Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
I like "nekkid chicks" as you say.  If fact I like them a lot.  Sadly however when I photograph one, which isn't often these days, the last thing on my mind is that there is a nekkid chick right there in front of me.  I'm concerned with light, framing, exposure and everything else except the nekkid chick.  It's kind sad actually.  I really should work on that.

As to paying models.  I don't do it.  Not because I'm super cool or to damn good but simply because it's anti-productive. At least for me it is.  I earn my keep with my camera  but, as stated above, MM is just for fun.  Some people say that if I want to build my portfolio - yada,yada, yada.  Well I'm not building my portfolio when I shot local models.  I'm having fun and only snap photos of like minded models.

Though I enjoy it but I'm not in the position to just spend money on my photography unless I can justify the cost.  That includes everything from new glass and new bodies to pot-it notes and models.  It is what it is.  Yep, it's life in the slow lane when you need to make a profit.

No problem with any if that and you eloquently explain what I was getting at re nudity. As much as you enjoy the beauty, you are focused on capturing it.

Nobody is asking you to pay models. It's the fact that we have plenty of clients who do, but some photographers get upset when we won't shoot tf or free. What tends to happen here on MM is then instead of approaching professional models, we are often  rejected as mercenary and photographers court wannabes. And I.may add, if you have say three flakes in a row what a waste if time and money. A model charging that will actually show up do her job and likely have bags of enthusiasm and confidence too may not therefore be quite as costly.


Then we get also get the blame in forums as MM models being flakes, unprofessional etc. because those wannabes are unreliable.  And we get the accusation of being mercenary. An accusation I don't think a model would dream of levelling at a photographer. You say you have to make a profit and that's great nothing wrong with that. Some do it for fun/creative reasons, some for profit, some for both.

WIP wrote:
MM is still an eye opener for me, like a world that's not real, weird.

The thing is it is real.

It is a cross section of the general weird.

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:

I like "nekkid chicks" as you say.  If fact I like them a lot.  Sadly however when I photograph one, which isn't often these days, the last thing on my mind is that there is a nekkid chick right there in front of me.  I'm concerned with light, framing, exposure and everything else except the nekkid chick.  It's kind sad actually.  I really should work on that.

As to paying models.  I don't do it.  Not because I'm super cool or to damn good but simply because it's anti-productive. At least for me it is.  I earn my keep with my camera  but, as stated above, MM is just for fun.  Some people say that if I want to build my portfolio - yada,yada, yada.  Well I'm not building my portfolio when I shot local models.  I'm having fun and only snap photos of like minded models.

Though I enjoy it but I'm not in the position to just spend money on my photography unless I can justify the cost.  That includes everything from new glass and new bodies to pot-it notes and models.  It is what it is.  Yep, it's life in the slow lane when you need to make a profit.

Pretty much.
My only potential waste of money is the studio equipment. Everything else can be used for none model stuff. And actually I stand corrected. I have done and will do more animals in the study. And if necessary I can take the studio with me, to the animals, so not even that is a waste.

GeorgeMann wrote:
It is obvious I have dealt with considerably more nude models than you have and each has been a respectable Lady while being photographed here.

From the few people I know who tend to specialize in nude models, there is very, very little hanky panky. There have been more issues of drunken orgies with the clothed models (which begs the question: why was I not invited?)

JadeDRed wrote:

Firstly because "highly talented", like "nice guy", is usually self attributed and has no basis in reality.

Secondly your idea that it's younger photographers who hit on models is again not my experience, of photographers or men in general.

Highly talented is the designation given to those who are regularly published, win awards or get well paid and are generally admired by their peers. Far from necessarily self-attribution.

However your second point I cannot argue with, since if that is your experience, then that is your experience. It is a data point on the other side. However my experience, from admittedly hearsay, is that it is the younger photographers who are more of a problem. Perhaps in other cases, it is simply that the behaviour that is acceptable from a young dude is considered creepy coming from an old guy?

Ken Warren Photography wrote:
Like you, I'm not paying to see a woman naked, I'm paying for her to deliver a performance that will let me create a vision.

