Stefano Brunesci wrote:
Yes, it does make sense.

However, in the context of this thread, to say 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

In the context of this thread the model's opinion was requested.

I think we both do that; curry favour. Works the other way too - we regularly see posts from models saying they are happy to work tf - and sometimes that is valid.

'Hey photographers why pay when you can have me free' is as common as the other way about.

And yes you are correct it depends entirely on the individual situation.

But; as an average working model whose opinion was asked for I am saying why the op makes  valid point. To work professionally most of the time we need to be paid. Otherwise professionalism is not an option. PART of our professionalism may involve tf at certain times; but this isn't the usual if we are pros. It may have to be be regular if one is an editorial model because ports need spot on updating constantly. But few of us here are getting that kind of work day in day out.

It doesn't apply to amateurs and younger aspiring models either as I said.

But equally; there are many photographers professional and amateur who require the services of someone who won't let them down, is 100% reliable, has great wardrobe; knows how to model pose/drape/expression etc wise; will put an enormous amount of work in to make the photographer/designer/artist vision a reality without any doubt or chance entering the equation. And it is correct that some photographers recognise that and are happy to pay a fair rate rather than the option which is to book an agency model at vastly more. Not even design houses do that for 99% of their model work which is fitting, showing to clients in store or press, brochure, parts etc.

Of course if a photographer is great at concept styling and direction with a weath of experience then he may not require a professional model or may be able to get an Agency model to shoot tf; but if they haven't and suddenly get a client to shoot a brochure then we are worth our salt. And if you look at the castings generally the work here is that kind of thing. But yes of course there are all sorts of variables and individual cases.

But also models need to realise if they aren't getting professional work then they may need to do tf or even pay good photographers for a port update.

William Kious wrote:

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.

But in reality your reply is what comes off as ignorant and condescending towards models. If you read my post I stated that photographers should be getting paid their value too, which most state is generally expensive, and all believe they deserve it.  But yet so many act as if models are not worth their value.  And TF is used a lot, instead of either party making anything.  Walk into an agency and tell them you need one of their models on TF because of the huge supply of models you shouldnt have to pay, or tell them because your so good that model your asking to use should pay you, and get yourself laughed right outta there.  But then again, this is MM and their are a lot of nonmodels asking too much and people with inflated egos

Eliza C wrote:

In the context of this thread the model's opinion was requested.

I think we both do that; curry favour. Works the other way too - we regularly see posts from models saying they are happy to work tf - and sometimes that is valid.

'Hey photographers why pay when you can have me free' is as common as the other way about.

And yes you are correct it depends entirely on the individual situation.

But; as an average working model whose opinion was asked for I am saying why the op makes  valid point. To work professionally most of the time we need to be paid. Otherwise professionalism is not an option. PART of our professionalism may involve tf at certain times; but this isn't the usual if we are pros. It may have to be be regular if one is an editorial model because ports need spot on updating constantly. But few of us here are getting that kind of work day in day out.

It doesn't apply to amateurs and younger aspiring models either as I said.

But equally; there are many photographers professional and amateur who require the services of someone who won't let them down, is 100% reliable, has great wardrobe; knows how to model pose/drape/expression etc wise; will put an enormous amount of work in to make the photographer/designer/artist vision a reality without any doubt or chance entering the equation. And it is correct that some photographers recognise that and are happy to pay a fair rate rather than the option which is to book an agency model at vastly more. Not even design houses do that for 99% of their model work which is fitting, showing to clients in store or press, brochure, parts etc.

Of course if a photographer is great at concept styling and direction with a weath of experience then he may not require a professional model or may be able to get an Agency model to shoot tf; but if they haven't and suddenly get a client to shoot a brochure then we are worth our salt. And if you look at the castings generally the work here is that kind of thing. But yes of course there are all sorts of variables and individual cases.

But also models need to realise if they aren't getting professional work then they may need to do tf or even pay good photographers for a port update.

Exactly!  I guess I'm just sucking up to you for my own self promotion, lol=D

Jacob Michael Photo wrote:
Walk into an agency and tell them you need one of their models on TF because of the huge supply of models you shouldnt have to pay, or tell them because your so good that model your asking to use should pay you, and get yourself laughed right outta there.

Like many other editorial photographers I often use agency models for editorials and never once have I been asked to pay.

The booker of course wants to know what sort of editorial it will be and, if commissioned, what magazine, but apart from that, they're usually happy to lend models in return for photos.

I don't seek paid testing with agency models because it doesn't fit my business plan, but many photographers do get paid to shoot agency models. Many others test with them for everybody's portfolio - the agency equivalent of a TF shoot.

So you see, even agencies and agency models engage in TF shoots when it benefits them to do so.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Jacob Michael Photo wrote:
But in reality your reply is what comes off as ignorant and condescending towards models. If you read my post I stated that photographers should be getting paid their value too, which most state is generally expensive, and all believe they deserve it.  But yet so many act as if models are not worth their value.  And TF is used a lot, instead of either party making anything.  Walk into an agency and tell them you need one of their models on TF because of the huge supply of models you shouldnt have to pay, or tell them because your so good that model your asking to use should pay you, and get yourself laughed right outta there.  But then again, this is MM and their are a lot of nonmodels asking too much and people with inflated egos

Why should models and photographers pay each other? That is very short-sighted and limits you to a small pool of available money.

And you don't understand the agency world at all. Clients pay rates for actual commercial jobs; while models test or pay for their books.

The thing is, you don't get or stay good by running around demanding money. Your skills come from doing the thing...doesn't matter if it's music, or photography, or rocket surgery, or what.

Can you imagine telling a band they should only pick up their instruments for a paying gig? How stupid...a band practices (yeah, for free!) many more hours than they actually play gigs. That's how you LEARN to play. Or maybe a doctor should just go right to practice and not spend years in medical school and residency... Or even after she gets her license, she should never attend seminars and conventions to learn more about her profession, never should take continuing Ed classes, etc.

I am personally just getting to where my work with models and artificial lighting are commercial viable. My landscape stuff has been salable for a long time, but the only way I can learn to shoot people...well, it's to shoot people. And if I had to pay every model a couple of hundred bucks it wouldn't have happened. Models get value from working with me apparently, at least lots of them are happy with the pictures and want to shoot with me again.

Having said all this, if you have the cash to throw around, be my guest. I love having other people here in Michigan help subsidize my activities and those of my photographer friends, and I love seeing my model friends make money. If you need referrals of good models who are worth the time, effort, and money if you are paying...let me know, or check my credits. I recommend that vast majority of the models listed.

Lumigraphics wrote:
The thing is, you don't get or stay good by running around demanding money. Your skills come from doing the thing...doesn't matter if it's music, or photography, or rocket surgery, or what.

Can you imagine telling a band they should only pick up their instruments for a paying gig? How stupid...a band practices (yeah, for free!) many more hours than they actually play gigs. That's how you LEARN to play. Or maybe a doctor should just go right to practice and not spend years in medical school and residency... Or even after she gets her license, she should never attend seminars and conventions to learn more about her profession, never should take continuing Ed classes, etc.

