Forums > Critique > Critique of Casting Call

Photographer

Brian Scanlon

Posts: 838

Encino, California, US

I hope that asking for Critique on this here is legit

I would like to get some feedback on what if anything seems bad about this casting that I've posted.
That is other than uninteresting or some such.  I've only received a half dozen or so responses so far (not including duplicates and a not in town message) .  It has had over 80 reads.  In particular have I included any red flags.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/casting/2174243

May 15 15 11:23 am Link

Photographer

Photos_by_Stan

Posts: 288

Youngstown, Ohio, US

Not sure if the one is a double post since they corrected their typing ...

you said 80 "looks' at the page ... BUT since I Looked at each model that replied and had to go back to your casting ..
it added to the views each time (going to and from places )
so , I alone just added about 10 views .... it's up to 91 or so I think
( do posters come back to check on it later .. then 5 or 10 could just be them again )

I really don't see any red flags , other than you don't have any beach examples for models to judge you by ??
edit = after looking at the images you do have up , they are none uploaded after 2012
( if a model does not have current images .. I pass on them )

How many models are you hiring for that one shoot ....
maybe some looked at the replies and said " must have picked one by now "

May 15 15 11:46 am Link

Photographer

cheshiredave

Posts: 394

Oakland, California, US

I would look at it this way: you probably got four more replies than you would have gotten if you had offered this as a TF shoot. Plus you got four hot models to say yes to you -- what more do you want?

That said...

No red flags exactly except for the typo "You'll be sent you a proof sheet...", but I do have some notes:

1. While $80 is something, it's not going to attract a lot of top models. I guarantee you'd have a higher response rate if you offered $150. More on that in a moment.

2. I don't think the 10 photos is an enticing offer -- no real model is going to need that many from this one shoot. If I were a model and I saw that you're offering 10 photos, my guess is that you're not going to spend much time finishing them off for me. Offer three fully-retouched photos instead.

3. While some models (including two who responded to you) feel they can do their own makeup, my guess is that a real model looking at your casting will wonder how serious a photographer you are if a MUA isn't included in the shoot. (I would also be wary when models say they can do their own makeup -- unless they do makeup for other models' shoots, it often isn't nearly as good as what a real MUA can do.)

4. As the commenter above pointed out, you show no beach experience, so models have no idea what they're getting, and the money isn't enough to justify it. Think of it this way: you're looking at it like "$80 is great for two hours -- that's $40/hour, and anyone should be thrilled to get that." But unless the model lives in Malibu, it's probably an hour each way to get to and from the shoot, so a two-hour shoot is now a four-hour shoot, so it's only $20/hour. Still above minimum wage, but the model didn't necessarily fill up four more hours of her day with another $80, so for a model who expects to get paid, this is actually really little money.

If you were an amazing beach photographer already, and models knew they would be getting something stellar for their port, you'd have a lot more responses. As it is, it *appears* that you're trying this out for perhaps the first time, and so models are taking a big chance on you. If you are actually new at doing beach stuff, I would recommend finding a model who has experience doing it and pay her accordingly. She'll know how to pose so you can spend your time figuring out all the lighting stuff you need to figure out, which is no mean feat for beach photography. wink

May 15 15 12:13 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Scanlon

Posts: 838

Encino, California, US

The thing is that I have offered about the same deal and got a much better response, (although I haven't done much in the last year) and was kind of taken aback by the low response.

May 15 15 12:50 pm Link

Photographer

cheshiredave

Posts: 394

Oakland, California, US

Brian Scanlon wrote:
The thing is that I have offered about the same deal and got a much better response, (although I haven't done much in the last year) and was kind of taken aback by the low response.

$80 doesn't mean as much as it once did, even two years ago. It would probably cost the model at least $10 in gas just to get to and from the shoot. smile

May 15 15 01:20 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Scanlon

Posts: 838

Encino, California, US

cheshiredave wrote:

$80 doesn't mean as much as it once did, even two years ago. It would probably cost the model at least $10 in gas just to get to and from the shoot. smile

I'd have to disagree, inflation is next to nothing and gas, even though it's up some from recent, that is down on that time scale.

May 15 15 02:36 pm Link

Photographer

Images by MR

Posts: 8908

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

cheshiredave wrote:

$80 doesn't mean as much as it once did, even two years ago. It would probably cost the model at least $10 in gas just to get to and from the shoot. smile

$80 plus a few photo's is better then nothing.   Wouldn't also cost $$ in gas to get to a min wage job?

May 15 15 02:46 pm Link

Photographer

Images by MR

Posts: 8908

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

The only real issue I have with the casting is the time frame for a beach shooting 5 to 7pm is not the best...  model squinting / harsh shadows, I'd rather shoot around 7 to 9pm to capture the golden hour.  Wouldn't take much flash to over power the sun for some great shots.

May 15 15 02:51 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Scanlon

Posts: 838

Encino, California, US

Images by MR wrote:
The only real issue I have with the casting is the time frame for a beach shooting 5 to 7pm is not the best...  model squinting / harsh shadows, I'd rather shoot around 7 to 9pm to capture the golden hour.  Wouldn't take much flash to over power the sun for some great shots.

A. you do realize that Malibu is an East/West beach
B. Remember you are much further north than we are so sunset is about 8:00p here this time of year

May 15 15 03:22 pm Link

Photographer

cheshiredave

Posts: 394

Oakland, California, US

Brian Scanlon wrote:
I'd have to disagree, inflation is next to nothing and gas, even though it's up some from recent, that is down on that time scale.

Are we really going to get into this discussion? It's more expensive to live now, period. Inflation may be low in an abstract sense, but wages haven't kept up with living expenses. Rent is nuts for a lot of people. OK, gas may be lower now than it was two years ago -- bad reference point on my part -- but you're missing the forest for the trees. $80 is just not going to be worth it for a lot of models who consider themselves "paid assignments only."

May 15 15 03:39 pm Link

Photographer

Images by MR

Posts: 8908

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Brian Scanlon wrote:

A. you do realize that Malibu is an East/West beach
B. Remember you are much further north than we are so sunset is about 8:00p here this time of year

Oops.. my bad regarding the time

May 15 15 03:43 pm Link