Mo Rina wrote:
Thank you for acknowledging that there are many valid reasons why photographers hire freelance models.  So many people here on MM do it, but they are afraid to admit it publicly...apparently it's akin admitting you watch Jersey Shore.

If I had a project, from which I intended to make money, I would absolutely not hesitate to hire you (because I like you and think you're super cool and talented) or any of the hundreds of other professional, freelance, traveling models on this site. 

However, I've not had any reason --thus far-- to hire models.  If I did, I'd be happy to admit it. 

As for Jersey Shore, if I ever watched it, not only would I not admit it, but I'd likely pluck my eyes out of my head immediately upon its conclusion.

Laura UnBound wrote:
I have no idea what y'all are fightin about this time...but I TFPlanetickets to Detroit

There are a lot of great shooters and there are paying gigs in this area (southern mi and northern oh).

Jacob Michael Photo wrote:
I realize there are other threads similar to this, but I need to put this out there.  I believe that if I ask a model to use her services, and I searched for her, she has what I am looking for, etc etc, than I should be paying her for those services.   There may be times where tfp may be considered, but If I am seeking a particular model, why would I expect to not pay him/her?  And also, why would I be cheap either?  If the model is exactly what I want why would I think $20 an hour is reasonable?  I see so many cheap people making $20 an hour sound so good, but come on most shoots will only be a couple of hours and really, all that time and effort for $40 or $50 bucks?  If a model found me and wanted to shoot, I would expect the same consideration and to be paid accordingly.   Its a service, name one service in the world that is free?  And I fully believe you get what you pay for as far as effort, quality, experience.   I think the MINIMUM price a model shoukd get for a 2 hour shoot would be more in the ballpark of $100, just to begin covering the travel, preptime, etc.  And I still think thats low.  Of course Im talking experienced models here, not facebook girls. 

If you just dont feel you should have to pay for quality then maybe photography is not your profession Edit: (Not a diss, just meaning hobby).  Of course I expect photographers to get paid for their services too if the client or model finds them and want their services.  And I know we wouldnt be all that excited to do all we do for $40 bucks.

TFP?  Really? (Edit:  why offered so much?  Someone should be getting paid most of the time) Do you think they really deserve to work that hard for a couple pictures?  And do you really think your getting their best?

Maybe its just me, but I tip well for good service too.
Edit:  Quality over quantity imo.
And it really does take money to make money:)
All that money on a good camera body but not on a good female body? 

Any thoughts by all you models out there?

You hit the nail on the head.
My point is that for a model to continue profesionally she needs to make a living so has to or she has to take a different job so is not available.

The same goes for photographers of course - if a model initiates then she should pay. A photographer has to make a living too.

TF is sometimes an option if its genuinely is mutually beneficial; but it wouldn't be a normal option just for the sake of it.

Eliza C wrote:

You hit the nail on the head.
My point is that for a model to continue profesionally she needs to make a living so has to or she has to take a different job so is not available.

The same goes for photographers of course - if a model initiates then she should pay. A photographer has to make a living too.

What someone feels they need or who initiates a transaction are simply not the factors which determine market value.   

You'll get paid what the market determines your service is worth.  It's that simple.

What your needs are may determine what work you decide to do, but is simply not what determines the value of your service.

Carlos Occidental wrote:
Oh, what a happy, liberal, tree hugging world you all wish to live in.

But, life isn't fair.

Lmfao, tree hugging?

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
TFP?  Really?  Wouldn't have it any other way. I realize that most models can't afford my rates, but want my photos in their portfolios anyway. It's a way to achieve both our goals without spending money.

Do you think they really deserve to work that hard for a couple pictures? Considering the amount of work and the value of that work that I bring to the shoot, I would normally be charging them many times more than their hourly rate.

And do you really think your getting their best?
I certainly do. The models are enthusiastic, prepared, and eager to work.

Maybe its just me, but I tip well for good service too.
Don't worry . . . it's just you. Some people enjoy spending money when they don't have to.

Amen

Mo Rina wrote:
Thank you for acknowledging that there are many valid reasons why photographers hire freelance models.  So many people here on MM do it, but they are afraid to admit it publicly...apparently it's akin admitting you watch Jersey Shore.

