Looknsee Photography wrote:
Agency Models Do Get Paid:  Several discussions here imply that agency models don't get paid.  They do.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
Do you know this for a fact or are you simply surmising?

Fair enough.  I'm surmising.  So, questions:
...  If models aren't getting paid, are agencies getting paid?
...  Why do agencies exist if models aren't getting paid?  How do agencies make money if models don't?
...  Why would full time models, who model as their profession, hang around an agency if they are
     not getting paid?
...  How do full time models make any money, and what is the involvement by their agencies?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I have said multiple times I am NOT an expert on the industry so I rely on those who are or who work in it.   Those would be folks I have assisted and former Elite model and agency owners.   ...

There's a lot more to the "industry" than the creation of images.  There's pricing, team recruitment, booking, negotiations, contracts, accounting, taxes, labor statutes, advertising, marketing, budgeting, finding/managing studios & props, paying utilities, maintaining & replacing equipment, and so forth.  Unless your assisting involves all these business aspects, it makes your "reliance" suspect.  Further, talking to folks in the major metropolitan areas does not give you a perspective on the worldwide "industry".  Talking to "industry" people might have very limited validity, but it is not a substitute for a comprehensive, thorough study of the business.

Finally, as I've said multiple times, few people on these MM forums are agency represented, few are qualified to be agency represented, and few even want to be agency represented.  Thus, the perspective of "those who are or who work in it" is not universally relevant to all discussions about models getting paid.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Agency Models Do Get Paid:  Several discussions here imply that agency models don't get paid.  They do.

Fair enough.  I'm surmising.  So, questions:
...  If models aren't getting paid, are agencies getting paid?
...  Why do agencies exist if models aren't getting paid?  How do agencies make money if models don't?
...  Why would full time models, who model as their profession, hang around an agency if they are
     not getting paid?
...  How do full time models make any money, and what is the involvement by their agencies?

They certainly are not being paid by Photographers.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

-
I suppose if the MM search engine was any good, that statement could be found somewhere, but it isn't relevant.   By making up a sentence and saying that if it was never said in exactly that way, does not means the premise isn't true.  What you are saying is that only the precise phrase counts.  I disagree.  There is a body of statements out there by one person and by many persons, when taken, implies exactly what you have challenged me to find in precise wording.  Some people will only work with agency models.  They make this statement and decry the internet model for not having agency specifications.  They make it clear that they never have to pay a model.  Anything.  Maybe, out of the kindness of their super magnanimous heart, they will get her a cup of coffee.  There are digs against models and photographers and individuals through out the forums.  It does not have to be said in precise words to make the meaning clear.  It does not have to be a rule violation for someone to make a personal attack.  We all see it.  We all know it. 

I have explained the nature of my hobby/business before.  The way I work, the way I create art.  I don't shoot art photos.  I shoot photos as reference material for art work.  Occasionally, I get a photo that is kind of cool.  Sometimes I even try, but it never matters because that isn't my ultimate goal in photography.  At least currently.  I shoot whenever I can, but I have finished exactly two paintings in the calendar year of 2017.  One is a landscape.  One is a scene with three women and a girl. If I had used agency standard models for that painting, it would totally suck.   All of the photos for that piece were taken in 2015 over a period of months.  What do I have to trade for in a photo shoot?  However, if I pay a model $100 an hour for a two hour shoot, considering she invested 4 hours making a round trip to work with me, I am, apparently, a sap.  It is clear that if I pay her $100 an hour, that is $100 too much.  There was no consideration given to me, what I do and how I do it, or the about the model or who she is, nor why it is different from what my detractor does.  I am just a sap.  Now tell me, how does that not say, that no internet model should ever be paid?


