Angela Hamilton wrote:
I am a professional dancer (contemporary/ballet) and a model. I get paid modelling work and still do TFP, but will only ever do paid nude shoots. Have only recently moved to London and recently joined MM and have been approached by many photographers asking me for my rate. I have no idea what to say!
For a nude shoot?
For a dance shoot (specialist skill)?
For a nude+dance shoot?
For a clothes (fashion,beauty,commercial etc)/
What are everyone's thoughts on a fair rate for these kinds of shoots?

I can't give you advice on specific rates but my opinion is that a shoot that includes several styles should be priced at the highest rate.   For example, a shoot that includes clothed, lingerie, and nude should be at the nude rate.

I don't time the various styles with a stop watch.

natural beauties of qld wrote:
Nude by itself is often not particularly useful. Dance training is often a pre-requisite for doing good nudes, rather than an add-on at extra cost.

Unlike some, I am not opposed to tiered rates.  In any case, I have to agree with this poster said.  Your dance experience is quite valuable.  I wouldn't hesitate to emphasize it when you look for work.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
As with most things it all comes down to supply and demand.  What are other similar models able to commend?

Another thing to consider is how many shoots you desire, and how more income compares to working more hours.   I knew one local model who charged $100/hr and only booked 2 shoots per year at that rate, but it paid her textbooks for the semester which she was happy with.  She had no desire to shoot regularly.

Some full-time models work a fraction of that hourly rate, but make a living from their modeling.  Neither extreme is right or wrong. 

A given rate isn't just about whether or not you will get hired, but how often you will get hired a that rate.

Very true!  There are various circumstances that should be brought up at the time rates are discussed.  This is why I think that having a ballpark or starting rate is good, but don't publish that rate or else you could be stuck on a job that your really should be asking for more.  I can sum up what you've said in one sentence; Modeling rates are negotiable.

Angela Hamilton wrote:
Thanks everyone...

I am very definitely a passionate professional dancer and I am not looking to 'break' into the modelling world and making a name for myself or anything. I have done it as an extension to my dancing over the past 4 years, because photographers want to work with me because of my dance skills and look and work ethic. I honestly just see it as something on the side to make pocket money and another form of expression.

I am not particularly interested in posing nude, although I am asked to a lot, so I will only if I think its paid fairly enough to be worthwhile for me as I will not use any of the images. That's why on my profile I say I won't do nudes for tfp. I don't care to build my folio with nudes..

I agree with the negotiating and that each situation is unique, a fee that both parties are comfortable with should be agreed on.

Always good to consider each offer as unique.  Consider how attractive the idea or concept is to you, the potential budget of the photographer, and also if you like working with that person. 

Dance was the earliest subject of my photography.  I used to have my studio inside a dance studio.  Dancers most often make wonderful models!  Best wishes to you!

MelissaAnn  wrote:
If you want to be paid by good/reputable photographers to shoot nude, it would be wise for you to do a couple nude TF shoots first and get some great nude images in your port.  Doing TF for nudes now (with good photographers) will result in more/higher paid offers later with better/more reputable photographers.

The type of photographers willing to pay a model with no experience doing nudes (or no nudes in her port) are not usually the type that will be able to add images to your port that will increase your value as a model.

Refusing to trade for nudes is not in your best interest.....unless you want to be paid less, indefinitely, and work with less talented photographers.

We need more models like you.   I think trading with good to great shooters is always a smart move.   It keeps your book current and many times working with better photographers can lead to more paid opportunities.   Some MM models only do nudes for money.   Understandable to a degree but what I've seen happen is that it hurts some long run.   They end up sometimes only working with photographers who pay and many of those photographers just aren't that good.
Because I'm being constantly followed by a member.   This is my OPINION.   I'm not saying that models shouldn't charge or aren't worthy of payment.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Avoid tiered rates based on clothing levels. Are you really worth LESS with your clothes on?

You're unlikely to get many offers of paid clothed work that doesn't also involve some nudity anyway.

Here in the UK nude dancers can get up to around £55-60ph, or maybe £350-375 per day. If you're not dancing but just looking pretty against a tree or whatever then expect to be able to charge a maximum of £40ph or £250 per day.