There are quite a few successful photographers who hire and pay models regularly. We're not as loud as the others. Probably because we don't have to be.

Stephen Markman wrote:
If I had a project, from which I intended to make money, I would absolutely not hesitate to hire you (because I like you and think you're super cool and talented) or any of the hundreds of other professional, freelance, traveling models on this site. 

However, I've not had any reason --thus far-- to hire models.  If I did, I'd be happy to admit it. 

As for Jersey Shore, if I ever watched it, not only would I not admit it, but I'd likely pluck my eyes out of my head immediately upon its conclusion.

Thanks for the compliments.   Please note that I said there were valid reasons why photographers pay freelance models.  I didn't say it was the only possible agreement that should exist.

Mo Rina wrote:

Thanks for the compliments.   Please note that I said there were valid reasons why photographers pay freelance models.  I didn't say it was the only possible agreement that should exist.

I like you too!   

Cascading Falls Photogr wrote:
I brought up the $15 to $25 an hr. rate in another thread. I know a model that charges $15 an hour. She is a great local model but will never be on the cover of Playboy. She models for art classes at a local college and they pay her $15 hr.
She loves the work, so that is what she charges to model for photographers.
She keeps very busy, is a great time manager and makes a good, steady living for this area. That is double min. wage. If you lived in N.Y. you couldn't live on that.
     My problem is the 18 year olds that just want to get paid $100 for geting naked and don't want to work or even learn their craft. They think taking their clothes off is a craft. And of course, this is helped because there are people that will pay them.
Many "models" aren't making a living at $100 an hr., which seems to be the standard asking rate for nude photography. There are many reasons for this. Either they don't deserve it, the economy won't support it, they don't manage their time well, they don't communicate well, they, like a lot of people, want a lot for a little effort.
If a model is seriously wanting to make a living modeling but does not have what it takes to be a super model [statistically about 98%], then they need to go about it as any other small business owner.
Most photographers in my area would  work with a lot more models at $15- $25 an hr. That is what the economy will bear. I used to work with my friend regularly until she moved to Louisiana. I could practice my craft, shoot for longer times and try new ideas and lighting and not break the bank.

Models who have good business sense make a living at $100 an hour.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

Models who have good business sense make a living at $100 an hour.

But the market has to be one to allow for such. I pride myself on having a solid business sense, but here in Louisiana, the likelihood that I can pull $100/hr, unless I'm relying heavily on GWC work, is slim. LA, NYC, MIAMI - probably could make it happen.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I like you too!   

Awww shucks, thank you Jerry!

LexLethal wrote:
But the market has to be one to allow for such. I pride myself on having a solid business sense, but here in Louisiana, the likelihood that I can pull $100/hr, unless I'm relying heavily on GWC work, is slim. LA, NYC, MIAMI - probably could make it happen.

Yep - good business sense doesn't mean one can commend several times the market value for their service.

Also, rate/hour is only part of the story.  Asking $100/hour and only getting a few gigs at that rate, may not be the smart play.  Getting several times the gigs at half that rate may be better business sense.

Jacob Michael Photo wrote:
I realize there are other threads similar to this, but I need to put this out there.  I believe that if I ask a model to use her services, and I searched for her, she has what I am looking for, etc etc, than I should be paying her for those services.   There may be times where tfp may be considered, but If I am seeking a particular model, why would I expect to not pay him/her?  And also, why would I be cheap either?  If the model is exactly what I want why would I think $20 an hour is reasonable?  I see so many cheap people making $20 an hour sound so good, but come on most shoots will only be a couple of hours and really, all that time and effort for $40 or $50 bucks?  If a model found me and wanted to shoot, I would expect the same consideration and to be paid accordingly.   Its a service, name one service in the world that is free?  And I fully believe you get what you pay for as far as effort, quality, experience.   I think the MINIMUM price a model shoukd get for a 2 hour shoot would be more in the ballpark of $100, just to begin covering the travel, preptime, etc.  And I still think thats low.  Of course Im talking experienced models here, not facebook girls. 

If you just dont feel you should have to pay for quality then maybe photography is not your profession Edit: (Not a diss, just meaning hobby).  Of course I expect photographers to get paid for their services too if the client or model finds them and want their services.  And I know we wouldnt be all that excited to do all we do for $40 bucks.

