Herman Surkis wrote:
Damn first you piss me off, and then later I have to pretty much agree with you.

I do not shoot with anybody, just to take a picture. Why would it be any different for the models.

And the motivation for some may be to just be in front of the camera. Just because it is not for you (and fair enough), do not generalize to all. And you did love, re-read your first sentence.

And some models (model = someone who poses for an artist) will pose for anybody. Just as some photographers will photograph anybody who gets in front of the lens.

The rest is YOUR point of view and is what I was looking for.
So to get Eliza to TF, just come up with an incredible idea, or offer to fly her to Victoria. See pretty simple. And for some pancakes would be enough.

"...not necessarily be..."
What part of 'not necessarily' don't you follow?

I never said it isn't some models motivation. But it is demonstrable that that isn't the main motivation and if it was paid assignment views wouldn't outnumber tf views by 25/1.

Do you know, personally I never even considered that its enjoyable just to be in front of a camera. On the contrary; there's a lot to overcome confidence wise to do it and that part I don't like. I'm many things, but a performer is not one of them.

But I produced EVIDENCE in the form of data to show in your other thread, what motivates models here. In a way, I wish it wasn't so. Because in fact I will do amazing creative projects with the right people tf. Just if I say I won't I discourage the caution tape 'concepts'. Other times the same photographer will have to pay me because they have a third party or I don't like the project in terms of usefulness of images to me but hey if there's ten grands worth of beautiful designer clothes for editorial I won't require much pay.

Its true many new models, mua's , and even photographers don't see the advantage of editorial (which is either tf or lower pay) and that's their loss.

I haven't worked for pancakes. Negotiations stalled at the stage of filled with smoked salmon and accompanied by champagne I think

As for flying to Victoria, yes that's reasonable. No chance till my thesis is in though. So I'd work for less renumeration for you than I did for a top fashion house you see? But seriously. I'd say if you want to shoot a particular concept and it sounded ok to me, I'd say up the ante and let's get some stallar wardrobe and creative team, down even to the best retoucher, let's this published or make a major exhibition image. That makes it more ambitious, more exciting, and more fun.

I cant promise you every model here would be more interested in that as the evidence suggests they look at the money. But SOME would be more likely to consider it. And a little pay on top like travel expenses would get it more views in the paid assignments castings.

My point is people are willing to pay us to do the job. And we can still enjoy it but just shooting in front of a camera, as in anyone's camera, is seldom motivation enough in terms of fun.

Babybean wrote:
Yup. My city is one where TF* is almost the only thing available.

Can't afford to quit the job for what can only be a hobby here

Well, come "hobby" down this way  .  .  . 

SOS

sospix wrote:

Well, come "hobby" down this way  .  .  . 

SOS

Apparently the market that likes me is the southern US.... I should move!

Babybean wrote:

Apparently the market that likes me is the southern US.... I should move!

I think you'll like the winters much better Miss B  .  .  . 

SOS

Tony Lawrence wrote:
A few days ago I heard from a past model.   She actually loves to be shot and is focused on the image rather then money.   That isn't to say what other models should or should not do or that seeking only paid work is right or wrong.   I notice so many models who claim to love modeling who say they live for fashion rarely if ever shoot unless paid.    Their profiles here are dormant.   While that doesn't mean they aren't shooting when I've asked several for updated work they only have selfies to send.   I love photography of models.   I've shot models I didn't think I could use their images.   I did all this for free.   That said I do understand models who only want to be paid and won't consider shooting without cash.   I try too avoid those types.   

My best liked work and models I've truly enjoyed shooting were those who very often sought me out and LOVED to shoot.   They would buy new dresses and offer ideals.   One of my favorites was a Texas model featured in my profile here.    My experience has been that models who actually love to model do so.   Those who focus on paid work exclusively  tend not too.   In my opinion photographers looking to improve and update should seek out models with a passion for their art rather then your wallet.   When the first question is; how much rather then what is the ideal.   Move on.

...

Well said. I don't give a tinker's winkie about the 789,076 models that aren't interested in shooting with me. Just the 60-80 that are.

Babybean wrote:

Apparently the market that likes me is the southern US.... I should move!

I used to do pretty well in the deep south, and Texas.

Rural and suburban areas are far more profitable for me, than major cities.