Also, your policy of no nude trade shoots is ridiculous, if I may say so!




Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Nudity is possibly less of a big deal in the UK than elsewhere, and doesn't attract the same premium.

It's a small country with at least a dozen exceptional full time models who can shoot anything from fashion and beauty to art nude. Some of them are dancers. Some of them very good at just looking pretty against a tree.

None of them that I am aware of charge extra for nude work. Some of them charge very much more for clothed (fashion/advertising) work.

MelissaAnn  wrote:
If you want to be paid by good/reputable photographers to shoot nude, it would be wise for you to do a couple nude TF shoots first and get some great nude images in your port.  Doing TF for nudes now (with good photographers) will result in more/higher paid offers later with better/more reputable photographers.

The type of photographers willing to pay a model with no experience doing nudes (or no nudes in her port) are not usually the type that will be able to add images to your port that will increase your value as a model.

Refusing to trade for nudes is not in your best interest.....unless you want to be paid less, indefinitely, and work with less talented photographers.

As I stated above, I am not particularly interested in nude modelling. But I am comfortable doing it so if a photographer approaches me wanting to do a shoot and offering a fair fee for my time and service, and of course only if I think their work is quality, I will do it. But I really don't care to do nudes much for my own creative expression  as it just doesn't appeal to me that much. So I don't see the point in doing tf nude shoots right now if I don't even care to go in that direction.
And actually I honest am finding it hard to understand this idea of nudes being no different to any other type of modelling. It is! Your friggen naked! In the theatre industry there is a law that if you are required to perform any nudity in a theatre show, you are to be paid a higher fee.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
There is no right answer. Rates vary by region and experience. Try to find out what similar models in your area are charging, and go with that. If you're booking tons of work, raise your rates. If you're not booking anything, lower them.

Also note that many photographers frown upon so called "stripper rates," charging more for nude than clothed.

+1

Angela Hamilton wrote:

As I stated above, I am not particularly interested in nude modelling. But I am comfortable doing it so if a photographer approaches me wanting to do a shoot and offering a fair fee for my time and service, and of course only if I think their work is quality, I will do it. But I really don't care to do nudes much for my own creative expression  as it just doesn't appeal to me that much. So I don't see the point in doing tf nude shoots right now if I don't even care to go in that direction.
And actually I honest am finding it hard to understand this idea of nudes being no different to any other type of modelling. It is! Your friggen naked! In the theatre industry there is a law that if you are required to perform any nudity in a theatre show, you are to be paid a higher fee.

I didn't know about the nudity law for theater.   Are these plays with actors from Equity?   http://www.actorsequity.org./   You stated that you are being offered paid work already and that's good because a lot of the paid work here seems to be nude.   As a photographer I don't really see nude modeling as all that different then clothed modeling but I do get why a model might.   In your case I would start by asking what the shoot is for.   Portfolio building isn't the same as  commercial or look book for a designer.   Shooting for a client is different then working with a student photographer.   How much time is involved?   Does the shoot require a long drive?   Is there a good chance the images may be published?    Is the session with a really good photographer?   

Lets say at your non modeling job you earn $15.00 per hour.   Overtime would be $22.50 per hour.   So maybe $25.00 per hour is a good place to start.   Negotiation is a good skill for any freelance model to have.   I'm sure you'll do well though.

Angela Hamilton wrote:
As I stated above, I am not particularly interested in nude modelling. But I am comfortable doing it so if a photographer approaches me wanting to do a shoot and offering a fair fee for my time and service, and of course only if I think their work is quality, I will do it. But I really don't care to do nudes much for my own creative expression  as it just doesn't appeal to me that much. So I don't see the point in doing tf nude shoots right now if I don't even care to go in that direction.
And actually I honest am finding it hard to understand this idea of nudes being no different to any other type of modelling. It is! Your friggen naked! In the theatre industry there is a law that if you are required to perform any nudity in a theatre show, you are to be paid a higher fee.

Your OP didn't ask about nudes in the theatre, you were asking about rates for modeling.  I'm a nude model, and I'm giving you advice as it pertains to *modeling.*

You stated that your'e not interested in doing nudes,  yet you're willing to take paid nude gigs, right?  What I'm telling you is that even if you're only doing nudes for the money, you'll get *more* money/better offers if you have quality images in your port.  If you're *willing* to do nudes, why not get paid more & work with better photographers (instead of guys that are essentially just paying to see you naked)?