-
Ken Marcus described his method.  He shoots.  The model gets images for self promotion.  If a magazine picks up the shoot, both the photographer and model get paid by the magazine.  (If the magazine cuts separate checks, that is wonderful, it saves creating 1099s for the photographer.)  Is what Ken is doing a trade shoot?  Yes and no.  Is working on spec a trade?  The delivery of images after the shoot is certainly trade, but there is more.  First, he is going to deliver top notch images and I will bet that he does it punctually.  Also, It sounds like he is promising the possibility of a future pay day, at least to a portion of the models.  It is important to note that Ken Marcus is offering something that a small percentage of people on MM can offer.  He is offering the prestige of working with a well known and well published photographer.  He has connections to publishers and magazine personnel.  He has the ability to successfully market a layout.  He is offering a model the opportunity to be published in a work with wide spread circulation.  He is offering the possibility that a model could become famous or get a launch to a lucrative career.  How many MM photographers can offer in trade, and potential pay, with things like what Ken Marcus offers when you consider the intangibles?  Allow me to edit in another thought here:  Over 20 years ago, Ken Marcus paid a model or models.  It may be because the market has changed that he no longer does, or it is because he has acquired incredible skills that brought him to a different plane.  We are not Ken Marcus as he is now, or as he was 30 (or whatever) years ago.  I wonder if he would share his thoughts on the subject from his early days as a photographer?

You, (Risen), have described the things that you do for models on a trade basis.  It is impressive.  Your work is high quality and artistic.  You do team building and make your models an important and integral part of the team and process.  If you do certain things with the work, you make certain provisions for the models.  If you sell a piece, you provide a 50 50 split.  I would say what you do for models is a staircase above what the average MM photographer does for models on a trade shoot. 

Then we have photographers that only use agency models and come on to MM to troll.  According to one guy, the only models left on this site are subpar.  ALL the best are gone.  "Best" as being described as agency standard.  It is clear that some people who use agency models, never, ever, ever, have to pay for the models to shoot.  If all the best models are gone from MM, and agency standard models (the best) don't have to paid, then where exactly is that leaving the remainder of the MM models?  Perhaps, he has never said the exact words that you are asking me to look for, but then, what exactly is he saying?  Let's take into consideration some other statements.  How about when he told a brand new model that the going rate was $100 an hour and said it dripping in sarcasm and scorn.  How is that fair to a brand new model?  Wouldn't there be a possibility that he would be sabotaging her?  Did he care?  Probably not, she probably wasn't agency standard anyway.  She shouldn't be modeling if not agency standard.  Or let us consider that in any thread, this one included, he will post a jibe about how models aren't worth $100, in fact they aren't worth anything.  Isn't that what he said in the post I previously linked?  In thread after thread, he posts a scornful remark about the pay that SOME models can earn for doing SOME types of shoots with SOME types of photographers and he boasts about how he doesn't  have to pay models.  The weird thing is, he has never told us what he does with his work.  Has he ever sold any?  If he has, what has he done for the model?  Has he shared any income?  Has he presented her with memorabilia or copies of publications?  I have no idea.  But, considering his boastful nature, I would think he would tell us what his policy is, unless it is just an ego thing to declare that he would never pay a model.

When it comes down to it, the quality of someone's work is only part of the equation.  Many years ago, I asked a model about a certain photographer, nobody that has participated in this thread- to be clear.  She had worked with him because of his stature as a professional.  She said she would never work with him again because of his stature as a human being. 

One new model has responded with dismay to a participant in this thread.  Another has mentioned a DNR list.  A guy that doesn't use MM models comes into the forums and shits all over the models.  And anyone else he so choses to do so with.  Just how good is this guy as a photographer and how good does one have to be to justify the absurd treatment of people that he considers useless and beneath him?  Why does one participate in the forums on a site that is good for nothing?  Just for the entertainment value of belittling other people and stroking his ego? I don't care how good someone is at their job, you suck if you shit on people and I don't care if you are the King or the President.

I do not have to hear one guy say exactly, "NO INTERNET MODEL SHOULD EVER BE PAID" to know that it has been communicated.  If there is anything abut this thread that helps to kill MM, it is not that Ken Marcus does it one way; that Risen Phoenix does something a little different; that Herman Surkis and hundreds of other photographers can trade; it is not that some shoot only with agency models for free; it is not that some pay $25 an hour, it is not that some pay $100 an hour or more: it is the belligerent internet #$%* that doesn't see the value in respecting people that do what they need to do to pursue their hobby, dreams, or profession.

This is very well said. And it is these comments that have taken numerous pages to finally get to. IT IS ALL ABOUT RESPECT.  Both sides of this debate need to understand this. This whole thread is a study in the escalation of positions . If we were all in a bar the two sides would be having a knock down drag out fight.