As has been said in many other threads, strip clubs are a LOT cheaper, even with drinks. And the girls are a lot more friendly.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
No problem with any if that and you eloquently explain what I was getting at re nudity. As much as you enjoy the beauty, you are focused on capturing it.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I shot a MM model a few years back who decided she wanted to be a paid only model after our first session.   I was her first photographer.   I asked her why she made that choice and she said that quality costs.   I laughed and told her her that photographers who are good tend not too pay.   However the ideal is learn to be a good model first.   Frankly, their aren't that many really good models here.   Being able to be naked on camera doesn't qualify in my mind.   Its the ability to emote.   Its being like a chameleon one minute and a diva the next.   That said I do understand why models focus on money quickly.   Unless they are signed or going in that direction having a great portfolio here means nothing.   Well known stores and clients book their models through real world agencies for the most part.   

What does sadden me is the poor work ethic exhibited by so many models here.   Sadder still is saying to yourself and others that you really want to model but only do so when money is offered.   Again I can't see not shooting ever.   I would shoot every day if I could.   I know actors and dancers and singers and other artists totally dedicated   to their art form.   Understand that part of being a good model is being in front of a camera consistently.   When its just about money then its a job not a passion not a true one anyway and that's fine but I would rather work and even pay models passionate about shooting over someone who has no interest in this beyond what its pays.   The real test of loving a thing is would you do it if it never paid.   If the answer is no then its not a real passion.   That's fair also.

A few days ago a model who I would have paid her rate told me that she never does nudes unless she's paid.   I said I understood and thanked her for calling.   What a turn off.   Doing or not doing a thing should never be just about the money and if it is I'll pass.

The real test of doing a thing for passion is if you will commit to it. If you do another job instead you haven't. Very easy of course for amateurs to say that passion is irrelevant to money and have a pop at professionals when they've earned their living doing something else.

But the truth us if you are passionate about something you become skilled at it and people do pay you for that. That's reality. We could be talking about soccer.

You can believe what these guys tell you and for some it's true. If for example they test for agencies. But sorry to disappoint you but as a former professional model in the real world who has worked with pro photographers and even the agency type models you do look up to,none I've worked with would expect models to work for free, or tf. Admittedly usually theres a third party, but that is the kind of work pro models want anyway. If we don't need to build our ports and journeymen mopping up low end work are soon drowning in photos, working for port building for amateur photographers is of limited interest.

Testing with approved photographers by all means but there is no commercial use for those, and not many of you will get that action anyway.

Herman Surkis wrote:
My only potential waste of money is the studio equipment.

Every piece of equipment (studio gear, lenses, camera bodies, etc.) I own is multi-purpose, and none of it was bought so I could shoot nudes. Though a couple of items were selected on the basis of X being better for something model-related than Y.

Ken Warren Photography wrote:
Like you, I'm not paying to see a woman naked, I'm paying for her to deliver a performance that will let me create a vision.

Herman Surkis wrote:
As has been said in many other threads, strip clubs are a LOT cheaper, even with drinks. And the girls are a lot more friendly.

Yes, Herman, and buying access to a quality porn site is cheaper yet, and probably delivers more variety.

Herman Surkis wrote:
As has been said in many other threads, strip clubs are a LOT cheaper, even with drinks. And the girls are a lot more friendly.

Why are you even comparing models to strip club dancers?
99% of the girls that I've seen in strip clubs don't even compare to the models that I've worked with.  Most of the models that I have photographed have been friendly models.

I don't photograph models nude to see them nude!  The photograph is the important thing.  I have photographed every model in my my portfolio nude but all the photos in my portfolio are not nudes.  There is even an image of a former porn model who is clothed.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

Why are you even comparing models to strip club dancers?
99% of the girls that I've seen in strip clubs don't even compare to the models that I've worked with.  Most of the models that I have photographed have been friendly models.

I don't photograph models nude to see them nude!  The photograph is the important thing.  I have photographed every model in my my portfolio nude but all the photos in my portfolio are not nudes.  There is even an image of a former porn model who is clothed.

I'd have thought strippers would be friendly $$$. but then I'm not a connoisseur of strip clubs.
I'm assuming you'd go to strip clubs to see strippers nude but not models ! kinda confussing.

Herman Surkis wrote:
Interesting that a search on this only turned up 4 vague references.
I must have screwed up my search.

And yes, I know it happens, but just wondering how much.

