Patrick Walberg wrote:
Here in California, the laws are different.  I do not know about Oregon or Illinois, but unless you are a combination school/agency, you are not supposed to charge for such services.  I've sent potential models to Elite and Fords LA ... and they've never needed to put out money upfront.  The amount that this IMB is asking for seems excessive to me.  I've shot cards for models back in the 1990's for a local talent agency for which I was on their recommended photographers list ... but they could not require models to use an in house photographer.  If you are a licensed school/agency combination ... then you can require that the models use your in house photographer.  As a music talent manager, I have worked with talent agencies also ... and it would also be a conflict of interest fro me to do both.   Again, I don't know the laws of Oregon regarding this.

We've had problems in the past with "Pay to play" for bands in California having to dish out money to perform in clubs, and also the "Pay to audition" scam has been struck down too!  I suppose many of us would be happy to pay to shoot, correct?

Hi, Pat.   In general models are given suggestions for people to test with.   Sometimes its free.   Mostly not.   Models won't usually find what they need on sites like MM or omp.   Make-up, hair and images cost and the agency isn't usually paying.   In some cases they may but not that often.  Fashion and commercial images cost.   This ideal that agencies pay if they like you is wrong.   Large agencies like Factor or FORD get hundreds of models every month and paying for their shoots would be very expensive.   $500.00 is around the cost of a test with make-up and hair.   Models are expected too cover their own expenses.   Their are no FREE rides.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Hi, Pat.   In general models are given suggestions for people to test with.   Sometimes its free.   Mostly not.   Models won't usually find what they need on sites like MM or omp.   Make-up, hair and images cost and the agency isn't usually paying.   In some cases they may but not that often.  Fashion and commercial images cost.   This ideal that agencies pay if they like you is wrong.   Large agencies like Factor or FORD get hundreds of models every month and paying for their shoots would be very expensive.   $500.00 is around the cost of a test with make-up and hair.   Models are expected too cover their own expenses.   Their are no FREE rides.

Tony, I do very much agree with your statement " Should you invest with them is the question." on your previous comment.  A good agency typically will have a list of recommended photographers.  The model will then have the choice as to which photographer they wish to work with.   That's the way it should work for a reason ... as it's a conflict if an agency gets a kick back from the photographer, or even more so if the agency has their own in house photographer.  At least that is what I've been told in California.   

I used to be somewhat of a "watchdog" for the Labor Board that licensed talent agencies.  Those at the Labor board would tell me that they appreciate it because they had a heavy case load.  However I know that it's only gotten worse as budget cuts have all but gutted the Labor Board.  It's hard to get a real person on the phone, and "agencies" continue to cross the line as to what is legal or ethical ... many without getting caught.  So the need to being very careful about who you sign with or if "upfront money is wanted is an understatement! 

It seems that you think the agency/offer Wynne got is legit, and I don't think it is ... but that's just fine to disagree on.   We both agree that she should invest in her modeling images and in herself.  It's her decision to make.  She already is signed with someone for some sort of management, I believe.  In my opinion, she could do well to freelance.  Then what do I know?   I'm admittedly one who does not hire models through an agency.  Very few agencies I know of are legit, and the ones that are ... well I know better what I'm looking for than any of them do! 

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Tony, I do very much agree with your statement " Should you invest with them is the question." on your previous comment.  A good agency typically will have a list of recommended photographers.  The model will then have the choice as to which photographer they wish to work with.   That's the way it should work for a reason ... as it's a conflict if an agency gets a kick back from the photographer, or even more so if the agency has their own in house photographer.  At least that is what I've been told in California.   

I used to be somewhat of a "watchdog" for the Labor Board that licensed talent agencies.  Those at the Labor board would tell me that they appreciate it because they had a heavy case load.  However I know that it's only gotten worse as budget cuts have all but gutted the Labor Board.  It's hard to get a real person on the phone, and "agencies" continue to cross the line as to what is legal or ethical ... many without getting caught.  So the need to being very careful about who you sign with or if "upfront money is wanted is an understatement! 