It is wrong to see no value in another's work. Both sides now.  Both models and photographers. It's wrong to demonize someone with a different opinion and constantly attack them in every thread posted. The voices in support of models and their positions are just as disrespectful and cruel, as those who feel models on MM are below them.


Thanks for being the voice of common sense in all this .  I appreciate your words.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Didn't London Fog suggest that all INTERNET models take note of Ken Marcus' post?

Do you think he suggested that so that all INTERNET models know that Ken probably won't be paying them?

Or do you think he suggested that so that all INTERNET models will know better than ask to get paid by any photographer?

London Fog’s exact quote.

“To all the INTERNET models above who have tried to zero in on Tony, read above and weep! “.

London Fog is not referring to ALL internet models but to all those who were zeroing in on Tony. How many could that be? 5? 6?

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Fair enough.  I'm surmising.  So, questions:
...  If models aren't getting paid, are agencies getting paid?
...  Why do agencies exist if models aren't getting paid?  How do agencies make money if models don't?
...  Why would full time models, who model as their profession, hang around an agency if they are
     not getting paid?
...  How do full time models make any money, and what is the involvement by their agencies?

The truth is I don’t really know the answer to these questions.

I can only write about what I know.

I assume that the models and their agencies are all chasing work for big brands - advertising, lookbooks and the like.  For that I know the money is good, very good.  My assistant, who always goes bar hopping with the models after our shoots, tells me how much some of them get.

I have been quite shocked.

But it’s a conversation I never like to get into with the models themselves - for what I think is quite an obvious reason.  Because... the next question will be “well how much are you getting then?"

I have two further observations to make.

One, once a big brand likes you as a model, for a while you may very well get constant work from them. I see the same faces cropping up over and over again, being shot by different photographers but for the same brand.

Two, it’s not only famous photographers like Mario Testino that get models (and hence, one assumes their agencies) falling over themselves to work for free with. There are some rather well known stylists, MUAs and hairdressers that also have something of a similar cachet.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
They certainly are not being paid by Photographers.

Sure, sometimes they are paid by clients.  And sometimes, the client is the photographer.  And sometimes a model will choose not to work with a photographer because the compensation the photographer is offering is insufficient.

Are you suggesting that photographers never pay models?
Are you suggesting that photographers should never have to pay models?
Are you suggesting that photographers shouldn't have to pay models?

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Sure, sometimes they are paid by clients.  And sometimes, the client is the photographer.  And sometimes a model will choose not to work with a photographer because the compensation the photographer is offering is insufficient.

Are you suggesting that photographers never pay models?
Are you suggesting that photographers should never have to pay models?
Are you suggesting that photographers shouldn't have to pay models?

You are posing the question with regard to agencies and the fashion industry in that case no photographers will rarely pay the models the third part client is paying, or the model is testing with the photographer.  Who cares who pays the model just as long as she is paid.

You are free to pay all the models you want. But not every photographer has to.  I have maybe paid only a half dozen models since 2012 and even retired since Jan of 2016 I still shoot 2 shoots a week. Prior to that it was 4 or5.

Quit parsing words , quit jumping to conclusions, and quit talking in absolutes.  Why don't you Read what Hunter wrote, and when your done reading it read it again. 

Learn to respect others and how they choose to do business.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Didn't London Fog suggest that all INTERNET models take note of Ken Marcus' post?

Do you think he suggested that so that all INTERNET models know that Ken probably won't be paying them?

Or do you think he suggested that so that all INTERNET models will know better than ask to get paid by any photographer?

8mizu wrote:
London Fog’s exact quote.

“To all the INTERNET models above who have tried to zero in on Tony, read above and weep! “.

London Fog is not referring to ALL internet models but to all those who were zeroing in on Tony. How many could that be? 5? 6?

How many models are left on MM?  5?  6?

If you want exact quotes, let's go back to the OP of this thread:

Alt C Photography wrote:
Perceived translation: "I think you're good (enough) and you pay so pay me, uhhh, I mean lets shoot!"

Does anyone else gets this sense sometimes when approached by a model unprovoked?

Tony's oft repeated factoid is that in his perception of "the industry", elite photographers (like Ken Marcus) don't pay agency models (ignoring for now that Ken does pay models in certain circumstances). 

To me, London Fog attempted to use Ken's post to justify that no photographer should pay any models, based on the original post of this thread.  More specifically, Fog attempts to shame INTERNET models from taking exception to Tony's oft repeated factoid.

