c_h_r_i_s wrote:

I wouldn't have to tell you if I sold them as you've stated ... pic's are worthless, you place no value on them.
But lets say a porn site got hold of the pic's and the model became aware of this how are you going to explain it to her.

But wouldn't not telling me ruin your fun? In the incredibly unlikely chance you could sell it to a porn site I would tell her it wasn't me.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:

I did not mean to imply that it is one way at all -   

I would not have the opportunity to develop my skills - for whatever they are worth - at photography - if it was not for models -

When I started off I chose to pay models whom I thought could really help me develop a good port.   That was a smart move in retrospect.... and one I recommend to others....

Somewhere along the way,  the quality of models who wanted to trade with me increased.....  to a level that surprises me, really.....

Every image I produce may be my "intellectual property" (for whatever that is worth)  but I could not produce it without the models and production team people I am blessed to work with -   I honestly "feel" as though I am there just to witness and to document the moment - much as was the case during my career in photojournalism...

My idea of trade is that both the model and I get something that is of value to us -  you or someone else or another model may not necessarily see this value -  it is a very individual and transactional thing -

often I shoot something specific that a model wants in her port for something I want for my work - maybe for one of my fine art projects -

sometimes we actually want the very same thing

That 's the whole point of trade and it is why most of my work is trade.... 

but at the end of the day - one thing I value - is my *time*

I don't consider it to be worth my time to shoot with models who can't offer me something that justifies the investment -   the time spent planning and organizing,  the time spent shooting, the time spent editing, and all of the sundries that go into this....

The value of my images is a debatable question -  and various people will have differing answers. 

I am honestly grateful that I have had and continue to have the opportunities that I do...

But I am also at a point where I need to ration myself,  and I have learned that a lot of trade offers just do not bring enough value with them at the end of the day, to justify my investment of *time*......

A very fair post. One which I agree 100%

John Allan wrote:
TF has no standard meaning except its acronym 'Trade For'. It's not any kind of industry term. It appears to have its derivation with Internet hobbyists.
That's why I don't use it. If I'm testing, then I use the correct street-level term 'test'. 99% of the models or other team members that are at the level I'm interested in collaborating with, understand the term and its standard meaning.

Of course the Internet and these forums just love to redefine long standing terms to fit individual whims or what they think it should mean.

There will certainly be a contribution from someone(s) in this thread stating that since TF has no standard meaning, that you have to surround it with all these formal agreements of specifics. This is exactly why the professional world defines and subsequently uses specific words which have a standard meaning, which everyone knows what it means operating in the professional environment. Those who are new and don't yet, get a quick primer. Then no need for a lengthy 'what does the term mean to you - what is our agreement' discussion.
But of course that's too straight-forward for the tens of thousand of MM members who insist on the latitude to use their own personal terminology

Right on!  The use of "TFP" has not ever been used in the traditional industry of model photography EVER!  As I wrote earlier too ... we "tested" models and another term that is long since died due to the digital revolution in photography is the term "Processing Fee" which back in the day, I could actually make a little money by shooting models for a lower cost to them by charging them for film and processing.   I bought film in at bulk rates ... by the brick, and I worked at photo labs, so I could do it rather inexpensively. 

Also it's the digital, and Internet age that has caused the term "escort" to become something other than what used to be "chaperones" and "invited guests!"   Because I often photographed minors, I've had contact with such adults that attend without any problems what so ever. 

As for the term "invited guests"  I've always been a social butterfly who loves an audience.  I've been in photography clubs where I've been the "go between" getting models and other photographers together.  Often I was an invited guest to their shoot.  I do understand if the model doesn't want any one else at the shoot either. 

If a model wishes to invite someone, all she or he needs to do is ask.  With those shoots where I am in charge, I keep an open mind and listen to why or what purpose the model wishes to invite the potential guest.  I like to discuss as many aspects of shoots in advance on the phone or in person as I always have done for decades.  Then I rely on technology to confirm the plans in messages or emails.  I don't like to rely on texting, but will use it when necessary.