I am personally just getting to where my work with models and artificial lighting are commercial viable. My landscape stuff has been salable for a long time, but the only way I can learn to shoot people...well, it's to shoot people. And if I had to pay every model a couple of hundred bucks it wouldn't have happened. Models get value from working with me apparently, at least lots of them are happy with the pictures and want to shoot with me again.

+100

Great analogy!

Lumigraphics wrote:
Why should models and photographers pay each other? That is very short-sighted and limits you to a small pool of available money.

And you don't understand the agency world at all. Clients pay rates for actual commercial jobs; while models test or pay for their books.

The thing is, you don't get or stay good by running around demanding money. Your skills come from doing the thing...doesn't matter if it's music, or photography, or rocket surgery, or what.

Can you imagine telling a band they should only pick up their instruments for a paying gig? How stupid...a band practices (yeah, for free!) many more hours than they actually play gigs. That's how you LEARN to play. Or maybe a doctor should just go right to practice and not spend years in medical school and residency... Or even after she gets her license, she should never attend seminars and conventions to learn more about her profession, never should take continuing Ed classes, etc.

I am personally just getting to where my work with models and artificial lighting are commercial viable. My landscape stuff has been salable for a long time, but the only way I can learn to shoot people...well, it's to shoot people. And if I had to pay every model a couple of hundred bucks it wouldn't have happened. Models get value from working with me apparently, at least lots of them are happy with the pictures and want to shoot with me again.

Having said all this, if you have the cash to throw around, be my guest. I love having other people here in Michigan help subsidize my activities and those of my photographer friends, and I love seeing my model friends make money. If you need referrals of good models who are worth the time, effort, and money if you are paying...let me know, or check my credits. I recommend that vast majority of the models listed.

So why comment in a thread asking for models opinons?

Not that what you say is not necessarily true; but in certain - in fact most - circumstances the photographer is going to learn more quickly by paying an experienced pro model; and a model is going to learn more quickly paying an experienced  pro photographer.

If you have models willing to shoot tf that is great. Most of us don't have the time to do it regularly and we get asked all the time. Say no and give rates and most of the time the photographer is willing to pay.

Especially if a third party is involved. Now yes you can probably book one of the girls who shoots tf with you to do a job for a third party client; but what if she then gets another job on the same day? Flake. If the photographer is getting paid for the job he needs 100% reliability and gets that by paying a pro and its correct she gets reimbursed as well as he. I mean it is not so applicable to me now but when in London there was no way I had time to shoot tf. And yes it meant having to put a job with a gwc or a basic commerical photographer ahead of a tf possibility with a great photographer but it paid the bills.

If that is running around demanding money and I didn't learn how to model then there must be an awful lots of mugs around willing to pay as you imply. Of course; the truth is they aren't any more mugs than the models who do tf. It is just that sometimes an arrangement can and should be paid in either direction. TF can be and is an option but may not be a reliable or sensible arrangement especially when a third party and deadlines are involved.

So for example you ask me to shoot tf. Yes great port; would be great to have your images in mine. In fact' I would love it and need a port update. So I email you and ask then you say sure next tuesday. Then you get a commercial job. You cancel because you have to take the paid job. NOW IF I had been paying you for the day you wouldn't have cancelled would you?

Same for models. You look at my port and like it so book me and yes I like your work so it's tf. Then I get a weeks work modelling elsewhere. I cancel because I can't turn it down see?

No probs in either case rearrangements can be made but NOT when a third party is involved. And the truth is generally that is the case OR a photographer has a market or client involved or will sell the image in other ways. If he can't then the model should be paying.

The reason I say this is that nearly all the tf shoots I discussed with photographers when I started never came off because always either they or I were too busy at the last minute. So I found it wasn't easy to arrange despite mutual willingness. I just could not afford to not give priority to the paid work or neither could they. As soon as money is on the table in either way then cancellation becomes less likely.

That is not to dismiss any of the points you have made; except the one about models running around demanding money. Usually the photographer gets a job and pays a model because that job is shooting a model at a hotel drinking champagne on the patio; or a shoe shop brochure in which only legs are seen; or a smiley mortgage company ad or something similar. Boring for both but again pays the bills of both. Models don't even get to see those shots let alone even want to use them in a port and want paying for the effort. In the case of the latter yes of course that is whay we may need to shoot with more artistic photographers like you tf. But that isn't often; though all models may need to from time to time yes.

Using your band anology its like this. Yep a band needs to practice. But when they don't get to the lofty elite level where they get a lucrative record contract after a while but are still competent muiscians and get asked to do lots of events like bars and parties and balls and cruises then they ask money and rightly so! They take that work eventually rather than keeping plugging away doing supports to bigger bands for nothing. They still may go into a recording studio very occasionally when offered it for free or they even pay; but they have reached the level where they know that is purely for their own artistic reasons and have few pretensions to stardom. If they want to stay musicians they take the paying gigs.

Eliza C wrote:
So why comment in a thread asking for models opinons?

Not that what you say is not necessarily true; but in certain - in fact most - circumstances the photographer is going to learn more quickly by paying an experienced pro model; and a model is going to learn more quickly paying an experienced  pro photographer.

If you have models willing to shoot tf that is great. Most of us don't have the time to do it regularly and we get asked all the time. Say no and give rates and most of the time the photographer is willing to pay.

Some of the time, the photographer is willing to pay for whatever reason, good or bad.

Some people shell out thousands each year to play golf. You wouldn't get me to spend anything on golf. Some people buy expensive clothes and go to snooty restaurants..again, not for me.

And I dare say that a new photographer would probably learn more quickly by hiring another experienced photographer for lessons. And a new model benefits both from a posing/modeling coach and a good photographer.

An experienced model can't (usually) teach lighting, or composition, or proper exposure, or different styles of imaging, or retouching; and can only give limited instruction on direction.

For commercial client work, the photographer is expected to be able to direct the model and get good results that the AD is happy with- regardless of the model's experience level. The client doesn't care, they just care that the model has the look they need.

GOOD experience helps with things like a reputation for reliability, access to wardrobe, and for art models, the ability to know what poses work. Otherwise model experience isn't nearly as important as photographer experience. That's why a new model can get hired for a commercial campaign but a new photographer can't. The model needs at a minimum the right look and the willingness to follow directions. A photographer is expected to bring a hell of a lot more to the table.

Lumigraphics wrote:
Some of the time, the photographer is willing to pay for whatever reason, good or bad.

Some people shell out thousands each year to play golf. You wouldn't get me to spend anything on golf. Some people buy expensive clothes and go to snooty restaurants..again, not for me.

And I dare say that a new photographer would probably learn more quickly by hiring another experienced photographer for lessons. And a new model benefits both from a posing/modeling coach and a good photographer.