Why should they back off from Tony?  Tony ignores the challenges, like...
...  Not all models are or aspire to be agency models,
...  Not all photographers are elite enough so that their images have real value to models,
...  Why model rates are not subject to local supply & demand,
...  etc.

There is nothing in Ken's post that proves Tony's position.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Fair enough.  I'm surmising.  So, questions:
...  If models aren't getting paid, are agencies getting paid?
...  Why do agencies exist if models aren't getting paid?  How do agencies make money if models don't?
...  Why would full time models, who model as their profession, hang around an agency if they are
     not getting paid?
...  How do full time models make any money, and what is the involvement by their agencies?

Derek Ridgers wrote:
The truth is I don’t really know the answer to these questions.

I can only write about what I know.

I assume that the models and their agencies are all chasing work for big brands  ...

You are in London, a large metropolitan area with lots of models & agencies, I assume.

My point is that you can't extrapolate the "industry" of elite photographers & model agencies in large metropolitan areas to the entire population of MM:  I believe...
...  Most models here are not agency represented,
...  Many models here don't want to be agency represented,
...  Fewer than most models here would qualify for agency representation,
...  Many models here don't aspire to be agency represented,
...  Most photographers here are not "elite" (as in sought after for national campaigns),
...  Many photographers here cannot produce images that have significant value to most models,
...  Many members here don't live in large metropolitan areas,
...  Most of us are subject to local supply & demand forces,
...  etc.

While Tony & others might be right about elite photographers don't pay agency models, that doesn't mean that agency models aren't getting paid.  Further, implying that models shouldn't get paid by photographers is clearly incorrect, because plenty of INTERNET models are getting paid (and some by the very people who often report that elite photographer - agency model factoid).

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
You are posing the question with regard to agencies and the fashion industry in that case no photographers will rarely pay the models the third part client is paying, or the model is testing with the photographer.  Who cares who pays the model just as long as she is paid.  ...

Learn to respect others and how they choose to do business.

You are getting me confused with other people.  My point is that the niche business of elite photographers & agency models cannot be extrapolated to all photographers & all models.  I am objecting to those who use this factoid in an attempt to shame models from asking for compensation.  Look at the original post of this thread.

A model has the absolute right to ask for whatever compensation she or he wants.
A photographer has the absolute right to accept, decline, or make a counter offer.
What a model & a photographer decides to do is their business & no one else's.

Trying to shame or inhibit a model from asking for compensation (as in "it's not done in the industry") is 'way out of line.  That's what's making MM a less friendly place for models.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
You are getting me confused with other people.  My point is that the niche business of elite photographers & agency models cannot be extrapolated to all photographers & all models.  I am objecting to those who use this factoid in an attempt to shame models from asking for compensation.  Look at the original post of this thread.

A model has the absolute right to ask for whatever compensation she or he wants.
A photographer has the absolute right to accept, decline, or make a counter offer.
What a model & a photographer decides to do is their business & no one else's.

Trying to shame or inhibit a model from asking for compensation (as in "it's not done in the industry") is 'way out of line.  That's what's making MM a less friendly place for models.

I can read and I am not confusing anything.


You are right, no one is telling a model or photographer how to run their busineses except you.  Tony made a comment from his perspective working in and with fashion Photographers, Same with London Fog, with his excellent portfolio of fashion images and agency models.  You decry their position( along with a number of others on this thread) but Its how THEY RUN THEIR BUSINES. At no time did they say models should never be paid.  I see no model shaming from them or others who dont think the way you do.

You continually take a comment written to answer a specific reply and then you apply it to the whole discussion, make hyperbolic generalizations to prove some point.  That's crap logic.

And working on a trade basis is not only for the elite photographers. Many people on this site work on a trade basis.  Many models and photographers work on a trade basis.  In fact I garauntee you that the majority of people shoot on a trade basis, not the other way around.


Can models ask to be paid?  Sure they can... I have never said they couldn't.  Either has Tony or London Fog.  They may have on opinion on who is the most useful models to use for fashion shoots.  Whats wrong with that.  And if they are good enough to work on a trade basis with fasion models that meet the standard whether it be MM or an agency.  Why not?  Seems like great business plan to me.  So while a model can ask to be paid, a photographer can say no, correct? So there you go. The world keeps turning.  And if a photographer who ever he or she is wants to work on a Trade only basis with his models, and they are successful with that strategy who are you to say he or she can't?

