Ginger Ryan wrote:

You're assuming that strippers at clubs make a lot of money. In truth, they don't. I know a few of those, too. The clubs take so much out of their pay at times that it's ridiculous. One of them in particular worked a ten hour shift and walked away with $70. I've attended clubs myself and I've worked with her before doing private shows and she's gorgeous, has an amazing personality and has pretty good business sense. Doing shows like that rakes in about $200/hr.

That being said, $7/hr is cheap for any hire in any industry. I know I wouldn't work for that. $200/hr is not, but I'd never expect a photographer or small-time client to be able to afford that. They're completely different worlds.

Sorry - perhaps I should have said that the guys pay the models as much as they spend per hour in a club.  Never said that the dancers make that much money.  They have tip-outs, and stuff.  Dancers who do private parties make more money per hour and usually have no management to suck up profits!

ei Total Productions wrote:
Without sounding facetious, if you are being paid by the client, then paying the model is just a cost that you are passsing onto them.

If you are not being paid, then, who says you are supposed to be able to afford them?  Unless you are rich, maybe you can't!

Makes sense! 

It's either a business expense or an expensive hobby for the wealthy?  If it's business, then the salary of the talent should be figured into the total cost of the shoot.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
How are photographers supposed to afford models ?/

By having a good paying day job or paying clients.....

~ MR

Vampire Black Cat wrote:
I have $20k in equipment in my trunk

Duh!! where you parking your truck

~ MR

Images by MR wrote:

Duh!! where you parking your truck

~ MR

Transporting full, parked empty.

Vampire Black Cat wrote:
This should read... how are models supposed to afford photographers.

I have $20k in equipment in my trunk at any one gig.  Homie gotta pay for that.

Models don't care how much your equipment costs, they care about the quality of your photos.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Without sounding facetious, if you are being paid by the client, then paying the model is just a cost that you are passsing onto them.

actually if you are paying the model and the client isnt doing it directly you should be marking up the model fee to cover the time that it takes you to deal with billing it

Vampire Black Cat wrote:
This should read... how are models supposed to afford photographers.

I have $20k in equipment in my trunk at any one gig.  Homie gotta pay for that.

i think you missed the part where it was stated that no one cares about your expenses.. namely, what you spent on your equipment..

Vampire Black Cat wrote:
I have $20k in equipment in my trunk at any one gig.  Homie gotta pay for that.

while nobody really cares, it does beg a question:  why would you invest so much in equipment and not invest anything in what you put in front of it. 

sorry, but it is so tiresome to keep hearing pretty much any dollar figure invested in equipment....it's not fucking disposable.  if you don't get your money out of it there is no one else to blame

Dan Howell wrote:

while nobody really cares, it does beg a question:  why would you invest so much in equipment and not invest anything in what you put in front of it. 

sorry, but it is so tiresome to keep hearing pretty much any dollar figure invested in equipment....it's not fucking disposable.  if you don't get your money out of it there is no one else to blame

Some of us shoot things other than models you know. Sunsets are free to shoot but you gotta have gear...

Ginger Ryan wrote:
It's the photographer's job to sell their images. It's the model's job to sell herself to the photographers. No model I know charges anywhere near what an escort charges (I know a few on both sides of the issue).

Agree with this, in the same way a director or producer hires the actors, whoever runs the band pays the hired guns or the roadies or producers... etc.  A determined artist needs good help and mostly that is paid.  A determined artist will also make something of the work they produced with the hired guns, or evolutionary theory takes over and they stop.

Addressing the question, there's other ways besides money to pay some things if you look at what you have to offer.  I've paid with Alaska Air flight passes, for example. 

Also... word on the street is, if people like your work, you may not have to pay at all...

Dan Howell wrote:

while nobody really cares, it does beg a question:  why would you invest so much in equipment and not invest anything in what you put in front of it. 

sorry, but it is so tiresome to keep hearing pretty much any dollar figure invested in equipment....it's not fucking disposable.  if you don't get your money out of it there is no one else to blame

When I worked in a camera store we'd always have guys who spent tons of money on the latest and greatest cameras and use the shittiest lenses.  And they'd be so happy to show us the horrible photos they took of whatever random model they could get for trade of Craigslist, using no lighting technique or Alien Bees or whatever.  But they would brag they had a $5000 camera body...

David Miller Photoworks wrote:

When I worked in a camera store we'd always have guys who spent tons of money on the latest and greatest cameras and use the shittiest lenses.  And they'd be so happy to show us the horrible photos they took of whatever random model they could get for trade of Craigslist, using no lighting technique or Alien Bees or whatever.  But they would brag they had a $5000 camera body...

