Alisyn Carliene wrote:
I'm noticing a trend, lots of models do not want to pay photographers for their gas, equipment, time and efforts. It goes both ways.

I've noticed the same thing.  Oddly, I frequently get asked about rates, but what many of them have in mind is so absurd I'd rather trade.

Jessica Vaugn  wrote:
Well, they're paying. They're just not paying you.

Yes, be offended...

Hahahaha! I LOVE it when someone speaks MY mind for me

IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://dbiphotography.co.cc
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1983551

MartinKnorr wrote:
Models are products and photographers are the customers who 'buy' the models (for a photoshoot).

It's all a matter of simple 'supply and demand,' just like with everything in the world.

If there's a big supply (models) and a small demand (photographers who want to shoot models) it means that the price/worth of the models goes down a lot.

Why would the photographer spend money for someone to come a long way, if he can also shoot with models just as good near his area? (don't take this personally, haven't even checked your profile, just speaking in general).
In this case you end up having competition against the other models. You end up having the choice of paying for your trip and shooting with the photographer, or not pay for your travel and the photographer will shoot with someone else (he/she doesn't care about that, but you might tho)

Umm....sayyy WHA??? The photographers are the customers? Hmm...perhaps some good reading material would help you here...where is that now... http://www.newmodels.com/

Photographers aren't the end-clients, mate. We just create and sell the product. We hire models to *create* said product, or the client sources the talents directly. That's usually when you get into bigger commercial clients. The ones I'm not shooting for...yet

IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://dbiphotography.co.cc
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1983551

Rylee  wrote:
I'm noticing a sad trend. Many photographers now aren't willing to pay models for their time or travel AT ALL even if they requested it. I just don't understand the stubbornness of it. If you're requesting models to work with you and they're a substantial distance away you should pitch in to get them there. If there's a photographer I really want to work with I do whatever it takes to get there and make it happen and it should be the same for photographers. It makes NO sense to have the person you're excited to work with and requested their time, work and dish out the cash to make it happen. You want that photographer or model, handle what it takes to get them. I understand this business isn't paying what it used to but what business is? Things are just starting to seem one sided and it feels like some of the people I've encountered are forgetting they're dealing with real people. Any thought or reasoning for this growing trend?

Please make accurate well researshed  statements..   When it is a job and not a hobby  the business takes care of itself..

Expose The Moment wrote:
I don't pay models, and wont pay models.

I have 20,000 dollars in gear.
I have a 500 Liblity insurance bill.
and all the SOFTWARE and COMPUTERS stuff we have to buy and keep updated.
Plus ad costs and a bunch of other costs.

They the model dont wanna do a TFP, let them go work with a non pro gwc.

I personally think, a Professional Photographer has more invested MONEY wise, then a model.

OK

I can afford over 20K worth of photography gear
I can afford to pay for insurance
I have a bunch of cool software and computers and stuff that aren't cheap

But somehow after investing all that money to make the best photos I can, I don't want to invest any money in the subject of my photos.  I can never quite get my head around that line of thinking. 

The majority of my portfolio is stuff I've shot for trade, but if you're trying to make great photos, what is the big deal about tossing a fraction of what you spend on lenses, bodies, software, computers, etc. to an experienced model to make the best images you can. 

If someone like Vassanta, Keira Grant, V Nixie, Paper Doll, etc. is in your area, schedule some time with them and pay them.  I turn away models that want to shoot trade with me, nudes, clothed, whatever all the time.

While shooting trade is thought of as "free", the truth is my time is valuable.  That "free" model costs me a bunch of hours retouching images that I have offered as compensation for the time that "free" model spent with me.  When it turns out that she can't model, has only one expression, showed up with a few more pounds than her portfolio pics, and went on a Butterfinger binge before the shoot and her skin is all jacked up, what I get in return for my time is totally not worth it.  So now I'm in the position of spending a bunch of time working on images that I'll never even want to show to anyone and putting aside other things so that I can finish these images in the timeline I agreed to.  Yes, that's an extreme case, and most of my trade shoots turn out pretty good, but it does happen and I'm very reluctant to take chances on inexperienced models working for trade.

