TEW Photography wrote:
I think the vast majority of models asking for RAW files simply don't understand what a RAW file is.

Most mean the original, unedited, full sized JPG.
I have NEVER had a model who actually wanted the "RAW" images, and I've had many who said they did NOT want them, because they crashed their computers.

When a model asks for the "RAW" images, it USUALLY means the full sized JPGS.

I shoot RAW and LARGE/FINE JPGS.  I copy the JPG files to a flash drive after the shoot, and I'm done.  If the model wants images I edit, she can snag them from where I upload them.  (Unless, the agreement was I edit some for her as part of the deal).

Everyone has a different style, but photographers *DO* give models "raw" (as in unedited) files.  Maybe YOU don't, but a lot do. 

As time moves on, and models wise up, it will be harder and harder to not pay a model and expect to not give them a copy of the images with usage rights.

I've seen things change a lot over the past 40+ years, and they are still changing.

Scott

PS: Besides, many of the models really *CAN* edit images awesomely.

BodyartBabes wrote:

While the photographer *MAY* hold copyright on the physical/virtual image that was created when he pressed the shutter, he may have NO RIGHTS at all to use that image, because what he photographed/captured was COPYRIGHTED by other people, the IDEA belonged to other people, or other restrictions apply.

Your photographing someone elses idea, and passing it off as your own, just because you pressed a shutter, may be very actionable.

So, feel free to be an A** about things, but realize, you may have just shot a whole day with not a single image you can show anyone without legal repercussions.

Scott

BodyartBabes wrote:
Those of you who have used the "quote" feature, to put words in my mouth that I did not say, have just violated the law you so loudly proclaim is on your side. ~ Photographer egos are way too big, and models put up with it. ~ Photographers think one image is enough for a TF* shoot, but they are WRONG. ~ And, if that image is below par, has a watermark, etc, they are actually STEALING from the model ~ The models' time is HERS.  If she wants to SPEND it doing a TF* shoot, that TF* shoot has to be worth that TIME. Maybe she could be cleaning her house.  Or reading a book.  Or sleeping in. ~ I buy flash drives in bulk, or when I see them for $5. ~ The thing is, you just have to get over the fact that *YOU* want to control everything.  Maybe as an old stock/news photographer, I'm used to turning photos in, and not having control over the final use.  But, I got my expenses paid, perks, and such.  I got to keep shooting.

You have to value and respect yourself before anyone else will do the same. You seem to lack respect for both model and photographer, and the "win-win" relationship of a good collaborative TF*. You demean models when you portray them as mindless/victims, as most are not. That's disrespectful to most models and photographers...who just try to work out a win-win photoshoot...without spending a week trying to fill unrealistic expectations.

BodyartBabes wrote:
PS: Besides, many of the models really *CAN* edit images awesomely.

Sure, just use YOUR (free? valueless?) files and not MINE.

If you undervalue your work that is YOUR choice to "give it away" for "whoever" to butcher. I choose instead to "trade" EQUAL time (mutual respect)...and 15 or so good images...with tight control on the image quality/editing.

It's about "mutual respect" between model and photographer, starting with self-respect. That creates good "chemistry" and good photos.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Why photographers DON'T provide all/RAW on TF*

Because editing (as in culling) is absolutely CRITICAL and as much a part of the process as lens selection, lighting choices, composition, etc.

Jolly Rauncher wrote:
Seeing as there are only photographers replying to this thread, shouldn't this be in THEIR forum?

I don't see how this pertains to models over being a generic photographer gripe. Most of us accept our final edits, have signed all the proper releases agreeing to such, and for the most part are content with what they receive (and if not, they just don't work together again but at least it was experience).

If I want to see what poses I'm doing that aren't working, I ask to see a few shots on the back of the camera. I don't need 500 shitty pictures to know what I'm doing wrong. And I think a lot of models are similar.

