Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
This will not end well for you

No. It'll be fun for the rest of us, though.

Macx Studio wrote:
I have been in this whacky ass business for a long time and what I keep getting  are these aspiring models keeps whining about why they are not getting any good paying jobs. "Working Hard" is never the key to success!! It's about your stinking choices!!! There is ONE basic answer and I'm just astounded on how many models I meet don't realize the POWer of a great portfolio!! Trust me, IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE!!

Here's the Key to Success: PAY TO WORK WITH A REAL PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER!! That's it!! It's an INVESTMENT to yourself!! STOP, asking for chump change here in MM. Hire a great experienced photographer that has been working with top modeling agencies to revamp your portfolio and at the same time, you will get some PRICELESS advise. I promise you, your "$100" per hour deal will turn into endless possibilities $$$$$!!

Let me know your thoughts if your with me on this one!

~Macx
IG: macx.studio
www.macxstudio.com

You're new around here, aren't ya?   You're about 20 years too late in what sounds like a promotional meant to push a portfolio mill for some modeling agency/school scam.

John Jebbia  wrote:
The only question I have right now is do I want buttered, cheddar, or caramel?

Anyone ready to take the first bite? 

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
I have been a full time commercial photographer for 30 years now.  I am a lifestyle shooter.  I hire plenty of models of all age groups from kids through seniors.  Let me share my process with you.

1.  Once we start production on a project, we will get a sheet from our client describing what type of talent (models) we need for a shoot.  There will be information on body type, race, age, and sometimes even temperament.

2.  I send an email to several modeling agencies describing what I need.

3.  They will send me a pick list of the people whom they believe fit my request and whom I would like.

4.  I go through the pick list, looking carefully at the pictures.  I look for beauty, body type, and for my projects, I am often looking for range of expressions. Experience and range matter a lot to me.

5.  Depending on the client and the project, I will ether share my selections from the pick lists with my client or I will, more often than not, set up a live casting of the people in the pick lists that I like.

6.  Once the live casting is finished.  I will share that will my client who will then make the decision, often with my input, on whom to cast.

The quality of the pictures are very important in step 3.  If I see a model with only one or two shots in their online portfolio I often take pass thinking that this person is not committed to modeling.  It is here, in step 3 where both quality and quantity of good photographs make a difference. 

During my live casting I hardly ever look a pictures.  I just don't have the time and honestly, I want to see how a person looks and act today, on my set, not how they looked after Mr. Photoshop got through with them.

I am sure that other photographers work differently.

Sincerely,
Zave Smith
www.zavesmith.com

+1
Even when non agency or MM models are used for a client, models with a poor portfolio are quickly dropped from the pile.

Macx Studio wrote:
I have been in this whacky ass business for a long time and what I keep getting  are these aspiring models keeps whining about why they are not getting any good paying jobs. "Working Hard" is never the key to success!! It's about your stinking choices!!! There is ONE basic answer and I'm just astounded on how many models I meet don't realize the POWer of a great portfolio!! Trust me, IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE!!

Here's the Key to Success: PAY TO WORK WITH A REAL PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER!! That's it!! It's an INVESTMENT to yourself!! STOP, asking for chump change here in MM. Hire a great experienced photographer that has been working with top modeling agencies to revamp your portfolio and at the same time, you will get some PRICELESS advise. I promise you, your "$100" per hour deal will turn into endless possibilities $$$$$!!

Let me know your thoughts if your with me on this one!

~Macx
IG: macx.studio
www.macxstudio.com

When I see this I only see a self described professional looking to charge models for his work. I always found photographers who list compensation as paid only somewhat duplicitous. I know that most , perhaps even you, will gladly shoot trade for the right model. Or for a models who will shoot nudes.

You are coming off as a photographer from a portfolio mill. 

BTW. If the right young lady with the right stats has an interview with an agency, they can figure out pretty quick whether they have potential.  They don't need your pictures to tell them that.

