Michael Pandolfo wrote:

I'm confused who is supposed to be the client in this scenario? The model? The photographer? The MUA?

I think the answer is, and why the issues, is that there was no client. It was a group of collaborators.

The OP is upset because she doesn't get what she needs out of TF* shoots (not just in one instance...but on a repeated basis).

If I'm being paid, I shoot what the client wants. If I'm planning a TF* shoot I shoot what I envisioned and coordinate the pieces to fit that. I'm not a greedy, heartless bastard but I'm not shooting for the MUA, though I certainly hope others involved can benefit from the shots.

But I'm not planning a shoot as a democratic process where we all vote on the types of images that I should be taking. I don't see a problem with suggesting some headshots, but the idea that "OK, now it's my turn...take shots for me!" isn't happening.

If someone wants that type of undivided and focused content, they're going to pay. Which, it seems the OP now understands.

Yep! 

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
I'm confused who is supposed to be the client in this scenario? The model? The photographer? The MUA?

I think the answer is, and why the issues, is that there was no client. It was a group of collaborators.

The OP is upset because she doesn't get what she needs out of TF* shoots (not just in one instance...but on a repeated basis).

If I'm being paid, I shoot what the client wants. If I'm planning a TF* shoot I shoot what I envisioned and coordinate the pieces to fit that. I'm not a greedy, heartless bastard but I'm not shooting for the MUA, though I certainly hope others involved can benefit from the shots.

But I'm not planning a shoot as a democratic process where we all vote on the types of images that I should be taking. I don't see a problem with suggesting some headshots, but the idea that "OK, now it's my turn...take shots for me!" isn't happening.

If someone wants that type of undivided and focused content, they're going to pay. Which, it seems the OP now understands.

You're correct, my post would have been clearer if I'd have said "as one of a group of collaborators" instead of "client". But,  unlike you, I'm happy for my collaborators to reap their requested rewards on the project too and am happy for them to bring it up during the shoot, if it isn't happening. I'm especially pleased if I can get an MUA as TF.

MUAs at TF has always been most difficult for me to procure out of all professions involved, so I work in whatever they want within reason, in hopes they might TF again and again. Some do, some don't.

Sourcelight Photography wrote:
Don't guess I understand your understanding of what a "Trade For" shoot means.  You contribute, the model contributes, the MUA contributes... and yet you seem to think the MUA's expectations of a couple of close-ups taken specifically to illustrate his/her work in a manner that might actually be useful for the portfolio are unreasonable.

Seems unreasonable.  Usually takes me about 1 minute to grab a close-up for the MUA.

Because you're using the term "TF*" to dictate the terms and content of the shoot. TF* has nothing to do with content and there isn't some inherent guideline that "all parties are entering into a collaboration where all parties have equal say in the content."

TF is simply a form of compensation. The only assumed meaning of TF* is that the compensation will be with images provided.

If the MUA wants certain shots, that's certainly a reasonable request, and would be worked out prior to the shoot...just as it would be with the model or any client.  I never claimed the request was unreasonable. Just the expectation of what a TF* constitutes as far as content.

The problem is that people (often the MUA) assume that because it's a TF* shoot it's some free-for-all where everyone gets what they want because "it's my shoot too!" That's simply not the case.

There is no expectation that the OP is going to get the shots she wants just because it's a TF* shoot. The only time that assumption can be made is when the MUA becomes the client and pays the photographer, like a designer would for a look book. If you're the paying client you can dictate the terms.

Star wrote:

and that is the difference between shooting professionally and shooting as a hobby. A professional photographer is shooting with a large team trying to get the best image possible, period. If it is beauty it is beauty, if it is fashion it is fashion, lifestyle, you get it.

Sometimes there is time to take a well crafted headshot, sometimes there isn't. Taking a close-up of the face isn't necessarily going to work if the lighting and concept are not good for beauty shots.