So BACK to this "TFP" stuff!  YOU can discuss this with the person who you are in negotiation with for a shoot.  It's NOT that difficult to come to a mutual understanding.  It's a matter of direct communication and negotiation!  I'm freaking old school baby!   People who don't "get it" yet, just stay off my porch! 

Sarah Lynn Modeling wrote:
I've gotten burned so many times by TF shoots over the years that I've had to set guidelines.

Really?  You got "burned?" May I ask ... how much money did you lose?

Strangekitty wrote:


Not even gonna TRY to start with how silly this is.

LOL

Capitol City Boudoir wrote:
TF is just a model-photographer form of the age-old practice of barter.  The concept pre-dates money.  I'll trade you for something that I have for something that you have.

I use barter all the time.

I'll spend a full day shooting menu items for a restaurant in exchange for the restaurants gift cards.

I'll shoot images for my barber's family in exchange for a year of haircuts.

I'll shoot promo images for a web designer in exchange for a new website.

I'll allow an author to use one of my landscapes in her History of Art book in exchange for a copy of the book.

The list goes on and on.

If I'm approched by a model/client who can't afford my usual and customary fee ($295) for a two-hour portfolio shoot (10 retouched images), I'm happy to barter or trade for something she has to offer. Yes, it might even be as simple as her signing a release allowing me to use the images. 

But, I always keep in mind that 1) she approched me, 2) that I'm trading away a value of $295, and 3) that I need to receive $295 in value in return.  I wouldn't spend the day shooting a menu for a $20 gift card.  A begining model who can't pose, who can't afford to have her makeup done and who doesn't have any wardrobe does not give me a $295 return for 2 hours of her time.

"By George!  You are correct!  It's such a simple concept!!!" 


Hell yes!  Trading has been done between people before the concept of money was developed.  The thread should die because the solution is so basic; Work with like minded people who agree on a mutually beneficial shoot plan.

Deciding what the model will get from the shoot is something that every photographer should do.  Then keep your word, because so many folks don't take it seriously.  That is why sloppy planning, along with using only messaging and texting to communicate before the shoot potentially lead to misunderstandings.  No wonder so many people complain about "not getting the pictures I wanted in a timely manner" OR "the model flaked on me again!"  OR " the dang model brought some dude who looked pretty scary, so I canceled the shoot!"   

Strangekitty wrote:


Not even gonna TRY to start with how silly this is.

I like you, Strangekitty, I really do! 

Ashley Graham wrote:
I say you get what you negoitiate. Lately, I've never left a shoot tht was TF without the ability to use an entire set

High Five!

1k-words-photograpy wrote:

ALL OF THIS!!!!

On every photography forum people drone on and on about the value of the images and most of them aren't even selling 4x6s let alone licensing anything.

I mean is it possible that someone here has an image worth millions sitting in their catalogue? Sure. Is it probable that they do? OH HELL NO!

You haven't seen the stuff Ken Marcus found in a box one day cleaning out his studio then. Photos he took of Jimi Hendrix when he burned his guitar at the Monterey Pop Festival 1967! http://www.kenmarcusgallery.com/montere … 1967_html/

Caitin   wrote:
You have to see the value in the time. If the offer is 10 raw images from the shoot of your choice and all rights to those ten, then you might have something. For sure if they are of value on the market.

What do you consider the value of 10 raw images, your choice, and all rights to be???

When I consider what I get to provide that from a commercial shoot, you'd have to trade a week of modeling time for that.

And you want to cherry pick the 10 and have ALL rights??? What was in it for me again???

joeyk wrote:

What do you consider the value of 10 raw images, your choice, and all rights to be???

When I consider what I get to provide that from a commercial shoot, you'd have to trade a week of modeling time for that.

And you want to cherry pick the 10 and have ALL rights??? What was in it for me again???

A cogent post that demonstrates - yet again - the dichotomy between MM world and the industry....

joeyk wrote:
What do you consider the value of 10 raw images, your choice, and all rights to be???

When I consider what I get to provide that from a commercial shoot, you'd have to trade a week of modeling time for that.

And you want to cherry pick the 10 and have ALL rights??? What was in it for me again???

Well You can have the rest of them!

Ok #2 #10 #13 in your port to start with. Do those with me?