Julietsdream wrote:
*Here's how I look at it...*Quality models....(in a great portfolio)....will get you quality paying clients*...if you are lucky....and if...that's what you are looking for...!!...Personally, I am never going to charge a *Beautiful* model who wants to shoot with me...agency or not....unless....I don't want to shoot them, then I charge...otherwise...I will happily shoot with who is going to make *My* portfolio....of quality...!!...All the models I shoot with are for trade...we get gorgeous pictures we love...and from there....it's up to me, as the photographer...who, if I loved the shots, has the potential to get the model published...or a paid gig...I have never had a model get me a paid gig....(other then her/him looking great in my portfolio...and from there...hopefully...I can get the 'client' into paying me...to shoot for them).......My models are not my clients......they are beautiful cohorts I get to capture in photos, for both of us...!!...For me....I really don't care if you are 'agency' or not...there are just Soo many *Beautiful* models out there to choose from...(a lot of them right here on MM)....!!...It seems to be working...I have happy, repeat models..(both agency and not)...and I am happy, too..!!....'Quality gets quality'....I agree with that....but 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.......and.......'to each his own'......are true for me, as well...!!

Beautifully said and I couldn't agree more.  In fact that is why I bristle a bit when traveling models call photographers their clients.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:

Beautifully said and I couldn't agree more.  In fact that is why I bristle a bit when traveling models call photographers their clients.

If the photographers pay them what should they call them?

Dan K Photography wrote:
If the photographers pay them what should they call them?

*What about...*Happy*...and grateful.....!!

Julietsdream wrote:
*What about...*Happy*...and grateful...!!

Happy and grateful what? Sure they can be happy and grateful. But that doesn't change that you are a client.

If you get paid for your photography what do you call the people who pay you?

if you get your kitchen done and pay your contractor what are you to him?

Do you have the same problems with doctors calling you patients?

Dan K Photography wrote:
Happy and grateful what? Sure they can be happy and grateful. But that doesn't change that you are a client.

If you get paid for your photography what do you call the people who pay you?

if you get your kitchen done and pay your contractor what are you to him?

Do you have the same problems with doctors calling you patients?

*I call people who pay me....*Happy*...and grateful, just as I... am happy and grateful, as well...!!
...(I have no issue.... with a model calling a photographer anything she wants....client, whatever...more power to her...to get a paid gig)..!!

Julietsdream wrote:

*I call people who pay me....*Happy*...and grateful, just as I... am happy and grateful, as well...!!
...(I have no issue.... with a model calling a photographer anything she wants....client, whatever...more power to her...to get a paid gig)..!!

So when discussing a client you would refer them as happy? Calvin Klein was a happy of mine?

This whole discussion is so weird.

Dan K Photography wrote:
So when discussing a client you would refer them as happy? Calvin Klein was a happy of mine?

This whole discussion is so weird.

*Wow*....you sure have your panties in a bunch....for my opinion...!!.....Obviously a client is a client...but you can also just be happy and grateful, too...why is that.....weird....for you Dan..?...I am sure....'Calvin'....doesn't mind what you call him..!!

Julietsdream wrote:

*Wow*....you sure have you panties in a bunch....for my opinion..!!.....Obviously a client is a client...but you can also just be happy and grateful, too...why is that.....weird....for you Dan..?...Calvin doesn't mind what you call him..!!

Yes, a client is a client. A client can be happy or sad or anything else. He/she is still a client.

Calvin Klein would have no problem being called a client which it seemed you and the other guy objected to.

My panties are resting exactly as they should be, thank you.

Dan K Photography wrote:

So when discussing a client you would refer them as happy? Calvin Klein was a happy of mine?

This whole discussion is so weird.

Yes, it most certainly is. Getting butthurt over being called a client is probably one of the weirdest things to get butthurt about.

Lieza Nova wrote:
Yes, it most certainly is. Getting butthurt over being called a client is probably one of the weirdest things to get butthurt about.

+1

....I wasn't understanding any of that either......no butthurt-ness meant...(or needed)...LOL...*All is Good*
....I love MM...!!

Julietsdream wrote:

+1

....I wasn't understanding any of that either......no butthurt-ness meant...(or needed)...LOL...*All is Good*
....I love MM...!!