 
Who are you to tell them they are wrong?  Nobody.

You think your way is the only way and that is just silly.  Ken Marcus proved you wrong and no, he does not pay models, the magazines that accept his work pays his models.  Do you think that everyone of those 75 shoots he does each year are published. So other than images he may give them I would think that a number of those models don't see any cash.

Should models be paid , I have always said yes, some do.  In your case you want to pay your models well great PAY them no one is stopping you. 

Would I pay a model?  Sure I would but they would have to be significantly better than the models I have on my model team.  ( who I have shot for years by the way )  Just because a model can take off her clothes in no way canotes that she is worth the current asking price of between  $125 to $200 an hour.  She has to bring more skills to the table other than nudity. IMHO anyway.  And actually that is pretty rare. There are probably only 10 traveling models I would want to pay, and who are excellent btw .


But you have proved to be just a bully in these forums spouting your supposed logic ( which is not logical at all) and insulting others who don't accept your premise.

So while I think you agree that a photographer has a right to run the business as he sees fit, You obviously feel he should have no voice in the forums.  You feel, do want you want but don't talk about what you do.  You are the thought police then, trying to judge who can or can not speak in these forums.  But there is an alternative way then yours.  You may not like it but there is.

Thats what I hate in these forums, Those with only one thought who try to verbally beat the shit out of others who don't think the way they do.  If you continue to enter the forums to repeat over and over your position, you will have others come in these forums and say, " Hey wait a minute, there another way".  So perhaps your position is triggering those who want to refute you.

Thats getting tiresome.  You repect no one else's opinion but your own.  That is whats wrong with this site.

I asked you to read what Hunter wrote.  He was very much a bridge builder.  What he said was common sense, and well stated.  I wish you would have read it.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
I can read and I am not confusing anything.


You are right, no one is telling a model or photographer how to run their busineses except you.  Tony made a comment from his perspective working in and with fashion Photographers, Same with London Fog, with his excellent portfolio of fashion images and agency models.  You decry their position( along with a number of others on this thread) but Its how THEY RUN THEIR BUSINES. At no time did they say models should never be paid.  I see no model shaming from them or others who dont think the way you do.

You continually take a comment written to answer a specific reply and then you apply it to the whole discussion, make hyperbolic generalizations to prove some point.  That's crap logic.

And working on a trade basis is not only for the elite photographers. Many people on this site work on a trade basis.  Many models and photographers work on a trade basis.  In fact I garauntee you that the majority of people shoot on a trade basis, not the other way around.


Can models ask to be paid?  Sure they can... I have never said they couldn't.  Either has Tony or London Fog.  They may have on opinion on who is the most useful models to use for fashion shoots.  Whats wrong with that.  And if they are good enough to work on a trade basis with fasion models that meet the standard whether it be MM or an agency.  Why not?  Seems like great business plan to me.  So while a model can ask to be paid, a photographer can say no, correct? So there you go. The world keeps turning.  And if a photographer who ever he or she is wants to work on a Trade only basis with his models, and they are successful with that strategy who are you to say he or she can't?

 
Who are you to tell them they are wrong?  Nobody.

You think your way is the only way and that is just silly.  Ken Marcus proved you wrong and no, he does not pay models, the magazines that accept his work pays his models.  Do you think that everyone of those 75 shoots he does each year are published. So other than images he may give them I would think that a number of those models don't see any cash.

Should models be paid , I have always said yes, some do.  In your case you want to pay your models well great PAY them no one is stopping you. 

Would I pay a model?  Sure I would but they would have to be significantly better than the models I have on my model team.  ( who I have shot for years by the way )  Just because a model can take off her clothes in no way canotes that she is worth the current asking price of between  $125 to $200 an hour.  She has to bring more skills to the table other than nudity. IMHO anyway.  And actually that is pretty rare. There are probably only 10 traveling models I would want to pay, and who are excellent btw .


But you have proved to be just a bully in these forums spouting your supposed logic ( which is not logical at all) and insulting others who don't accept your premise.