An experienced model can't (usually) teach lighting, or composition, or proper exposure, or different styles of imaging, or retouching; and can only give limited instruction on direction.

For commercial client work, the photographer is expected to be able to direct the model and get good results that the AD is happy with- regardless of the model's experience level. The client doesn't care, they just care that the model has the look they need.

GOOD experience helps with things like a reputation for reliability, access to wardrobe, and for art models, the ability to know what poses work. Otherwise model experience isn't nearly as important as photographer experience. That's why a new model can get hired for a commercial campaign but a new photographer can't. The model needs at a minimum the right look and the willingness to follow directions. A photographer is expected to bring a hell of a lot more to the table.

You are talking about campaign modelling - that is something that only a small percentage of the work models or photographers get. In fact the majority of us model or photographer will never get any of that work so it simply isn't applicable in this debate. Our 'look' isn't nearly as important as our intelligence in other modelling gigs. If I have to model a dress for a designer and talk to their clients I have to know how to make that dress look good and how it was made. In a campaign/editorial shoot you can IF you are a good photographer make an amazing image where a girl can look good due to your skill. But it isn't many photographers that can direct that; and as you say certainly not new ones. But often the new photographer learns by using those of us who are never going to be campaign models but now how to work a dress. As for lower key/client campaigns which most of us will get - a model boarding a train for an awayday ad for instance - the budget is there for model and photographer so there isn't an issue and its no good for my port. But it doesn't stop photographers trying it on Frequently though and sometimes to photographers clear annoyance an advertising company will book us both seperately Oh yes we have all overheard the grumples because they hoped for a pretty pretty and could-have-brought-one. Until they see us work and realise what we get paid for. And then they see the pics and then start getting better campaign jobs - and better models -on the strength of it.

Works the other way too - sometimes the model would do well to book a pro photographer and she will get more and better work.

For those of us who have our niche and are getting paid work it isn't for you to tell others that we aren't worth it. If we were not we wouldn't have consistent paid work.

We have skills you apparently do not recognise. Yes we can't teach lighting and exposure but I have had to explain negative space and chiarascuro and limited palette and composition let alone poses and fashion/style issues to many an 'experienced' photographer; others who have some artistic or fashion knowledge or instinct have it. Yes perhaps an inexperienced photographer would do well to pay an experienced one if he wants to learn exposure and lighting etc. Perhaps equally an inexperienced model would do well to pay an experienced on too. Even Agency models already come to life drawing classes to learn from us. But for example if a photographer wants to learn more about shooting fashion he would do well to work with designers. Not always possible; but it is possible to work with reliable models with that experience (eg through fitting) for a relatively low fee rather than moaning about flakes.

Ed Woodson has put a pretty good guide of what and when above my post otherwise. I don'task for images unless they are offered; or adjust rates accordingly.


I can't help you with your golf and if you don't want to go to nice restaurants that is your perogative but they aren't always snooty and in fact offer better value than a basic one because its about ambience and quality of experience not just about food; which is also generally much better too! You can stand outside the restaurant all day telling people its not worth it but they'd have closed if it wasn't what people wanted.

Jac Knight wrote:
In most cases some models feel they want the images plus pay, and in this case don't mind working with a lot less then agency standard models.

I for one do a basic pay of 30/hr plus images for regular shoots at 80/hr for nudes.
Why more for nudes?
Because I know with nudes there's a high demand out there for nudes.
I also know it is much easier to make money of nude photos.
Etc.
So I ask for more.
Plus a contract stating where the photos will be used.

I don't know where this meme comes from, but why do you think its easier to make money off nude photos? Unless you are talking content guys, and then they dont care about your "rates", they have a budget and you either take what they offer or not

And a contract stating where the photos will be used? Are you talking usage in the release? Or approval of uses?

I would never sign anything regarding where the photos could or could not be used, because I don't have a specific usage when I do a shoot.

Lumigraphics wrote:
I don't know where this meme comes from, but why do you think its easier to make money off nude photos? Unless you are talking content guys, and then they dont care about your "rates", they have a budget and you either take what they offer or not

And a contract stating where the photos will be used? Are you talking usage in the release? Or approval of uses?

I would never sign anything regarding where the photos could or could not be used, because I don't have a specific usage when I do a shoot.

I can't speak for Jac but I haven't heard of that either. Pay me and they are your images to do with as you please. I don't even want them and am more likely to buy an image of one of your other models come an exhibition! I must have seen thousands of paintings and photos and sculpture of me nude. If I do see one I like and you have paid me for the shoot I will generally come to some arrangement - next shoot tf or lower rate perhaps; or even buy especially if I want a print.

So if we are talking fine art nude then there is more market for the images for galleries etc so chances are you will make money from them especially when the models are good. I don't charge more for fine art nude work though  ; and neither do most models I know (unless its topless glamour because you pay for their assets!). But I have no use for the images and will always require payment.

Lumigraphics wrote:

Why should models and photographers pay each other? That is very short-sighted and limits you to a small pool of available money.

And you don't understand the agency world at all. Clients pay rates for actual commercial jobs; while models test or pay for their books.

The thing is, you don't get or stay good by running around demanding money. Your skills come from doing the thing...doesn't matter if it's music, or photography, or rocket surgery, or what.

Can you imagine telling a band they should only pick up their instruments for a paying gig? How stupid...a band practices (yeah, for free!) many more hours than they actually play gigs. That's how you LEARN to play. Or maybe a doctor should just go right to practice and not spend years in medical school and residency... Or even after she gets her license, she should never attend seminars and conventions to learn more about her profession, never should take continuing Ed classes, etc.

I am personally just getting to where my work with models and artificial lighting are commercial viable. My landscape stuff has been salable for a long time, but the only way I can learn to shoot people...well, it's to shoot people. And if I had to pay every model a couple of hundred bucks it wouldn't have happened. Models get value from working with me apparently, at least lots of them are happy with the pictures and want to shoot with me again.

Having said all this, if you have the cash to throw around, be my guest. I love having other people here in Michigan help subsidize my activities and those of my photographer friends, and I love seeing my model friends make money. If you need referrals of good models who are worth the time, effort, and money if you are paying...let me know, or check my credits. I recommend that vast majority of the models listed.

This needs to be a sticky on MM!   So well written and correct.   I'm not opposed to paying models and have.   Not the $100.00 or more rate but I have and will pay.   When, I was in Texas I did several nude shoots at dirty and abandoned factories and farms.   The models I paid were worth their weight in gold for being willing to be nude in those crazy spots.   However many also worked free and guess what.   They also looked great.   As for experienced models.   Lets all be candid its all about how you like a models look.   I have no ideal how experienced a model is or isn't based on a few shots.   This year, I worked with a former Elite model who's been in Elle.   Another commercial model who's done ads.   Neither were concerned with me paying them anything.   