More likely it is on the photographers side. And since I am a hobbyist I try to do it for fun, but it does not always work out that way.

I charge to keep the crazy people away. Once money is involved, their money, they take the session and the shoot so much more seriously. They come on time, they are prepared, and they are really motivated to get the best shots possible for their buck.

Once I establish they are not crazy, I am more willing to shoot TF with them.

As for the money, it goes to gear and the local food bank.

WIP wrote:
I'd have thought strippers would be friendly $$$. but then I'm not a connoisseur of strip clubs.
I'm assuming you'd go to strip clubs to see strippers nude but not models ! kinda confussing.

Models that I've photographed are much more attractive than strippers that I've seen!
Now do you get it?   

There is a big difference between being friendly and being friendly for $$.   

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

Models that I've photographed are much more attractive than strippers that I've seen!
Now do you get it?   

There is a big difference between being friendly and being friendly for $$.   

You may find that MM has models who are also strippers.
Models on MM happy bunny's reciving all that $$$ same as strippers.

I can only think that you maybe hitting on strippers which would make them annoyed or your going to the wrong clubs,  not parting with enough $$ to make them happy.

WIP wrote:

You may find that MM has models who are also strippers.
Models on MM happy bunny's reciving all that $$$ same as strippers.

I can only think that you maybe hitting on strippers which would make them annoyed or your going to the wrong clubs,  not parting with enough $$ to make them happy.

I know which ones here are strippers.  I haven't worked with stripper models.  I have worked with some very good models here.
I don't hit on strippers and I only occasionally go to a strip club.  When I go I go for entertainment not for other things.

Herman Surkis wrote:

As has been said in many other threads, strip clubs are a LOT cheaper, even with drinks. And the girls are a lot more friendly.

I am really not sure we even still have "strip clubs" around here?
We have a gazillion Sports Bars with girls in short skirts and tee shirts, but I don't think they dance.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I've worked with strippers in effect. Two of them are among the best models here.
I dont think they'd work with the majority of photographers here though. For love or money. They are on MM but they are only after jobs that provide the opportunity to work with great creatives and reasonable pay.

They are international burlesque stars , music and performance art academically qualified, with fashion, publication, and tv and movie credits a mile long and can regularly command four figure sums at some of the most prestigious venues in London.

I think Chris is just up to his usual snide comments Jerry take no notice.

I know what he is up to!   

Thanks Eliza!

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I've worked with strippers in effect. Two of them are among the best models here.
I dont think they'd work with the majority of photographers here though. For love or money. They are on MM but they are only after jobs that provide the opportunity to work with great creatives and reasonable pay.

They are international burlesque stars , music and performance art academically qualified, with fashion, publication, and tv and movie credits a mile long and can regularly command four figure sums at some of the most prestigious venues in London.

I think Chris is just up to his usual snide comments Jerry take no notice.

Just curious.
Only strip type club with a burlesque type of show I've heard of is Paul Raymonds review bar, I think it used or still is called the Windmill.

WIP wrote:

Just curious.
Only strip type club with a burlesque type of show I've heard of is Paul Raymonds review bar, I think it used or still is called the Windmill.

You've heard of The Savoy have you?

Burlesque isn't put on at strip clubs. But it's stripping essentially. It's not what you do it's the way that you do it.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

You've heard of The Savoy have you?

Burlesque isn't put on at strip clubs. But it's stripping essentially. It's not what you do it's the way that you do it.

Nonsense. See e.g. Burlesque on Wikipedia. Striptease has been a part of burlesque for a long time, but only a part. It's the relatively recent rise of what's often termed neo-burlesque that's seen a conflation of the two concepts.

Torttu Doris wrote:
If I didn't like what I was doing, I would not still be doing it.

Yes, I've written a fair share of 'Gimme my money!' rants, but in the end I (and don't we all?) work in an industry that thrives on aesthetics, beauty, art; something visual.

Wether it concerns a haute editorial or a toothpaste commercial, passion plays a huge part in what we do. Passion, as in doing something you love, and commit to it wholeheartedly.