That said, when setting up a test everyone knows what i am planning to shoot and they get on board if they are interested

With all due respect, I don't think this has anything to do with defining the difference between professional and hobbyist photography.  I've been shooting for pay for 30 years, and I fully understand what's involved in a formal test shoot, but I wasn't discussing "testing"; I was talking about "trade" shoots.  If a MUA donates his/her time on a shoot where nobody's getting paid, I'm going to make the effort to get at least a couple of shots that illustrate his/her contribution(s).  As you say, a CU taken in lighting that wasn't designed for a CU might not be a perfect representation, but I'll leave that consideration to the MUA.  I'm not talking about staging a full shoot for the MUA that takes up equal time to the concept we're all meeting for; I'm talking about simply moving in close so that the make-up can actually be seen.

Now if you want to assert (though I won't believe it) that PROFESSIONAL photographers NEVER shoot anything for trade, we might have some room for discussion.  If you never do trades, good for you.  Occasionally I do them, and I'm not likely to be persuaded by a snide dig at my professionalism that taking an extra two minutes to snap a shot for the MUA's portfolio is inappropriate (and certainly not impossible) on a TRADE session.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Because you're using the term "TF*" to dictate the terms and content of the shoot. TF* has nothing to do with content and there isn't some inherent guideline that "all parties are entering into a collaboration where all parties have equal say in the content."

Not what I meant, nor what I think the OP WOULD have meant had she stated her case a bit less histrionically.  Underneath the rant, I took the OP's concern to be that, in a TRADE collaboration where she's contributing her time and skills in exchange for some sort of non-monetary compensation, that she simply would like that compensation to include at least one shot that features the make-up large enough to show HER contribution.  I don't think that necessarily translates to having "equal say in the content."

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
TF is simply a form of compensation. The only assumed meaning of TF* is that the compensation will be with images provided.

Mmm, maybe.  I don't necessarily agree that the "only assumed meaning of TF* is that the compensation will be with images provided."  Look around this site's archives as well as at a few of the more professional models' portfolio comments for a variety of interesting discussions suggesting that there are lots of things besides images that can be traded in a TF collaboration.  Moreover, there's a lot of squishiness inherent in the "images provided" definition.  Clearly, the OP feels that her definition differs from that of the photographers she's worked with in these circumstances.  Rather than suggesting that the OP simply doesn't understand some universal definition that you're comfortable with, I'd suggest better communication by all parties to arrive at a definition they CAN agree on.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
If the MUA wants certain shots, that's certainly a reasonable request, and would be worked out prior to the shoot...just as it would be with the model or any client.  I never claimed the request was unreasonable. Just the expectation of what a TF* constitutes as far as content.

The problem is that people (often the MUA) assume that because it's a TF* shoot it's some free-for-all where everyone gets what they want because "it's my shoot too!" That's simply not the case.

I don't disagree with the second paragraph, IF that's what the MUA is assuming, but it has never been my experience that "people ... assume that because it's a TF* shoot it's some free-for-all where everyone gets what they want."  Again, I'm not talking about (nor has any TF MUA ever approached me about) staging a separate shoot for the MUA; they'd just like a functional CU that actually shows the MUA's work.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
There is no expectation that the OP is going to get the shots she wants just because it's a TF* shoot.

Again, I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation, with the caveat that in this case you're very broadly defining the "shots she wants" as "some free-for-all where everyone gets what they want."  I hardly see grabbing a CU or two under the existing lighting as a free-for-all, and in any event, as you less dictatorially point out before this paragraph, "If the MUA wants certain shots, that's certainly a reasonable request, and would be worked out prior to the shoot."  I agree, which is why I don't usually have riots on my shoots.

Thanks for the exchange.

Mary wrote:
If you are working with an awesome team, you don't need "head shots"  It's not the makeup you really need to show...it's the team work and quality of photo that will impress people looking at your book. You need to show that quality people work with you....

+1

For me, a MUA who asks for "headshots" or "face shots" of her makeup will probably not be a MUA I use. I need people who are committed to the entirety of the project, not just getting a few pretty pictures of their own specific bit of work.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Camerosity wrote:
The fact is, there's an endless supply of models on MM (some of whom will drive hundreds of miles for a trade shoot) - but not of MUA's. Anyone who likes to involve MUA's in their trade shoots would do well to keep them happy.

My thoughts as well...if you are lucky enough to get a good MUA/H person for trade, it's worth your while to keep them happy and be considerate.  I saw an online class by fashion photographer Matthew Jordan Smith and he often found members for his paid teams this way.

