Tony Lawrence wrote:
.... but understaPublished 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

In contrast to MM, most commercial shoots are not arranged by photographers hiring internet models.

And

Most MM models will never do a commercial shoot or any shoot where anyone other than the photographer is the client.   

So:

Why do people keep bringing up professional and agency standards as if they are actually relevant to most shoots booked here?

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
.... but understaPublished 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.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
And

In contrast to MM, most commercial shoots are not arranged by photographers hiring internet models.

And

Most MM models will never do a commercial shoot or any shoot where anyone other than the photographer is the client.   

So:

Why do people keep bringing up professional and agency standards as if they are actually relevant to most shoots booked here?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I know I'm a broken record on this but understand why.

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.

I'm going to bump this post up again because it's so damn good and to the point.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

And

In contrast to MM, most commercial shoots are not arranged by photographers hiring internet models.

And

Most MM models will never do a commercial shoot or any shoot where anyone other than the photographer is the client.   

So:

Why do people keep bringing up professional and agency standards as if they are actually relevant to most shoots booked here?

I'm guilty of bringing up up the professional world and how it works.   Zave has a great post on how he works but you're correct in that what happens on MM has little to do with the pro world.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I'm guilty of bringing up up the professional world and how it works.   Zave has a great post on how he works but you're correct in that what happens on MM has little to do with the pro world.

Then why do we wind up listening to your impression about how the "pro world" works?  What's the relevance here on the MM forums?

Listen:  I believe that LeBron James doesn't have to pay for his basketball shoes.  Does that mean that none of us should have to pay for our basketball shoes, too?  I believe that the vast majority of the people here on these forums are not top-tier professionals in large urban centers with lots of agencies & models.  What do the perks enjoyed by those top 2% professionals have to do with the rest of us?  (Indeed -- many of us do not support ourselves with photography as a career, and most that do are eking by barely).

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Then why do we wind up listening to your impression about how the "pro world" works?  What's the relevance here on the MM forums?

Listen:  I believe that LeBron James doesn't have to pay for his basketball shoes.  Does that mean that none of us should have to pay for our basketball shoes, too?  I believe that the vast majority of the people here on these forums are not top-tier professionals in large urban centers with lots of agencies & models.  What do the perks enjoyed by those top 2% professionals have to do with the rest of us?  (Indeed -- many of us do not support ourselves with photography as a career, and most that do are eking by barely).

I’m a professional photographer but amateur/hobbyist musician. I love learning how professional musicians do things even though I have no aspirations of turning pro. (Actually it’s not aspirations but lack of talent). My point... Being exposed to professional musicians helps with my music. So I’m sure some amateur photographers are interested in hearing how pro shooters operate. And don't forget, professionals start off in the amateur ranks themselves.

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?

Van Gogh paid with body parts.

8mizu wrote:
I’m a professional photographer but amateur/hobbyist musician. I love learning how professional musicians do things even though I have no aspirations of turning pro. (Actually it’s not aspirations but lack of talent). My point... Being exposed to professional musicians helps with my music. So I’m sure some amateur photographers are interested in hearing how pro shooters operate. And don't forget, professionals start off in the amateur ranks themselves.

Thank you for posting this.   Many of the photographers here would like to become pros.   I post how most that I know of in the industry work to help them.   The forums are supposed to be about discussion and not to shut down those voices we disagree with.   I have no idea how LeBron connects the conversation and I have said over and over I don't expect established nude or even fashion models to work with free just because I ask them.   There are members who have a vested interest in promoting the notion that you always have to pay  talent or that good photographers are very often paying models.    I get why models do so but why photographers promote this foolishness is confusing.  Nothing wrong with paying models.   Nothing wrong with not but paying has little to do with the level of model you get too shoot.   It very often just means you paid.

So its clear.    I'm not talking about some mythical 2% of the top photographers.   I assisted at several small studios and models would come in three to four times a week to drop off zed cards.    Some would do quick tests and had no problem doing nudes.   Few of those I worked for were top tier photographers.   My comments are to point out the world outside of MM.   However the truth is even here the better shooters aren't paying models.   Those who only shoot as a hobby and who have no aspirations beyond that should ignore me.   Yet I continue to read threads posted by members about using pro equipment vs. not.   Having a studio or not.   How to approach paying clients, etc.   That doesn't sound like folks who have no desire to make money from their work.


Over the last few years we have lost most of the professional voices in the forums.   Posts from one of the members who duels with me all the time are part of the reason and frankly brings the usefulness of the forums down.

Edit:   A member has mentioned Van Gogh and that photographers here aren't comparable.  How many
Ashley Graham's are here?   Again I'm not saying a model need work with me or anyone else for free.   I am saying that this idea that better shooters pay models or that working pros do in general is wrong.   You don't have to be as known as Van Gogh who as I understand it found fame long after his death.

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.

Thank you...this stuff is thrown around too often without people realizing how working with artists of that caliber really was done. And for the most part, they did not work with professional models. Or, even better, most here are not Van Gogh, so comparing any of this to Van Gogh, or acting as if he is the one to use as a comparison point for the average photographer (or even really amazing photographers for that matter), is ludicrous.

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

This is still going?   I thought is was a spam advertisement for a portfolio mill?

" 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 $$$$$!!"  Yeah,  "Pay me a $100 an hour to shoot you" and you'll have "endless possibilities" of what?   Going into debt?   Bankruptcy?   There is no guarantee that spending a $100 an hour to be photographed will lead to success.