In fact many agency models test all the time for free with agency and non agency approved photographers.   They do fashion, glamor and yes even nudes all for free.   This ideal that paying a model may get you better images is false.    No model, I've ever worked with gave me any tips on lighting or composition either.   That said there are some very good reasons to pay some models.    If you are planning to take your book to a agency yet don't have strong models to show and can't get them TF.   Then pay.   Right or wrong a fashion photographers book is as much judged by his imagery as by models used.   If you are going to advertising agencies this is also important.   Yet paying models as you build those skills is often a waste of cash.   

As for nudes.   Simply because a model is willing to pose nude doesn't mean that photographers can or will pay them.   Content providers for example can't usually pay much because the price for content is next to nothing.   Yet, I understand how some models feel.   They can't eat or pay bills with photos and even with great photos don't want to spend the time to create those images without payment.   That also makes sense.   I and many others simply can't pay them or they are beyond our ability to pay.

Lumigraphics wrote:
Why should models and photographers pay each other? That is very short-sighted and limits you to a small pool of available money.

And you don't understand the agency world at all. Clients pay rates for actual commercial jobs; while models test or pay for their books.

The thing is, you don't get or stay good by running around demanding money. Your skills come from doing the thing...doesn't matter if it's music, or photography, or rocket surgery, or what.......

Can you imagine telling a band they should only pick up their instruments for a paying gig? How stupid...a band practices (yeah, for free!) many more hours than they actually play gigs. That's how you LEARN to play..

Tony Lawrence wrote:
This needs to be a sticky on MM!   So well written and correct. ...

I agree.

Modeling and photography are not that different from the other arts.   How many hours do most musicians put in before they get their first paying gig?  What about sculptors or painters or actors?  I'm sure for most  it's hundreds if not thousands of hours of practice and several, if not dozens of free performances or shows.  I imagine I put in at least a thousand plus hours into my photography before I expected any paid work and I still don't expect most of my time will pay off financially.

In contrast many internet models expect to be paid with almost no practice or experience, and often expect to be paid better than most contractors with years of experience and specialized training.  A select few have the look and natural ability to succeed immediately and good for them.  Overall, however, I think many here overstate what is at all realistic for most amateur internet/feelance models to make and forget that getting paid well usually requires some dedication to unpaid training, practice and exposure.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I agree.

Modeling and photography are not that different from the other arts.   How many hours do most musicians put in before they get their first paying gig?  What about sculptors or painters or actors?  I'm sure for most  it's hundreds if not thousands of hours of practice and several, if not dozens of free performances or shows.  I imagine I put in at least a thousand plus hours into my photography before I expected any paid work and I still don't expect most of my time will pay off financially.

In contrast many internet models expect to be paid with almost no practice or experience, and often expect to be paid better than most contractors with years of experience and specialized training.  A select few have the look and natural ability to succeed immediately and good for them.  Overall, however, I think many here overstate what is at all realistic for most amateur internet/feelance models to make and forget that getting paid well usually requires some dedication to unpaid training, practice and exposure.

You speak of new models, internet models, and those with no experience. In that way you are correct and I think theose models sometimes should be paying the photographer. If they haven't come through a classical training somewhere along the line they aren't going to be able to model. So you are going to have to put in a lot of work to develop their craft; and unless you have strong art knowledge years of experience or are a 'natural' ; a photographer isn't going to be able to do it either. Of course; many photographers do have this and its why I think new models would do well to seek them out and pay them.

But then there are those of us who do have experience; be it years of studying pose and modelling for Art institutions or doing the backroom work in fashion; or through years of shooting paid and tf photography . That needs to be recognised because there are lots of us here. Not up to being agency signed but with sometimes years of journeyman work behind them. We don't flake; we know what we are doing and will attempt to realise your vision.

Using the analogy of music.
Yes there are young musicians who need to learn their craft, get gig experience, write their songs etc etc.
And if they are very lucky a lucky few will make it. Others -some talented - won't earn dollar one; often because they haven't got the discipline.

Then there are session musicians; the real journeyman professionals. Those who were never going to make it big but got down and grafted to learn their craft and become professional. And like them to the music business we are legion here so please don't confuse us with the former. How many times have a label had to get session musicians in because the band recording aren't up to the job? They get paid. Low, fair, but there is never a question of them doing it for free.

The problem photographers - and some models - have is seeing what the difference is. Both think it about looks - that is just a part of it if at all. A good mua and hair stylist can sort that our for you. But a pretty girl does not necessarily a model make; though they can learn from you if you are prepared to teach them for free or have the ability and experience to direct anyone.

The point being not all models here are the type you describe; some of us are experienced. But that is the same for photographers too.

And the worse aspect of it I think is that the models that you get for free and you build their confidence are sometimes those whose expectations are then built to levels where they think they can then charge silly money, are going to be in Vogue or FHM and turn their noses up at the normal jobs and flake. You can create your own monsters.

Models aren't all one thing; and neither are photographers.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I disagree that most photographers don't get the difference. I think most photographers here can't justify the difference.  (That said, there are many photographers here who report paying models $100/hour and even more models who say they get that, so it appears to me, some models are gettng paid quite well.)

Just like it doesn't make sense for a small pub to hire a top band, it does't make sense for most photographers here to hire top models. For most the added value of their images, won't exceed the incrased cost of product of paying an expensive model.   Sure, it makes sense for a big budget shoot to pay for a talented model, but that's not at all what most people here are doing. (not to mention most of those clients aren't getting their models from MM)  Most photographers looking here for models are either shooting on a hobbyist basis or a small budget project, maybe on spec.  The vast majority of models here are not the seasoned pros you described. In fact, I'd bet 80% of those with model profiles here have done less than 10 shoots ever.

The problem I see concerning rates, is not that people don't get that experienced models are worth more.  It's the other way around.  People often talk about rates, as if a new model with no provem ability and a so-so looks can immediately commend what top models make.  Look at any model rate thread started by a farily inexpereinced model.  The suggested rates of $75/hour or more are unrealistic for that model. I've seen many new models give up in frustration, feeling like they have failed because they are not getting these unrealistic rates many tell them they are worth, when in reality they are often doing better than most.

You are not describing professional models. And yes I know that many here are not.
But that is not the professional models by which I mean those making a living. We may only make up 20% but we are fairly easy to find.

Once more I will explain rates we arrive at and why.

Let us say you pm me and want me for a shoot for one or two hours next tuesday. Then I say yes at a rate of £25 an hour.
If we ARE professionalmodels then we are likely to get another gig on that date and this is the problem. I have booked with you for £50; and I may have to travel two hours and spend an hour getting ready.

So it prevents me getting another job that day. And the chances are it will be a design house ringing me up with a weeks work 9-6pm at a higher hourly rate for the whole week - but I must be available tuesday. Furthermore; I risk losing this fairly regular work who use me constantly to another model. It could be fitting as I describe; it could be promotional work, or it could be Fine Art insitutution or fashion college or a photography group.  YES we do that work for less than the hourly rate often because it is regular and generally a half day or whole day. So you see what we risk for a low hourly rate? Sometimes it can cost us in the high hundreds sometimes more. So if all you are ofering is one or two hours work then we HAVE to be charging around the £100 an hour rate. Of course IF you are in a Metropolis what can happen is I can say to the design house - ooh; I am booked for an hour on tuesday so if I coulld just go and do that two hour job at the arranged time? So that can happen and then we can do it for less; jump in a cab and back in two hours. But if travel is involved that has to be considered - not at the normal travel rate but what it has cost in alternative work.

