Forums > Model Colloquy > why pay a model?

Photographer

ArtisticGlamour

Posts: 3846

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Art can not be created without trust and comfort and collaboration between artist and llama. That rarely happens in a paid situation. It may happen in a commercial situation but I would not call that Art.

Spot ON! Money DOES change the interpersonal dynamic.

Sometimes it's okay, but 9/10 times it causes a subtle "pressure" that chanages the "relaxed" flow of the shoot, for the worse.

Feb 11 13 08:19 am Link

Photographer

photo212grapher

Posts: 1550

Saint Louis, Missouri, US

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Art can not be created without trust and comfort and collaboration between artist and model. That rarely happens in a paid situation. It may happen in a commercial situation but I would not call that Art.

Look at many of the great painting masters. They HIRED prostitutes to pose for them. If they did not make art, there is no art.

Of course, you capitalized Art - short of Arthur? Not many females nudes would be called Art in that case.

Feb 11 13 08:37 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Spot ON! Money DOES change the interpersonal dynamic.

Sometimes it's okay, but 9/10 times it causes a subtle "pressure" that chanages the "relaxed" flow of the shoot, for the worse.

roll

Ohhhh come on.... Saying a photograph is not art because someone got paid to take it is just so wrong.

I guess all those painters back in the old day that got paid to paint or paid their models to sit their for hours is just NOT art.... Pfffffttt give me a break!!!

Feb 11 13 09:58 am Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15540

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

photo212grapher wrote:
Look at many of the great painting masters. They HIRED prostitutes to pose for them. If they did not make art

...... they had sex with them instead.

Feb 11 13 10:02 am Link

Photographer

Komelian

Posts: 26

Denver, Colorado, US

Got bored on page 4.....I hope every one realizes that money is trade....that's what it's purpose is.   i trade you money for your services and vice versa.  You'll always get some hippie telling you it's a good idea if we all traded services for other services.....

duh


that's why we created money.....

Feb 11 13 01:44 pm Link

Photographer

KMP

Posts: 4822

Houston, Texas, US

Komelian wrote:
Got bored on page 4.....I hope every one realizes that money is trade....that's what it's purpose is.   i trade you money for your services and vice versa.  You'll always get some hippie telling you it's a good idea if we all traded services for other services.....

duh


that's why we created money.....

Hippies?  Are there still hippies???

Feb 11 13 01:47 pm Link

Photographer

Komelian

Posts: 26

Denver, Colorado, US

Come out to Boulder for lunch sometime.... I'm sure you can get someone to foot the bill if you beg for enuff change..... "we should all share" always comes out of the mouths of people who don't want to contribute.....

Feb 11 13 01:51 pm Link

Photographer

intense_puppy

Posts: 864

Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Komelian wrote:
Come out to Boulder for lunch sometime.... I'm sure you can get someone to foot the bill if you beg for enuff change..... "we should all share" always comes out of the mouths of people who don't want to contribute.....

That's an idiotic statement.

TFP is the photographer photographing and contributing pictures to the models portfolio. It's not begging the model to shoot for absolutely no benefit.

Feb 11 13 02:00 pm Link

Photographer

ArtisticGlamour

Posts: 3846

Phoenix, Arizona, US

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Spot ON! Money DOES change the interpersonal dynamic.

Sometimes it's okay, but 9/10 times it causes a subtle "pressure" that chanages the "relaxed" flow of the shoot, for the worse.

Erlinda wrote:
Ohhhh come on.... Saying a photograph is not art because someone got paid to take it is just so wrong.

I guess all those painters back in the old day that got paid to paint or paid their models to sit their for hours is just NOT art.... Pfffffttt give me a break!!!

Please show me the quote where I stated "a photograph is not art because someone got paid to take it".  I think you're confused.

And I see from your profile that you don't shoot "trade" shoots, and charge models for "test" shoots "Starting at £250"...Interesting.

Feb 11 13 03:02 pm Link

Photographer

Art Silva

Posts: 9451

Santa Barbara, California, US

simple answer to the thread:
If the model is worth it to you, you pay her, period.