TFP?  Really? (Edit:  why offered so much?  Someone should be getting paid most of the time) Do you think they really deserve to work that hard for a couple pictures?  And do you really think your getting their best?

Maybe its just me, but I tip well for good service too.
Edit:  Quality over quantity imo.
And it really does take money to make money:)
All that money on a good camera body but not on a good female body? 

Any thoughts by all you models out there?

It's peculiar that you think TFP translates into "free" for someone. Maybe you could explain what TFP means because I don't think it means what you think it does.

While that might sound a little critical, I would like to commend you on your attempt at pandering. It was a little transparent, but you made up for it by sheer length.

LexLethal wrote:
But the market has to be one to allow for such. I pride myself on having a solid business sense, but here in Louisiana, the likelihood that I can pull $100/hr, unless I'm relying heavily on GWC work, is slim. LA, NYC, MIAMI - probably could make it happen.

These models travel all over the country and sometimes overseas.

I recently photographed a model from New Orleans.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
What someone feels they need or who initiates a transaction are simply not the factors which determine market value.   

You'll get paid what the market determines your service is worth.  It's that simple.

What your needs are may determine what work you decide to do, but is simply not what determines the value of your service.

That goes without saying; but so do laws of supply and demand. Those who demand generally pay And those who don't get asked don't work; regardless of rates. Yes if the rates are right one works regularly. That goes for any sevice or product I guess.
If I need cigarettes I go in the shop and ask how much. Then I say that is an outrage then I buy them. They could not sell them to me unless I intiate the transaction because |I want them. Yes I want Marlboro lights but I have to pay a bit more. I guess that means they are worth it. But you cannot sell cigarettes to people who don't ask for them.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

Models who have good business sense make a living at $100 an hour.

Models making a living at $100 an hr. have more than good business sense.

If you took a poll, I bet you would find that over 85% of the models that have $100 an hr. rates aren't making a living. Most of the ones I talk to don't have transportation and are living with someone else. They are lucky to get 3 or 4 gigs a month.

Eliza C wrote:
That goes without saying; but so do laws of supply and demand. Those who demand generally pay And those who don't get asked don't work; regardless of rates. Yes if the rates are right one works regularly. That goes for any sevice or product I guess.
If I need cigarettes I go in the shop and ask how much. Then I say that is an outrage then I buy them. They could not sell them to me unless I intiate the transaction because |I want them. Yes I want Marlboro lights but I have to pay a bit more. I guess that means they are worth it. But you cannot sell cigarettes to people who don't ask for them.

You stated whether a model gets pad or pays depends on who initiates the transaction.  That's not how supply and demand works.  It doesn't matter if a clerk at a news stand shouts to you asking if you want to buy a pack of cigarettes or you approach him asking to buy a pack of cigarettes. He's not going to pay you to take the cigarettes because he initiated the transaction. Their value is the same regardless of who initiated the sales discussion.

It's no different with models and photographers.  A model has her worth.  Whether she contacts me looking for work, or I contact her does not influence the value she brings to a shoot.

Cascading Falls Photogr wrote:

Models making a living at $100 an hr. have more than good business sense.

If you took a poll, I bet you would find that over 85% of the models that have $100 an hr. rates aren't making a living. Most of the ones I talk to don't have transportation and are living with someone else. They are lucky to get 3 or 4 gigs a month.

The models I know are busy.

Curt at photoworks wrote:
It's peculiar that you think TFP translates into "free" for someone. Maybe you could explain what TFP means because I don't think it means what you think it does.

While that might sound a little critical, I would like to commend you on your attempt at pandering. It was a little transparent, but you made up for it by sheer length.

My gripe with tfp is on how often its used and how often its complained about.   Tfp tfcd  tf*** all the same, it should stand for trade for a possibility, that someone actually shows, or has half a clue what to do, images returned, useable images, and the list goes on and on.  Trade for print are half of you printing anything on a Tf shoot, or actually providing a cd?  Of unedited shots?  Why make a model sign a release if your not paying her, just saying.  So if you happen to make a buck are you splitting it?  Trading is what it is a trade for basically pictures, possibilty of perhaps being published.  Nothing more.  Im sorry but that is free if nobody gets paid, and if time is money wtf is nobody getting paid!  Like I said tf has its place for sure, but you cant tell me an experienced model who can nail your shots in 10 clicks or less is not worth more than the hundreds you probably take on that tf model not always, but probably most of the time.  IF she even bothers to show up!