When I pay a model, I shoot, pay her, and my obligation to her is done.  I work on the images I want to when I want to and while I've been disappointed once or twice with models I've paid, the results of my shoots with paid models have overall been much better than with trade models.

Fortunately (for me), I'm not a full time photographer and don't have to hustle every minute to generate income with my photography.  This is primarily a hobby for me and I want to get as good at it as I can.  Working with paid models gives me the opportunity to jump start the quality of images I create and I can do whatever experiments I want with lighting, themes, etc. and it doesn't matter to the model if they turn out or not.  I don't have a lot of ego wrapped up in this and I'm willing to invest in all aspects of my photography. 

You don't see travel photographers saying "I'll never pay to go someplace to take photos".  They invest in travel so that they can get shots of things you don't see every day.  That's the same way I look at paying models.  There are a lot of models right outside my door that I can shoot for "free", but there are only a handful of models that really take things to the next level.

Art of the nude wrote:

That is per month, not year.  And he's in Oregon, so I'm pretty sure it's not THE "Broadway."  Sounds like he rents a restored lumber baron mansion.  Which I would LOVE to have.

Obviously per month, a good deal in any city.

GM Photography wrote:

OK

I can afford over 20K worth of photography gear
I can afford to pay for insurance
I have a bunch of cool software and computers and stuff that aren't cheap

But somehow after investing all that money to make the best photos I can, I don't want to invest any money in the subject of my photos.  I can never quite get my head around that line of thinking. 

The majority of my portfolio is stuff I've shot for trade, but if you're trying to make great photos, what is the big deal about tossing a fraction of what you spend on lenses, bodies, software, computers, etc. to an experienced model to make the best images you can. 

If someone like Vassanta, Keira Grant, V Nixie, Paper Doll, etc. is in your area, schedule some time with them and pay them.  I turn away models that want to shoot trade with me, nudes, clothed, whatever all the time.

While shooting trade is thought of as "free", the truth is my time is valuable.  That "free" model costs me a bunch of hours retouching images that I have offered as compensation for the time that "free" model spent with me.  When it turns out that she can't model, has only one expression, showed up with a few more pounds than her portfolio pics, and went on a Butterfinger binge before the shoot and her skin is all jacked up, what I get in return for my time is totally not worth it.  So now I'm in the position of spending a bunch of time working on images that I'll never even want to show to anyone and putting aside other things so that I can finish these images in the timeline I agreed to.  Yes, that's an extreme case, and most of my trade shoots turn out pretty good, but it does happen and I'm very reluctant to take chances on inexperienced models working for trade.

When I pay a model, I shoot, pay her, and my obligation to her is done.  I work on the images I want to when I want to and while I've been disappointed once or twice with models I've paid, the results of my shoots with paid models have overall been much better than with trade models.

Fortunately (for me), I'm not a full time photographer and don't have to hustle every minute to generate income with my photography.  This is primarily a hobby for me and I want to get as good at it as I can.  Working with paid models gives me the opportunity to jump start the quality of images I create and I can do whatever experiments I want with lighting, themes, etc. and it doesn't matter to the model if they turn out or not.  I don't have a lot of ego wrapped up in this and I'm willing to invest in all aspects of my photography. 

You don't see travel photographers saying "I'll never pay to go someplace to take photos".  They invest in travel so that they can get shots of things you don't see every day.  That's the same way I look at paying models.  There are a lot of models right outside my door that I can shoot for "free", but there are only a handful of models that really take things to the next level.

You make some excellent points.   Here's how, I see this.   Paying models which, I've done hasn't been a very good investment overall because the resulting images have been on par with those I haven't paid.   Its me not so much the models.   If, I buy a new lens or memory card or camera its a tangible investment and one that I can use again and again.   I'm not against paying but I understand those who don't.   Paying does make sense from a time investment standpoint if you are busy and don't have time for the TF nonsense of canceled last minute shoots due to a sick grandmother.   However from a financial viewpoint.   A photographer could go broke very quickly if he were to pay every model he worked with.