He did mention that for a model test for an agency, the agency wanted fairly simple clean makeup and straighforward shots.  So he would take those shots first and then if the MUA/H and styling team wanted to go crazy and get artistic then they would do this afterwards as these shots were more useful for their own portfolios than the agency.

BlueMoonPics wrote:
I hired an MUA for a lifestyle stock shoot.  The lighting was not set up for beauty but the MUA wanted some headshots.  During a break in the shoot.  I shot a bunch of close up headshots for her portfolio.  She is happy.

Just ask the photographer before and during the shoot to please do a few close up head shots for you.  Maybe you just need to remind them so they don't forget.  I don't think they would say no.

Here's a question though - most 'beauty' shots require fairly refined retouching. I assume if this is for a trade then standard retouching should suffice and the MUA could have it professionally retouched if he or she wanted it to be 'magazine' quality.

Toto Photo wrote:
I doubt that any photographer would deliberately avoid shooting what a client wants.

Thanks for phrasing it this way. Too many photogs neglect to remember that on a TFP shoot, the entire crew is the client. The model needs pics they can use. The MUAH needs pics they can use. Even the grip/VAL needs something they can stick on their facebook page later.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

+1

For me, a MUA who asks for "headshots" or "face shots" of her makeup will probably not be a MUA I use. I need people who are committed to the entirety of the project, not just getting a few pretty pictures of their own specific bit of work.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Then I'm guessing that you wouldn't have responded to the MUA's casting call, for a shoot that she organized for the specific purpose of getting headshots.

Right, Stefano?

Camerosity wrote:
Then I'm guessing that you wouldn't have responded to the MUA's casting call, for a shoot that she organized for the specific purpose of getting headshots.

Right, Stefano?

Indeed not.

I'm certainly not suggesting the OP's "photographer" was in the right by not shooting any headshots if that's what the shoot was supposed to be about.

I was simply responding to the general point about MUAs who ask for headshots.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Revprint wrote:
I have a brilliant idea! I know it may seem incredible but you can hire a professional photographer and they will shoot exactly what you want.

Your make up work is wonderful and very detailed. Just imagine how wonderful and professional you will look to your customers and how impressed they will be with the images.

Grow up, hire a photographer to capture your wonderful work, DONT BE CHEAP! IT SHOWS!

Revprint wrote:
I have a brilliant idea! I know it may seem incredible but you can hire a professional photographer and they will shoot exactly what you want.

Your make up work is wonderful and very detailed. Just imagine how wonderful and professional you will look to your customers and how impressed they will be with the images.

Grow up, hire a photographer to capture your wonderful work, DONT BE CHEAP! IT SHOWS!

I totally agree. I am not an MAU but i can say that i get this problem too. I used to only to tfcd, but the pics NEVER came out the way I wanted it. I would have my pose perfect and bam, the tog is adjusting something. I recently started paying professional guys for work and i get tons more people interested in working with me over night. I get the shots I want on my port.  Paying professionals pays off.

Pinch of Pretty MUA wrote:
I am a MUA you know!!!! I am so sick of working with some photographers, especially if it is a TFP project and you give me NOTHING that will aid my portfolio. Out of the hundreds of photos that they take, why are their two headshots if any.

Did you never think to ask the photographer at the time? In future it might be an idea to ask to see the images on the camera's screen as the shoot progresses, and to ask for anything that is missing.

allison mindy wrote:
What did you agree on BEFORE the shoot? You can't be pissed off at someone for not doing something that you guys never talked about.

I agree with this 100%
If you don't specify exactly what you want either electronically (so you can print it out) or through hand written contracts/messages, there's no point to getting angry at someone for something you did not specify prior. It's like getting mad at your kid for putting the plates on right, rather than the left side when all you said was "please put the plates down on the table" =/

Head shots, while they are nice, shouldn't be something you solely rely on.