I also never said that nude modeling was no different than any other type of modeling.  There are several differences, and some of those differences have to do with the type of people you end up working with when you don't develop your nude port, but decide to accept paid nude gigs from "photographers" willing to pay tiered/stripper type rates to models that don't have any decent nude images in their ports.

If the idea of quality images leading to better offers/more money doesn't appeal to you, definitely disregard what I said.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
Also note that many photographers frown upon so called "stripper rates," charging more for nude than clothed.

That is true, but overlooks the fact that a model may wish to do something for tf that is beneficial to her port whereas she may already feel she has enough nudes.

Stripper rate quibbles occur when the model charges more for nude than clothed. But I certainly wasn't ever going to do any nude tf when I was already used to getting paid for nude work from Art institutions and photography classes . I would do tf initially for clothed work which expanded the genres I felt I could do.

Angela Hamilton wrote:
As I stated above, I am not particularly interested in nude modelling. But I am comfortable doing it so if a photographer approaches me wanting to do a shoot and offering a fair fee for my time and service, and of course only if I think their work is quality, I will do it.

MelissaAnn  wrote:
I also never said that nude modeling was no different than any other type of modeling.  There are several differences, and some of those differences have to do with the type of people you end up working with when you don't develop your nude port, but decide to accept paid nude gigs from "photographers" willing to pay tiered/stripper type rates to models that don't have any decent nude images in their ports.

If the idea of quality images leading to better offers/more money doesn't appeal to you, definitely disregard what I said.

I agree with Melissa, but I'm also thinking, maybe you should consider not doing nudes at all. If it's just about some extra cash and a different form of artistic expression, then it probably would suffice (and save you some hassle) to just take that genre off the table. I mean, it's great that you're comfortable with it, but you've made it clear you're not into it. It might be silly, but it's important to a lot of photographers that a model likes to model (nude, or whatever the genre may be) and isn't begrudgingly taking her clothes off for cash.

You say you'd only work with photographers on nude projects if their work is quality, but as Melissa says, you'll get more quality offers if you make quality nudes yourself. However, you've said you don't want to spend time on that, which is totally legit, but it seems like you're creating a lose-lose situation for yourself here with your attitude towards nude modeling.

I say, all in or all out! Either jettison nude work or put your heart into it and make quality photos.

Tim Griffiths wrote:
I've spent a lot of time on UK forums and well heeled amateurs who regularly pay models say that somewhere between £25 and £35 ph is about right. If you are seriously in demand maybe a bit higher - £40 ph. The most I've seen publicly quoted (as in castings) is £50 ph, and that was from about a model pretty at the top of the tree, and who I have seen on tv documentaries (not about her, but as artist's model).

You'd not survive long as a professional model in London charging £25 an hour for low hours irregular work.
Most pro models need a days pay and low hourly rates are of no interest. So actually many freelance models charge high hourly rates and low day rates.
An agency can guarantee you 'a' model at a given time for two hours. But a freelance model cannot duplicate herself.
As even bog standard agency rates are £ 50 an hour plus VAT plus travel, and  they don't generally do massive discounts for longer hours, the freelancer can't compete with short hourly rates but can save the client massively on day rates.

Different for semi pro and hobbyist models of course outside London.

Ida Saint-Luc wrote:
maybe you should consider not doing nudes at all....

I say, all in or all out! Either jettison nude work or put your heart into it and make quality photos.

Pretty much what I was going to suggest.

MelissaAnn  wrote:
If you want to be paid by good/reputable photographers to shoot nude, it would be wise for you to do a couple nude TF shoots first and get some great nude images in your port.  Doing TF for nudes now (with good photographers) will result in more/higher paid offers later with better/more reputable photographers.

The type of photographers willing to pay a model with no experience doing nudes (or no nudes in her port) are not usually the type that will be able to add images to your port that will increase your value as a model.

Refusing to trade for nudes is not in your best interest.....unless you want to be paid less, indefinitely, and work with less talented photographers.