^This

Models seriously don't care about how much fancy equipment you have.  I have had a photographer do amazing things with just a normal point and shoot, I even recently did a shoot with a friend using an iPhone.  I have also had photographers who had fancy studio lights and lens, and had no idea how to use them.  We care about the quality of the photos.  Plus saying "I paid eighty-kagillion dollars for my equipment, but I can't afford models" makes you sound like a douche bag.  If you can find great trade models, then yay you, but using your equipment cost as an excuse is just lame.

Little Alice wrote:

^This
Plus saying "I paid eighty-kagillion dollars for my equipment, but I can't afford models" makes you sound like a douche bag.

Bahahaha

I think that's what I meant to say, but I like the way you say it better.

David Miller Photoworks wrote:
When I worked in a camera store we'd always have guys who spent tons of money on the latest and greatest cameras and use the shittiest lenses.  And they'd be so happy to show us the horrible photos they took of whatever random model they could get for trade of Craigslist, using no lighting technique or Alien Bees or whatever.  But they would brag they had a $5000 camera body...

On the other hand if they'd bought a cheap body and top of the line pro lens.  things would be completely different.  The fact  they have no idea about lighting, either natural or studio, wouldn't even matter as the magic of that pro lens would instantly turn, what would of been a shitty photo if taken with a cheap lens, into an amazing photograph all thanks to using a pro lens instead of a cheap one

Epic Exposures LLC wrote:
TO be quite honest, I have NEVER paid a model. I get paid by them, but I even get non paid nude pics. I do help them with gas money if they are pretty and drove a little ways to get here. A model is born with a great body, however I have paid thousands in equipment, and thousands of hours in time, therefore everyone pays me if it's not TF.

Just put some great stuff out there and they will come looking for you.

i peed a lil

Alisyn Carliene wrote:
So Here's the solution, since you keep comparing models to adult escorts, why not just hire an adult escort? I'm sure she'll pose for you.

The truth is, many photographers are retired or work very competitive careers that pay well.
Some also sell the pictures or have clients they sell the work to.
and to hire a model, you do not need a whole team. Hire a model who can do it all.

I AGREE WITH THIS POST!

Mcary wrote:

On the other hand if they'd bought a cheap body and top of the line pro lens.  things would be completely different.  The fact  they have no idea about lighting, either natural or studio, wouldn't even matter as the magic of that pro lens would instantly turn, what would of been a shitty photo if taken with a cheap lens, into an amazing photograph all thanks to using a pro lens instead of a cheap one

Not what I implied at all.  The issue is that people spend money in one area so freely but neglect the rest of a production.  What compounds the issue is they brag about the cost as if it added inches to their wang.

Though clearly if it was a choice between a good lens on a low end DSLR or a bad lens on a high end DSLR,  the smart money is a good lens on a low end DSLR.  It'll outlast the body and have a greater influence on what the final image looks like.

David Miller Photoworks wrote:
...using no lighting technique or Alien Bees or whatever....

Hey, don't diss the Bees

Craig Thomson wrote:
I've been shooting for a few years and have only paid to shoot one model.

I beg a lot.

Bwahahaha!


Thanks, I needed that!

I pay if I want to shoot with a specific model and there may be implied or nudity, but have done the same style trade with equally talented models.

My theory:
Shoot amazing images of talented models and then other models will be keen to shoot with you.

As I have never paid an adult escort (Tried begging but that did not work!), I don't know what they charge, here or in your neck of the woods.
The most I have paid for a full nude shoot is $150 for 2 hours, with the average being $100 (Not including trade shoots).

John Jebbia wrote:
2. Get creative. I just had a private collector pay me $15,000 to shoot 6 models nude and give him the photos exclusively. I'm to pay the models out of that $15k and I keep the difference. No.. it's not a scam. I've done business with this guy before. He paid me $12k 6 months ago for the same thing.

Shusssh!  You are giving away the secrets of surviving in this business! 

Finding clients to pay for what they want! 

Over 30 years, this has worked well.

Scott

Carlos Occidental wrote:
Step 1)  Hire girlfriend or other friend TFP and take some fabulous shots, with model release.

Trupin Photography wrote:
I tried this and it all worked great until my wife found out.

ROTFL!

Marc Rosebeck wrote:

i peed a lil

Yea

Inner Vision Images wrote:
I'm not sure why a photographer would ever pay a model. 

If he's a hobbist and not a photographer that's different... he's paying for his hobby... like paying to play golf rather than being paid to play golf.

A photographer doesn't normally pay the model, the client does or if the photogrpaher does, it's included in his bill to the client.