I don't mind paying for gas but not the $150.00 a model quoted me once who lived in Indiana.   I'm not opposed to paying for nudes but not the $150.00 a hour a model told me she charges to shoot at a downtown Chicago hotel she rented and oh, she has a escort.   That said I think that some male shooters equate paying models like paying for sex with a woman.   They have never done it and won't.   They see this as if she doesn't want to work with me for the images then, I don't need to shoot her.   That's not necessary a view I agree with but I do understand.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

You make some excellent points.   Here's how, I see this.   Paying models which, I've done hasn't been a very good investment overall because the resulting images have been on par with those I haven't paid.   Its me not so much the models.   If, I buy a new lens or memory card or camera its a tangible investment and one that I can use again and again.   I'm not against paying but I understand those who don't.   Paying does make sense from a time investment standpoint if you are busy and don't have time for the TF nonsense of canceled last minute shoots due to a sick grandmother.   However from a financial viewpoint.   A photographer could go broke very quickly if he were to pay every model he worked with.

I don't mind paying for gas but not the $150.00 a model quoted me once who lived in Indiana.   I'm not opposed to paying for nudes but not the $150.00 a hour a model told me she charges to shoot at a downtown Chicago hotel she rented and oh, she has a escort.   That said I think that some male shooters equate paying models like paying for sex with a woman.   They have never done it and won't.   They see this as if she doesn't want to work with me for the images then, I don't need to shoot her.   That's not necessary a view I agree with but I do understand.

I don't think everyone should pay models either.  I have seen some really crappy shots of some really great models.  On the other hand, I've also seen some really experienced shooters whose work could definitely be better if they had better subject matter.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment about equating it to paying for sex.  Shooting a model is not a sexual act and it's counter productive to let your ego get in the way of investing in something that could take your photography to another level simply because you keep repeating the mantra to yourself "I don't have to pay for it, I can get it for free". 

Some photographers are good enough that models who normally get paid will come to them for help with their portfolios or even pay them for shoots.  Some get paid by publications or other clients to shoot exceptional models, but that is not the case for the vast majority of photographers on Model Mayhem including many in the "I'll never pay" school of thought in this thread.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
...Here's how, I see this.   Paying models which, I've done hasn't been a very good investment overall because the resulting images have been on par with those I haven't paid.   Its me not so much the models.   If, I buy a new lens or memory card or camera its a tangible investment and one that I can use again and again.   I'm not against paying but I understand those who don't.

I agree.

I think few hobbyists here have invested 20K in camera gear.  For me it's more like $1,200 or my camera and the same on lights.  If I use my camera just 250 times over it's life span that's an average cost of under $5/shoot.  Lighting, seamless, etc. might bring that average up to $15/shoot.   If I pay a model $30/hour (which many models here claim is very low) for a 3 hour shoot instead of shooting trade that $90 I pay the model is 6 times my entire equipment cost.  That's a notable difference.  Is the value of the images or shoot experience 6 times greater that trade?  As you indicated, for those who place a high value on their time and easy of booking, maybe it is, but I think for many hobbyists at least, the answer will be often be no.  Many hobbyists simply can't afford to spend $100-$300 every time they want to practice their hobby for a few hours.

One also needs to consider the cost of substitution.  Models are only one of many subjects available to a photographer to shoot.  How does net return of shooting other subjects compare? The cost of models can make all the difference.  In selling microstock for example, photos of models may sell a little bit better, but the second I spend even a little on a model the profit quickly drops below less expensive subject matter.(quickly hitting the point of probably loss)  I know several frequent microstock contributors who have stated that paying anything notable for subject matter would kill any profit potential.

Like you, I sometimes pay models, but I can certainly understand why many don't.

Martin K Photography wrote:
So if we put it all together I can come up with a rant like this (IMO)

We, hobbyists (and professionals who pay for their personal projects) bring let;s say 3$K each to the table for paying for models, it is spread very thin among them. On top when we "reluctantly agree" to pay, we tend to pay  only the best models, who in general retain most of this money.

Then proverbial 80/20 comes into play. There are more models than photographers and 20% of the models get paid 80% of the money. So it ends up being a few K per year, for those who make money. Hardly a professional income. Side revenue for a couple of years, pay for rent and mac&cheese during college. Only fraction of this money can be spend on portfolio building.

