Because of all the discussions about models paying photographers for their portfolio shoots... and the varied reasons by photographers why the model should pay..., I would like to point out that in many cases... beginning photographers are just at the same point where there has to be a decision made on having to pay a model.
The argument is pretty much the same... you need photos in your own portfolio that shows high quality work.
With all the TF's and photoshoot-outs and other events like that... there may come the time where you have to pay a highly experienced (probably fashion-) model, eventually from an agency, or for a freelancer with a strong portfolio and tearsheets...
This will most certainly enhance your own portfolio which will get your work and work-offers into a completely different strata.
Many people here decry the new, completely unexperienced models who write PAID ONLY on their profiles, but I am just as amused by some of the photographers (usually those who like to hella-brag about their expensive new lens or light kit) who have that curious "I've never paid a model and never will!" attitude—and their ports are filled with images of Plain Janes. LOL
I confess I pay models sometimes. There, I said it.
But I figure that three months from now, I'll forget about the relatively modest amount I paid the model (it's amazing how far even a well-placed 50 or 100 will get you, by setting you apart from the 'TF-only' crowd.)...but I've got an image that I'll be able to appreciate (perhaps even market) forever.
My point: whether you pay with cash or with the value of your work, ultimately you get what you pay for.
[EDIT] No disrespect to Plain Janes. Both of my exes are PJs.
at the beginning i couldn't get anyone interested on trade so i paid some of the traveling models who are great to work with, especially for a newbie still struggling with the technical stuff. if i were a wealthy hobbyist i could definitely think of worse ways to spend my weekends than shooting those models.
these days i probably wouldn't pay a model unless a client was paying me to pay them or i was hiring them for a workshop or to work a show or something like that.
I agree, a photographer never has to pay a model, and a model never has to pay a photographer. In my case, I have paid a few experienced nude models in order to get the experience with models who know how to move on there own. I feel it has helped me a lot, and helped with my port. But, only when I want. It would be the same for models. If they want better photos for great photos for their port, they may wish to pay a photographer who's ports they really like. It would help them also. But HAVE to. never
Four-Eleven Productions wrote: Many people here decry the new, completely unexperienced models who write PAID ONLY on their profiles, but I am just as amused by some of the photographers (usually those who like to hella-brag about their expensive new lens or light kit) who have that curious "I've never paid a model and never will!" attitude—and their ports are filled with images of Plain Janes. LOL
I confess I pay models sometimes. There, I said it.
But I figure that three months from now, I'll forget about the relatively modest amount I paid the model (it's amazing how far even a well-placed 50 or 100 will get you, by setting you apart from the 'TF-only' crowd.)...but I've got an image that I'll be able to appreciate (perhaps even market) forever.
My point: whether you pay with cash or with the value of your work, ultimately you get what you pay for.
[EDIT] No disrespect to Plain Janes. Both of my exes are PJs.
As further evidence that "you get what you pay for" is just a marketing gimmick that many buy into, I have noticed that the ports of people who do pay are also often filled with "plain janes"
As further evidence that "you get what you pay for" is just a marketing gimmick that many buy into, I have noticed that the ports of people who do pay are also often filled with "plain janes"
I get the attempted insult...cool.
But do you really think the phrase "You get what you pay for" is just a marketing gimmick that many buy into? It's a pretty tried-and-true concept over the millenia. Jus' sayin'.
Four-Eleven Productions wrote: I get the attempted insult...cool.
But do you really think the phrase "You get what you pay for" is just a marketing gimmick that many buy into? It's a pretty tried-and-true concept over the millenia. Jus' sayin'.
I didn't attempt anything.
Yup a pretty tried and true marketing gimmick. Many have fallen for it. People have noticed that if you raise prices you can get more customers with the same item/service.
So where do all the models that do "paid only" get paying gigs from? Poor things! All these beautiful models sitting 'round with nothing to do because photogs don't wanna pay!
OK. Now seriously, I haven't had to pay a model yet but I would for the right look/body/energy of a model that I want for a concept shoot. I would gladly pay to shoot a professional drop dead gorgeous nude model!!
We're all trying to make something of ourselves in this industry model and photogs alike. I've been very fortunate to have worked with some amazing new models while I try to build my port and refine my craft, at the same time helping out these models with some images that they can use to promote themselves.
I prefer not to pay, of course, but hell yea I would if the right one comes along.
Yup a pretty tried and true marketing gimmick. Many have fallen for it. People have noticed that if you raise prices you can get more customers with the same item/service.
Awesome. A curious new cultural and economic theory. So the cost of your groceries and gasoline and heating bills and photographic lenses are all zero because you declared you don't pay grocers and fuel stations and power companies and retailers and never will? And they still want to provide services to you?
Marshall n Julia wrote: So where do all the models that do "paid only" get paying gigs from? Poor things! All these beautiful models sitting 'round with nothing to do because photogs don't wanna pay!