I was definitely not directing that at you. You seem to be incredibly positive and unbuthurt! It's really nice to see.

Lieza Nova wrote:
I was definitely not directing that at you. You seem to be incredibly positive and unbuthurt! It's really nice to see.

Hi Dear Lieza...I totally know that...!!...I Sooo didn't think you were directing anything my way..!!
...I am incredibly positive and I try to stay unbutthurt about non issues...!!

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Beautifully said and I couldn't agree more.  In fact that is why I bristle a bit when traveling models call photographers their clients.

We are ALL clients & we are all vendors, we are all buyers & we are all sellers.

Ionalynn wrote:

We are ALL clients & we are all vendors, we are all buyers & we are all sellers.

I see both a model and a photographer as collaborators not clients.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:

I see both a model and a photographer as collaborators not clients.

Congratulations?

Arguing over trivial semantics and getting butthurt because of word choice is kind of pointless.

Lieza Nova wrote:

Congratulations?

Arguing over trivial semantics and getting butthurt because of word choice is kind of pointless.

No one is butt hurt about anything. But words do have meanings, as I am sure you know, and as you have so clearly demonstrated in many of your posts. Allthough you are free to think what you like.

In my mind, when models call photographers clients that creates a relational imbalance in what should be a collaborative process. 

That is why the best shooters work on a trade basis with their collaborators on personal projects ( At least art photographers do). Including many of the models who have turned into photographers themselves.  I don't think those people are calling anyone "clients".

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:

No one is butt hurt about anything. But words do have meanings, as I am sure you know, and as you have so clearly demonstrated in many of your posts. Allthough you are free to think what you like.

In my mind, when models call photographers clients that creates a relational imbalance in what should be a collaborative process. 

That is why the best shooters work on a trade basis with their collaborators on personal projects ( At least art photographers do). Including many of the models who have turned into photographers themselves.  I don't think those people are calling anyone "clients".

On other threads, it's been clearly shown that this is not a universal rule at all. Some of the "best" (whatever that actually means) shooters pay their models. You obviously have a specific way to do things, but it's quite obvious that it's your personal way and definitely not the way that others do things.

And, yes, client is a word used by a wide variety of models and photographers, as well as a huge range of other activities. t's a pretty standard word and a very silly thing to complain about.

Lieza Nova wrote:
On other threads, it's been clearly shown that this is not a universal rule at all. Some of the "best" (whatever that actually means) shooters pay their models. You obviously have a specific way to do things, but it's quite obvious that it's your personal way and definitely not the way that others do things.

And, yes, client is a word used by a wide variety of models and photographers, as well as a huge range of other activities. t's a pretty standard word and a very silly thing to complain about.

I'm sorry but , what is not a universal rule?  That photographers don't always pay models? I guess in the world of internet modeling or at least in the forums on MM you are probably correct.  But there is a whole world outside these forums and many art photographers work on a collaborative basis.  And when I say " best" I am referring to photographers who have their work at the MOMA, the Kinsey are widely published internationally. They also happen to be a part of MM though the never come into the forums.

If you think I am alone in my approach my "personal way" as you put it, you are sadly mistaken. Sure other people may do things differently, again in the forums on MM you may get that sense. Yet more photographers than myself think it is not the only way, and some do speak up in the forums.

Look if I had an unlimited budget, or if I had a client who was paying I would pay models.  Just like I did last week, when a California designer asked me to shoot some lifestyle images. I gave up being paid so I could assure that the model got paid for her time.  Though I must say I would never work with a model who only saw me as a client. (Only as a means to make money).

But as I am retired and live on $400 a month that's not possible. Should I give up what I love? Should other photographers give up what they love? Hell no.  There has to be an alternative.  Let the shooters who pay, pay. Let those who can't afford to pay models work on a trade basis.

Would you have posed for Van Gogh or Gauguin? They never paid models, never sold a painting during their lifetime in Van Gogh's case and only a few in the case of Gauguin.  Did the models who posed for them see them as clients?