+1

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Angela Hamilton wrote:
I honest am finding it hard to understand this idea of nudes being no different to any other type of modelling. It is! Your friggen naked!

So?

Nobody cares about your bits other than GWCs who will pay to see ANY girl naked.

Charging extra for nudity only makes sense if you are marketing yourself to that segment, where of course, having good nudes in your portfolio is not really much help anyway.

So if you're happy to just take the money for putting on a show, without any interest in working with decent photographers, by all means go ahead. However, you should note that you won't be able to charge the premium rates for being a dancer etc. that I mentioned before and will struggle to get the better 'nude by a tree' rates either.

The going rate (from what I've heard) in the UK, for a girl with no decent nudes in her portfolio and no interest in making worthwhile pictures to simply stand around naked for GWCs to take snapshots of for their spank banks, is about £20 per hour or less.

So it's your call



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
You'd not survive long as a professional model in London charging £25 an hour for low hours irregular work.
Most pro models need a days pay and low hourly rates are of no interest. So actually many freelance models charge high hourly rates and low day rates.
An agency can guarantee you 'a' model at a given time for two hours. But a freelance model cannot duplicate herself.
As even bog standard agency rates are £ 50 an hour plus VAT plus travel, and  they don't generally do massive discounts for longer hours, the freelancer can't compete with short hourly rates but can save the client massively on day rates.

Different for semi pro and hobbyist models of course outside London.

I wouldn't know what agencies charge for their models, just going on what I think is realistic for the amateur market on sites like this, or PP, PS,NetModel,MADcows etc etc etc. There isn't a cat's chance in hell of an amateur paying anyone but the absolute best and most established £50 ph, not unless he has a hard on for that particular model's look, and he will always know he can book someone pretty damn good for £40 ph, which will come down to well under £300 for a full day.

Who is going to pay more? I guess professionals who have work commissioned by a high paying client (you'd know more about that) - but how many art nude models find that kind of work?

Tim Griffiths wrote:

I wouldn't know what agencies charge for their models, just going on what I think is realistic for the amateur market on sites like this, or PP, PS,NetModel,MADcows etc etc etc. There isn't a cat's chance in hell of an amateur paying anyone but the absolute best and most established £50 ph, not unless he has a hard on for that particular model's look, and he will always know he can book someone pretty damn good for £40 ph, which will come down to well under £300 for a full day.

Who is going to pay more? I guess professionals who have work commissioned by a high paying client (you'd know more about that) - but how many art nude models find that kind of work?

As I said. If the hours are one or two, all professional models will generally have a high hourly rate. And photographers with a client will charge it on to them. It makes little difference when the photographer is given a budget for the model unless they are trying to squeeze more out of it themselves. Often in fact it's just as likely the client will choose the model. And even small third party clients ate well used to paying £400-£800 for a model as a minimum from an agency for a big job. They aren't always going to trust that with the photographer, though a photographer can put forward a selection of models.

That's the work that most freelancers are after if they are doing mostly photographic work too. It's not just photographers booking us or if it is it us indeed a third party paying.

Most agencies won't work with amateur photographers without third party clients; unless they're alreadyday agency approved; and a hell of a lot of freelance models won't. Certainly not for low hours low pay at the risk of booking such and losing out on well paid work.

Those of us that will, can afford to be fussy. That is the way it is. Whether nude or non nude doesn't come into it. We do a job and we are used to being paid for it. BUT as I said we will mostly offer slashed rates for a whole days work. THAT is what we need. Fifty quid is not worth losing a days availability for higher paying longer hours regular work for. Now £200 may be. Any model doing life drawing or fit or promo at the high end can earn that. So THAT is what you are competing with.

It's of little interest to a model if they are not needing images for their portfolio, or it's offering something like editorial , to work with amateur photographers if they are not paying a days wages. You need to earn £120-£200 in London a day modelling minimum to keep a roof over your head; and that's regarded as standard in any of the aforementioned genres. Why would I work for £25-£40 for one or two hours hour when I can get three to four times that doing a days fit or life modelling or promo? But offer say £200 for the day and that's a different kettle of fish. So most of us have day rates that are much better for photographers than hourly rates.

This is of course why amateur photographers seek out amateur models. Often with predictable results.