It seems that you think the agency/offer Wynne got is legit, and I don't think it is ... but that's just fine to disagree on.   We both agree that she should invest in her modeling images and in herself.  It's her decision to make.  She already is signed with someone for some sort of management, I believe.  In my opinion, she could do well to freelance.  Then what do I know?   I'm admittedly one who does not hire models through an agency.  Very few agencies I know of are legit, and the ones that are ... well I know better what I'm looking for than any of them do! 

I have my doubts about them but I won't call someone or something a scam without more info.   Things like that email they sent her seems heavy handed and pushy.   My larger point is that models tend too think they can get the level of work they need from shooters from sites like MM.   That's not generally true.   Solid commercial and fashion photos tend to cost money.   Your comment about agencies is point on.   I know of one where the agent was working as a MUA for a recommended photographer.   This was a mid sized agency.   In real world terms I believe that all of this stuff is mostly crap.   Folks need to focus on school and things that have a actual benefit and invest in rent and a working car.   If the OP were 5'10" and in NY, Chicago or another large market I might feel differently.

This ideal that if a agency likes you will pay for everything is inaccurate.   Most have more then enough models and they just don't pay.   You will usually pay for photos, make-up, comp cards and web placement.   If they do pay its a type of loan and interest is attached.   Deductions are made from work you get and a model can quickly find herself thousands of dollars in debt before her first paid job.   http://dismagazine.com/discussion/16801 … of-models/   This is what often does happen.   I think people should focus on being real and most of this stuff isn't.   Its fairy tales and bs.   Modelling is a great job but a lousy career.   Something that is only about one's looks is not good for peoples self esteem.   Freelance may be a better ideal and option for many.   A fun hobby where you sometimes make money.

studio36uk wrote:
Tony,

If you read the agency comment in the OP you will observe [quoted below] that that is not the first or only correspondence. It takes it's harsh tone, it appears, after a previous exchange of e-mails which we have not seen. There is total frustration on the writer's part showing through. We are looking at the end of the conversation not the conversation as a whole.

Go back and read it again. Observe that the OP is only 17 and the writer makes this note in the message:

" ... I have spent a lot of my time explaining this to you and don’t seem to understanding what I am saying so going forward I will have to talk to an adult. ...

Yup, they apparently tried explaining to the OP but now don't want to continue talking to the OP, who is a minor, but, rather, want to discuss it with an adult, presumably a parent.

They are obviously not prepared to invest one additional minute or a single dollar of their own in living the OP's dream. And I don't blame them one bit. That is not their responsibility in the least, legally or morally.

Whatever the OP seems to think of them or the real and direct out-of-pocket costs associated with being a model, and in spite of that harsh message from the agency, as far as we're concerned on this one we definitely have to


"read between the lions"

Studio36

This

Erlinda wrote:
The "smaller" the city is to the fashion world the more likely you would have to pay for testing. When good photographers live in cities where the industry is small they charge the agencies to shoot their models. Most models do have to pay for testings but they don't realize it because the agency takes it out of their pay check. Models literally pay for everything! Travel, comp cards, testings etc. Nothing is free

Sure when you start out some agencies will have you shoot with okay photographers for TFP to see what you've got but when you start getting booked for jobs, they start getting you to shoot with photographers that charger for better pictures and those pictures help you book better well paid work.

I am not saying that this agency is the real thing, because no agent would waste their time writing you that crap email. But you should NEVER think you don't pay anything because you do.

Good luck

And this

Erlinda wrote:
The "smaller" the city is to the fashion world the more likely you would have to pay for testing. When good photographers live in cities where the industry is small they charge the agencies to shoot their models. Most models do have to pay for testings but they don't realize it because the agency takes it out of their pay check. Models literally pay for everything! Travel, comp cards, testings etc. Nothing is free

Sure when you start out some agencies will have you shoot with okay photographers for TFP to see what you've got but when you start getting booked for jobs, they start getting you to shoot with photographers that charger for better pictures and those pictures help you book better well paid work.