A way to get around this - and most professional models will bear me out - is to offer more than an hour or two work. What we are after is a day's pay. So I will shoot all day for £145. Some models will say ok been as you are offering four hours I will do it for $200 all in.

Once you understand all this you won't have the problem. Sometimes sure you will only require the model for an hour because its a quick shoot for a mortgage company wanting to show a smiley face in a navy blue polyester suit. Well believe it or not that is not what we want in our port and you are getting paid a day's pay and so do we for doing that run of the mill stuff. If it is your artistic project again we may do it for less if it is a great idea, we are free, and we may say that we can do it for less - or even tf - but if those other jobs come up you understand we may have to rearrange.

Usually though with the hour in and out job it is a pay gig for you. I don't want to hear you are only getting $50 for the job if you have done that you are mad! Again if you are taking jobs like that you could get a big job come up and you are committed to the small one.

So all this involves some common sense and explanation.

As for the assertion that those models who have only ever done ten shoots are doing better than most well they are either doing other modelling work as I describe or that kind of work isn't available in the area. So they can stay working for less provincially and still only getting the odd shoot or they can move to somehwere like London and be run off their feet because if they are good journeymen all round models and don't have lofty ideas there is plenty of work. I know girls who only do fitting and only do Art. There is enough paid work regular just to specialise in those. It won't get you in vogue but it pays and makes you a good model. And then they will encounter exactly the problem I describe re photographers; and will have to come up with the hour rate the rest of us charge.

Rebel Photo wrote:
I don't see how paying an experienced model makes one a better photographer! It just isn't true. Would one learn more? Doubtful! All you have is better poses, and less need to communicate. People learn from mistakes. Learning to identify and correct those mistakes is what makes one grow.

Now if I had a project that I expected to gain monetarily, I'd hire a pro, but those opportunities are far and few between. Are most portrait clients Pro Models? Of course not! You have to learn how to pose people and you're not going to do that with a pro model (that's why they are Professional).

Then what are you doing here in the model forum? Just go and get a girl off the street instead of trying to persuade us we are charging too much!!!

Yes you have a point about portrait. You don't need models I suppose unless it is commercial beauty work and you don't need expression. Even if you need the latter you can get characters. But even then - if it is portrait work you want to do; then people will want to see you have beautiful images; so you at least need a beautiful girl who has expression for your own promotion. Unless of course you are a brilliant protrait photographer already (which you are I may add - and in such cases a model may do well to pay you for images for their port!)

But lets say you want to learn a little fashion stuff. Would you be better of groping in the dark for ages learning or would you be better off getting someone who knows what is required? Or if doing fine art nude - have a look at girls who do that in their port. There is no way you can without any experience direct an amateur in a variety of such poses unless she or you are a natural. You may get there eventually after a great deal of such shoots and pottering about but shoot the pros and you will get there quicker. Glamour the same.

And time is money as they say!

Now look at my avatar if I may use it as an example.
Good photographer + good journeyman model opportune moment in empty laundrette - in and out in ten minutes with great shots. You couldn't as a photographer go in there with an inexperienced model and do it. Would take either an hour to persuade her its ok to get her confidence; or you would get the overconfident girl who will lob her boobs out a la facebook party with a silly face. A professional will know what to do what to wear and how to do it in minimum time; just like a pro photographer will have got permission to shoot and have the appropriate lights and know the exposure etc.

Eliza C wrote:

You are not describing professional models. And yes I know that many here are not.
But that is not the professional models by which I mean those making a living. We may only make up 20% but we are fairly easy to find.

Once more I will explain rates we arrive at and why.

Let us say you pm me and want me for a shoot for one or two hours next tuesday. Then I say yes at a rate of £25 an hour.
If we ARE professionalmodels then we are likely to get another gig on that date and this is the problem. I have booked with you for £50; and I may have to travel two hours and spend an hour getting ready.

So it prevents me getting another job that day. And the chances are it will be a design house ringing me up with a weeks work 9-6pm at a higher hourly rate for the whole week - but I must be available tuesday. Furthermore; I risk losing this fairly regular work who use me constantly to another model. It could be fitting as I describe; it could be promotional work, or it could be Fine Art insitutution or fashion college or a photography group.  YES we do that work for less than the hourly rate often because it is regular and generally a half day or whole day. So you see what we risk for a low hourly rate? Sometimes it can cost us in the high hundreds sometimes more. So if all you are ofering is one or two hours work then we HAVE to be charging around the £100 an hour rate. Of course IF you are in a Metropolis what can happen is I can say to the design house - ooh; I am booked for an hour on tuesday so if I coulld just go and do that two hour job at the arranged time? So that can happen and then we can do it for less; jump in a cab and back in two hours. But if travel is involved that has to be considered - not at the normal travel rate but what it has cost in alternative work.

A way to get around this - and most professional models will bear me out - is to offer more than an hour or two work. What we are after is a day's pay. So I will shoot all day for £145. Some models will say ok been as you are offering four hours I will do it for $200 all in.

Once you understand all this you won't have the problem. Sometimes sure you will only require the model for an hour because its a quick shoot for a mortgage company wanting to show a smiley face in a navy blue polyester suit. Well believe it or not that is not what we want in our port and you are getting paid a day's pay and so do we for doing that run of the mill stuff. If it is your artistic project again we may do it for less if it is a great idea, we are free, and we may say that we can do it for less - or even tf - but if those other jobs come up you understand we may have to rearrange.

Usually though with the hour in and out job it is a pay gig for you. I don't want to hear you are only getting $50 for the job if you have done that you are mad! Again if you are taking jobs like that you could get a big job come up and you are committed to the small one.

So all this involves some common sense and explanation.

As for the assertion that those models who have only ever done ten shoots are doing better than most well they are either doing other modelling work as I describe or that kind of work isn't available in the area. So they can stay working for less provincially and still only getting the odd shoot or they can move to somehwere like London and be run off their feet because if they are good journeymen all round models and don't have lofty ideas there is plenty of work. I know girls who only do fitting and only do Art. There is enough paid work regular just to specialise in those. It won't get you in vogue but it pays and makes you a good model. And then they will encounter exactly the problem I describe re photographers; and will have to come up with the hour rate the rest of us charge.

You are mixing what rates are worth your while with the value of your service as if they are the same thing.   They are not.   

