt the photographer's reputation.  But the model is taking the exact same risk, so it seems perfectly fair to me.

Of course, I also see the issue of copyright involved, but that matters far more when a photographer is attempting to make money at what they're doing, and I'm not, so it's not really an issue for me.

NORMAN, OKLAHOMA!
I want to go "home"
That's all.  Carry on.

Ovariancyst wrote:
Eh, I honestly wouldn't feel right about not providing the model with the images even if I did pay them.  I get why it may be an issue since giving the model the images allows said model to use images the photographer may not particularly like or even be embarrassed by, or ones that, as you put it, may hurt the photographer's reputation.  But the model is taking the exact same risk, so it seems perfectly fair to me.

Of course, I also see the issue of copyright involved, but that matters far more when a photographer is attempting to make money at what they're doing, and I'm not, so it's not really an issue for me.

my_other_profile wrote:
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA!
I want to go "home"
That's all.  Carry on.

DITTO!

(Last photo in my portfolio was shot in the Rupel Jones Theater Center at OU for the alumni mag my freshman year - Jan. or Feb. 1966. My first fashion ad was shot the same year for Garner's, a menswear store owned by actor James Garner - who was formerly James Bumgarner, placekicker for the Norman Tigers.)

BTW, OC, every time I see your name in the forums, the first thing that pops into my head is endometriosis. If you ever decide to change your account name...

r4u wrote:
They say " every work must be paid"
I don't consider art as a work.
And a photograph (true one;) ) works too, no?
If there 's no commercial issue, don't pay models please!

WHAT?!!!   :-)~

Art of the nude wrote:
Choosing who to pay, and who NOT to pay, is part of your job.  I get all sorts of models who may have never SEEN an image as good as my work asking for pay.  I decline.  But that has nothing to do with the potential value of hiring a fantastic model, such as Ms. Shaun Tia.  As it happens, I know plenty of people who have worked with her.  While I'd love to trade, if I could pay, and she was available, I have no doubt that she'd be worth it.

Ovariancyst wrote:
Sure, that is, if it is a job for you.  That's the greatest factor of conflict I'm seeing in this thread:  The more professional type of photographer who's attempting to make a living at it vs. those who do it solely for the creative enjoyment of it.  With the former, the justification for paying models is plainly obvious.  With the latter, not so much.  I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other, just that they're different (and I'm certainly NOT saying that those who try to make a living at it don't also do it for the creative enjoyment of it).  And really, unless you have a lot of money to invest in it, the cost of the trial and error process that would be involved in learning what types of models to hire and which ones not to is pretty steep.

Now if a photographer is making money from the photos he takes, it only seems ethical and fair that the model in the photos be paid as well.  And as I said earlier, the primary reason I can see for wanting to pay models is the fact that doing so gives you a wider array of options of models to work with.  But if you're willing and able to work with what you can get, I just don't see the point, especially if you're making no attempt to make money of the photos yourself.

Besides, be honest, did you pay models when you first started out?

I think that if you're going to pay models, for whatever reason, you have an obligation to either investigate the person you're paying, or shut up about the results if you don't.  Potential profit, professional status, etc, are irrelevant to that issue. 

And, to be honest, yes, I did pay plenty of models when I started out.  I knew I wanted to shoot nudes, and I figured that at least one of us should know what we were doing.

Here's an image from my second nude shoot, and about 10th shoot overall.  One month after I started shooting models.  (18+)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/8088013

Damn right I paid her.  It was one of the smartest investments I made in my photography.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
There are also models who profess to be agency represented hence they feel they should be paid..... BS as many just put ' agency represented' on their ports to sound important.

Around here, I assume they are telling the truth.  But agencies in Michigan are, pretty much, either part time and trivial, or fraudulent.  It's not quite meaningless, but close enough.

Shemmai Torres wrote:
Some models do it as a hobby others do it for the income but either way if the photograpgher contacts a model in regards to setting up a shoot he/she should at least be willing to provide gas and toll expenses ....I have had shoots that were hours away yes I love to model but our expenses add up too and it's not right! Models do deserve to be paid!

Nope.

If the photographer agrees to those things, they should pay.  If not, they aren't obligated to do so.  If the model (or the photographer, if they are the one traveling) expects to receive cash as part of a trade shoot, for whatever reason, they should say so up front.

Art of the nude wrote:

Around here, I assume they are telling the truth.  But agencies in Michigan are, pretty much, either part time and trivial, or fraudulent.  It's not quite meaningless, but close enough.

I've checked these supposed agency models with the agency and they have never heard of the supposed model.

r4u wrote:
They say " every work must be paid"
I don't consider art as a work.
And a photograph (true one;) ) works too, no?
If there 's no commercial issue, don't pay models please!

I mostly do commercial work so my models get paid when I get paid. Seems ethical to me but then again I'm one of those old fashioned kind of folks who likes things like 'ethics'.

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
why is this still in here?..

I blame the models.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

I blame the models.

The ones you pay or the ones you don't pay?

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
The ones you pay or the ones you don't pay?

I don't pay models from the days as a photo student when I did my very first shots with a agency model.

Edit; I tell a lie, I once paid a PB model 2 hr rate for a full day on a specific folio project.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
I find I have better luck with more mature models in "trade" shoots. When we are both invested equally in the shoot. And the general attitude is better.

I have better luck with "mature" models.  But I haven't found any real correlation between "mature" and "older."  One of the most mature models I've worked with was about a week past her 18th birthday.

Art of the nude wrote:

I have better luck with "mature" models.  But I haven't found any real correlation between "mature" and "older."  One of the most mature models I've worked with was about a week past her 18th birthday.