As for the 'cant afford it' line I find it did that artists never quibble about paying models. If they can't afford it they get together and join or start an Art group and book a model between them. So in fact do photographers ; either with a Camera club or auspices of a photographer tutor.

Almost all the photographer-model problems and friction on MM are caused by failure of photographers to understand a models business plan. Denial leads to photographers being butt hurt by decline of tf, of booking wannabe models that lead to flakes, and then lashing out at pro models as mercenary. The first would be alleviated by realisation that models will only work tf when starting out, or with very specific mutual goals such as testing with agency photographers or high production value editorial or Art projects and that it is NOT a reflection of your work if a model declines tf . The second by realisation you pay peanuts you get monkeys. The third by the fact that not paying models is a mercenary consideration too and at the end of the day it's your artistic vision not ours so why should we invest in it when you agent prepared to?

So that's the score I am afraid. Professional models don't generally interface well with hobbyist photographers unless they are willing to pay them for what they'd earn working for professionals.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
The going rate (from what I've heard) in the UK, for a girl with no decent nudes in her portfolio and no interest in making worthwhile pictures to simply stand around naked for GWCs to take snapshots of for their spank banks, is about £20 per hour or less.

So it's your call



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

You heard wrong. The idea that only GWCs pay models and then only nude is utterly fallacious.
And if you are going to model nude it's better to go and do it for £150 a day for Art institutions of which there is no shortage in London.
Furthermore, every photographer thinks they are above gwc level and therefore this idea infects their consciousness, to disastrous consequences and disappointment for themselves.


You may get models to shoot tf but it's because in fact you have a very specific thing certain models often want. But you know damn well most photographers here can't command that. But it doesn't mean they are gwcs either and neither does it mean they only want to shoot nudes. I found little interest from photographers to shoot me nude. I've done less than 5% of my shoots nude and I have shot vastly varying ability and genre of photographers. The students and gwcs are often wanting to practice the craft and technique with professional models. Not just gawp at nudes. In fact I've only had one big problem and that was from a fashion photographer. Every other photographer I have ever shot with has been sincere about their work and some at a VERY high level if professionalism.

So that's you ticked off


What I will say is thus in your defense. You don't need propaganda however to say it; and it supports your position better than you have attempted.

It is BETTER for a model to shoot tf nude with a photographer like yourself or say Marco Sanges, for the benefit of port, contacts etc than it will be to shoot with a rank amateur clothed (typically in.pink rare ra skirt and crop top) for pay. Especially if the view of the latter is that £20 an hour for two hours is fair. THAT is why models dont reply to them: it's insulting.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
You heard wrong. The idea that only GWCs pay models and then only nude is utterly fallacious.

Re-read what I wrote Eliza

You know better than to accuse me of such nonsense!

ETA: you could also read my first post in this thread too where I advised her that she could get a lot more than that as a dancer posing for serious photographers.

Plenty of good photographers pay models for nudes if they can afford to do so. I sometimes wish I was one of them because then I wouldn't have to spend so much time retouching!

When I was talking about GWCs I was indeed ONLY talking about a sub-section of the 'photographer' class and in fact many of them are very well aware that their skills are sub-par but they have the money and they don't care; they're the ones who will pay an unskilled, inexperienced 'selfie' model with a mediocre look £20 (I've heard tell of even less) per hour to 'pose' for their spank banks.

The POINT of my entire post (which you seemed to miss completely) was trying to advise the OP that in order to work with the GOOD (paying) photographers and get MORE than those 'selfie' girls, she would do well to invest in her portfolio rather than putting in no effort and simply charging GWCs to see her naked.



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Another Italian Guy wrote:

Re-read what I wrote Eliza

You know better than to accuse me of such nonsense!

ETA: you could also read my first post in this thread too where I advised her that she could get a lot more than that as a dancer posing for serious photographers.

Plenty of good photographers pay models for nudes if they can afford to do so. I sometimes wish I was one of them because then I wouldn't have to spend so much time retouching!

When I was talking about GWCs I was indeed ONLY talking about a sub-section of the 'photographer' class and in fact many of them are very well aware that their skills are sub-par but they have the money and they don't care; they're the ones who will pay an unskilled, inexperienced 'selfie' model with a mediocre look £20 (I've heard tell of even less) per hour to 'pose' for their spank banks.