For me, models pay me to shoot them just like any other of my clients would.

Well, here are a few reasons photographers pay models:

- If they publish books and they need content for the books.

- If they publish calendars and they need content for the calendars.

- If they create works of art (prints) that they sell for profit.

- If they need content for a web-site that they make money off of.

- If they want a model to practice with, and want to have control of the shoot (ie: want to shoot THEIR concepts, etc.).

There are still more reasons, but that should be enough to convey the idea.

I understand that in many parts of the modeling/photography world, the model AND the photographer both get paid by a client, but frankly I am always puzzled when I see photograhers say "I'm not sure why a photographer would ever pay a model."

I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time about this, or be a "white knight", but really - it's a "no-brainer".  There actually are perfectly legitimate reasons for a photographer to pay a model.  Charging for their services does NOT put them in the same category as escorts. There are quite a few models who make a livable amount of money from charging photographers...if a market for them didn't exist, then models who charge photographers wouldn't exist.

And yes, some of these photographers are GWC's with money to blow...but many are people who have legitimate reasons, and choose to spend their money as an investment to make money, or a way to practice their art.

This topic has been covered SO many times...I honestly don't think that ranting about it will change anything.  As long as there are photographers willing to pay - there will be models willing to be paid by them.  It actually has nothing to do with the fact that some photographers don't think they should have to pay, or can't afford to pay (and even that is a matter of priorities - if you wanted to bad enough, you could always save money in other areas to pay for it...how hard is it really to come up with $150?  If that is a problem for you, you have other things to worry about. For example, do you smoke? If you smoke just 1 pack/day, that is at least $150/month.)

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
Hello,

I occasionally pay models **but my artistic interests and photography gigs alone would never pay for models+studio+mua+gear**, honestly I only pay for the ease of booking and to remove the tacit obligation of sending photos in a reasonable amount of time.

This leads me to the my point here:

How exactly are photographers supposed to afford models, I mean how does that business plan work? Given that there is a general desire to work with the artistic teams with the best locations and gear and visions - there is no way that these people have steady income to consistently pay models desired rates. Statistically unlikely to say the least, if these were the people paying models then models wouldn't still be asking for the same rates as adult escorts. Efficient market theory 101.

so I'm still trying to figure out how this concept is intended to work

Now let me do a better comparison:

fact 1) ADULT ESCORTS ADVERTISE TO WEALTHY GENTLEMEN, the typical crowd being investment bankers and the upper tier of earners.

This is the polar opposite of what a photographer can expect to make. These are on opposite extremes of the salary range, even with your successful wedding business.

fact 2) MODELS FREQUENTLY CHARGE AS MUCH AS ADULT ESCORTS, OR PULLING TOGETHER ALL RESOURCES WILL COST AS MUCH

Now we already know there is a noteworthy overlap, since adult escorts need professional retouched pictures, but its WHO is being advertised to. (if you made it this far: no I'm not implying all models are sex workers.)

Models advertise to photographers, preferably the ones that put time and effort into their work - meaning they aren't spending their time closing the deal on that merger & acquisition.
----------

So, as long as this crowd IS advertising to photographers, instead of advertising to CEOs of companies with shareholders, how is this little economy of ours actually supposed to work?

Now I'm sure these upside-down economics contributes to the age of photographers booking models. Hint: Its a bell curve. But I would like to know how the "ideal" scenario was intended to work. Given model's hourly rates are rates reserved for "generous gentlemen".

I really think some have a warped way of business:   I Pay all models that I work with..  Then the Ad agency  or commercial client pays my invoice..    I do not pay a new untested model.  I do allow a travel allowance..   From that point on all jobs are PAY.  Of course I bill the client for all the costs..   This has worked quite well for over 60 years..   All records are in my large file..

David Miller Photoworks wrote:
Though clearly if it was a choice between a good lens on a low end DSLR or a bad lens on a high end DSLR,  the smart money is a good lens on a low end DSLR.  It'll outlast the body and have a greater influence on what the final image looks like.

This of course bring up the question of what is good or high quality lens and what is a low quality or bad lens.

Example;  would  something like the Canon 50mm 1.4 or the 85mm 1.8 on say a 5D MrkII be considered high end DSLR + low end glass.  While something like a 24-70L or 80-200L on a Rebel DSLR would be considered low end DSLR + good/high quality glass?   
Or are we only considering consumer level zooms  when talking about bad or low end lens, just wondering as a lot people here seem to feel that any lens that doesn't some how have "Pro" associated with its name is a cheap low quality lens.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
Hello,

I occasionally pay models **but my artistic interests and photography gigs alone would never pay for models+studio+mua+gear**, honestly I only pay for the ease of booking and to remove the tacit obligation of sending photos in a reasonable amount of time.