Your travel expenses, your inability to fill your schedule and alternative means of making money (opportunity cost) are all reasons for you decide what rates are worth your while and what rates are not, but they do not increase the value you bring to a shoot and are therefore not reasons for a photographer or client  to pay you more.   A cost of production (hiring a model) has to fit into the the value of the product or it's not worth while

It's the same with me as a photographer.  I live in the flat lands.   Choosing to spend more time, money and forgoe other income options to shoot mountain landscapes does not make those images worth more or mean anyone should pay me more.  Those images have their market value.   The fact I spent more or gave up more doesn't change that.   It will affect what I choose to shoot, just as your actual costs and opporunity costs of modeling should affect what gigs you accept and don't accept, but that's very different from market value for your service.

Again, I see many models here who with no formal model training and fairly limited experience claim to make very good rates.  I see few photographers in simlar situations making similar claims. 

Bottom line:  we are all worth exactly what people are willing to pay us which is dictated by the supply and demand of the market place and includes our abilities to market ourselves.   

As I said prevously, the reason a model deserves more pay is because that model offers a service that increases the value of the product by more than her increased rate.  If that's not true, there is no reason for a photographer or client to pay a model more.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

You are mixing what rates are worth your while with the value of your service as if they are the same thing.   They are not.   

Your travel expenses, your inability to fill your schedule and alternative means of making money (opportunity cost) are all reasons for you decide what rates are worth your while and what rates are not, but they do not increase the value you bring to a shoot and are therefore not reasons for a photographer or client  to pay you more.   A cost of production (hiring a model) has to fit into the the value of the product or it's not worth while

It's the same with me as a photographer.  I live in the flat lands.   Choosing to spend more time, money and forgoe other income options to shoot mountain landscapes does not make those images worth more or mean anyone should pay me more.  Those images have their market value.   The fact I spent more or gave up more doesn't change that.   It will affect what I choose to shoot, just as your actual costs and opporunity costs of modeling should affect what gigs you accept and don't accept, but that's very different from market value for your service.

Again, I see many models here who with no formal model training and fairly limited experience claim to make very good rates.  I see few photographers in simlar situations making similar claims. 

Bottom line:  we are all worth exactly what people are willing to pay us which is dictated by the supply and demand of the market place and includes our abilities to market ourselves.   

As I said prevously, the reason a model deserves more pay is because that model offers a service that increases the value of the product by more than her increased rate.  If that's not true, there is no reason for a photographer or client to pay a model more.

They are the same thing if the demand is there or we wouldn't have the problem!
As you say the market decides. If our services are not worth it we are not booked.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I see some of this like, I see a friend who owns a seven thousand dollar DLSR set up and pays models but can't take a decent shot to save his life.   He's paid many of the traveling nude models on MM and ended up just with less cash.   He can afford it.   I and others can't.   Which leads me to another question.   What does paying a model get you.   Take a look at my profile.   There are two models there who have been agency signed and have shot with lots of people.   Can you tell who they are?   I bet not.   A few years ago, I attended a workshop as a unpaid guest and met two former Playboy models who worked with all the attendees.   While, I could have shot them I didn't feel it was cool as, I didn't pay.   Both were pretty but they were largely stiff and gave the same expressions all the time.

Both had great figures and the best boobs on the planet.   They weren't being paid for their 'experience'   or because  they could offer helpful CS tips or concepts.   They were and are paid simply for how they look.   Lets not kid ourselves when a 16 year old fashion model appears on the cover of Elle or Vogue its not because she's experienced its because she's beautiful.    However it must be stated that most working pro shooters don't pay models.   They don't need too.   Most agency models aren't trying to charge photographers as they have real world clients who pay them.   The photographers who pay tend to be hobby shooters.   There is a shooter in my area who pays some of the local nude models.   While he's improved his work is mostly the same shot done over and over with the models doing the same corny poses.

He pays and gets the same results as when he doesn't pay.   Which makes more sense to do?   Like this man I've paid and haven't paid but the results have been mostly the same because its not about the models.   Its about me and my talent or lack of.

The model who is in Vogue is not a typical working model; certainly not the type who is here.
Most working pro shooters do pay models if they have a budget; or as often the models are booked seperately by an advertising agency. Companies often don't trust photrographers with that job

You won't get the same corny poses from a model who knows what she is doing. Have a look at my list 'Eliza's list of fine art nudes I would like framed' .There you will find some no doubt brilliant photographers who have used amateur models. But you will also find amazing poses from professional models with training and experience. If you are lucky you will get some models to do that stuff tf; but more usually you will pay; and get good value.
https://www.modelmayhem.com/list/119263

Yes I am sure some of the other points you raise have some validity sometimes; playboy models etc. But as you say they aren't going to be typical of the professionals you find here; and will cost you more and yes possibly deliver less.
That is why there is a market for models like those of us here who are professional and aren't stiff and have a decent pose repertoire. If you don't find that of use you are not compelled to use us but why moan about our rates if you don't want us? Just simply go on booking those you don't have to pay and get the same results if you think we have nothing to offer. You appear to be doing very well; but not everyone does - your abilities haven't come without some knowledge of Art, fashion and pose; but some photographers do not have that and we do. And those that do book non professional models and they flake don't moan either!

Eliza C wrote:

The model who is in Vogue is not a typical working model; certainly not the type who is here.
Most working pro shooters do pay models if they have a budget; or as often the models are booked seperately by an agent. Companies often don't trust photrographers with that job

You won't get the same corny poses from a model who knows what she is doing. Have a look at my list 'Eliza's list of fine art nudes I would like framed' .There you will find some no doubt brilliant photographers who have used amateur models. But you will also find amazing poses from professional models with training and experience. If you are lucky you will get some models to do that stuff tf; but more usually you will pay; and get good value.
https://www.modelmayhem.com/list/119263

Yes I am sure some of the other points you raise have some validity sometimes; playboy models etc. But as you say they aren't going to be typical of the professionals you find here; and will cost you more and yes possibly deliver less.
That is why there is a market for models like those of us here who are professional and aren't stiff and have a decent pose repretoirre. If you don't find that of use you are not compelled to use us but why moan about our rates if you don't want us? Just simply go on booking those you don't have to pay and get the same results if you think we have nothing to offer.

I'm not seeing anyone complaining about rates its just a conversation and in fact I would encourage shooters to pay for what they want rather then run around looking for TF all the time.   However for many here paying $100.00 or more per hour is beyond our ability to pay.   That's not a call for lower rates thats just reality.   its not about your worth or value either because no matter what a model thinks she's worth the market determines that.   I am simply saying that paying while you practice isn't going to help you as a photographer and the results are often poor no matter the model used.

My main argument that its less about the model used in many cases then it is about our talents  as photographers.   Give me a Gia and sure I'll get a better looking photo because she was stunning but she won't have improved my skills.   As always though, IMHO.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

I'm not seeing anyone complaining about rates its just a conversation and in fact I would encourage shooters to pay for what they want rather then run around looking for TF all the time.   However for many here paying $100.00 or more per hour is beyond our ability to pay.   That's not a call for lower rates thats just reality.   its not about your worth or value either because no matter what a model thinks she's worth the market determines that.   I am simply saying that paying while you practice isn't going to help you as a photographer and the results are often poor no matter the model used.