Then, how many shoots does a model really need to create a portfolio and gain some modelling skills - these and mutually agreed upon fun/art shoots  are reasonable TF shoots. Experienced photographers belong to this category (being able to create portfolios and create art that models are happy creating for free). We (hobbyists) are not.

Everything else should be paid jobs, and everyone agrees. But there is no $$$ to pay without having a client. And we can't provide a client, first because we don't even want to, never mind whether we are able to.

So it is bound to be hobby for the better off (relatively speaking) among us,  same way as golf, tennis, scuba diving, skydiving, sailing, boating, you name it, is. Few grand per year.

Those who can't bring the $$$ are bound to be frustrated. Unless we become very good at it and 20% of us will get 80% of the free shoots.

To become good we might start by paying good models. And even if we become good, we are in it for fun, when a model comes and ask us, what our rates are for a portfolio shoot we will smile and say, free. The circle closes.

So all that is left is whether to scream "I don't pay" or not (scream).

In today's economy many people have cut back on spending money on their hobbies and lets be candid for a moment.   Lets say, I paid one of the traveling nude models here $100.00 a hour and produced a great shot.   Other models here aren't going to suddenly want to shoot, TF.   Oh, I'll get the usual 'Love your work' then it will be, 'How much are you paying?'   There really isn't a real upside for many hobby shooters to pay models a lot.   As for models paying for shoots.   Anyone with that as a business model is in trouble as most won't.   The ideal is to find real world clients if you want to turn pro and as for goofs like me.   

I'll pay when, I can.   I'll do TF.   Sometimes models who do nudes will work with me TF and sometimes excellent fashion only models will.   Any shooter on MM who gets frustrated easily or offended by models who expect to be paid might consider not being here.

Nicolette wrote:

I giggled at that too.

I'm a Pro wedding photographer that is why I have that much gear.

Expose The Moment wrote:

I'm a Pro wedding photographer that is why I have that much gear.

Being a pro wedding photographer has nothing to do with the fact that you were completely ripped off for that gear.

Martin K Photography wrote:
So it is bound to be hobby for the better off (relatively speaking) among us,  same way as golf, tennis, scuba diving, skydiving, sailing, boating, you name it, is. Few grand per year.

Those who can't bring the $$$ are bound to be frustrated. Unless we become very good at it and 20% of us will get 80% of the free shoots.

I've done many of those hobbys as well as others, and yes, they've had costs, most of which are equipment costs, much as photography has the cost of my camera.   I usually share most of those hobbys/experiences with someone else, but I've never paid anyone to go scuba diving, sailing or golfing with me.  I find other people who have an interest in sharing the experience as a hobby.  I can understand why many would want to approach photographing people the same way - by finding others who desire to share the experience as a hobby in which both benefit in non monetary ways.

Expose The Moment wrote:
I'm not going to list out my gear piece by piece, but you don't have a clue what is need to run a Professional Wedding Photography Business. I mean you need several cameras and then backup gear, Off camera lighting, radio triggers etc.

Of course I don't have a clue. I was never a professional photographers assistant. I never helped him shoot weddings or anything. NOOOOO. Nope. No way. Not me.

Guys, I openly admit I don't have a clue what is need to run a Professional Wedding Photography Business.

Mischa Marie wrote:

I know. I'm dying.

ModelPhotos2011 wrote:
Because a lot of these "models" are just average looking girls with cel phone "pics" or crappy over the head Myspace type photos , and all their GFs are like "OMG Brittany you are SO hot you should be like a model ...or something"...so they sign up for a free website and then say they ONLY do paid shoots and want $100.oo per hour....and they have TWO poses....1 arm over head...2 arms over head, then demand not only to be paid but a High Res edited CD of all the images.

We've already established that those are not actually models.

I have no problem paying actual girls who can 'model' and bring something to the table.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

Lucas_Smith wrote:
Because you need us more than we need you.

Some of the people in this thread could stand to pay a good model.

At least you have a good port and should definitely be getting paid, IMO.