Precisely - the photographer can also see when a pose or expression isn't working and will use the preview on the camera-back to show the model what's wrong and correct it there and then, rather than just carry on 'not getting the shot' and then sending the model 500 useless JPEGs afterwards.

Kelleth wrote:
Why in the world anybody want want all the raw images is beyond my understanding.

Why anybody would have use for more than 1 or 2 edited photos per look is also beyond me.

This >>>

hahaha!

BodyartBabes wrote:

Models need to stick to THEIR guns and NOT work with photographers who do not give them FAIR COMPENSATION for their time.

Photographer egos are way too big, and models put up with it.  Or some, do.  Some learn. 

The best way to avoid problems is to discuss BEFORE hand, and maybe get a CONTRACT in writing.  *NOT* a release, a CONTRACT.  After all, TF* is an agreement (CONTRACT) like any other.  THEFT of service applies to TF* just as it applies to a paid shoot.  In one, the "payment" is images, while in the other, it's cash, but it's *STILL* payment.

Photographers think one image is enough for a TF* shoot, but they are WRONG.  Dead wrong.  And, if that image is below par, has a watermark, etc, they are actually STEALING from the model, since the model has put in the *SAME* time as they have, and has not gotten anything she can use.  *THAT* is the key to a TF* agreement.

BOTH parties need to come away with something of value ot them.  If they don't, then there is NO REASON TO WORK TOGETHER TF*!!  NONE.

That "value" could be as little as good will, or networking, or it could be "testing" for another job/shoot, etc.   But it has to be of value to BOTH parties, EQUALLY. 

Photographers *think* that because they put a value of $100 on an image, the image is worth $100 of a _MODELS_ time.  It's *NOT*.   The models' time is worth as much as the photographers -- and if she is a working in-demand model, maybe more  THat whole "I've got $10,000 in equipment" is just bullshit.  It always was, and always will be.

The models' time is HERS.  If she wants to SPEND it doing a TF* shoot, that TF* shoot has to be worth that TIME. Maybe she could be cleaning her house.  Or reading a book.  Or sleeping in.  But it's HER TIME.  Not yours.  And if you want it, you need to PAY -- more than a few low res watermarked images.

The *REAL* problem is photographers are trying to use TF* as way of getting "FREE" models, *NOT* for what it was meant to be -- eg: a way to turn down-time into productive time.

TF* is *NOT* a means of "free" and many people have been surprised by what happened to them in court when a "FREE" shoot became commercialized --  especially if the model was "mis-informed" of the purposes, and intent.  That whole "release" thing where you claim commercial use, *ONLY* applies if the model was given FAIR compensation, and *IF* there was no intent to defraud.  Unfortunately, most TF* has become an intent to defraud.  Theft of services/time.  And more.

TF* is a way to shoot "STOCK" photos, to turn down-time into productive time (STOCK) or test out IDEAS, concepts, etc.  SOMETIMES it's a way of doing a "commercial" shoot on a shoestring budget, if EVERYONE agrees that it's a trade, and the goal is a published tearsheet.  But, even then, someone is paying more than others, or a makeup artist is consuming supplies, etc.  TF* OFTEN includes some compensation for materials and travel, it's TIME that is traded, *NOT* commercial goods.

There are a *LOT* of problems with TF* as practiced here, and  I've only a touched on a few that piss me off, time and again.  There are more.

But as for "RAW" images, if you consider the RAW to be a "NEGATIVE" then the models never got the negatives.  *BUT* since you can make high-res JPG files that are nearly as good, and more than adequate for most purposes, giving them the JPG files is *NOT* unreasonable.  I do.  I buy flash drives in bulk, or when I see them for $5.  And, 8 gig drives are now readily available "on sale" for $5-6.  I'm getting 16 gig drives for $9 locally in the big-box stores.  Sandisk, pony, HP, etc.  Not generic.

The thing is, you just have to get over the fact that *YOU* want to control everything.  Maybe as an old stock/news photographer, I'm used to turning photos in, and not having control over the final use.  But, I got my expenses paid, perks, and such.  I got to keep shooting. 