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
There are some MM models who are photographed by Ken Marcus.

I dream about Ken Shooting me!!

Caitin   wrote:

Well You can have the rest of them!

Ok #2 #10 #13 in your port to start with. Do those with me?

He asked you what you consider the value of said images? and you come back a smarta$$ and a demand to shoot ... wow just wow

Bobby Ctkr wrote:
I actually used to give models selenium toned silver gelatin prints on fiber ! WOW ! and i found out, models these days don't give a rat's behind for prints ! I just give jpeg files now and they are happy ! Go figure !

Me too

TF = Trade for.     Trade for: Money, loadging, food, time, a shiny object, etc.
Negotiate. Put it in writing. This is not that complicated.  This subject comes up so often.

AMCphotography wrote:
This is one of the funniest threads I've been reading through out the day. If you want rights to all the images PAY the photographer. Otherwise it isn't TF. Especially if he or she may not want to use the photos anyway...

Nothing was said about all the Images. Just 5 or 10 from the shoot.
And it is like paying for them if I am not charging for my time. A trade!

Hero Foto wrote:

He asked you what you consider the value of said images? and you come back a smarta$$ and a demand to shoot ... wow just wow

I'm waiting on a viable answer to this as well.

Art of the nude wrote:
There are photographers who can produce ONE finished image that is worth more, even at web resolution, than 500 raw images from most of us.

And, there are models who are, actually, getting a steal with one retouched web image from a decent photographer, and others who I'd be delighted to give as many as I could make time to finish off, in whatever format they asked.

We are NOT interchangeable, on either side of the camera.

I agree with You.

Liquid Lace Studios wrote:
I was chatting with a friend that cancelled his MM VIP account just last week, one of the reasons he pulled the pin entirely on photographing models was the fact that he was paying $ for a makeup artist to attend his weekly shoots to which models either didn't show or backed out at the last minute, and I apologize for digression here but my point is ...

I wonder if the models that think TF is unfair, are aware of how much money some people put into a TF shoot ... Makeup artist, outfits, jewelry, not to mention the hours in front of the monitors spent editing ?

My friend supplied all costumes, outfits, makeup, jewelry, props, then spent hours editing more than just 5 images, he supplied a full set of high resolution copies as well as high quality prints to each and every model.

I myself provide ... wardrobe, jewelry, makeup, lunch, up to 10 fully edited images of choice ready for print, and yes I do retain all rights.

So ... from my point of view, TFP or TFCD is a more than fair trade for both parties concerned, provided they agree to it.

I know some models put a lot of hard work into their craft, as do makeup artists, but aren't we all getting something of value out it ?

Just my 2 cents worth

If your friend spent his own money putting shoots together, but he selects the wrong talent for the shoot on multiple occasions, doesn't the blame fall on him? This isn't an issue of who's time is more important. It's an issue of people whose idea of what's valuable to them not being on same page. To paraphrase a scene from an old House episode, “Like I always say, there's no "I" in team. There's a "me" though, if you jumble it up.”

Caitin   wrote:

What if the person you can clearly see isn't that educated in business? Would you educate them and then negotiate? Protect them from there ignorance?

I would, most wouldn't.
They'd see it as giving away their own money -- why should they (they'd say), because the other person doesn't know better? Business is business, and as business is done in America, each party is trying to get as much as they can, and holding onto as much as they can.

Greg Kolack wrote:

You do realize you need software to process raw images, right? If you don't have the software you can't even open them.

I have a feeling the OP is incorrectly using the terminology "raw" file.
To her, I think, "raw" means a straight-out-of-the-camera jpg. file, NOT the RAW file which, yes, is almost completely useless to a non photographer.

Dekilah wrote:
For me, TF is about more than just the photos, though great pictures are always the #1 goal. But aside from the pictures there are other things I see that I gain from TF:
- another good reference (hopefully ^_~)
- word of mouth recommendations to other photographers or creatives
- practice in posing, maybe in make-up and wardrobe styling too
- doing something I enjoy, and for me the act of modeling is a very enjoyable experience

But I do also hope and perhaps expect to get good photos (or at least one good photo) from the shoot, which is why I am selective in who I shoot TF with. I have only rarely been disappointed.