To answer the question: yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I model for the fun of it. Should people want to pay me, that'd be nice too

Quite. And many of us, models and photographers, give up well paid jobs to do something that's much more difficult to earn a living at. The reason is because it's a passion. So the accusation of being mercenary us farcical to me.  But to commit to it, one still has to hopefully earn something to sustain it. While photographers can spend years refining their craft before even beginning to hopefully earn out of it, and copyright means that images can often earn them.money for a long time, models have to earn while they are younger generally, and reward financially is immediate re the images as we don't own copyright.

Ken Warren Photography wrote:
Nonsense. See e.g. Burlesque on Wikipedia. Striptease has been a part of burlesque for a long time, but only a part. It's the relatively recent rise of what's often termed neo-burlesque that's seen a conflation of the two concepts.

When we talk about a burlesque dancer we don't mean the general umbrella of burlesque including other cabaret.
The models and burlesque dancers I mean do very tasteful very beautiful striptease. They aren't hypnotists or comedians which obviously comes under that umbrella too. Sure the other acts are still part if it but contextually we are talking about striptease here.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

When we talk about a burlesque dancer we don't mean the general umbrella of burlesque including other cabaret.
The models and burlesque dancers I mean do very tasteful very beautiful striptease. They aren't hypnotists or comedians which obviously comes under that umbrella too.

You don't get to change the meaning of a word just because you feel like it. The word burlesque refers to a particular type of variety show; any of the performances that would normally be a part of such a variety show are "burlesque". Including striptease. I have a number of friends who are part-time (or full-time) burlesque performers. Some strip, most don't. They all call what they do burlesque.

I do, however, agree with your larger point that models can be dedicated and passionate about what they do and still get paid for doing it. (And I don't want our disagreement over the meaning of a word to derail that.) If I were a commercial or fashion photographer, I'd press for TFP for my personal work because I could potentially get a model in front of people that would help to advance her career. Seems simple to me; if I can't contribute one way, I ought to expect to contribute another, right?

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

The real test of doing a thing for passion is if you will commit to it. If you do another job instead you haven't. Very easy of course for amateurs to say that passion is irrelevant to money and have a pop at professionals when they've earned their living doing something else.

But the truth us if you are passionate about something you become skilled at it and people do pay you for that. That's reality. We could be talking about soccer.

You can believe what these guys tell you and for some it's true. If for example they test for agencies. But sorry to disappoint you but as a former professional model in the real world who has worked with pro photographers and even the agency type models you do look up to,none I've worked with would expect models to work for free, or tf. Admittedly usually theres a third party, but that is the kind of work pro models want anyway. If we don't need to build our ports and journeymen mopping up low end work are soon drowning in photos, working for port building for amateur photographers is of limited interest.

Testing with approved photographers by all means but there is no commercial use for those, and not many of you will get that action anyway.

Eliza, I've assisted some very well known name fashion and beauty photographers.   I've met some of the biggest fashion models in the world including Iman.   Professional models test all the time.   When Cindy Crawford was starting out she shot with Bob Frame who was doing work as I recall for the now out of business Marshall Fields stores.   He didn't pay her nor did Victor Skrebenski.   However your experiences don't mirror mine and other then this one post I won't respond again.   Our past debates have derailed too many threads.   Outside of this silly world models test for free constantly with up and coming shooters and established fashion and commercial photographers.   Shooters like Mikael Jackson featured in in this month's Vogue don't pay models.   Clients pay models.   They pay them for actual work.   They pay them too shoot for ads or catalog.   

Heck those really cool editorial images we see in W and Harpers and Elle pay models on average less then $300.00 a day but no, models aren't being paid to test shoot.   If you were signed at FORD or Elite and Amy Troost inquired about testing you and you mentioned being paid.... well after you were laughed at might find yourself not signed quickly.   http://i-d.vice.com/en_gb/topics/201/amy-troost   The truth is that paying models is largely a part of the internet world.   Its part of why few agencies take sites like this seriously.   What I see on sites like MM and OMP are models incapable of doing real world fashion and commercial work who end up very often doing tasteless nudes or the corny crap many here do including me.   If I were they I guess I'd look for money for that useless stuff as well.   However outside of this asylum in the industry world of fashion and beauty and commercial and catalog.   Models test all the time.  People get paid when their is a client and models aren't being paid to test.

Members can believe what they choose though but when you approach agencies to test their models.   You aren't expected to pay their models or asked too.   Models at agencies are focused on better images.