Feb 11 13 03:39 pm Link

Photographer

Risen Phoenix Photo

Posts: 1402

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

photo212grapher wrote:

Look at many of the great painting masters. They HIRED prostitutes to pose for them. If they did not make art, there is no art.

Of course, you capitalized Art - short of Arthur? Not many females nudes would be called Art in that case.

Well I said nothing of painting masters and prostitutes.  I was speaking of those great photographers.

And leave it to ill spirited individuals as your self who can not appreciate the argument just make fun of someones spelling or grammar. Appreciate that not everyone shares your opinion and though you may not share mine you do not have to be mean spirited or nasty. 

Making fun of the person or nit picking of a word that had a capital letter where there should not have been ( I'm typing on an iPhone at a stop light)  is the refuge of a rhetorical scoundrel !

Feb 11 13 04:03 pm Link

Model

Lynn Elizabeth

Posts: 1336

Coral Springs, Florida, US

Hey OP, shut up!

Feb 11 13 04:57 pm Link

Photographer

ArtisticGlamour

Posts: 3846

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Erlinda wrote:
When in reality all it goes is allowe you to afford to create more are...

WTF? Is that Jamaican? I LOVE that! LOL! ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H0xPWAtaa8

Hey, Erlindamon "don't be no cloud on a sunny day ...jus turn the frown the other way around" wink

Feb 11 13 05:34 pm Link

Photographer

R Michael Walker

Posts: 11986

Costa Mesa, California, US

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Well I said nothing of painting masters and prostitutes.  I was speaking of those great photographers.

And leave it to ill spirited individuals as your self who can not appreciate the argument just make fun of someones spelling or grammar. Appreciate that not everyone shares your opinion and though you may not share mine you do not have to be mean spirited or nasty. 

Making fun of the person or nit picking of a word that had a capital letter where there should not have been ( I'm typing on an iPhone at a stop light)  is the refuge of a rhetorical scoundrel !

I capitalize the "A" in my Art all the time because It means THAT much to me.

Art Silva Photography wrote:
simple answer to the thread:
If the model is worth it to you, you pay her, period.

And if the Photographer is that good neither care about the $$. They are to busy making wonderful images both will use to their advantage later..or just be proud to have been a part of the process. Nearly EVERY person I have ever shot was worth being paid. So am I for that matter. But no money exchanged hands. Only images. I DON'T agree with the OP at all BTW. When the photographer's work is not as good as or better than what the model already has they need to be paid. If it's a commercial job EVERYONE needs to be paid. Otherwise, trade is great for all parties involved.

Feb 11 13 05:40 pm Link

Photographer

photo212grapher

Posts: 1550

Saint Louis, Missouri, US

photo212grapher wrote:
Look at many of the great painting masters. They HIRED prostitutes to pose for them. If they did not make art, there is no art.

Of course, you capitalized Art - short of Arthur? Not many females nudes would be called Art in that case.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Well I said nothing of painting masters and prostitutes.  I was speaking of those great photographers.

And leave it to ill spirited individuals as your self who can not appreciate the argument just make fun of someones spelling or grammar. Appreciate that not everyone shares your opinion and though you may not share mine you do not have to be mean spirited or nasty. 

Making fun of the person or nit picking of a word that had a capital letter where there should not have been ( I'm typing on an iPhone at a stop light)  is the refuge of a rhetorical scoundrel !

A tad sensitive?

I just saw the capitalization of "Art" and the little humor in it - Art/Arthur, and you might have noticed case was italicized - as in lower case, upper case, capitalization case. Shame you took it so personally, and missed the joke. Try looking for the fun and good in others, rather than thinking the world is against you.

Feb 11 13 06:36 pm Link

Photographer

R Byron Johnson

Posts: 767

Norman, Oklahoma, US

my_other_profile wrote:

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

Yeah, I really do like Norman, even though I don't like most of Oklahoma.  Norman is like the black sheep of all the other towns and cities in Oklahoma.

Feb 11 13 08:47 pm Link

Photographer

R Byron Johnson

Posts: 767

Norman, Oklahoma, US

Camerosity wrote:

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.

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...

LOL, I actually once used the name "endometruin_cling_on" in another forum.