My main argument that its less about the model used in many cases then it is about our talents  as photographers.   Give me a Gia and sure I'll get a better looking photo because she was stunning but she won't have improved my skills.   As always though, IMHO.

That is your opinion. I think I can tell who your pros are btw will send a message
but I may be wrong but that would be a reflection of your great ability to direct and considerable artistic talent. But even so I would love to see what you could do with a model like Caperucita or Vasilia:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/878535/viewall
https://www.modelmayhem.com/708138

Sometimes when you reach a plateau that you think a pro model cannot offer anything it is the very time to try.

I am a Gia fan too so no arguments there

I know the budget is not always there. But sometimes a flake can cost more.

Eliza C wrote:

They are the same thing if the demand is there or we wouldn't have the problem!
As you say the market decides. If our services are not worth it we are not booked.

They are not the same thing.  As you said, the market decides.  Your thougths about what your time is worth don't change the market price for your service. They only change weather or not you feel that market price is worth your while.

The fact a gig has increased travel costs, or opportunity costs for you, is not a reason for someone to pay you more as you claim since it does not raise the value of what you provide them.   It certainly influences what you should and should not accept.

Stefano Brunesci wrote:

Like many other editorial photographers I often use agency models for editorials and never once have I been asked to pay.

The booker of course wants to know what sort of editorial it will be and, if commissioned, what magazine, but apart from that, they're usually happy to lend models in return for photos.

I don't seek paid testing with agency models because it doesn't fit my business plan, but many photographers do get paid to shoot agency models. Many others test with them for everybody's portfolio - the agency equivalent of a TF shoot.

So you see, even agencies and agency models engage in TF shoots when it benefits them to do so.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

The thing is, the type of photographers agencies would let their girls test with, or even pay, are not so numerous on ModelMayhem. The requests I receive are occasionally embarrassing, seriously. I'm sure you've had those experiences, too, but, it just baffles me that so many members could be so unaware of where they would stand on the model/photographer hierarchy of talent, you know?

The problem is that SO, so, so many photographers now expect a model to trade. Designers now expect a model to trade for photos. Make up artists, hair stylists, even, just for the experience, or publicity, or whatever. Have you looked at the casting calls on here? They're quite the joke.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
They are not the same thing.  As you said, the market decides.  Your thougths about what your time is worth don't change the market price for your service. They only change weather or not you feel that market price is worth your while.

The fact a gig has increased travel costs, or opportunity costs for you, is not a reason for someone to pay you more as you claim since it does not raise the value of what you provide them.   It certainly influences what you should and should not accept.

Yes - of course. If I charged what it really cost me in terms of lost opportunity I would not get the work; and it does not all necessarily cost other work.  So it has to take that into account - I did explain that. It may cost me £800 if I lose a weeks work but thats a maybe - but if that does arise then at least I have earnt a day's pay.  Therefore consider the amount I need to earn in a day is £150 as a model; I charge £145 as it sounds a little less. And find people think that reasonable. So instead of booking me for an hour they can then use me for between 4 and 6 usually; sometimes less sometimes more. They can then explore a variety of different projects; locations etc. I could earn less in a day from an Art institution understand; but they would give me a whole term of work on a given day.

I think you will find most models charge an hour rate because of this - and will work for much less if you give more hours. That is how it works. And if you really just want an hour then you will struggle to get a model for £30 say. Offer her 5 hours at £30 and you may get it. And you have to understand that is what dictates the market price for a professional model: what is sustainable, balanced, and fair yes in the existing market. If she is running around doing one hour jobs for £30 she will not remain a professional model. So hence I say if they want to book me for just one hour it is £145 but explain I will work longer for that. It is the hour or two hours that are not much good to sustain one working as a model; and therefore few will have a rate like that. And if that was not the case porofessional models would not exist. Of course; if you want an Agency model be prepared to pay substantially more than that and no negotiation on hours. But we do the same thing; work together regularly and frequently there are agency models here offering you very reasonable rates compared with booking through their agency.

Yes I know photographers frequently don't like it; but they are not the only paymasters in the market place. Frequently a photographer turns up having had no say in the model booking and they eye us up and down like we are crap and wondering how much we are on. Until they see us work then they get it.

So the key is to understand that in the market the going rate for an hour is going to be what it is for half a day or a whole day if long travel is involved.

D M M  wrote:
The thing is, the type of photographers agencies would let their girls test with, or even pay, are not so numerous on ModelMayhem. The requests I receive are occasionally embarrassing, seriously. I'm sure you've had those experiences, too, but, it just baffles me that so many members could be so unaware of where they would stand on the model/photographer hierarchy of talent, you know?

The problem is that SO, so, so many photographers now expect a model to trade. Designers now expect a model to trade for photos. Make up artists, hair stylists, even, just for the experience, or publicity, or whatever. Have you looked at the casting calls on here? They're quite the joke.

I am pretty low on the scale so get a lot more of those requests ha ha! But also I couldn't afford to turn down the work when I was in London - and yes even people who have just picked up a camera ask for tf at first.

Luckily we don't get the designers offering trade in London; I have never heard that though I can imagine it happening. I have done jobs for the clothing so I suppose that is a trade but still get my £145 rate.

The castings are a joke frequently. I have seen £10 offered. They would be better to ask for tf as that is an insult. But I find that the better paid jobs are much of the time from a designer or promotions agency though sometimes via a model or photographer. I have also applied for some where they are offering tf and I say look I am not doing it for tf but my day rate is £145 and got the jobs. So you can negotiate up on casting calls too.

Eliza C wrote:

That is your opinion. I think I can tell who your pros are btw will send a message
but I may be wrong but that would be a reflection of your great ability to direct and considerable artistic talent. But even so I would love to see what you could do with a model like Caperucita or Vasilia:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/878535/viewall
https://www.modelmayhem.com/708138

Sometimes when you reach a plateau that you think a pro model cannot offer anything it is the very time to try.

I am a Gia fan too so no arguments there

I know the budget is not always there. But sometimes a flake can cost more.

I've worked with several agency models and none have improved my work.   I dare say that its the same with other photographers as well.   Just as no new lens, camera, tripod or software really improves us.   We may be happier with the results though but real improvement comes with hard work, study, critiques from those that truly know their stuff and repeating it till you get it just right.   Paying the two models you linked too would not help me in that regard.   

That said there are unique models who pro or not are so free and filled with energy that they shine and almost force us to be better.   These talents are rare though.   I understand models who want to be paid though.   If this is how they make a living I understand.   Paying them may mean having a more reliable and focused person to shoot.   It just doesn't usually won't improve our work.   I wish it did.

Art Silva Photography wrote:
Bottom line is,

Supply and Demand, the Level of Talent on BOTH sides of the camera determines prices as well.

So basically you take it or leave it, and if it's something you really want or need then be prepared to pay something.