Abbitt Photography wrote:
You stated whether a model gets pad or pays depends on who initiates the transaction.  That's not how supply and demand works.  It doesn't matter if a clerk at a news stand shouts to you asking if you want to buy a pack of cigarettes or you approach him asking to buy a pack of cigarettes. He's not going to pay you to take the cigarettes because he initiated the transaction. Their value is the same regardless of who initiated the sales discussion.

It's no different with models and photographers.  A model has her worth.  Whether she contacts me looking for work, or I contact her does not influence the value she brings to a shoot.

Yes it does. If you approach me it is because you need a model. If I approach you it is because I need a photographer. The person who is providing the demand pays. You don't go to a cigarette kiosk and aks for tf or barter or negotiate; and the seller does not approach people in the street. They may use an advertisement but that is different. The buyer is the one who approaches. If the price is too high then they don't buy and the seller goes out of business. BUT if the shop does a brisk trade it is because the price is fair and plenty of other customers come to initiate the transaction (their demand) and buy.

The same if a model wants photos for her port. We can try to suggest tf but the photographer knows that he is in a position that the model wants his services.

If you as a photographer has contacted a model it is because you think she will bring something of value to a shoot. She may not of course but it was in your mind that she would by initiating contact. The same as if someone comes in a shop asking the price of cigarettes it's a fair bet they are a smoker and need them. Of course a smoker may buy cheaper cigarettes but then they take a risk they are not as good as Marbloro Lights.

I don't contact photographers touting my services unless I am asked directly or am responding to demand in a casting. The reason for that is that I don't know if your require a model or if I am suitable for a project you may be working on because I don't know what it is. Some models may; but then the photographers generally expect they want to book them or at least do tf. They don't expect the model to suddenly throw them rates and frequently there are threads that demonstrate that.

Jacob Michael Photo wrote:
I realize there are other threads similar to this, but I need to put this out there.  I believe that if I ask a model to use her services, and I searched for her, she has what I am looking for, etc etc, than I should be paying her for those services.   There may be times where tfp may be considered, but If I am seeking a particular model, why would I expect to not pay him/her?  And also, why would I be cheap either?  If the model is exactly what I want why would I think $20 an hour is reasonable?  I see so many cheap people making $20 an hour sound so good, but come on most shoots will only be a couple of hours and really, all that time and effort for $40 or $50 bucks?  If a model found me and wanted to shoot, I would expect the same consideration and to be paid accordingly.   Its a service, name one service in the world that is free?  And I fully believe you get what you pay for as far as effort, quality, experience.   I think the MINIMUM price a model shoukd get for a 2 hour shoot would be more in the ballpark of $100, just to begin covering the travel, preptime, etc.  And I still think thats low.  Of course Im talking experienced models here, not facebook girls. 

If you just dont feel you should have to pay for quality then maybe photography is not your profession Edit: (Not a diss, just meaning hobby).  Of course I expect photographers to get paid for their services too if the client or model finds them and want their services.  And I know we wouldnt be all that excited to do all we do for $40 bucks.

TFP?  Really? (Edit:  why offered so much?  Someone should be getting paid most of the time) Do you think they really deserve to work that hard for a couple pictures?  And do you really think your getting their best?

Maybe its just me, but I tip well for good service too.
Edit:  Quality over quantity imo.
And it really does take money to make money:)
All that money on a good camera body but not on a good female body?

You're sucking up to models and want their opinion?  Hmmmm... seems like a self-promoting advertising scam to me.  Look at me!  I'll pay you!  You work sooooo hard... here!  Have a signed, blank check and a chocolate chip cookie!  Want some milk to go with it?

Ultimately, your post tells me that you consider the photographer's end of the equation utterly worthless.  You come across as condescending and somewhat ignorant.  And I'm making every attempt at being polite. 

Ultimately, you reach a point where the talent on both sides of the table makes shit rather moot.  It becomes Kasparov playing a pick-up game of chess with Bobby Fischer.  Or your three year old cousin playing checkers with the neighbor's dog.