Feb 11 13 08:51 pm Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Please show me the quote where I stated "a photograph is not art because someone got paid to take it".  I think you're confused.

And I see from your profile that you don't shoot "trade" shoots, and charge models for "test" shoots "Starting at £250"...Interesting.

You stated "Spot ON! Money DOES change the interpersonal dynamic." How is one to take something like that?

What does me not doing trade have anything to do with this topic?

I don't use MM models.... That's what I have agencies for smile

Feb 12 13 12:23 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
WTF? Is that Jamaican? I LOVE that! LOL! ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H0xPWAtaa8

Hey, Erlindamon "don't be no cloud on a sunny day ...jus turn the frown the other way around" wink

How is that Jamaican? Because I wrote goes instead of dose by accident? roll

I'm not a cloud on a sunny day, I'm very happy thank you very much smile

Feb 12 13 12:27 am Link

Photographer

Julian W I L D E

Posts: 1829

Portland, Oregon, US

I'm a big believer in the adage you get what you pay for.  And apparently there's a fair number of models that believe that too.

Because, if you look at my work...

you won't find a single model that I've paid.

And most often, it's quite the other way around.

Once again: You get what you pay for.

;-)

Feb 12 13 12:32 am Link

Photographer

Tony Lawrence

Posts: 19225

Chicago, Illinois, US

Erlinda wrote:

You stated "Spot ON! Money DOES change the interpersonal dynamic." How is one to take something like that?

What does me not doing trade have anything to do with this topic?

I don't use MM models.... That's what I have agencies for smile

Don't you think its hypocritical for you to say models deserve to be paid but you don't pay them.   Further your models are coming from agencies.   Your not trading has everything to do with what your saying.

Feb 12 13 12:51 am Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 27960

Dearborn, Michigan, US

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Spot ON! Money DOES change the interpersonal dynamic.

Sometimes it's okay, but 9/10 times it causes a subtle "pressure" that chanages the "relaxed" flow of the shoot, for the worse.

I have not found this to be true.

Feb 12 13 01:11 am Link

Photographer

T-D-L

Posts: 10303

Los Angeles, California, US

If a model won't test with you and you really really want him/her in your book then pay.  If you don't need them in your book bad enough to warrant paying then don't.  Simple as that.

Feb 12 13 01:18 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Don't you think its hypocritical for you to say models deserve to be paid but you don't pay them.   Further your models are coming from agencies.   Your not trading has everything to do with what your saying.

Who said I don't pay models? Just because I don't trade with MM models and don't pay MM models doesn't mean I don't pay agency models.

This has nothing to do with trading, this has to do about paying models.

Feb 12 13 01:41 am Link

Photographer

RKD Photographic

Posts: 3265

Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

As I've said elsewhere today - with so many models offering TF, why pay? Even if you want to shoot nudes there are plenty of models willing to work for trade.
The only reason I can think of would be inexperienced photographers wanting to build a portfolio, but even then there are ways around that.

The only models 'here' that should be charging are those offering nude or 'hard' fetish shoots - I personally think there shouldn't be any difference between a model shooting clothed or naked, but there is and that's that - they have a commodity that people are willing to pay for and for models not to exploit that market is just stupid. Nude shoots are a genre that even inexperienced models can make money from if they have a good body and few inhibitions, so why not try and capitalise on that while you're young?
I know a LOT of female university students who model solely to supplement their income while going through college - very few continue after graduation. Most model nude as that's where the money is. Most of those images never even go into their portfolios as it's the money they're after, not the glory.

Models asking pay for fashion-portrait-lingerie shoots on internet sites like MM are simply deluded. Those that need a few head- and full-length shots for an agency interview will pick someone whose work is adequate and shoot TF - agencies don't need top-end portrait-fashion work to judge a model's worth. If the images look OK they'll bring them in for a test-shoot anyway.

I only shoot models at the weekends for fun - work is what I do during the week and that involves sportsmen and politicians mostly - and they already get paid.
If a client was to approach me for an advertising or product shoot which required a model, I'd source them through an agency or pick someone I've previously worked with who I know is 100% reliable, not look for them on an internet site.