This leads me to the my point here:

How exactly are photographers supposed to afford models, I mean how does that business plan work? Given that there is a general desire to work with the artistic teams with the best locations and gear and visions - there is no way that these people have steady income to consistently pay models desired rates. Statistically unlikely to say the least, if these were the people paying models then models wouldn't still be asking for the same rates as adult escorts. Efficient market theory 101.

so I'm still trying to figure out how this concept is intended to work

Now let me do a better comparison:

fact 1) ADULT ESCORTS ADVERTISE TO WEALTHY GENTLEMEN, the typical crowd being investment bankers and the upper tier of earners.

This is the polar opposite of what a photographer can expect to make. These are on opposite extremes of the salary range, even with your successful wedding business.

fact 2) MODELS FREQUENTLY CHARGE AS MUCH AS ADULT ESCORTS, OR PULLING TOGETHER ALL RESOURCES WILL COST AS MUCH

Now we already know there is a noteworthy overlap, since adult escorts need professional retouched pictures, but its WHO is being advertised to. (if you made it this far: no I'm not implying all models are sex workers.)

Models advertise to photographers, preferably the ones that put time and effort into their work - meaning they aren't spending their time closing the deal on that merger & acquisition.
----------

So, as long as this crowd IS advertising to photographers, instead of advertising to CEOs of companies with shareholders, how is this little economy of ours actually supposed to work?

Now I'm sure these upside-down economics contributes to the age of photographers booking models. Hint: Its a bell curve. But I would like to know how the "ideal" scenario was intended to work. Given model's hourly rates are rates reserved for "generous gentlemen".

First may I say find it EXTREMELY offensive that you are comparing models to adult sex workers like escorts. Though you excuse yourself, I can only imagine you make the comparison in the first place to cause such offence.
However, I will address you points.

Firstly if you wish to make an image - or produce a garment and show it off well - in a professional way you will need a professional model to do that.

Some photographers can catch a beautiful fleeting expression or something from an amateur model; a good documentary photographer can capture genuine expression from a real life scenario  whether it be an Afghan girl or a moment of sports angst or ecstasy. BUT these are documentary. If you wish to create an image rather than record it, it is entirely different.

It is similar to making a movie with actors or amateurs.

Not everyone will have the budget to employ actors; but then they will find it difficult to produce something of quality. Unless again; it is documentary.

So I feel what you are asking is akin to say why do film makers need to pay actors; and I feel I am having to explain the obvious.

The market decides what people are paid be they actors or models. We don't 'aim' our skills and abilities at 'rich gentlemen' we show them in the marketplace and we get booked. A photographer aiming to produce a high quality image may be doing it for his own Art or may be doing it for a third party client, or with a publication in mind. Even if its for his own art presumably he will be selling it at a Gallery or again some publication. He owns the copyright and there is at the very least potential to sell it or develop his image making skills toward some professional outcome in the future.

His best way of selling that image; or if it is a designer to sell the creation, is to use a professional model in that process.

It is our job as a model to interpret your vision.
I began as a Fine Art model. I studied models in artists images and sculpture from throughout art History; I studied gesture and pose also in dance and ballet, and in studied Fashion photography throughout the decades to come up with a repertoire of elegant and expressive poses.

It obviously was worth something for me to be fully booked most weeks for two years.

I am not a top model by any means but I am a journeyman model and like many here we are able to have a professional input into helping create an artists vision; whether they are a painter, a sculptor, a photographer, or a designer.
I think we are as important a factor in that as a good photographer is in creating a beginning model's portfolio; and both here deserve renumeration for their work. Sometimes where there is mutual benfit then TF is an option; but that IS pay of sorts.

That is how the business plan works.

The artist (photographer, designer, painter, sculptor) has a vision.
He/she employs a model to interpret it through pose, expression, gesture, style,  or even promotion and because they are good at that something is created which can be sold or looks like it is worth paying for to a third party.

That third party can be a gallery owner or customer; a publication, a client that buys a dress whatever.
If you don't use a professional model your results may be limited. So paying a good model maximises your potential in the marketplace.

No people can't always afford it; but in the end I don't think a professional photographer can afford not to at some point. A good model is as essential to your artistic vision as camera or paint or fabric and need as much investing in.

Oh and btw; I have said it before and I will say it again. Photography is often only a small proportion of a professional model's paid work. We don't seem to have this issue from artists or designers or promotion companies where there is never a question of not being paid for our work.