Cascading Falls Photogr wrote:
Models making a living at $100 an hr. have more than good business sense.

If you took a poll, I bet you would find that over 85% of the models that have $100 an hr. rates aren't making a living. Most of the ones I talk to don't have transportation and are living with someone else. They are lucky to get 3 or 4 gigs a month.

I bet if you took a poll of professionals here they would not be far off and that is what counts. If someone wants me for an hour I am going to charge £75 plus travel. Which is about $100. Two hours I charge £100.

The problem is that by taking a job for an hour or two you can lose a day's week or month gig. So what a model needs is a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I thus charge £145 a day because I am happy to work eight hours as long as I get that day's work. Anything less is insanity - an hours work is no good unless it pays that. I will work for less than that IF it is local and ongoing. Hence most of us do the local art institution at £50 for two hours because they book us for ten weeks on wednesday night. Photographers rarely give that kind of work.

We may indeed only have 3 or 4 paying gigs a month at $100 an hour from photographers. BUT unless we are elite editorial models or have huge boobs photographers will only provide maybe 30% of our work if that. Photographers do not appear to realise that modelling for photographers is only part of what we do.

I was 100% employed most of the time for two years in London. 3 or 4 days or half days a week I would work at Agent Provocateur . A day or evening a week a boutique or designer modelling creations for clients. Then there were fashion trade shows whether its Erotica or the Clothes Show Live or London Fashion week regularly. Such events offer a massive range of modelling beyond the obvious catwalk stuff for the elite too. There is all the fitting stuff, plus very bar wants models and every designer wants models for social events in the evenings. Then most evenings and some days  I would be at the same regular Art Institution gigs; plus then for individual renowned artists and sculptors. Then other girls I know do similar but they may also dance and act and get modelling gigs where that is involved; whether it is doing that as part of the act or on the door for a burlesque event or music industry party. Then there is promotions modelling (two weeks solid work promoting mobile phones or perfume in a mall or wearing a sash on the podium at a sports event) ; plus lifestyle modelling stuff where a health spa or small magazine  books you directly and the photographer just turns up. So this work is all on going and regular generally.

That makes up 70% of our paid work. Yes in the beginning to get that work we need photographers to do our port; plus we need some updates. But we don't need it every day or even every week because we are busy busy busy. Ifwe take a one or two hour job with a photographer for £25 an hour then we are almost guaranteed that we will have to turn down something more lucrative or secure from one of the above. It happened almost every time I took a photography  job so they have to pay. As long as I got a days wages out of it I didn't mind losing the other work; but to do it for £50 or tf is gutting. ALL professionals will find this so hence the rates. In fact I would say that all professional models are going to have to charge that ball park figure unless they come up with the day's work model which they may do formally likemyself or by negotiation with the photographer. Few of us would expect to shoot for 8 hours at $100 an hour: the rate for an hour is there because often photographers think that is the way to save money - just to shoot for an hour. It isn't. If you say well I am only going to pay you $25 an hour but I will give you 8 hours work a model is more likely to accept because it is worth travelling and sacrificing the more regular work for.

You may of course get pretty girls; or amateurs to model for less than that but then the modelling work I have described above they would not get. We as professionals get it because we have a range of crafts and skills and experience that means we have constant demand for our services other than just from photographers. If photographers do not see what those skills and talents are; and are happy to carry on with the former then fine. But don't have a go at professionals because you do not understand why we get paid. Thank you though for those photographers who do value us for our craft and individual skills rather than just as new meat or still life.  xx

Eliza C wrote:
If we take a one or two hour job with a photographer for £25 an hour then we are almost guaranteed that we will have to turn down something more lucrative or secure from one of the above. It happened almost every time I took a photography  job so they have to pay. As long as I got a days wages out of it I didn't mind losing the other work; but to do it for £50 or tf is gutting.

Sorry, but your attitude is all wrong.

Sure, if you turn down a day's paid work to TF with a photographer whose work is rubbish and you can't use the pictures, then yes, you lost out - but why would you do that in the first place?

Photographers who can give professional models the kind of images they really need for their portfolios typically charge a lot more for their time than those same models do. So if you turned down a day's work at £145 (your figure) and got a day's worth of a photographer's time who normally charges £1000 per day, why would you be upset? He could pay you £145 and you could pay him £1000..... or you could trade. Seems like you're getting a reasonable deal to me.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
Sorry, but your attitude is all wrong.