So while I think you agree that a photographer has a right to run the business as he sees fit, You obviously feel he should have no voice in the forums.  You feel, do want you want but don't talk about what you do.  You are the thought police then, trying to judge who can or can not speak in these forums.  But there is an alternative way then yours.  You may not like it but there is.

Thats what I hate in these forums, Those with only one thought who try to verbally beat the shit out of others who don't think the way they do.  If you continue to enter the forums to repeat over and over your position, you will have others come in these forums and say, " Hey wait a minute, there another way".  So perhaps your position is triggering those who want to refute you.

Thats getting tiresome.  You repect no one else's opinion but your own.  That is whats wrong with this site.

I asked you to read what Hunter wrote.  He was very much a bridge builder.  What he said was common sense, and well stated.  I wish you would have read it.

Hello, Risen.   I admit to very often being intractable and stubborn and a know it all.   However I would never say a person's  view was stupid or they were clueless .   I get other folks may not think as I do.   Should models be paid for their time?   ABSOLUTELY!   What I don't see is where photographers advocate for themselves.   My broken record remarks center on a few basic in my views truths.   $100.00 ain't happening for the most part per hour no matter what models tell us.   Industry professionals and good art nude photographers aren't in general ever going to pay models.   What irritates me is when photographers infer those who don't pay models are using them and or their models are inferior because they do trade.   

I also hate white knights.   Always trying to 'protect lady fair' These are grown women.   In one thread I recall a member speaking about a 20 year old woman as if she were incapable of making a informed intelligent decision.   I was insulted and the quote system misused to make fun of me in that thread.   Something that if I did would have me reported.   These threads aren't really about the subject after a few pages but are often just about goofs like me saying I'm right.   Thing is I know I'm a goof.   What does piss me off is when members here lie about what I say.  Now for another Tony gem.   There are a lot of older male photographers who WILL pay models for nudes.   These are men who frequent strip clubs and save their cash to see, photograph and interact with models.   

They have little desire to create art or even good images.    They also don't pay $100.00 per hour.   We all should conduct our business as we choose and most people ignore the forums and do just that.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
You are in London, a large metropolitan area with lots of models & agencies, I assume.

My point is that you can't extrapolate the "industry" of elite photographers & model agencies in large metropolitan areas to the entire population of MM:  I believe...
...  Most models here are not agency represented,
...  Many models here don't want to be agency represented,
...  Fewer than most models here would qualify for agency representation,
...  Many models here don't aspire to be agency represented,
...  Most photographers here are not "elite" (as in sought after for national campaigns),
...  Many photographers here cannot produce images that have significant value to most models,
...  Many members here don't live in large metropolitan areas,
...  Most of us are subject to local supply & demand forces,
...  etc.

While Tony & others might be right about elite photographers don't pay agency models, that doesn't mean that agency models aren't getting paid.  Further, implying that models shouldn't get paid by photographers is clearly incorrect, because plenty of INTERNET models are getting paid (and some by the very people who often report that elite photographer - agency model factoid).

You’re arguing with yourself here, I’m afraid.

I didn’t contradict, or even address, any of these points.

I simply questioned the veracity of your earlier claim that “agency models do get paid“ because I’d recently worked with some that didn’t.

But I did admit that I wasn’t exactly sure when and why they’d want, or be asked, to work for free.

I will find out a little bit more before posting any more on the subject.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Hello, Risen.   I admit to very often being intractable and stubborn and a know it all.   However I would never say a person's  view was stupid or they were clueless .

LOL!

Come on Tony, don't give me such an easy opening.

Not sure about 'know it all'? You tend to speak about your experience, which is valid, although occasionally you do over generalise. I do miss the days when I could sit back and watch you and Elisa go at it. Whatever happened to her? Even when I disagreed with her, she was a cool lady.

And Tony the major flaw (and many have pointed it out) is that you keep talking about "Industry". MM is a hobbyist site, no matter what MM tries to pretend. There are many professional photographers here, pursuing their hobby aspect as separate from their profession. Of course there are occasional exceptions to the rule. The vast majority of the photographers here could not make a living at photography. And the vast majority of the models here could not make a living at modeling in any genre, not just agency stuff (High fashion, commercial, erotica, fit modeling, parts or even porn).
(I am sure that the exceptions will jump in to take me to task, but before you do, please remember that you are the exception).