Of course there are clients, when I worked, I had many clients. My job was to make them happy so my company got paid and we got new or extended contracts. But that is far from the relationship I want to have with a model and either do many other photographers. I want a model who has the same vision I do for the work I want to create. I want a collaboration with all my creatives, as equals in the process. I don't get paid, so I don't pay. And if I am paid then the model gets 50% of what ever I get. I have alway thought that was fair.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.  I wish you well in whatever creative endeavor you continue to pursue.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
I'm sorry but , what is not a universal rule?  That photographers don't always pay models? I guess in the world of internet modeling or at least in the forums on MM you are probably correct.  But there is a whole world outside these forums and many art photographers work on a collaborative basis.  And when I say " best" I am referring to photographers who have their work at the MOMA, the Kinsey are widely published internationally. They also happen to be a part of MM though the never come into the forums.

You said that the best art shooters work on a trade basis. There's another thread going right now where it's been shown that this is just not true. A lot of the "best" choose to pay models for a variety of reasons.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
If you think I am alone in my approach my "personal way" as you put it, you are sadly mistaken. Sure other people may do things differently, again in the forums on MM you may get that sense. Yet more photographers than myself think it is not the only way, and some do speak up in the forums.

As someone who's been working as a model for 35 years, my experience and opinions were not formed based on Model Mayhem forums. You seem to have this notion that all models are young and have no idea what the world is really like. I'd venture to say that I have a much better idea than you do. Because I've done it. A lot of other models have too.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Look if I had an unlimited budget, or if I had a client who was paying I would pay models.  Just like I did last week, when a California designer asked me to shoot some lifestyle images. I gave up being paid so I could assure that the model got paid for her time.  Though I must say I would never work with a model who only saw me as a client. (Only as a means to make money).

Cool story, bro.

The fact still remains that you do things your way and other people do things their way. Trying to say that the "best" agree with you is a logical fallacy and something that can EASILY be proven false.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
But as I am retired and live on $400 a month that's not possible. Should I give up what I love? Should other photographers give up what they love? Hell no.  There has to be an alternative.  Let the shooters who pay, pay. Let those who can't afford to pay models work on a trade basis.

I had to cut back on animal rescue, something that I love with a passion, because it got harder and harder to afford the level of care I provide for my rescues. I also had to give up on an epic eco conservation trip, because I couldn't justify a plane ticket to Auckland and not working for a month. It sucked, but I had to give those things up. Nobody has a responsibility to subsidize your hobby.  Some models may choose to trade with you, but it's not a requirement. Nobody is stopping you from working with models on a trade basis, but rather taking issue with the notion that working on trade somehow makes you and the models you work with better or higher on an artistic purity scale because of it.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Would you have posed for Van Gogh or Gauguin? They never paid models, never sold a painting during their lifetime in Van Gogh's case and only a few in the case of Gauguin.  Did the models who posed for them see them as clients?

Seriously? You're comparing TF* shooters on Model Mayhem to Van Gogh? Wow. This is probably one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Of course there are clients, when I worked, I had many clients. My job was to make them happy so my company got paid and we got new or extended contracts. But that is far from the relationship I want to have with a model and either do many other photographers. I want a model who has the same vision I do for the work I want to create. I want a collaboration with all my creatives, as equals in the process. I don't get paid, so I don't pay. And if I am paid then the model gets 50% of what ever I get. I have alway thought that was fair.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.  I wish you well in whatever creative endeavor you continue to pursue.

Ok. Continue on getting mad about models using a word you don't like, even though it's a VERY common word, even used to refer to welfare recipients, animals in rescue situations, children in foster care (and their families) and wild animals being protected by conservationists. If you want to be mad over it... People may laugh at you, it they certainly can't stop you.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
That is why the best shooters work on a trade basis with their collaborators on personal projects ( At least art photographers do). Including many of the models who have turned into photographers themselves.  I don't think those people are calling anyone "clients".

Some of the most amazing photographers I have worked with have paid me for my time. What you're saying is just not true. Plenty of good photographers do tf, but MANY of them also pay. And yes, I am talking about art photographers - a good deal of them are in my portfolio and I love collaborating with them during our shoots. I've even seen you compliment some of their work in these forums, all while not realizing that they pay the models they work with. Now, you might not define these as the "best" photographers in the world, but even those at the top have been known to compensate their models.