Sure, if you turn down a day's paid work to TF with a photographer whose work is rubbish and you can't use the pictures, then yes, you lost out - but why would you do that in the first place?

Photographers who can give professional models the kind of images they really need for their portfolios typically charge a lot more for their time than those same models do. So if you turned down a day's work at £145 (your figure) and got a day's worth of a photographer's time who normally charges £1000 per day, why would you be upset? He could pay you £145 and you could pay him £1000..... or you could trade. Seems like you're getting a reasonable deal to me.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I have always said that models should pay photographers too have I not? It appears to me that the tf arrangement is sometimes good (and yes frequently in the models favour) but WE do not need them. We'd like them yes of course; but generally apart from port updates we can't make money from them. And if the photographer isn't going to he shouldn't be doing tf either; he deserves recompense if it is just for her port.

But for example if I shot with you yes your work is brilliant. I would need your photography more than you need my modelling. So in fact it is a waste of time you shooting me for the sake of it you should charge me if I approach you. However; that is unlikely to happen for the following reason.
I am 30. I am only 5ft 6ins. I get all the work I can cope with. Much of that work photography wise is with gwcs and I don't use the photos; and unless its by negotiated arangement even with good photographers that pay me I don't get or even see the photos. It does not interest me because I do not need them to get work. I could shoot with Steven Miesel and it won't get me any more work because I am never going to be any more than a journeyman model. This is an entirely different of course for a model just starting out IF she has some talent to begin with. But it doesn't matter how good your images are Stefan you are not going to make a silk purse from a sow's ear and I am not a dreamer. I am working to capacity and the heaight of what I can achieve modelling wise. With a younger taller fame hungry model with real potential to hit the heights you can indeed really offer her something far more than shooting with a moderate photographer can.

However; if you get a small client who wants a 40s and 50s inspired collection shot for their brochure then I can offer you something. I know how to move clothing or show it to its best cut or drape advantage it's my job. And for it I am worth the fee if you have a deadline and you do not want to take a risk. Of course because of your experience you probably have a newtork of other good professional models for this type of work; but not everyone has. But we would have something to trade. In that case I would trade tf if you are happy to. However; if the job is for Primark or the Council swimming pool no thanks If it is just for my port then I should pay you - how are you going to do anything with them otherwise UNLESS you have a really cool idea or I do that would be mutually beneficial. Then tf is ok.

I have nude images of myself coming out of my ears and don't want any more; so again it doesn't matter how good the photographer is tf is not an option.

But sorry most of our work offered tf tends to be to dress up as wonder woman in ropes or something or lifestyle stuff like the council swimming pool. Either way the photographer will be getting paid or aiming to. No unless its paid.

So sure; I would like to shoot more work with £1000 a day photographers tf.
Sure I would rather shoot great concepts than wonder woman in  ropes. Unfortunately that doesn't pay the bills but the photographers that pay me £145 a day do.

Now I am doing it part time because I am doing a PhD it is even more important that modelling work I do is paid. While people are paying I will keep modelling; but I will not gain any more work by shooting with £1000 a day photographers tf. Admittedly that is not the case with aspiring models with great potential. But for we journeymen already getting as much work as we need and don't have the potential to get better - which is a hell of alot of us here - that is the case.

And a lot of us do do tf in the cases you described.

Does that make sense? xx

EDIT btw; if I am not very much mistaken a photographer has asked models for THEIR opinion in the model forum. So how come all the photographers are chipping in ya trolls xx

Jacob Michael Photo wrote:

My gripe with tfp is on how often its used and how often its complained about.   Tfp tfcd  tf*** all the same, it should stand for trade for a possibility, that someone actually shows, or has half a clue what to do, images returned, useable images, and the list goes on and on.  Trade for print are half of you printing anything on a Tf shoot, or actually providing a cd?  Of unedited shots?  Why make a model sign a release if your not paying her, just saying.  So if you happen to make a buck are you splitting it?  Trading is what it is a trade for basically pictures, possibilty of perhaps being published.  Nothing more.  Im sorry but that is free if nobody gets paid, and if time is money wtf is nobody getting paid!  Like I said tf has its place for sure, but you cant tell me an experienced model who can nail your shots in 10 clicks or less is not worth more than the hundreds you probably take on that tf model not always, but probably most of the time.  IF she even bothers to show up!