MM in NO way represents much of any industry. So as soon as we start discussing any industry standards, we are way, way out in left field.

MM has destroyed any professionalism by driving off many of the professionals.

Some come off as adamant about stuff when they are speaking out their arse.  Others are misapplying good knowledge. And many have their good information ignored.

To disabuse a newb model of the concept that they can earn $100 an hour is a kindness. Some here do earn it, and deserve it. But the majority will not get that, not even without their knickers. A dose of reality may seem harsh, but it is a kindness. Many of the deluded models expecting $100+ per hour (do porn models even get that?) will leave when they discover that they are being ignored. But those same models could be making some nice part time $$$ better than Micky D's cash, and still keep their knickers on.

And yes, to be constantly harping on agency stats is a gross mistake. Many of the photographers here do not want agency stat models. They are too tall, too thin, too whatever. I personally hate tats, but some here love them. I prefer a dancer look, agency style. Others prefer full figured (what the hell is that really?). In fact some models here are making good money because they are NOT agency stat.

OK, that is my rant, back to the train wreck.

Herman Surkis wrote:
LOL!

Come on Tony, don't give me such an easy opening.

Not sure about 'know it all'? You tend to speak about your experience, which is valid, although occasionally you do over generalise. I do miss the days when I could sit back and watch you and Elisa go at it. Whatever happened to her? Even when I disagreed with her, she was a cool lady.

Tony over generalized about photographers in his post.

Elisa was writing her dissertation when she was posting in the forums.  She now has her Doctorate.

Herman Surkis wrote:
I have been classed as an ELITE photographer.
Cool!
This came about due to claims that only elite photographers do not have to pay agency models.
And to think that I used to class myself as pretty run of the mill.
Can I use Elite Photographer in my profile?

Why not?  You are as good as most of the best here.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

Tony over generalized about photographers in his post.

Elisa was writing her dissertation when she was posting in the forums.  She now has her Doctorate.

We used to discuss/argue in emails and then...

Derek Ridgers wrote:

You’re arguing with yourself here, I’m afraid.

I didn’t contradict, or even address, any of these points.

I simply questioned the veracity of your earlier claim that “agency models do get paid“ because I’d recently worked with some that didn’t.

But I did admit that I wasn’t exactly sure when and why they’d want, or be asked, to work for free.

I will find out a little bit more before posting any more on the subject.

I think I pointed out the when and where and why, as others have. It was true for me back in Toronto, and still is here in Victoria. From that point not much has changed, other than I don't have to deliver actual prints.

Although this info may have been in another thread.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

Why not?  You are as good as most of the best here.

Interesting. I actually blushed.
Thanks.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
While I often do over generalize I believe MOST of the photographers here would like to be pros and make money for their work.   Yes, I get we're artists but equipment isn't cheap.   Why is it so many here feel models should be paid but photographers don't deserve too be and that they need to pay every model $100.00 or more per hour for the privilege of taking images neither can use beyond sites like these.  Why is it so many photographers here have so little respect for what they and we do as a community.   A model no longer wants her photos shown and members here say the photographer should take it down.   A model makes a allegation about a photographer and instead of considering if its true members here demand he be removed.

There is nothing wrong with paying models and nothing wrong with not paying.   However telling new models they can make $100.00 or more per hour constantly from websites like this hurts them.   It  may stop them from working to improve their portfolios because they focus entirely on what they will make.   I get why models here tell others what the 'standard' is but why do certain photographers co-sign that nonsense.   Yes I do frequently speak to the professional world.   Don't many here aspire to sell their work?   Don't many of you enter contests?   Don't you do weddings, events and try to shoot for clients.   One member who pays claims he makes money from donations to his website.   Key here if true is he is making money which is uses to pay models.   


What saddens me is so many the photographers here have such disdain for other photographers and worse promote bs.    If you pay models  good for you.   If you don't that's also fine.   Telling someone that if they don't pay models they won't get the best is wrong and insulting and saying if they do and wasting their money is equally wrong.   Here's the deal.   If you aspire to be a professional photographer and lets be candid many here do then learn how that world works.

I always say that I pay a model based on her look and experience!

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I always say that I pay a model based on her look and experience!

And I always say, I would pay (not $100/hr) if I could afford it, to not be obligated to deliver images in a reasonable amount of time.