+1

Jacob Michael Photo wrote:
If you read my post I stated that photographers should be getting paid their value too, which most state is generally expensive, and all believe they deserve it.

Then why didn't you just say that in the first place?

The problem is that you're dealing with a site geared toward the hobbyist.  Yeah, there are the traveling nude/fetish models that make money off of the site, but why should one hobbyist pay another hobbyist for the sake of a hobby?

Ultimately, with everyone getting paid, it's going to balance out to zero.  The only people making significant amounts of money from Model Mayhem directly are nude/fetish models.  Why?  Because they can.

Jacob Michael Photo wrote:
Walk into an agency and tell them you need one of their models on TF because of the huge supply of models you shouldnt have to pay, or tell them because your so good that model your asking to use should pay you, and get yourself laughed right outta there.

Yeah... sort of the flavor of the cake.  Eat it or don't eat it.  It's pretty simple.   

Jacob Michael Photo wrote:
But then again, this is MM and their are a lot of nonmodels asking too much and people with inflated egos

Starting a thread like this kinda puts you in the category of the latter.  It may or may not be true - we haven't met - but it's how things go around here.  You haven't been here all that long, so you're finding out what a lot of us have known for years. 

You do seem to underestimate the value of the finished product.  It's like you're not seeing the forest, so to speak.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
My main argument that its less about the model used in many cases then it is about our talents  as photographers.   Give me a Gia and sure I'll get a better looking photo because she was stunning but she won't have improved my skills.   As always though, IMHO.

You're right about that. Gia was actually very generous with her time as a model in that she would basically model for just about anyone, often for hours on end, just 'for the heck of it' (no pay). She did this even *after* she was recognized as one of the top models in the world. A lot of those photos she did for amateur or aspiring photographers look good just because the subject itself is attractive and interesting, but you really don't get much from those sessions that resulted in something that was truly 'iconic and timeless'.

Heck, here is a seldom seen self portrait Gia took where she pretty much just set the timer and jumped in front of the camera........yet it looks pretty good! Why is that? Because the subject itself is attractive to look at.

Here is Gia's self portrait, taken while messing around on vacation (18+):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/I … a/n_a3.jpg

When it came to producing photos that were really 'photographic art', those photos came from sessions she did with people like Helmut Newton and Chris Von Wagenheim and Francesco Scavullo and others; and furthermore with people like Harry King doing hair, and Way Bandy doing make-up. In other words, it took professional teams of very talented people to deliver those iconic images of Gia, and by all accounts she was an extreme talent herself. The people that worked with her tell me that only Kate Moss and a handful of others have that kind of talent.


Again, for comparison here is another picture taken by an 'aspiring' photographer:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/I … 49_n-1.jpg

Now this one is by Helmut Newton:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/I … 021137.jpg

This one is by Chris Von Wagenheim:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/I … _Sandy.jpg

Another by Von Wagenheim:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/I … 152337.jpg

This one is by Scavullo:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/I … 112150.jpg


Believe me I've seen a boat load of Gia's photos that came from amateur photographer's sessions with her. Those guys didn't benefit from having Gia in front of their camera. Sure they had a talented and attractive model and that in itself makes the photo a little more interesting, but I don't think they improved as photographers as a result of the session.

Just because you can get a supermodel to shoot with you, that doesn't mean your photography is going to get any better. The photos might be more interesting because people with 'supermodel looks' tend to be very rare and attention grabbing, but your skills are not going to improve.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
A Take Gia for example.   I used her because, I was aware that she just loved to shoot.   Pay or not, hobby dude or working pro.

Well, back then, as in now, you had some girls like Gia who would pretty much shoot with anyone. I mean literally Gia was on the cover of Vogue and if you saw her walking down the street and said, "Hey, let's shoot...." she was probably going to shoot with you, and it wouldn't just be a cheesy shot or two. She would go with your energy and as long as you were into the shoot she would keep feeding off that and continue modeling.

That's why even 25 years after her death there are still tons of new images of her being released by guys who were amateurs or hobbyists back then.

Then there were other girls like Janice Dickinson, who was also a great model in the 80's. Once Janice made it big she was very conscious about being paid for every photoshoot. She literally did not want to test, she only wanted paid gigs. If you wanted to shoot her it was going to cost you, period. She had an attitude of "You want to shoot me? Fuck you. Pay me." And because she was so in demand it actually worked for her. Janice was basically more 'aloof' after she had broken through and made it. She dated high profile celebrities, mingled with 'high rollers' and eventually it got to the point where all her friends were influential people. Gia was more of a 'blue collar' girl, you might say. Celebrities and people with money reached out to her, but she had more of an "I don't give a shit who you are" kind of attitude about it (and that's probably exactly what she would say to them). She wasn't 'wowed' by fame or money.


So I'm not saying one is better than the other, but even today you have girls with an attitude like Gia, and other girls with an attitude like Janice. That attitude is not necessarily related to their modeling. They can both be great models, just like Gia and Janice were both great models.

Dark Shadows wrote:

Well, back then, as in now, you had some girls like Gia who would pretty much shoot with anyone. I mean literally Gia was on the cover of Vogue and if you saw her walking down the street and said, "Hey, let's shoot...." she was probably going to shoot with you, and it wouldn't just be a cheesy shot or two. She would go with your energy and as long as you were into the shoot she would keep feeding off that and continue modeling.

That's why even 25 years after her death there are still tons of new images of her being released by guys who were amateurs or hobbyists back then.

Then there were other girls like Janice Dickinson, who was also a great model in the 80's. Once Janice made it big she was very conscious about being paid for every photoshoot. She literally did not want to test, she only wanted paid gigs. If you wanted to shoot her it was going to cost you, period. She had an attitude of "You want to shoot me? Fuck you. Pay me." And because she was so in demand it actually worked for her. Janice was basically more 'aloof' after she had broken through and made it. She dated high profile celebrities, mingled with 'high rollers' and eventually it got to the point where all her friends were influential people. Gia was more of a 'blue collar' girl, you might say. Celebrities and people with money reached out to her, but she had more of an "I don't give a shit who you are" kind of attitude about it (and that's probably exactly what she would say to them). She wasn't 'wowed' by fame or money.


So I'm not saying one is better than the other, but even today you have girls with an attitude like Gia, and other girls with an attitude like Janice. That attitude is not necessarily related to their modeling. They can both be great models, just like Gia and Janice were both great models.

I didn't know that about Janice.   I admire people who value art and their values over money.   There was a recent thread for example where some members including many models felt it was okay to cancel a shoot if one that paid more was offered.   How sad, I thought.   A model recently contacted me for a shoot from Craigslist.   She said she wanted to build her book yet on the day were too shoot asked what, I was paying her.   I would have offered her something had she been honest from the start.   Many of the models on MM would do better if they didn't act like photographers were walking wallets or a ATM.   

Maybe they would do as good a job in front of my lens but I would never want to work with them.