I think for newer models maybe the non-photo related things I mentioned above are just as important as the photos. Yes, they do need good photos, but as a new model you need as much practice and good word as you can get. Once you are established people begin to assume you know what you are doing and that you must be decent at it otherwise maybe you would not still be shooting, not always, but often true.

Excellent ... you just succinctly gave us the best answer:

1. What do you EXPECT to get out of the transaction: emotional, educational, as well as financial and other things.
2. Are those expectations reasonably attainable for YOU, today? (Factors are, your worth versus his worth, and what you can convince the other to agree to.)
3. Were those expectations met?

TF usually means "Trade" ... bartering ... no cash payment changes hands. Otherwise, the sky's the limit as far as other valuable assets of the final product, the photos, and other things.

255 West wrote:
I have a feeling the OP is incorrectly using the terminology "raw" file.
To her, I think, "raw" means a straight-out-of-the-camera jpg. file, NOT the RAW file which, yes, is almost completely useless to a non photographer.

No I mean RAW. When I shoot (my own photography) I shoot in Raw and JPG. I do not care for in camera JPG compression. I Like Raw files shot in flat style. Clean histogram.
That would be perfect. If you are a shooter that likes to over shoot by 2/3 stop or more please leave me some color to work with on the Histogram.
Oh yes and Please white balance to 18% grey if its not asking to much.

Caitin   wrote:
What does TF mean?
I see it as Trade For something, anything, everything.

For sure the trade should be something worth your time.

One thing that drives me crazy is when I get an offer for 5 edited photos with only rights for self promotion. So you get 5 picked and edited by photographer, 800x 533p 72dpi.

Really how much is that worth?

Well if your a new model needing port pics and the photographer isn't keeping 500 nude erotic images of you for it then its worth getting you started.

But if you have plenty of self promotion pics its worthless.

You have to see the value in the time. If the offer is 10 raw images from the shoot of your choice and all rights to those ten, then you might have something. For sure if they are of value on the market.

What do you think about this practice?

Certainly I think it is why when you 1st sign up on a site why you get pounded left and right for TF until you figure it out.

Do you think its taking advantage of a persons lack of experience?

I do try to take a balanced view and see things from a model's side. Mostly what I see, though, is models absurdly over-valuing their time in relation to a photographer's time.
There's no way I expect to trade with models who can go out on a daily basis and earn proper money - the kind that keeps a roof over her head and food on the table/. She already has a hard drive full of images that are better than anything I can deliver.
I am, however, driven half mad with exasperation at the attitude of models who have no clue at all. Not even a tiny little clue. They read posts such as yours and get high falutin' notions of what they are worth, and what they should be able to demand.
It never occurs to them that a photographer is giving up his time too. That a photographer cannot be expected to make promises that Henri Cartier Bresson couldn't keep. 'I only want to work with togs who can guarantee me great images for my port'. Right on. I only want to work with Russian models who are 5'll' and so beautiful I can barely tear my eyes away.
I can sit here wishing for the impossible, or I can down-size my ego into something manageable and get on with shooting models who aren't beautiful (nice looking yes, beautiful - no), who don't have gazelle-like grace and poise, but with whom I might, given a fair wind and a bit of luck, get one or two half decent images.

Sarah Lynn Modeling wrote:
1) I receive proofs of the photos to review within 2 weeks of the shoot.
2) From the photos, I get to choose 6 which can either be edited by the photographer or just sent to me as-is
3) The photographer sends me those 6 photos 2 weeks from the time I give him or her my choices. 
4)  The 6 images I receive are high resolution
5) I sign a release form basically saying that the photos won't be abused.

Now, many of you will probably say my above guidelines are ridiculous and that no photographer would agree to that.  But the thing is, photographers do agree to it.

Images by MR wrote:
I think your guidelines are ridiculous & I would never agree to them.

Just my thoughts ~ MR

QFT

I spend an average of 3 hours processing each image. I don't change them in egregious ways, but I clean everything that catches the eye that shouldn't. It's meticulous, skilled work.