ASmallWoman wrote:
Thank you...this stuff is thrown around too often without people realizing how working with artists of that caliber really was done. And for the most part, they did not work with professional models. Or, even better, most here are not Van Gogh, so comparing any of this to Van Gogh, or acting as if he is the one to use as a comparison point for the average photographer (or even really amazing photographers for that matter), is ludicrous.

Look paid models and some photographers, on this site battle with those who believe there is an alternate narrative with regard to pay or trade. I get that, they are trying to preserve their livelyhood. I can't fault them for that.

You want to get paid fine, there are plenty of hobby guys, guys in small towns with no models, and GWCs to work with. I think it's great that you have created a living by modeling.

But that is not the only scenario and you know it.

It's perfectly fine for photographers to work with collaborators who want to be a part of their art, and work on a trade basis.

The tent of Art and modeling is fairly large and can accommodate both points of view. Neither side is going to win this argument since both arrangements trade or pay are perfectly valid.

With regard to Van Gough or Gauguin, denigrating some of the greatest artists of their age , is just politically correct bullshit.

I'm sure most artists and photographers fail that test. You could add Picasso, and Dali to that mix while you're at it. So what. It's about their work not what kind of men they were.  And just think they created their masterpieces with non professional models.

And then to say that people should be paying models on this site because everyone is mediocre and a bunch of amateurs and not worthy of having models believe in what they do or want to be a part of their art , just shows the contempt they feel for most of the photographers on this site.

Some models want to be paid others like most of the ones I work with simply want to be a part of what I do. Again no harm no foul. 

Lastly,  supply and demand is only valid for photographers who have to pay and models who want to charge. Supply and demand has nothing to do with those who trade or collaborate.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

This is still going?   I thought is was a spam advertisement for a portfolio mill?

" 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 $$$$$!!"  Yeah,  "Pay me a $100 an hour to shoot you" and you'll have "endless possibilities" of what?   Going into debt?   Bankruptcy?   There is no guarantee that spending a $100 an hour to be photographed will lead to success.

Patrick, I couldn't agree more. And if that is true with paying photographers, the corollary is true for paying models.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:

Look paid models and some photographers, on this site battle with those who believe there is an alternate narrative with regard to pay or trade. I get that, they are trying to preserve their livelyhood. I can't fault them for that.

You want to get paid fine, there are plenty of hobby guys, guys in small towns with no models, and GWCs to work with. I think it's great that you have created a living by modeling.

But that is not the only scenario and you know it.

It's perfectly fine for photographers to work with collaborators who want to be a part of their art, and work on a trade basis.

The tent of Art and modeling is fairly large and can accommodate both points of view. Neither side is going to win this argument since both arrangements trade or pay are perfectly valid.

With regard to Van Gough or Gauguin, denigrating some of the greatest artists of their age , is just politically correct bullshit.

I'm sure most artists and photographers fail that test. You could add Picasso, and Dali to that mix while you're at it. So what. It's about their work not what kind of men they were.  And just think they created their masterpieces with non professional models.

And then to say that people should be paying models on this site because everyone is mediocre and a bunch of amateurs and not worthy of having models believe in what they do or want to be a part of their art , just shows the contempt they feel for most of the photographers on this site.

Some models want to be paid others like most of the ones I work with simply want to be a part of what I do. Again no harm no foul. 

Lastly,  supply and demand is only valid for photographers who have to pay and models who want to charge. Supply and demand has nothing to do with those who trade or collaborate.

Slow clap!   There is  serious disdain by some of the members on this site for photographers.    I get that to a degree and I also get why so many want to be paid day one.   What angers me is that photographers feed into that crap.   One of the I pay all models group constantly infers that those who don't  have sub par models yet their work is.... well its not my taste and certainly many who trade have excellent imagery.   You being in that group.   I have a question for the always pay camp.   Why is it we argue this issue but models rarely if ever offer a dime for anything.   Why have so few of you pushed back against the idea that most here produce shi#tty work.   I have a MM friend who doesn't pay models.   He trades nudes and does fashion and glamor.   He's better then me and gets a lot more models for sure but he also puts a lot of effort into finding models.   Supply and demand for models doesn't work.   Consider model rich cities like NY. LA, Miami and Chicago.   If you have a winning look you'll work.   These places have plenty of talent.   


Small towns and cities tend to have fewer well paid gigs because their economies are depressed and $100.00 per hour difficult to get.    Your point about trade or pay is excellent.  There is no right or wrong answer.   However can we all agree that as a community saying photographers work here is lousy or inferring that is wrong or that models should not be paid is also wrong.   (no one said that)  I also want to add one last thing from a historical point most of the iconic paintings and sculptors  we see today were done of unpaid models.    Many done by artists who were not famous at the time.

AlexaMichelle wrote:
Are we going over this topic again ?? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yeah, it's why all the full-time art models no longer take this site seriously.

And also why, despite making up approximately half of the population, women's voices here are so rare these days.

Herman Surkis wrote:
Gots to love some of the art history going on  (and actually I do love it).
But, what is being left out is that Van Gogh, in has day, could not give his paintings away. He would have been selling in flea-markets and still starving. His brother a gallery owner pushed his work and subsidized him. So in early days he was not famous and would have to pay models, except for any that might have loved his art, and they were few and far between.

If I recall, there were times when Van Gogh couldn't even afford canvas & paint.  He did a lot of drawings.  Also, it's not clear that his "models" actually posed for him -- sure, there were many portraits with people sitting for him, but I think he also created "models" purely from his imagination.

And let's not forget that he was an intense, crazy, and disagreeable guy.