Koryn wrote:

I used to do pretty well in the deep south, and Texas.

Rural and suburban areas are far more profitable for me, than major cities.

Why???

Koryn wrote:

I used to do pretty well in the deep south, and Texas.

Rural and suburban areas are far more profitable for me, than major cities.

Texas is where I got my first set of flakes. I use to drive down there once a month. Have shoots booked all weekend, but 3/5 flaked out. Never failed...

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Its true many new models, mua's , and even photographers don't see the advantage of editorial (which is either tf or lower pay) and that's their loss.

I wasn't going to enter this forum again but after reading 'editorial which is either tf..' this is misinformation of a big way ' editorial = tf '.
It's embarrassing reading this in a supposedly professional forum.
Any model who is offered editorial and says ' is this pay or tf'  please don't you'll just embarrass yourself.
Maybe what phrases are used on internet modeling should stay on internet modeling.

As for editorial pay it's relative the photographer, stylist ect have their day rate accordingly set.


As the model is showing of/posing the designers wardrobe then the opportunity is in the designer using the same model for a fashion catwalk show.

Nude fashion noooooooo unless your an naturist. Keep terms like that on model sites.

WIP wrote:
I wasn't going to enter this forum again but after reading 'editorial which is either tf..' this is misinformation of a big way ' editorial = tf '.
It's embarrassing reading this in a supposedly professional forum.
Any model who is offered editorial and says ' is this pay or tf'  please don't you'll just embarrass yourself.
Maybe what phrases are used on internet modeling should stay on internet modeling.

As for editorial pay it's relative the photographer, stylist ect have their day rate accordingly set.


As the model is showing of/posing the designers wardrobe then the opportunity is in the designer using the same model for a fashion catwalk show.

Nude fashion noooooooo unless your an naturist. Keep terms like that on model sites.

I only use it in the context of MM. I never even heard the phrase 'TF' outside this forum as I HAVE PUBLICLY STATED BEFORE. So I am using a term that you lot use. So you are correct. As I say I am just using it in the context of MM . One gets editorial rates which are low, or one does it for no pay to get a tear. Its not the terminology which is important - as I said I never heard it off MM - but what happens. It is often expected that it will be in a model's interest to do the shoot free or for low pay or expenses for the tear.

And there is NO refuting that everybody will drop their rates or work for nothing for an editorial tear. They aren't going to do that if the photographer gets paid for a third party who expects to pay model too; and they are only going to 'test' (a term used outside net modelling) with agency approved photographers unless they really like their work. It isn't something that can be expected by the vast majority of photographers , or done much by models that aren't with agencies.

Magazines can pay a rate it wishes to the photographer and team, or it can approach you and ask your rate, or it can be submitted without pay at all, (often for eg in exchange for full page ads for the photographer in a couple of cases I know though not been part of) or some magazines even now charge YOU to place editorials I saw reported here recently! So there's no set way of doing it; varies from photographer to photographer, magazine to magazine.

As for the model, especially in terms of journeyman modelling for lifestyle magazines, the advantage is in having a tear. Which shows her off in print to thousands of readers. Including other third parties, other photographers, other boutiques hence she becomes better known. Its also good for approaching agencies for those who want to do that. Yes, you can also get to do fashion shows. Often however its the other way around. You do the runway shows then the designer wants to do a shoot because she likes working with you and thinks you represent an appropriate image for her target audience. So designers choose us often as well as photographers. Indeed, often its the model's body of work that cuts the clout with a press office or designer or boutique. Runway at local level doesn't pay well either. Ok, but I have got better pay for editorials. That is different of course at fashion house level which I have also done runway for. I didn't do editorial for them though.

Of course you will know that I know what I am talking about if you actually look at the local press and magazines in your area and see the editorials I have done. I am regularly in them as you well know. So that should tell you I know just a little about it. There you go there's me on the front of probably the best regional lifestyle title in the country and six pages inside pages 182-187
http://edition.pagesuite-professional.c … 94c1c50aff
If you can be bothered to look you will also see clothing from a luxury lingerie company, and headwear that was in  Harpers just before, and the red boots I am wearing were in Vogue just before. I modelled for several before the editorials not vice versa.

So I guess I didn't embarrass myself. I did all my editorials for what I was offered. And it can be interesting. As I say, I never hear the tf expression in real life. But I have done one or two without pay just expenses. A model expecting full day rate would be unlikely to get it as even agencies drop their rates for editorial.