Saying the best photographers work trade is simply false. I know many amazing, professional art photographers who pay art models for their time. Once I am no longer nude modeling and cannot trade that for modeling time, I also plan to pay the models I work with. It is their profession, and I value that they put work into it and can help bring my concept to life. Why wouldn't I want to help them continue to do that longterm (which also means I could work with them over the course of many years)?

No one is saying you are required to pay models, just that certain models charge rates and you cannot work with those models. If you have models who trade with you and are collaborative that's great and I'm happy you can continue doing what you love to do. But acting like the best never pay is just not true. If I paid someone and they called me a client, I wouldn't care at all - it wouldn't even enter my head to bother caring about something so minute.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Would you have posed for Van Gogh or Gauguin? They never paid models, never sold a painting during their lifetime in Van Gogh's case and only a few in the case of Gauguin.  Did the models who posed for them see them as clients?

Here's the thing: models, for the most part, didn't pose for Van Gogh or Gauguin. Van Gogh painted self-portraits specifically because he couldn't afford models.  He also painted people he knew (friends, relations), still lifes, landscapes, and prostitutes, whom he often frequented, and paid for their services, because that's how prostitution works.  There was a particular prostitute, Sien, who he used as a muse for about two years, during which time he took her and her daughter into his house and fed and clothed them (they were homeless and destitute).  This is a form of payment.  After he left her, she married someone else, and then committed suicide by drowning, because she suffered deeply from depression and had for a long time.  He was able to get a famous actual professional model, Agostina Segatori, to pose for him several times, but they knew each other before hand (she owned a cafe that artists frequented, and displayed their works, and sometimes accepted paintings when artists couldn't pay their bills: I know!  TF!  But wait...), and they were possibly in a sexual relationship.  Long story short: she quickly went bankrupt, lost everything (literally everything she owned: seized) and promptly died horribly in poverty.  The outcomes of these women are important, because there's a huge romanticization on MM of that kind of muse relationship, without acknowledging any of the possible downsides of it, like extreme poverty. 

As for Gauguin I personally feel like it's a poor idea to lump yourself in with the man who painted the teenage girls he kept as sex slaves, and impregnated and gave syphilis to, but I don't know.  It's your life.  And before he kept those sex slaves, he worked with other more famous artists in a kind of student/teacher way, so they were paying models (when models were used), that he was sharing, when he wasn't painting the wife and family he abandoned for teenage sex slaves.

So the flip side of the questions posed here would be: photographers, when you can't afford models do you spend countless hours perfecting your craft taking self portraits, or photographs of your mother in law?  Or are you willing to intern yourself to another photographer who would have some amount of artistic control over you, but also be able to provide you with models?  And also I guess do you believe that your artistic vision is so important that you are willing to take advantage of the homeless, the mentally unstable, and children?

Anyway, this has been art history story time with me, V.  Bye.

Victoria Elle wrote:

Here's the thing: models, for the most part, didn't pose for Van Gogh or Gauguin. Van Gogh painted self-portraits specifically because he couldn't afford models.  He also painted people he knew (friends, relations), still lifes, landscapes, and prostitutes, whom he often frequented, and paid for their services, because that's how prostitution works.  There was a particular prostitute, Sien, who he used as a muse for about two years, during which time he took her and her daughter into his house and fed and clothed them (they were homeless and destitute).  This is a form of payment.  After he left her, she married someone else, and then committed suicide by drowning, because she suffered deeply from depression and had for a long time.  He was able to get a famous actual professional model, Agostina Segatori, to pose for him several times, but they knew each other before hand (she owned a cafe that artists frequented, and displayed their works, and sometimes accepted paintings when artists couldn't pay their bills: I know!  TF!  But wait...), and they were possibly in a sexual relationship.  Long story short: she quickly went bankrupt, lost everything (literally everything she owned: seized) and promptly died horribly in poverty.  The outcomes of these women are important, because there's a huge romanticization on MM of that kind of muse relationship, without acknowledging any of the possible downsides of it, like extreme poverty. 