I am not saying that this agency is the real thing, because no agent would waste their time writing you that crap email. But you should NEVER think you don't pay anything because you do.

Good luck

There we go. Explains why the reasoning isn't correct, in a constructive way. Erlinda is awesome

studio36uk wrote:
Tony,

If you read the agency comment in the OP you will observe [quoted below] that that is not the first or only correspondence. It takes it's harsh tone, it appears, after a previous exchange of e-mails which we have not seen. There is total frustration on the writer's part showing through. We are looking at the end of the conversation not the conversation as a whole.

Go back and read it again. Observe that the OP is only 17 and the writer makes this note in the message:

" ... I have spent a lot of my time explaining this to you and don’t seem to understanding what I am saying so going forward I will have to talk to an adult. ...

Yup, they apparently tried explaining to the OP but now don't want to continue talking to the OP, who is a minor, but, rather, want to discuss it with an adult, presumably a parent.

They are obviously not prepared to invest one additional minute or a single dollar of their own in living the OP's dream. And I don't blame them one bit. That is not their responsibility in the least, legally or morally.

Whatever the OP seems to think of them or the real and direct out-of-pocket costs associated with being a model, and in spite of that harsh message from the agency, as far as we're concerned on this one we definitely have to


"read between the lions"

Studio36

I did see that.   To be candid I'm curious why they replied after the first email.   Going back and forth with people tends too be a waste of time.   Besides the OP is 17 as they noted.   My oft made point is that people on sites like this tend to spread misinformation.   I don't know what work the OP has done or will but her current portfolio does not have the kind of work a real world agency could have her take to castings.   So she has not been able to get what she needs via TF.   Agencies are not usually going too invest in developing models.   You are on your own to contact those shooters and MUA who provide tests, paid or TF.   

Smaller markets are even more problematic because solid shooters have less incentive to test for free.   I also get the impression that we are seeing the end of a series of emails.   Emails that frankly I wouldn't have sent to the OP.

Paige Morgan wrote:
There we go. Explains why the reasoning isn't correct, in a constructive way. Erlinda is awesome

awww thanks *blush*

Mystic Flow Studios wrote:
Good for you in having such good BS-spotting instincts at your age! Especially when the "adult" was behaving so abominably towards you.

I had a woman in her 40's with whom I'd blindly agreed to shoot a test last year write to ask me more recently whether I thought the $500+ that a local "agency" wanted to charge her to shoot and print a comp-card was too much money, with her never suspecting that it was a scam.

There was honestly no way this woman could have ever made it as a model, and though I was sure to phrase my response so as to disguise my opinion and spare her feelings, she never responded after I diplomatically and factually explained that it was entirely a scam that she should avoid.

In my previous portfolio-building experience with modeling agencies in Chicago, the agencies were always happy to have opportunities for their fledgling models to go out and shoot TFP with approved photographers so that the models could gain some experience while also building a portfolio. In fact, they would also send their very experienced European-market models to do TFP to get some fresh work for their portfolios. There was never a thought that they would have to pay for anything whatsoever, other than perhaps some printing costs for the comp-card.

You have a good head on your shoulders, and a pretty one too. Best of luck!

Who were those agencies?   When Elite was here they didn't do that nor did David and Lee or Mary Boncher. or Aria.   This ideal that models get FREE tests and never have too pay is a dangerous one because new models really believe that nonsense and think that any expense they have too pay means the agency is a scam.   The truth is many times models are expected to cover test shoot costs, make-up and hair.   Yes there are shooters who offer free tests but that's usually when models have a decent book to review.   Models are expected too pay for comp cards and web site placement.   There are no free rides.

I did look at your work here and I am curious.   Which agencies did you test with?   What models.   As for $500.00.   That isn't a lot of money.   Especially if that included comp cards.   We haven't been privy to all the emails from the OP and the person at that agency.   They asked too speak to a adult and it seems they  were a bit irritated with the OP.   Frankly, I wouldn't have spoken or written to her in the first place but this ideal that fashion or commercial models get usable work from tests tends to be wrong.   Good work costs money.   Good make-up costs money.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
The truth is many times models are expected to cover test shoot costs, make-up and hair.   Yes there are shooters who offer free tests but that's usually when models have a decent book to review.   Models are expected too pay for comp cards and web site placement. There are no free rides.