So your snide accusations of misinformation are without grounding outside of a term that I've never hear off MM anyway and only use because you guys do. Trade for Print I've heard, but that's for QUALITY HARD PORTFOLIO PRINTED IMAGES. Not a cd of 100kb jpegs that we are asked not to use.

The important thing here, is if you want to get a model to shoot for lower fee or free, she is more likely to do it if there is an editorial in the offing. And its going to be fun because of the size of the team and the clothing and locations etc. How much fun do you think we had in that Elizabethan hotel with drinks bouncing on four poster beds and lots of lovely food and riding in a Morgan car wearing amazing clothes?



I never mentioned fashion nude. So what that's about Ive no idea. Also never heard it in real life. But there is a long history of it re Vogue. I'm guessing you are getting at someone else here, but I am guessing this is what they mean by the term.

http://thelibertineezine.com/2012/11/10 … nter-2012/


You KNOW I am not an 'internet model'. I practiced my modelling full time professional as part of a primary market in London for three years with the vast majority of my work not coming form the internet. So the purpose of your post was just a fallacious and snide dig as usual. Another internet phenomena I may add because I've never had to work with snidey photographers who put down models all the time in real life.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

I only use it in the context of MM. I never even heard the phrase 'TF' outside this forum as I HAVE PUBLICLY STATED BEFORE. So I am using a term that you lot use. So you are correct. As I say I am just using it in the context of MM . One gets editorial rates which are low, or one does it for no pay to get a tear. Its not the terminology which is important - as I said I never heard it off MM - but what happens. It is often expected that it will be in a model's interest to do the shoot free or for low pay or expenses for the tear.

And there is NO refuting that everybody will drop their rates or work for nothing for an editorial tear. They aren't going to do that if the photographer gets paid for a third party who expects to pay model too; and they are only going to 'test' (a term used outside net modelling) with agency approved photographers unless they really like their work. It isn't something that can be expected by the vast majority of photographers , or done much by models that aren't with agencies.

Magazines can pay a rate it wishes to the photographer and team, or it can approach you and ask your rate, or it can be submitted without pay at all, (often for eg in exchange for full page ads for the photographer in a couple of cases I know though not been part of) or some magazines even now charge YOU to place editorials I saw reported here recently! So there's no set way of doing it; varies from photographer to photographer, magazine to magazine.

As for the model, especially in terms of journeyman modelling for lifestyle magazines, the advantage is in having a tear. Which shows her off in print to thousands of readers. Including other third parties, other photographers, other boutiques hence she becomes better known. Its also good for approaching agencies for those who want to do that. Yes, you can also get to do fashion shows. Often however its the other way around. You do the runway shows then the designer wants to do a shoot because she likes working with you and thinks you represent an appropriate image for her target audience. So designers choose us often as well as photographers. Indeed, often its the model's body of work that cuts the clout with a press office or designer or boutique. Runway at local level doesn't pay well either. Ok, but I have got better pay for editorials. That is different of course at fashion house level which I have also done runway for. I didn't do editorial for them though.

Of course you will know that I know what I am talking about if you actually look at the local press and magazines in your area and see the editorials I have done. I am regularly in them as you well know. So that should tell you I know just a little about it. There you go there's me on the front of probably the best regional lifestyle title in the country and six pages inside pages 182-187
http://edition.pagesuite-professional.c … 94c1c50aff
If you can be bothered to look you will also see clothing from a luxury lingerie company, and headwear that was in  Harpers just before, and the red boots I am wearing were in Vogue just before. I modelled for several before the editorials not vice versa.

So I guess I didn't embarrass myself. I did all my editorials for what I was offered. And it can be interesting. As I say, I never hear the tf expression in real life. But I have done one or two without pay just expenses. A model expecting full day rate would be unlikely to get it as even agencies drop their rates for editorial.

So your snide accusations of misinformation are without grounding outside of a term that I've never hear off MM anyway and only use because you guys do. Trade for Print I've heard, but that's for QUALITY HARD PORTFOLIO PRINTED IMAGES. Not a cd of 100kb jpegs that we are asked not to use.