Martin St James wrote:
The most I have paid for a full nude shoot is $150 for 2 hours, with the average being $100 (Not including trade shoots).

First, I don't pay people to get naked.  They either do nudes, or they don't.  I'm not offering money on a sliding scale to have them take off their clothes.  That's my pretty one strict rule.

But, I also don't pay people for "art."

"Art happens."   So, if people are not interested in making art, having fun, working for an image, a result, then I'm not interested in working with them.  I don't care how naked, or "good looking" they are, the collaboration will not work.  So I move on. 

That said, what do people get paid for?  Doing a _JOB_.  So, if there is a workshop where people are paying to be at, to learn something, then there is often pay for the _JOB_ the model is doing at the workshop.  A lot of times the workshops are not paying, since we try to keep the fees low, and we barely cover the overhead. So, the models work TF*.  But _TRADE_ is just that _TRADE_.  It's like building a relationship.  We don't "count pennies."  But the reason we have models who work with us for years, is because we give back as much -- if not more -- than we ask.

If you want to make money, you need to give it away.  The trick is to give away what costs you nothing, but which other people value highly.

I just had a shoot, and everyone backed out at the last moment.  All the photographers/models.  Summer months are like that.  All except a new member of the group, who wanted her 12 year old daughter to get some shots.  I don't usually plan to shoot much at these events, I'm usually too busy talking, and moving lights, or "instructing."  But, we shot, and rather than talking about lighting/etc we talked about age-appropriateness, and kids being kids.  We got some great photos, none of which will be posted here, because my port is *not* age appropritate, but mom said "How can you afford to do this for free?"   I really didn't know how to answer, but I tried.  And I've thought about it a lot since.

I think the best answer I could have given (but didn't) was "How could I not afford to?"    It wasn't "free."  They needed something, and they were willing to pose for a group, in exchange for photos.  They drove over an hour to get there, and I wasn't going to say "Well, no one showed, so tough luck."  They invested their time/effort, and even though it wasn't worth much from a "selfish" point of view -- I knew I was not going to be able to use anything in my portfolio (no matter how good - because of age) -- I VALUED their effort, and what they could/would bring to the group as a whole at a later date.  They were so excited with the images, I'm sure I will see them again at the group events, and *THAT* is *my* investment/return on the deal.  It really cost me very little to give them a whole bunch of photos to think about, learn from, and (for my "fatherly" inclination) to make a statement about age appropriateness, and avoiding the traps of trying to be older than you are.  What if they dont show?  Then maybe I did some good by giving them information they admitted they didn't have before.  Modeling isn't for everyone, no matter how thin, tall, good looking, or stunningly beautiful you are.

Finally, there is a reason *real* agencies don't charge models.  MODELS DON"T HAVE MONEY!  They are doing the modeling, in most cases, because they NEED money.  So, trying to make money off models is the lowest of the lows, bottom feeding, etc.  It always has been.  It's been that way for at least the 40 years I've been doing this.   

So, if you need models, you need to TRADE and accept the model has to offer in TRADE.  I don't know why people think that all you can trade are pictures.  Do you know there are sometimes the models shoot, and have no need for pictures?  At all.  They need something else.  *BUT* they are willing to trade their time/effort to get it.  And, sometimes they are just bored, and want to do something, so they will "work" on a project just to build "karma credits" for something else.  Trade works BOTH ways.   

What do I TRADE?  Food.  Pictures.  Some gas money sometimes (this isn't "pay", it's a trade of a specific good).  Maybe I turn their phones back on.  Or pay some rent.  Maybe I drive them to an appointment they need dependable transportation to.  Yes, I spend cash, but they get some GOOD or SERVICE not cash.   What do they trade?  Their time.  Their "Look."  Sometimes I put them to work cleaning up   Everyone has different needs. 

Being flexible in what you trade, and how you think about what you trade, and how you work with people is how you get ahead -- on both/all sides of the equation.  *BUT* trying to make money on one side, throws the equation off, it no longer balances or equals out, and then there are problems. 

Scott

BTW:  to go back to the original quote, I've paid more for non-nude shoots over the years than I have ever paid for nude shoots.  Why?  Most money is in advertising/selling, and *MOST* of that is non-nude.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
fact 2) MODELS FREQUENTLY CHARGE AS MUCH AS ADULT ESCORTS, OR PULLING TOGETHER ALL RESOURCES WILL COST AS MUCH

True, yet there are many threads by models discussing how hard it is to get any paid work.  Just because some models ask such high rates, does not mean it's what most photographers or clients are actually paying models.  According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average pay actually provided to models by those who hire them is under $20/hour.