The POINT of my entire post (which you seemed to miss completely) was trying to advise the OP that in order to work with the GOOD (paying) photographers and get MORE than those 'selfie' girls, she would do well to invest in her portfolio rather than putting in no effort and simply charging GWCs to see her naked.



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Judging from her existing port do you think that advice relevant?

I think she isn't going to be shooting wank bank. And indeed her skill as a dancer qualifies her as a model and she will be able to command far more than twenty quid an hour. Unless it's long hours of course then that's fine as I have explained.

Nudity doesn't come into it and few gwcs actually want to shoot nudes once you eliminate the readers wives guys but as I said she isn't going to be shooting with them and they ALWAYS try it on tf anyway.

I just wanted to provoke you to clarify - which you have.

I shall let you explain the trade for pancakes next

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

As I said. If the hours are one or two, all professional models will generally have a high hourly rate. And photographers with a client will charge it on to them. It makes little difference when the photographer is given a budget for the model unless they are trying to squeeze more out of it themselves. Often in fact it's just as likely the client will choose the model. And even small third party clients ate well used to paying £400-£800 for a model as a minimum from an agency for a big job. They aren't always going to trust that with the photographer, though a photographer can put forward a selection of models.

That's the work that most freelancers are after if they are doing mostly photographic work too. It's not just photographers booking us or if it is it us indeed a third party paying.

Most agencies won't work with amateur photographers without third party clients; unless they're alreadyday agency approved; and a hell of a lot of freelance models won't. Certainly not for low hours low pay at the risk of booking such and losing out on well paid work.

Those of us that will, can afford to be fussy. That is the way it is. Whether nude or non nude doesn't come into it. We do a job and we are used to being paid for it. BUT as I said we will mostly offer slashed rates for a whole days work. THAT is what we need. Fifty quid is not worth losing a days availability for higher paying longer hours regular work for. Now £200 may be. Any model doing life drawing or fit or promo at the high end can earn that. So THAT is what you are competing with.

It's of little interest to a model if they are not needing images for their portfolio, or it's offering something like editorial , to work with amateur photographers if they are not paying a days wages. You need to earn £120-£200 in London a day modelling minimum to keep a roof over your head; and that's regarded as standard in any of the aforementioned genres. Why would I work for £25-£40 for one or two hours hour when I can get three to four times that doing a days fit or life modelling or promo? But offer say £200 for the day and that's a different kettle of fish. So most of us have day rates that are much better for photographers than hourly rates.

This is of course why amateur photographers seek out amateur models. Often with predictable results.

As for the 'cant afford it' line I find it did that artists never quibble about paying models. If they can't afford it they get together and join or start an Art group and book a model between them. So in fact do photographers ; either with a Camera club or auspices of a photographer tutor.

Almost all the photographer-model problems and friction on MM are caused by failure of photographers to understand a models business plan. Denial leads to photographers being butt hurt by decline of tf, of booking wannabe models that lead to flakes, and then lashing out at pro models as mercenary. The first would be alleviated by realisation that models will only work tf when starting out, or with very specific mutual goals such as testing with agency photographers or high production value editorial or Art projects and that it is NOT a reflection of your work if a model declines tf . The second by realisation you pay peanuts you get monkeys. The third by the fact that not paying models is a mercenary consideration too and at the end of the day it's your artistic vision not ours so why should we invest in it when you agent prepared to?

So that's the score I am afraid. Professional models don't generally interface well with hobbyist photographers unless they are willing to pay them for what they'd earn working for professionals.