The important thing here, is if you want to get a model to shoot for lower fee or free, she is more likely to do it if there is an editorial in the offing. And its going to be fun because of the size of the team and the clothing and locations etc. How much fun do you think we had in that Elizabethan hotel with drinks bouncing on four poster beds and lots of lovely food and riding in a Morgan car wearing amazing clothes?



I never mentioned fashion nude. So what that's about Ive no idea. Also never heard it in real life. But there is a long history of it re Vogue. I'm guessing you are getting at someone else here, but I am guessing this is what they mean by the term.

http://thelibertineezine.com/2012/11/10 … nter-2012/


You KNOW I am not an 'internet model'. I practiced my modelling full time professional as part of a primary market in London for three years with the vast majority of my work not coming form the internet. So the purpose of your post was just a fallacious and snide dig as usual. Another internet phenomena I may add because I've never had to work with snidey photographers who put down models all the time in real life.

How do you get time to write these missives?

WIP wrote:
Cotswold Life; circulation about 9,000 subscribers not sure what secondary reading is. 13 issues, 6 issues for £6.00. Only had a brief look at their media pack.
Advertising revenue would take a bit more to calculate but that probably goes into paying staff/print and distribution.

If they pay for editorial it would be very little (lunch) if at all. 1-2 tears ok just to put on a C.V. book.
Very conservative so no Vogue style editorial type of pic's.

No nudes you mean?


As for advertising and revenue, try Mosaic Experian's market research wing

49% of readers bought a product or service
51% contacted a local company
84% visted a hotel or restaurant.

Male female ratio is 62%-38%
The Cotswolds also is a wealthy area. The average reader earns £53 000 a year. One magazine is generally read by an average of 5 people. So that's almost 50 000 in the print alone. Plus the digital readers.

The columnists include some weighty individuals, Its a very nice magazine and believe me I know one when I see it as do the discerning readership and the advertisers. So your attempt to pass it off as an insignificant mag is truly desperate.
Its not Vogue, and its not an elite arty fashion mag with 2000 readers, or an online mage. And there's nothing wrong with those either. But it is an Archant mag and not an insfignificant little lifetsyle mag that's given away.

I also happen to know the reaction that some of the designers had to those editorials and they were extremely positive. Editorial is always the best advertising as its more likely to be 'read' than ads. I also happen to know some of the coffee tables it sits on and you wouldn't want better. Its sold from Monmouthshire to Oxfordshire to Bath to Stratford, in all good magazine stores.

They don't pay a great deal for editorial. Neither do most magazines. But as I said, editorial, while it has massive benefits in other ways, is also INSANELY fun to do. And that is what this is about isn't it? FUN? Yes its fun to model stuff that was in Vogue and Harpers a month or two before. What you are turning your nose up at a magazine because its not Vogue and doesn't pay fortunes? And having a go at models for being mercenary? Anyway, have a LOOK at some of the advertisers in it before you make silly claims.  Its there online in the link. And their advertising rates. Suddenly its all about money to you? Put it this way we had no problem getting the wardrobe for the shoot once it was commissioned by Cotswold Life.

Btw my avatar is from it. So not TOO conservative then.

My point in raising editorial is most models love to do it. Even for small magazines. I'd do it for an online mag if I got to have fun with a great creative team and nice photographer at a cool location. I have done. I don't require pay for editorial. I do for playing dress up with a photographer and no creative or wardrobe just for his port when I have a drawer full of similar cds. But the irony is the expenses for editorial can be better than some photographers are willing to pay. Sometimes we get wardrobe too.

So what I am saying is, if you are planning an editorial. you are more likely to get a model to shoot with you for lower or no fees. BECAUSE ITS FUN. We enjoy dressing in gorgeous clothes and playing at nice locations with awesome props and it ends up in a magazine!

And another thing. The vast majority of models wont get into Vogue even when they are with London fashion agencies. The raft of lifestyle magazines either around the country (every major city has one) and county or multiple county like this one, or magazines with niche interest be it fitness, wellbeing, or Vintage Life and the like, provide journeymen models with lots of exposure and as a result work from advertisers therein. A decent mag ad for a boutique can pay £400 to the model and £800 to the photographer, and the same to place. So its not mickey mouse stuff as there's a ton of it and its what many of us do. I don't get much these days, but what I get comes from those editorials. Its the editorial that puts us in line for those gigs whether we are with local agencies or freelancing.  We aren't aiming at Vogue. This is MM. Its journeyman modelling and thousands of us are in that game. Sneer at it all you like it helps pay the bills and its fun. For photographers too its fun and a shop window. You'd be very unlucky not to get knock on work from it via advertisers or readers. They are extremely good with listing credits, stockists etc. prominently . You don't have to go to the back of the mag to find it.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

No nudes you mean?