+1

For me, a MUA who asks for "headshots" or "face shots" of her makeup will probably not be a MUA I use. I need people who are committed to the entirety of the project, not just getting a few pretty pictures of their own specific bit of work.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

This also +1

Star wrote:
great. Now you can save your money and put together a reasonable budget (around $1200 for model and photographer) and pay someone to help you create a commercially viable portfolio

Don't do that! If you can't find someone to shoot beauty it means yore not ready to shoot beauty yet. When your work is ready you'll find a beauty photog. These things need time to develop, take the fashion photos which aren't close up and use then in a fashion section of your book. Fashion sections are useful, you need more than just close ups as a mua. Look on jedroot.com and see how many of them don't even have beauty sections. Take it slow, there's no rush. And never listen to someone bitter who trolls online preying on innocent make up artists. It's disgusting really.

Mary wrote:
If you are working with an awesome team, you don't need "head shots"  It's not the makeup you really need to show...it's the team work and quality of photo that will impress people looking at your book. You need to show that quality people work with you....

Artists need to remember....It's  not about the makeup. If you want to impress a potential client, just show them great images with clean makeup and a great team.  Thats my 2 cents...

+1

People want to do business where business is being done.  You won't get hired because someone saw "that" headshot in your portfolio, you'll get hired because they saw you worked on certain projects and with certain people and are a part of quality work.

That's not to say you don't need headshots, but they shouldn't be the bulk of your portfolio.  Also, you state that you want a bunch of headshots from a shoot... that's fine if that's what you want, but I go into shoots with the goal of getting one picture from it.  I've got no use for the extras, and honestly only do the multiple looks in search of that one picture... not to get 5 different looks.

Pinch of Pretty MUA wrote:
Okay. Im very annoyed at this point. Please tell me if I am wrong, or if I could even use these type of shots for my port?

Why not ask the photographer or team to shoot a headshot for you? Most if not all of us would be more than happy to do that, just keep in mind if the idea or theme doesn't call specifically for a headshot then we may not have the state of mind to shoot one for you.

I'm also not saying this should be a new setup or anything for headshots, or that it should be very involved, but in a studio it's usually not a big deal to have someone stand in front of a light to make a quick and decent headshot.


Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
+1

For me, a MUA who asks for "headshots" or "face shots" of her makeup will probably not be a MUA I use. I need people who are committed to the entirety of the project, not just getting a few pretty pictures of their own specific bit of work.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

-1

These two images were just for the makeup artist, I didn't need to change the lighting, and they were done with a total of 4 shots. Retouching didn't take all that long, and the makeup artist and hair stylist were very happy.









Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Mask Photo wrote:

Thanks for phrasing it this way. Too many photogs neglect to remember that on a TFP shoot, the entire crew is the client. The model needs pics they can use. The MUAH needs pics they can use. Even the grip/VAL needs something they can stick on their facebook page later.

no, they are not. The crew are people who love my work and want it in their portfolio as payment for being a part of my work. They are not my clients. Clients pay me.

MA YE wrote:

Don't do that! If you can't find someone to shoot beauty it means yore not ready to shoot beauty yet. When your work is ready you'll find a beauty photog. These things need time to develop, take the fashion photos which aren't close up and use then in a fashion section of your book. Fashion sections are useful, you need more than just close ups as a mua. Look on jedroot.com and see how many of them don't even have beauty sections. Take it slow, there's no rush. And never listen to someone bitter who trolls online preying on innocent make up artists. It's disgusting really.

A god photographer can guide the process. Paying for a quality model with great skin, teeth and hair will be wonders for your portfolio. No matter how good the make-up, if it isn't on the right type of model is is worse than useless in your portfolio. If the photograph is poorly lit, then it is useless for your portfolio.

A lot of us do work for student make-up artists that help them get to place where they can do quality tests, and from there do paying work.

Most agencies will not approve someone to do make-up on their girls unless they already have agency girls in their portfolios.

Mary wrote:
If you are working with an awesome team, you don't need "head shots"  It's not the makeup you really need to show...it's the team work and quality of photo that will impress people looking at your book. You need to show that quality people work with you....

Artists need to remember....It's  not about the makeup. If you want to impress a potential client, just show them great images with clean makeup and a great team.  Thats my 2 cents...

This is absolutely true. Most of the agency rep'd MUAs that I work with or have worked with do not have much in the way of "headshots" in their book. If anything, the bookers seem to shy away from including very much in that regard. They have tons of very high end clean looks and editorials, along with tearsheets. A person can tell if the makeup is good by the people the MUA works with. If the final product is high end, the implication is that everyone involved is capable of high end work.