As for Gauguin I personally feel like it's a poor idea to lump yourself in with the man who painted the teenage girls he kept as sex slaves, and impregnated and gave syphilis to, but I don't know.  It's your life.  And before he kept those sex slaves, he worked with other more famous artists in a kind of student/teacher way, so they were paying models (when models were used), that he was sharing, when he wasn't painting the wife and family he abandoned for teenage sex slaves.

So the flip side of the questions posed here would be: photographers, when you can't afford models do you spend countless hours perfecting your craft taking self portraits, or photographs of your mother in law?  Or are you willing to intern yourself to another photographer who would have some amount of artistic control over you, but also be able to provide you with models?  And also I guess do you believe that your artistic vision is so important that you are willing to take advantage of the homeless, the mentally unstable, and children?

Anyway, this has been art history story time with me, V.  Bye.

Awesome!

Tony Lawrence wrote:
....Saying the best photographers work trade is simply false.    I understand why some MM models want to push the narrative that the best photographers pay models but its simply not true.   On sites like this they may but outside of this site and others like OMP its just not that common.  I'm not saying models don't deserve to be paid or that working professionals never pay but its just not generally something most do that I'm aware of.   I've assisted a lot of published pros and to a person not one paid models for anything.  This included art nudes.   I know I'm a broken record on this but understand why.   Published pros have plenty of models to work with.   Once you shoot agency models for clients or test with them you will start to hear from development models as well as unsigned talent.   This is even more true if you do editorials for any of the major or third tier  fashion rags.

And the opposing broken record will say...
...  "It's just not done" doesn't trump "supply & demand".
...  Whom you have assisted (or how often or whom you've dated) doesn't strengthen your argument.
...  Most of the photographers here on MM are not top professionals in large urban centers with a glut of
     models and agencies competing for attention.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Just imagine you are shooting trade with models yet you pay others.   Do you think that at some point that you pay won't be shared with other models.   How do you think models you traded with might feel to know you paid other models but not them.

I encourage models to share information about their compensation.  That just makes me look good.  Also, how do you think models you pay might feel to know that you didn't pay other models?  In truth, how you treat a model is a big deal, and compensation is just one aspect of how a photographer treats a model.  Edit:  how would a model feel to know that 80% of the local photographers pay their models but one particular photographer is too cheap to pay her?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Paying models is expensive especially for someone who shoots a lot.   Years ago when magazines and clients paid well photographers could make a good living.   Now many have closed studios and moved on. 

One of my buddies used to pay nude models for content but that's done as the market is flooded.   So who's paying models?   Its largely amateurs.   Some of whom are very good.   Many pay because they have disposable incomes.   However working published pros aren't in general paying models.   Not when they have beautiful models knocking on their door for free.    These conversations tend to become personal with models being angry at me.   If you've been paid by working shooters, great.   If you pay models and feel you're a pro, cool.   What I'm speaking to is how the general world of art and nude and fashion and commercial works.   You ain't paying when you have a steady supply of talent and pros usually have that.

Yeah, photography is expensive, regardless of whether you are a "pro" or an amateur.  Cameras are expensive & become obsolete in just a couple of years.  Lights & sets & modifiers & props are expensive.  Makeup is expensive.  Studio space is expensive.  Computers & software & web sites are expensive.  But it always seems like a weak argument to me when photographers will shell out tens of thousands of dollars for the stuff the points at the model, that lights the model, that surrounds the model, etc. and are not willing to shell out 0.1% of their expenses on the object of their focus, the model.  If your photography is good enough, you can get some revenue to offset your expenses.

I make no claims about being a professional, but by accepting donations on my web site, my photography was self-sufficient, including generous modeling fees, hardware & software upgrades, business licenses, taxes, ISP & web site, etc.

And I find it grating when people who claim to be in it "for the art" or who are trying to produce the "best" photograph use modeling compensation as their first (and seemingly only) consideration.

My stance:  you don't have to pay models if you don't want to, and models don't have to pose for you for free / trade.  The law of supply & demand takes care of it all.  Other justifications are pointless.