As for advertising and revenue, try Mosaic Experian's market research wing

49% of readers bought a product or service
51% contacted a local company
84% visted a hotel or restaurant.

Male female ratio is 62%-38%
The Cotswolds also is a wealthy area. The average reader earns £53 000 a year. One magazine is generally read by an average of 5 people. So that's almost 50 000 in the print alone. Plus the digital readers.

The columnists include some weighty individuals, Its a very nice magazine and believe me I know one when I see it as do the discerning readership and the advertisers. So your attempt to pass it off as an insignificant mag is truly poor.
Its not Vogue, and its not an elite arty fashion mag with 2000 readers, or an online mage. And there's nothing wrong with those either. But it is an Archant mag and not an insfignificant little lifetsyle mag that's given away.

I also happen to know the reaction that some of the designers had to those editorials and they were extremely positive. Editorial is always the best advertising as its more likely to be 'read' than ads. I also happen to know some of the coffee tables it sits on and you wouldn't want better. Its sold from Monmouthshire to Oxfordshire to Bath to Stratford, in all good magazine stores.

They don't pay a great deal for editorial. Neither do most magazines. But as I said, editorial, while it has massive benefits in other ways, is also INSANELY fun to do. And that is what this is about isn't it? FUN? Yes its fun to model stuff that was in Vogue and Harpers a month or two before. What you are turning your nose up at a magazine because its not Vogue and doesn't pay fortunes? And having a go at models for being mercenary? Anyway, have a LOOK at some of the advertisers in it before you make silly claims.  Its there online in the link. And their advertising rates. Suddenly its all about money to you?

My point in raising editorial is most models love to do it. Even for small magazines.

I noticed that immediately!   

Rays Fine Art wrote:
As a photographer, it's 99.9% for fun.  As a model, I do pick up the occasional paying job but I'm also open to trade.  (Hey, I'm 77 years old--how much paid work is there for male character models?)

Quite a bit in London! I've also had great fun with older male character models! I think it takes a bit of character to do it and therefore they tend to be good company! Also a fair bit of movie and tv extra work.

Natural Means wrote:
How do you get time to write these missives?

I'm a very fast typist. I can type faster than I can talk

I do ten mins her ten mins there when I need a break from writing up my PhD. I'm also good at multi tasking effectively. So while doing it I can also have a window or twenty open studying data.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

And another thing. The vast majority of models wont get into Vogue even when they are with London fashion agencies. .

Some models don't want to ne in Vogue i.e ex g'friends daughter as they pay was so little.

I shot for a mag that was free about the same circulation as Costwold Life... the mag was free and had blue chip companies advertising in it... I got paid.... no big deal.

WIP wrote:
Some models don't want to ne in Vogue i.e ex g'friends daughter as they pay was so little.

I shot for a mag that was free about the same circulation as Costwold Life... the mag was free and had blue chip companies advertising in it... I got paid.... no big deal.

ha ha well I wouldn't turn it down. I rather think a lot would pay all they could to be in it! But most models are also realistic to know the chances of getting in it are remote. Impossible in fact for most of us.

Cotswold Life is not free its almost the same price as Vogue. £3.80 at the shops.

Its no big deal I've got tears from lots of lifestyle mags. But it was incredible fun. That is the point here. Stressful but a great experience with a big team of creatives, models (both have become good friends) designers, boutiques, a sculptor, the Morgan motor people, hotel staff, residents, and a photographer too that is amazing to work with in terms of laughs!

But the important thing re this thread is....was your experience fun? The point I am making is the pay is not necessarily relevant to the enjoyment ' but from a model's perspective getting to wear designer clothes at a fab location with a big creative team is usually fun, and pays dividends in terms of exposure. So pay is not so relevant. Therefore its an incentive to attract models if its an editorial submission: as the data indicates from the castings. There is often some pay too.