Do you expect me to spend 18 hours on processing when you only spent ~4 hours on shooting? Not going to happen unless you pay my hourly rate.

I provide one image of my model's choice from each look. What do you need multiples for, to pad your port? Pick the best one and display it with confidence.

Caitin   wrote:
It would be like if he paid me 1000.00 for a days work and I turn around and give him 1000.00 for 5-10 raw photos with copyrights.
No difference we paid each other in what we offered.

Thing is, a lot of lawsuits have been filed over lost negatives (back in the film days, if a publisher failed to return a negative to a photographer, they'd be liable). The figure I hear most often is an award of $10,000 per negative, which seems to set a default value of $10k per image for the copyright (seeing as how the photographer no longer has the image to make copies of). This was over a decade ago, when film was still a big thing.

Nowadays, I hear photographers asking for $20,000 per image as a default. So, the 5-10 images to which you want the copyright are worth between 100 and 200 times your day rate of $1,000. Even with extraordinarily conservative valuation estimates of $1,000 per image, you're still asking for a value of 5-10 times what you contributed.

This is why you get so much blowback on this topic. If you're finding photographers who do agree to grant you copyright, they clearly don't value their work, and why on earth would you want to work with someone who doesn't place value in the thing they're making with you?

If your day rate is $1,000 and you want copyright to 10 images, you're basically saying, "i only value your work at $100 per image." I'm not sure how much more offensive you could possibly be. The standard licensing fees alone for an image to be published under the most modest of circumstances, from a stock agency, START higher than that. Even microstock sites charge more than that per image for some usage, and they license them out over and over and over.

Greg Kolack wrote:
But you need permission from the photographer to PS the images.

Caitin   wrote:
Your exactly right and new models need to know that.

exactly WRONG, and new models need to know THIS.

The united states doesn't recognize "moral rights" to a photograph unless it's printed for exhibition and printed as a single print or one of a numbered print run of 200 or fewer.

The licensee of a photograph is perfectly entitled to process images they've licensed (and that's what the provided images in a TFP arrangement are: licensed) to make them fit for purpose.

The licensee is *not* entitled to make changes sufficient to constitute a derivative work, but only a judge can really decide when that line has been crossed. Suffice to say that adding fairy wings is probably a derivative work, but tweaking contrast, balancing color, and cropping a bit probably isn't.

Anyone who can link me to a lawsuit, successful or otherwise, in which a copyright holder sued a publisher for reprocessing a photo they licensed, wins a gold star (i have never once awarded one of these gold stars. Nobody in the real world cares about re-editing work, because the U.S. doesn't protect photographs as artwork).

Mask Photo wrote:

Greg Kolack wrote:
But you need permission from the photographer to PS the images.

exactly WRONG, and new models need to know THIS.

The united states doesn't recognize "moral rights" to a photograph unless it's printed for exhibition and printed as a single print or one of a numbered print run of 200 or fewer.

The licensee of a photograph is perfectly entitled to process images they've licensed (and that's what the provided images in a TFP arrangement are: licensed) to make them fit for purpose.

The licensee is *not* entitled to make changes sufficient to constitute a derivative work, but only a judge can really decide when that line has been crossed. Suffice to say that adding fairy wings is probably a derivative work, but tweaking contrast, balancing color, and cropping a bit probably isn't.

Anyone who can link me to a lawsuit, successful or otherwise, in which a copyright holder sued a publisher for reprocessing a photo they licensed, wins a gold star (i have never once awarded one of these gold stars. Nobody in the real world cares about re-editing work, because the U.S. doesn't protect photographs as artwork).

The US doesn't exist in a vacuum you know - there are *other* countries out here that do exactly what you say the US doesn't (and I'm not even sure that your statement is correct BTW) - it's certainly the case in the UK and some other European countries.

Also if the Usage Agreement signed by the recipient of the images states the recipient is prohibited from altering the images in any way, including through retouching, cropping, removal of watermarks for any reason etc. then they cannot do it - it seems pretty straightforward to me.

Caitin   wrote:

I dream about Ken Shooting me!!

Ken Marcus is on Model Mayhem.  He will never give you the rights to his photos!