OK. Now seriously, I haven't had to pay a model yet but I would for the right look/body/energy of a model that I want for a concept shoot. I would gladly pay to shoot a professional drop dead gorgeous nude model!!
We're all trying to make something of ourselves in this industry model and photogs alike. I've been very fortunate to have worked with some amazing new models while I try to build my port and refine my craft, at the same time helping out these models with some images that they can use to promote themselves.
I prefer not to pay, of course, but hell yea I would if the right one comes along.
But you *did* pay, by providing them "...images that they can use to promote themselves." Often, that's sufficient.
Four-Eleven Productions wrote: Awesome. A curious new cultural and economic theory. So the cost of your groceries and gasoline and heating bills and photographic lenses are all zero because you declared you don't pay grocers and fuel stations and power companies and retailers and never will? And they still want to provide services to you?
I need to know more about this.
uhm no, You need to bone up on your reading comprehension because I have not said or implied any of the above. Take your strawman elsewhere. Heck I have not even said if I pay models or not.
Photographers need to consistently shoot to improve and having to pay models will break the bank for many of us. If you want agency level faces then approach real world modeling agencies. Some of the smaller ones may be more open to shooters with lessor books and faces but paying for models especially from sites like MM doesn't make good economic sense. A better expense is to find solid MUA and pay them. It will save you hours of CS and is a great way to attract more models if they know you provide one.
Shooters wanting fashion level models should consider going to fashion shows. Some of the small ones have some real gems. A serious test shoot could last for many hours and having to pay a hourly rate could be expensive. However if you have the cash and limited time to look for models then spend it how you see fit.
udor wrote: Because of all the discussions about models paying photographers for their portfolio shoots... and the varied reasons by photographers why the model should pay..., I would like to point out that in many cases... beginning photographers are just at the same point where there has to be a decision made on having to pay a model.
The argument is pretty much the same... you need photos in your own portfolio that shows high quality work.
With all the TF's and photoshoot-outs and other events like that... there may come the time where you have to pay a highly experienced (probably fashion-) model, eventually from an agency, or for a freelancer with a strong portfolio and tearsheets...
This will most certainly enhance your own portfolio which will get your work and work-offers into a completely different strata.
Just a little reminder...
Paying the right model can be a fantastic idea. Obviously, the right model depends on the photographer's situation and goals.
Many photographers who brag about never having paid a model spent years in school or internships developing skills; spending time and money that could, potentially, have been better spent with a fantastic model. Not in all cases, but it's certainly not like you just pick up a camera and start shooting trade with fantastic models. (Except, perhaps, if you happen to be a great model yourself; they have rather a head start.)
dgold
Posts: 9,779
North Smithfield, Rhode Island, US
Yes to the OP's question.
I am a sucker for travelling adult professional models for artistic nude photography
- always have been and always will be, Lord's willing.
I then have a signed release, a straight forward understanding of the shoot and a model with whom it usually a pleasure to collaborate.
Tony Lawrence wrote: ...but paying for models especially from sites like MM doesn't make good economic sense.
I've actually changed my position on this over the years. I come from a background of testing with the major agencies. With the advent of digital photography and the MM-type world, I kind of carried over the agency-testing paradigm to independents.
However, my financial strata has changed over the years, and I find now that although I enjoy testing from time to time, the paradigm of permitting the models to choose 3-4 images that they want me to finish, just doesn't make financial sense. The time it takes for me to finish those 3-4 images specifically for them, costs me considerably more (in terms of my time based on what my time sells for in real $$$), than if I just pay them a reasonable commercial 1/2 day rate.
So 'economic sense' varies based on what one's time is worth.
I've actually changed my position on this over the years. I come from a background of testing with the major agencies. With the advent of digital photography and the MM-type world, I kind of carried over the agency-testing paradigm to independents.
However, my financial strata has changed over the years, and I find now that although I enjoy testing from time to time, the paradigm of permitting the models to choose 3-4 images that they want me to finish, just doesn't make financial sense. The time it takes for me to finish those 3-4 images specifically for them, costs me considerably more (in terms of my time based on what my time sells for in real $$$), than if I just pay them a reasonable commercial 1/2 day rate.
So 'economic sense' varies based on what one's time is worth.
Hi, John. I should have added a exception. Lets say your day job pays well and offers limited time to edit work or find models TF then paying makes sense. Kinda silly to make $100.00 a hour at a job then spend hours after a shoot with edits from a test shoot. Shooters who are working with agencies have no reason to pay. Especially fashion only models. Many here have limited budgets and paying even if they wanted too is something they can't do. The larger problem is recouping that money. I also understand models who want to be paid but if, I have no market for my work and no client I just can't pay or offer that much.
That's in part why I don't get all that angry about flakes and no show models.
| 
| 
| edu