GeorgeMann wrote:

You definitely know nothing about the expense involved in owning and mooring a boat. In our local marinas mooring a 30 foot boat costs in the neighborhood of $1000.00 per month. Gas for the boat is about $1.00 per gallon more than for autos while mileage drops to about 5 miles to the gallon if you're lucky.
If you deep sea fish for the day on a charter boat the cost is upwards from $150.00 per day.

Cigarettes at even $50.00 a carton, smoking the mentioned 2 packs a day is 3 cartons a month.
$20.00 a case for beer??? not too many beer drinkers drink less than a case a week. adds up.

Drinks at $10.00 a pop, not too many have only one drink a night.

My guess is you put more in the offering plate every Sunday morning trying to buy your way to heaven than most photographers, that pay models, spend monthly shooting ladies that are trying hard to make ends meet at modeling.

"Most of the people in my circles prefer the pictures I take of landscapes, rocks, sunrises, sunsets, babies, puppies, and kittens to pictures of models."

My advice here is to just not photograph models. Most don't really want to work free anyway, and of all the models I have shot I never met one with a goal to be the "Black sheep of the family".

It is obvious I have dealt with considerably more nude models than you have and each has been a respectable Lady while being photographed here.

Seems like you have some personal issues there you might need to address. I don't even know why I bothered.

P.S.- You do understand that there are different types of boats in the world, right? I am in the middle of Texas. Not much deep sea fishing in my neck of the woods. But carry own.

Ken Warren Photography wrote:

Every piece of equipment (studio gear, lenses, camera bodies, etc.) I own is multi-purpose, and none of it was bought so I could shoot nudes. Though a couple of items were selected on the basis of X being better for something model-related than Y.

Kind of what I meant.

If suddenly all the local models were to disappear, then my studio equipment would be the most under used.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Why are you even comparing models to strip club dancers?
99% of the girls that I've seen in strip clubs don't even compare to the models that I've worked with.  Most of the models that I have photographed have been friendly models.

I don't photograph models nude to see them nude!  The photograph is the important thing.  I have photographed every model in my my portfolio nude but all the photos in my portfolio are not nudes.  There is even an image of a former porn model who is clothed.

Ah yes, the white knight jumps in to the defense of poor Eliza and the other models, again tilting at windmills.

If you had actually read things???

I like fast cars, Lambos are pretty and fast. But an F35 is faster and if I want to get to Europe I would prefer an F35.
Does this mean I think a Lambo is like an F35?

""Ken Warren Photography wrote:
Like you, I'm not paying to see a woman naked, I'm paying for her to deliver a performance that will let me create a vision.

My reply Herman...As has been said in many other threads, strip clubs are a LOT cheaper, even with drinks. And the girls are a lot more friendly.""

Ken's comment was a response to someone who said that mostly photographers pay models to get nekkid, so that they can hang around nekkid women.

Let me clarify in case it is still misunderstood. *If your purpose of being a photographer and shooting models is to be around nekkid people, then strip clubs are much cheaper.*

Mousseline wrote:
If someone would shoot me like this!!!!!! Hell yes I would do it for fun!!!!!!

The gown and setting would blow my budget for several years.

Torttu Doris wrote:
If I didn't like what I was doing, I would not still be doing it.

Yes, I've written a fair share of 'Gimme my money!' rants, but in the end I (and don't we all?) work in an industry that thrives on aesthetics, beauty, art; something visual.

Wether it concerns a haute editorial or a toothpaste commercial, passion plays a huge part in what we do. Passion, as in doing something you love, and commit to it wholeheartedly.

To answer the question: yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I model for the fun of it. Should people want to pay me, that'd be nice too

Yep.
True for a lot of photographers as well.

The ideal is to become so good at what you love to do, that people start paying you to do it..

The trick then is to continue loving it, when the money starts coming in. It is the old, old, artistic conundrum, of not selling out and producing only what the market wants. Rembrandt and co. all had to deal with satisfying customers.

The ideal is to paint (for example) how and what you like, and then put it up for sale. Buy or not buy, that is a decision of the market.

This part gets convoluted and has been and will be parts of other threads.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
It's not what you do it's the way that you do it.

Pretty much true of most things.