Feb 12 13 02:00 am Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

Julian  W I L D E wrote:
I'm a big believer in the adage you get what you pay for.  And apparently there's a fair number of models that believe that too.

Because, if you look at my work...

you won't find a single model that I've paid.

And most often, it's quite the other way around.

Once again: You get what you pay for.

;-)

Do you do a better job for the models who pay you than those who don't?

Feb 12 13 03:49 am Link

Photographer

Camerosity

Posts: 5316

Saint Louis, Missouri, US

Julian  W I L D E wrote:
I'm a big believer in the adage you get what you pay for.  And apparently there's a fair number of models that believe that too.

Because, if you look at my work...

you won't find a single model that I've paid.

And most often, it's quite the other way around.

Once again: You get what you pay for.

;-)

Art of the nude wrote:
Do you do a better job for the models who pay you than those who don't?

I believe Julian's entire post was tongue-in-cheek.

The models he photographs obviously get their money's worth - while they have paid him to build his portfolio.

Nice work when you can get it.

Feb 12 13 04:04 am Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 27960

Dearborn, Michigan, US

Art of the nude wrote:

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+)
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/8088013

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

Yes, she is worth paying!
I had a shoot with her on my land in northern MI last summer.

18+
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/12 … 425a9e.jpg

Feb 12 13 04:09 am Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 27960

Dearborn, Michigan, US

Erlinda wrote:

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 wink

I agree!!

Feb 12 13 04:14 am Link

Model

Jess Nugent

Posts: 4

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Urbiefoto wrote:
The models I work with aren't doing it for fun.  In large part, they make a large portion of their income from modeling.  Since they need to rely on their craft for that money, they are more motivated to provide a quality product.  Like someone said earlier - you get what you pay for.

+1!!!

Feb 12 13 04:17 am Link

Photographer

Tony Lawrence

Posts: 19225

Chicago, Illinois, US

I know several of the paid only nude models on this site and while they are attractive.   Are they better models then those who don't charge?   I don't think so.   I imagine some who have paid them may think so but they aren't.   There is nothing wrong with paying for what you want and some hobbies cost more then others.   I know people who send thousands every year on golf clubs and green fees.   Its your money spend as you see fit.   However from a business standpoint and growth as a photographer paying models may not be very wise.   

If the plan to shoot fashion and beauty then you need agency models.   That means getting them to let you test.   If the plan is to display for gallery or content then you really have to work a exchange of images.   That is unless you have clients paying something.   However, make up your mind on who you are.   Hobbyist or professional.   Professional shooters get clients who in turn pay you and your models.  Again there is nothing wrong with paying for what you want.   Yet unless you can monetize and get a return on that investment then you a hobbyist and unless you are wealthy may go broke trying to pay models.

Feb 12 13 04:59 am Link

Photographer

intense_puppy

Posts: 864

Brighton, England, United Kingdom

One of the problems with paid models (if you're a hobbyist - especially if you're new to this kind of photography) is they turn up and just go through the motions. They're rarely interested in the photographers vision or what they're trying to achieve.

I've paid a few models for conceptual shoots. They've turned up, got made up etc. and stood on set. Before I could even remind them of the concept and start giving some direction, they're throwing out out standard fashion poses at the speed of light and I'm like - "what are you doing?"

Then you have to work hard to get them to stop doing the usual stuff they do for every other photographer. Sometimes that as much of a pita than working with a brand new, inexperienced model.

Feb 12 13 05:28 am Link

Photographer

ArtisticGlamour

Posts: 3846

Phoenix, Arizona, US

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Spot ON! Money DOES change the interpersonal dynamic.

Sometimes it's okay, but 9/10 times it causes a subtle "pressure" that chanages the "relaxed" flow of the shoot, for the worse.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I have not found this to be true.

I wish I had your luck, Jerry. Of the couple times I worked out payment for a model they showed up with an entirely different chemistry than the trade models I usually work with.

They didn't seem to REALLY have the same interest in the concept (or the images) as models who were receiving the trade images as payment. It completely turned me off to paid models.