Smdh

Just because you can't make it work doesn't mean the rest of us are failures at this.

Eliza C wrote:

Yes it does. If you approach me it is because you need a model. If I approach you it is because I need a photographer. The person who is providing the demand pays. You don't go to a cigarette kiosk and aks for tf or barter or negotiate; and the seller does not approach people in the street. They may use an advertisement but that is different. The buyer is the one who approaches. If the price is too high then they don't buy and the seller goes out of business. BUT if the shop does a brisk trade it is because the price is fair and plenty of other customers come to initiate the transaction (their demand) and buy.

The same if a model wants photos for her port. We can try to suggest tf but the photographer knows that he is in a position that the model wants his services.

If you as a photographer has contacted a model it is because you think she will bring something of value to a shoot. She may not of course but it was in your mind that she would by initiating contact. The same as if someone comes in a shop asking the price of cigarettes it's a fair bet they are a smoker and need them. Of course a smoker may buy cheaper cigarettes but then they take a risk they are not as good as Marbloro Lights.

I don't contact photographers touting my services unless I am asked directly or am responding to demand in a casting. The reason for that is that I don't know if your require a model or if I am suitable for a project you may be working on because I don't know what it is. Some models may; but then the photographers generally expect they want to book them or at least do tf. They don't expect the model to suddenly throw them rates and frequently there are threads that demonstrate that.

You are simply wrong to in saying who pays who is necessarily determined by who initiates contact.  Packs of cigarettes, roofing and modeling all have their value.  It does't matter who contacts who first about the need for a service.

My last shoot was with a model who contacted me and I paid her. I've contacted people regarding what I have to sell and been paid.

The price of service is determined by supply and demand not by who contacts whom.  It's basic economics.

Eliza C wrote:
So sure; I would like to shoot more work with £1000 a day photographers tf.

Sure I would rather shoot great concepts than wonder woman in  ropes. Unfortunately that doesn't pay the bills but the photographers that pay me £145 a day do.

Now I am doing it part time because I am doing a PhD it is even more important that modelling work I do is paid. While people are paying I will keep modelling; but I will not gain any more work by shooting with £1000 a day photographers tf. Admittedly that is not the case with aspiring models with great potential. But for we journeymen already getting as much work as we need and don't have the potential to get better - which is a hell of alot of us here - that is the case.

And a lot of us do do tf in the cases you described.

Does that make sense? xx

Yes, it does make sense.

However, in the context of this thread, to imply that all models at any stage of their career should be paid cash for every shoot and that TF is a waste of time is incorrect and likely to give models who need to do TF the wrong idea. The OP is clearly trying to curry favour with models by claiming they should always be paid, no matter what, but the reality is that everybody can benefit from TF at times, especially if they can manage to "test up" rather than working with people at the same level or lower than themselves.

I know and understand why, for models in your position, TF is a rare occurrence but there is no "one size fits all" solution to this question: it all depends on the model's experience and personal situation.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Abbitt Photography wrote:

You are simply wrong to in saying who pays who is necessarily determined by who initiates contact.  Packs of cigarettes, roofing and modeling all have their value.  It does't matter who contacts who first about the need for a service.

My last shoot was with a model who contacted me and I paid her. I've contacted people regarding what I have to sell and been paid.

The price of service is determined by supply and demand not by who contacts whom.  It's basic economics.

You miss my point. I am not saying its not possible. Yes someone can approach me in the street and ask if I want to buy a pack of Marlboro Lights and if they seem kosher I may pay. But it isn't usual. Normally when I want cigarettes I go to the shop and ask and pay.

Your shop if you want models are Agencies or sites like this or word of mouth. Most models don't randomly ask photographers and if they do its generally tf though yes in certain circumstances the photographer can offer. But that is more likely at an event where we may hand out a business card than by MM pm. Otherwise if we contact you we expect to pay or at least try for tf.

That is basic economics to me: if you need something you have the demand and ask how much it is from those who are supplying. And it works both ways. But not impossible the other way no.