Mischa Marie wrote:

Some of the people in this thread could stand to pay a good model.

At least you have a good port and should definitely be getting paid, IMO.

True.
I wouldn't pay anyone with an attitude like that though.

Nicolette wrote:

True.
I wouldn't pay anyone with an attitude like that though.

Well, I don't shoot that style so I wouldn't pay him either

I have no problem admitting that I have payed in the past when I have needed good photos.

I don't know why people's egos get in the way of admitting you like someones work enough to pay them. It just means you recognize quality work when you see it. And that goes for both sides of this stupid little pissing match.

Lucas_Smith wrote:
Because you need us more than we need you.

I will put a tongue in cheek and say, no; models would still get jobs based on crappy GWC portfolios if there were no pro photographers, simply quality would be lower; while professional photographers need subjects in front of camera to be paid

Mischa Marie wrote:

Well, I don't shoot that style so I wouldn't pay him either

I have no problem admitting that I have payed in the past when I have needed good photos.

I don't know why people's egos get in the way of admitting you like someones work enough to pay them. It just means you recognize quality work when you see it. And that goes for both sides of this stupid little pissing match.

Ditto. I've paid before. I'll pay again.

Fuck egos.

Agent Erotique wrote:
I'm not going to pay a model unless I have a paying client that is open to using
non-agency models to save money. Even then some of the models here charge so much that going to an agency is so much EASIER and guaranteed. Unless the model has a very specific look the client wants, it's usually not worth the trouble of hiring from the internet.

Paying for an art model makes sense, especially if the images receive some kind of financial gain.

Also, it doesn't matter how much we spend on our gear. That's part and parcel of being a photographer. I had a day job temporarily to make ends meet a few years ago. The operating cost of their business was close to $1 million PER DAY. They didn't come to me and complain that they spend X amount on equipment and think I wasn't worth spending the money on. That's ridiculous.

If you are a photographer, you're taking the burden of the cost and running a business. If you're NOT running a business, then it's your hobby and you just have to suck it up because you chose an EXPENSIVE hobby and that's nobody's fault but your own.

Damnit, why do you have to make sense?

eos3_300 wrote:
Where are the mods ??? Why wont this Sucker DIE already ??

Everyone is expressing themselves in a civil manner . Why should a mod interfere?

Fenix Fotography wrote:
Because Photographers are a Vendor and Models are clients.  Models want to use the photographs to market themselves to casting directors for film, print ad campaigns, big-city runway shows, etc.  Those are the people who PAY models.  It's the same relationship as when a manufacturer hires a photog to create photos for their ads.

A photographer who is professional, not some guy who just bought a camera or wants to see you naked for the sake of just seeing you naked, has photographed hundreds of models and does not need you in his/her portfolio nearly as much as you need the work of a good photog in yours. 

It cost a professional photographer about $400 to pick up his camera and shoot (figure $20k in equipment another $20k in advertising, Liability insurance, accounting, legal, etc, the cost of our education).  So even at the going portfolio rate (in Charlotte, NC) of $175/look, a shooter is barley breaking even.  When a photographer shoots TFCD, the model is receiving many hundreds of dollars in product and the shooter is going deeply in the hole.

Most of the shooters here are hobbyists and to be frank have no need to pay models.   If they shoot nudes they usually can't sell them and content is dead.   So what are the arguments for paying models.   Do you get a better model when you pay?   I would say, not always as its our skills that make the difference.   Lets take Jessica here.   She's beautiful with a figure to match but if I paid her rate would it improve my book.   That's doubtful because my skills are what they are.   That's not a critique of what I do but is being honest.   No better camera, lens, tripod or paid model will really move me forward.   That's because any improvement beyond what, I bring to the table means nothing.

There are some reasons budding pros should pay.   If the plan is to go to ad agencies or even fashion agencies showing strong work and great faces is important.   If you can't get them TFP then pay but for most here.   Paying may mean less flaky models.   It may mean a model who's done nudes and is very comfortable doing more and has a graceful style and confidence borne from multiple shoots.   Beyond that invest in books, workshops and classes in Photoshop.   Learn first to take better images.