I suppose I'd more or less agree, although I don't know why you felt the need to re-state the whole business about tf vs paid/how much who needs to earn/value of paying a professional etc etc. It's fairly obvious that it doesn't pay to work a couple of hours at a similar rate you'd charge for a whole day, not when such a short duration gig is going to wipe out a half day or more.
I don't care much for tf, and I've shot roughly on a 50/50 tf/paid split, but then again I don't much care for paying out good money for poor models. If there's one thing I've learned about this malarky, in so far as it manifests on the internet site, it is that utter bullshit is never in short supply, nor is the fantasist who spouts it - whichever side of he lens he or she is on. People come along and stick professional this, professional that on their bios and it is very often nothing more than a sort of manic wishful thinking.
i know what I need to pay to get an excellent model because i recently cast for one and, while the casting was so specific it filtered out a good 80 percent of models on the net, I got serious interest from two of the most in demand art nude models in the uk. In the case of the one I have never seen anyone better in five years, anywhere - at least where models who have profiles on these sites is concerned. So if the OP is going to have a profile on one or more of these sites then she needs to be realistic about what she can charge, and forget rates of £60/£70 ph for short gigs, because there's no market for it.
What you quoted for day rates, though, is fine. I actually think she has the chops (if that is the right expression) to get the paid work. A lot of art nude models are little better than mannequins who can move a bit. She's obviously a ton better than that.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Judging from her existing port do you think that advice relevant?

This is not the Critique forum so I can't comment, other than to say that what I wrote was probably a mixture of generic and specific advice.

The problem with the OP, it seems to me, is that her attitude is very biased against nudes but she says that she will do them for pay, even though she doesn't want them. That kind of attitude, regardless of what's in her portfolio, is not going to sit well with the more serious (paying) photographers and her attitude towards nudes in general seems typical of the £20 'selfie' girls I was talking about.

Even if she has a nice look, many photographers will NOT want to pay her premium rates for nudes if they feel she lacks enthusiasm when they could instead hire somebody like Raphaella WithLove who is also a dancer, has a lovely look and a great portfolio and clearly loves shooting all sorts of nudes!

Ida Saint-Luc wrote:
It might be silly, but it's important to a lot of photographers that a model likes to model (nude, or whatever the genre may be) and isn't begrudgingly taking her clothes off for cash.

+1

This is especially true of the better photographers; not so much so the GWCs.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I shall let you explain the trade for pancakes next

Trade for Pancakes (or TFP as it's usually known) is an arrangement where a model gets naked and shoots some fashiony shit in return for pancakes and the occasional photo for her portfolio.

I'm hoping it will take off in a big way!




Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Trade for Pancakes (or TFP as it's usually known) is an arrangement where a model gets naked and shoots some fashiony shit in return for pancakes and the occasional photo for her portfolio.

I'm hoping it will take off in a big way!

Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Wait a minute. Now they get pancakes AS WELL AS a couple 'a shots?

Who thought this up? It'll break me if this catches on.

Another Italian Guy wrote:

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Judging from her existing port do you think that advice relevant?

This is not the Critique forum so I can't comment, other than to say that what I wrote was probably a mixture of generic and specific advice.

She hasn't got a selfie or gwc port so thats irrelevant and you don't have to critique to acknowledge that

Another Italian Guy wrote:
The problem with the OP, it seems to me, is that her attitude is very biased against nudes but she says that she will do them for pay, even though she doesn't want them. That kind of attitude, regardless of what's in her portfolio, is not going to sit well with the more serious (paying) photographers and her attitude towards nudes in general seems typical of the £20 'selfie' girls I was talking about.

Even if she has a nice look, many photographers will NOT want to pay her premium rates for nudes if they feel she lacks enthusiasm when they could instead hire somebody like Raphaella WithLove who is also a dancer, has a lovely look and a great portfolio and clearly loves shooting all sorts of nudes!

I don't disagree; but she may not feel she wants nudes in her port in which case inclination to tf is not relevant. I have a lot of nudes I don't need any more as they aren't going to get me third party work any mire than my existing ones do. And I can still do tf nudes for those I choose to if I wish while putting gwcs off. I have never even used lovely bodyscapes I was paid for even though I have the images. That doesnt mean I am less enthusiastic about nudes I do, or charge more for them. But I would also agree that the Op shouldn't charge more for them if doing nude.
.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Trade for Pancakes (or TFP as it's usually known) is an arrangement where a model gets naked and shoots some fashiony shit in return for pancakes and the occasional photo for her portfolio.

I'm hoping it will take off in a big way!

I think it has it's appeal!

m_s_photo wrote:
Wait a minute. Now they get pancakes AS WELL AS a couple 'a shots?

Who thought this up? It'll break me if this catches on.

It's his idea. My realisation that I can eat ten easy so sounds fair as London exchange rate is £9.95. = 1 pancake