Try this one Tony.

Here in the UK there was a group, a loose association of industry pros, known as "Who Is Testing". I was a member there at one time. In my day it was the practice that the testing photographer and their usually ad hoc team [photographer + MUA &H and maybe a stylist] would work with each other and a model on a test shoot. That test might have been experimental or specifically directed to some more narrow purpose. It was then, and likely still is, the practice that if images, and these were actual prints, were furnished to the model and / or team members for their printed book, that fully colour corrected and spotted images prepared by a pro lab were supplied at some particular cost to whoever wanted the prints. That cost was typically UK£35 - UK£45 per print (~US$50 - ~US$65 per print)

So, yes the test session in itself was at no cost to any of the participants but that didn't mean for one minute that it was "free". These tests, and these kinds tests were for established industry professionals and models to produce images for their books, and were never and are NOT, NOT, NOT TF* [as we see it discussed on the Internet] or otherwise without costs involved.

If someone [model or otherwise] walked in to one of those photographer's shops with the kind of expectations, and self-entitlements, that we see around here with TF*, of shooting 3 or 4 or 5 looks and then getting 10's or dozens, or even hundreds, of images delivered on a CD/DVD they would be lucky not to be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Studio36

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Who were those agencies?   When Elite was here they didn't do that nor did David and Lee or Mary Boncher. or Aria.

I am speaking about during the mid-80's Tony (and I think that I remember your name from way back then, btw).

Actually, both "Elite" and "David & Lee" used to send me models to test with while I was building my own portfolio. The only model whose name I remember after all these years was Karen Lea, with whom I shot many times. It was always TFP work.

[BTW, I realize that my current MM portfolio doesn't look very professional (and of course I can't show you my old printed portfolios), but if you read the profile you'd realize that I now live in rural Hawaii, am primarily working on non-model artwork rather than fashion, and that these latter-day images were all casual test-shots done with amateur models at best.  I have been out of the fashion world for a very long time, and furthermore am now shooting without any studio-lighting, and without any having available any professional stylists or MUAs, in case you were wondering.]

Mystic Flow Studios wrote:

I am speaking about during the mid-80's Tony (and I think that I remember your name from way back then, btw).

Actually, both "Elite" and "David & Lee" used to send me models to test with while I was building my own portfolio. The only model whose name I remember after all these years was Karen Lea. It was always TFP work.

Was this when Marie Anderson was at Elite?   She's nice.   In general though free tests for agency girls is when they have comp cards and or good basic book.   Here's one of the comp card kings of Chicago:   http://www.duverneyphoto.com/DuVerney_P … _Body.html   Ask him about freebies.  Sure some 5'11' show stopper can get free but its just not all that common.   Good work with talented folks costs.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

Was this when Marie Anderson was at Elite?   She's nice.   In general though free tests for agency girls is when they have comp cards and or good basic book.

I think that maybe it was Marie.

In any case, this is a very different era photographically, now that we are in the time of traveling internet-only models and online copyright theft. I keep almost all my work off-line for now.

Mystic Flow Studios wrote:

I think that maybe it was Marie.

In any case, this is a very different era photographically, now that we are in the time of traveling internet-only models and online copyright theft. I keep almost all my work off-line for now.

Chuckarelei wrote:

Are you serious, my friend? Where have you been? BBB itself is a scam! Don't you know the methods on how they sell membership?

You beat me to it.

studio36uk wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that none of the posters above, and a vast majority of [in particular] models on this site, even know the actual legitimate purpose of an "agent" -OR- the legal relationship between "agents" and their principals [mostly models; but occasionally some other kinds of agency represented creatives]

Why is it that you all seem to think that an "agent" should waste even one minute of their time or invest even a single dollar of their money in YOUR dream, ESPECIALLY if you are new, untried, and utterly without any kind of track record in the industry?

Studio36

+1