I know there are good paid models out there...but I don't have the time or the money to search through the pile of crappy ones to find the few who are. I have so much better luck shooting trades with more mature models. Or just about any models with a ballet or dance background.

There's just too many internet "wannabes" that have "rates" but zero skills. Too many who have ZERO interest in the image except getting paid...and it shows.

If I was shooting the disinterested "pouty-diva" look, then a model who doesn't give-a-shit might work, but I'm looking for something different.

Feb 12 13 06:46 am Link

Model

-Jen-

Posts: 46835

Howell, Michigan, US

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!

that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Feb 12 13 06:52 am Link

Model

-Jen-

Posts: 46835

Howell, Michigan, US

intense_puppy wrote:
One of the problems with paid models (if you're a hobbyist - especially if you're new to this kind of photography) is they turn up and just go through the motions. They're rarely interested in the photographers vision or what they're trying to achieve.

I've paid a few models for conceptual shoots. They've turned up, got made up etc. and stood on set. Before I could even remind them of the concept and start giving some direction, they're throwing out out standard fashion poses at the speed of light and I'm like - "what are you doing?"

Then you have to work hard to get them to stop doing the usual stuff they do for every other photographer. Sometimes that as much of a pita than working with a brand new, inexperienced model.

Sounds like you've been shooting with inexperienced models anyway.

Feb 12 13 06:54 am Link

Photographer

ArtisticGlamour

Posts: 3846

Phoenix, Arizona, US

-Jen- wrote:
Sounds like you've been shooting with inexperienced models anyway.

It's hard to sort out which is which...until you actually shoot with them. Profiles and portfolios are often misleading and not 100% honest. Even things like "escorts" can blow the "chemistry" I'm looking for...or the "dynamic" of money exchange. It might be different if I could just pay for successful results, but that's not the protocol. Most expect payment just to show up.

Feb 12 13 06:56 am Link

Photographer

intense_puppy

Posts: 864

Brighton, England, United Kingdom

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

It's hard to sort out which is which...until you actually shoot with them

Exactly this.

Feb 12 13 06:59 am Link

Photographer

ArtisticGlamour

Posts: 3846

Phoenix, Arizona, US

intense_puppy wrote:
They've turned up, got made up etc. and stood on set. Before I could even remind them of the concept and start giving some direction, they're throwing out out standard fashion poses at the speed of light and I'm like - "what are you doing?"

This is also a good point!

So many models seem to ONLY think that "modelling" is all about "fashion" and that's a whole different deal than the GLAMOUR shoots that I attempt to shoot.

I would venture to say that Glamour "pays the bills" here on Mayhem, yet most models seem to ONLY dream of Fashion. It's another reason it's hard to find good models.

And another reason the pre-shoot collaboration and communication is so important.

Feb 12 13 07:04 am Link

Photographer

Ecliptic Productions

Posts: 18

Phoenix, Arizona, US

i've looked at a ton of models' profiles here and those that do only paid work have a lot worse portfolios (for the most part) than the ones that do both or are willing to do TF only, etc. i think its because most photographers that do pay are much less experienced than the ones that don't (meaning models will do TF with pro photographers as opposed to someone just starting out - also, many models i've talked to have confirmed they do this). i also won't shoot with a model if her port is crap (and i'm sure you guys have seen some really shitty ports on here), because it shows me she's clueless.

Feb 12 13 09:17 am Link

Photographer

intense_puppy

Posts: 864

Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Ecliptic Productions wrote:
i've looked at a ton of models' profiles here and those that do only paid work have a lot worse portfolios (for the most part) than the ones that do both or are willing to do TF only, etc. i think its because most photographers that do pay are much less experienced than the ones that don't (meaning models will do TF with pro photographers as opposed to someone just starting out - also, many models i've talked to have confirmed they do this). i also won't shoot with a model if her port is crap (and i'm sure you guys have seen some really shitty ports on here), because it shows me she's clueless.

I do agree with this, but I'm starting to see a shift away from it which is making it difficult to determine whoa re proper models and whoa re pretenders.
I think it's because as a lot of the guys are both paying the models and giving them photos to use, like it was a trade shoot (just a theory people!)

Feb 12 13 10:36 am Link