Some of my worst flakes have been in their late 20's to early 30's.

rp_photo wrote:
Some of my worst flakes have been in their late 20's to early 30's.

I have found the opposite, but I usually shoot on the weekends which is party time for a lot of younger folks...so grandmas often die at the last minute on Saturday afternoons. Not so frequent with older models.

I have found much better results with older models who are more likely to be invested in the shoot, and have more clear ideas of what they want in a "trade" collaboration.

Erlinda wrote:
Don't degrade the models that do this full time, it's rude and wont make you very popular with them.

I don't degrade the models who do this "full time" as a living...I'm just saying the good ones (worth payment) are sadly buried under way too many "wannabes" that think they are "entitled" to payment just for showing up.

Just because a model posts "rates" (and shows up) does NOT make her a professional quality model, and that is the problem...and that's why I stick to "trade" collaborations.

Erlinda wrote:
Modelling is a profession.. Just like any other professions people get paid for doing them. There for, models get paid and should get paid.

If you feel like art is something you shouldn't have to pay for then work with "models" that do it for fun/hobby.

Don't degrade the models that do this full time, it's rude and wont make you very popular with them

So, you pay every model you shoot with?  Or do you consider your work to be fair compensation at least some of the time?  I'm pretty sure you work mainly, or exclusively, with professionals.

Erlinda wrote:
Don't degrade the models that do this full time, it's rude and wont make you very popular with them.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
I don't degrade the models who do this full time as a living...I'm just saying the good ones (worth payment) are sadly buried under way too many "wannabes" that think they are "entitled" to payment just for showing up.

Just because a model posts "rates" (and shows up) does NOT make her a professional quality model, and that is the problem...and that's why I stick to "trade" collaborations.

I had two novices contact me a few hours apart last week.  One I've shot with before, and she was excellent.  If I could pay her something modest in appreciation, I'd be happy to.  If nothing else, I wish I could pay her what her regular job pays, so she could take more days off to shoot.  The other is borderline for a trade with me, and wanted $50/hr with a bunch of silly conditions.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

rp_photo wrote:
Some of my worst flakes have been in their late 20's to early 30's.

I have found the opposite, but I usually shoot on the weekends which is party time for a lot of younger folks...so grandmas often die at the last minute on Saturday afternoons. Not so frequent with older models.

I have found much better results with older models who are more likely to be invested in the shoot, and have more clear ideas of what they want in a "trade" collaboration.


I don't degrade the models who do this "full time" as a living...I'm just saying the good ones (worth payment) are sadly buried under way too many "wannabes" that think they are "entitled" to payment just for showing up.

Just because a model posts "rates" (and shows up) does NOT make her a professional quality model, and that is the problem...and that's why I stick to "trade" collaborations.

That's why you are the judge when it comes to who you want to pay or not pay.

If a model doesn't look professional by her bio, portfolio and references than clearly she isn't a full time model

Art of the nude wrote:

So, you pay every model you shoot with?  Or do you consider your work to be fair compensation at least some of the time?  I'm pretty sure you work mainly, or exclusively, with professionals.

I pay the models I work with when I am doing lookbooks or campaigns. But when I am doing something for my portfolio I use models that are looking to update their portfolio as well. It works.

Erlinda wrote:
I pay the models I work with when I am doing lookbooks or campaigns. But when I am doing something for my portfolio I use models that are looking to update their portfolio as well. It works.

Exactly. And from my experience the best results come from older (or more mature) models who are "invested" in a good "trade" collaboration to update their portfolios. Better chemistry.

Just paying a model her "rates" is no guarantee of her personal interest in your shoot concept...other than to her interest "get paid". I have found about 1/10 of the "professional" models (those that post "rates") are actually anything more than "wannabes" that just want to get paid (without skills or personal "investment" in your concept). To many think it's just "easy money".

The "good" models are buried under a pile of "wannabes", just as I'm sure it's the same for finding good photographers. I hope someday to one of those "good" ones....yet I will always shoot "trade" because I prefer the "trade chemistry" ...and collaboration.

Jordan Bunniie wrote:
Why do you feel the need to come into the model forum saying we dont deserve to be paid?

This.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Exactly. And from my experience the best results come from older (or more mature) models who are "invested" in a good "trade" collaboration to update their portfolios.

Just paying a model her "rates" is no guarantee of her personal interest in your shoot concept...other than to "get paid". I have found about 1/10 of the "professional" models (those that post "rates") are actually anything more than "wannabes" that just want to get paid (without skills or personal "investment" in your concept).

The "good" models are buried under a pile of "wannabes", just as I'm sure it's the same for finding good photographers. I hope someday to one of those "good" ones....yet I will always shoot "trade" because I prefer the "trade chemistry" ...and collaboration.

You are letting your experience with models in your area cloud your judgment.

"trade chemistry" What does that even mean?

Erlinda wrote:
You are letting your experience with models in your area cloud your judgment.

"trade chemistry" What does that even mean?

If you aren't familiar with "good chemistry" and "connection" and "collaboration" in a photoshoot...I can't explain it to you in words.


And I have found that changes (for the worse) when a model just shows up to be paid...and has no say in the concept.

Caroline Madison wrote:
This post just shows how ignorant and stupid this guy with camera is.

Please...enlighten us with your wisdom and experience?! LOL!

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

If you aren't familiar with "good chemistry" and "connection" and "collaboration" in a photoshoot...I can't explain it to you in words.

It's just that certain "something"...much more important than lighting or megapixels.

LMAO I know the words and I am familiar with them very well.... I just find it funny that you think "tread chemistry" is somehow better than "paying the model chemistry"

You know a full time model gets paid because she knows how to bring the chemistry on the set right away and there is no need to do some warm up shots etc