Herman Surkis wrote:
I had a fun shoot yesterday afternoon. Actually got a few images I like. Then I met some people I know at a park for a group shoot.  Nobody was going to make any money out of this. If you count travel time and beer an munchies after the shoot, it cost you money. Some of the photographers are trying to make a little side money doing cheap weddings, cheap commercial, but this thing was not going to in any way make them money. The models, no professional aspirations. All they get is the experience of being admired for a bit, and an occasional pretty picture of themselves. [/

thank you I like to think my knickers are interesting.
But some knickers photographers want us to wear aren't interesting especially with their great new idea of caution tape. Do you get my point?
I know for a fact too that the knickers I have or am able to get from press offices , make it more fun for photographers too by way of their interestingness Though I must add at this point that I am far more interested in making them look good to women (and men to buy for their women). to buy them thats my job not titillating the photographer!  Some models are not going to have such interesting knickers either and so they may not so much fun to shoot see? So you.may want payment from inexperienced models with boring knickers, or would simply decline them.

You guys may have as an incentive for 'fun' interesting knickers, interesting models, and interesting locations/additional wardrobe/props/supporting creatives etc no?


How much fun would you have with a model that you don't find attractive, doesn't have interesting knickers, turns up late or flakes, is grumpier than a grumpy thing,  and can't model for shit?

So not every shoot is fun.


So what makes shoots fun? Models that turn up, are fun and professional, and have interesting knickers. Often these are the models you have to pay. You can make it more interesting however, so they may work for less or free or for pictures, if you have gone to length to provide interesting other,wardrobe, creatives, have a good shot at editorial publication, etc etc see?

Because, when we've been at it a while shooting the same old run of the mill portfolio building shots are not interesting! We may have thousands of pictures and don't get off on the attention. Especially when  other photographers and other model employers do offer interesting ideas  plus money!

Some have to shoot for money be they photographer or model. To make a living.
Others make their living other ways and it's a hobby or passion.

To some it's both. And the idea they are mutually exclusive is a kind of inverted snobbery usually against those successful enough to manage to do something they enjoy and get paid for it. And the constant rejection of that reality and placing them into separate camps one or other is fallacious and leads people to frustration through belief that it should be the case.
I try to have fun every shoot and generally achieve it. I tend to decline ones that don't look fun these days and find they rarely pay well anyway. I don't think anybody I've worked with would say I'm not fun. But theyve mostly paid me too. Those that have declined me on grounds I've asked for payment probably think I'm mercenary therefore no fun to shoot but that's fallacious.



Commitment to modelling or photography as a professional one could say represents affirmative action to their passion. It's very easy for amateurs to knock it and say they are mercenary but it's not valid. The amateur has put another job before their passion. They aren't always there for it so who is the mercenary one? Sure, some professional jobs are not so creative, and doing travel posters, banking ads and weddings may be a bore. But plenty of jobs are not boring. By the same token too, not all shoots that don't involve money are creative or interesting. You may think they are, but the person you approach to shoot with you may not. But what you can do us up the ante. As I've,said, a model will generally always be up for an editorial. She nay be up for great pics,with great styling team. She may like a super location. If she can't get there due to lack of funds it's academic. So a little money always helps. As for the model, get some interesting knickers, contribute all you can to the shoot concept, turn up with a professional attitude and positivity, work it with enthusiasm, and be fun not a diva (it can be fun to get changed in a cave or a stable!)

SPRINGHEEL  wrote:
Thats all I've ever done.  Shoot for fun or expression or whatever.

I've never made a dime from any of this, probably never will

But lets say you did. You start doing some  posters for goth bands, get noticed by an ad company and asked to do a campaign, get an exhibition which sells out and you get lots of commissions. with exciting people.
You gonna still have time to shoot stuff for fun, bearing in mind you may get swamped by MM models, not all of them very good, asking you to do tf? Then getting abused when you decline? You may do a few. But can you imagine what it would be like to read constant attacks on photographers for not shooting for fun because they decline tf and are mercenary? That's what pro models here have to put up with.

The F-Stop wrote:
Retired, now instead of worrying about the bills, i like to play with it, no preasure.

I've never used a digital camera, shot film since I was 12. It's all new again although my more serious art is still done on film.

Tff is trade for fun.

Learned something - tff - $$$ ? for fun but accept donations. No pressure 1 way or the other.