Decide what is most important to you.  Happy models and a full shoot schedule or tight control and an empty schedule.

Right now I'm at the point (I think because I do give so many images is part of it) where we have more models willing to work, than I can fit into the schedule, or find photographers for.   

(And before anyone starts up, *I* need to charge for use use of my studio space, lighting, overhead, equipment breakage, prop loss, insurance, etc.  So, while the models are willing to work TF* the photographers have to pay a little for what they get.  *I* don't get anything out of letting people use my stuff for free -- remember, "trade" has to be of value to BOTH parties.  "trade" doesn't replace that broken light or blown unit. Around here, photographers want stuff for free... not just models.  They want events, workshops, use of YOUR studio, even free food.  Pisses me the hell off.  I set up another group for the more serious photographers, willing to PAY for their hobby, art, etc.  It's much, much smaller, but we have a much,. much better time!)

TF* is *NOT* free.  It's a form of BARTER.  and Barter has rules going back millennia, to earliest man, which people here, in the last decade, seem to want to redefine.

Scott

I for one agree with you 100%     I'm tired of lacklustre photographers bitching about how models should only get a few images per shoot.  If it was coming from a famous commercial photographer then maybe but most of the complainers are just hacks like me.

p e p e wrote:
I for one agree with you 100%     I'm tired of lacklustre photographers bitching about how llamas should only get a few images per shoot.  If it was coming from a famous commercial photographer then maybe but most of the complainers are just hacks like me.

So, how much time/images do you spend editing to a "final product" on a normal say 150 image photoshoot? A week? Or do you just provide the entire shoot's 150 RAW files as a "final product"? Do you buy 8GB thumb drives in BULK also? LOL!

You imply MORE "lackluster photographers" should flood the internet with 8GB at a time of unfinished sub-quality hack-work to be photochopped freely? Yeah, I don't think that's what experienced llamas really want.

p e p e wrote:
I for one agree with you 100%     I'm tired of lacklustre photographers bitching about how models should only get a few images per shoot.  If it was coming from a famous commercial photographer then maybe but most of the complainers are just hacks like me.

One of the best ways to remain a lackluster photographer (or model) is to show everything you shoot. The people at the top of the market got there by showing only the work that moves their career forward.

Whether you are a model or photographer the best way to get to the top is to shoot a lot, edit ruthlessly, and show only your very best work.

JR in Texas wrote:
One of the best ways to remain a lackluster photographer (or model) is to show everything you shoot. The people at the top of the market got there by showing only the work that moves their career forward.

Whether you are a model or photographer the best way to get to the top is to shoot a lot, edit ruthlessly, and show only your very best work.

This.

From my experience, most models don't want to deal with being flooded with 150 RAW images of unfinished work. And that type of work flooding the internet drags down the whole industry "standard" for them. Pretty soon a GWC (Girl with Cellphone? ) sub-par photo becomes the "standard" of internet modelling...and makes it harder to find the Diamonds because they're buried under a 16GB mountain of  unfinished/photochopped chaff.

Sandra Vixen wrote:
For TF (trade work), I usually discuss with a photographer about that before the shoot and have some kind of agreement before we move forward.

But personally, my policy for TF work is that I require all the raw images immediately after the shoot, unless it's a genre outside of my training. (*)

The reason being that I'm both a professional classical/technical dancer and a CG artist, I am respectful of copyright and clearly indicate who the photographer and post production people are in the credits.

The typical professional classical/technical dancer works for $1000-$5000 per day ($100,000-$500,000 for world-class classical dancers), so for (free) trade work is beyond a generous donation on my part.

(*) If I'm being asked to model outside of my training, then I usually just ask for whatever the photographer picks as a "good shot" since he/she would be a better judge at that.

if you are a dancer then you are obviously familiar with the concept of a choreographer. the choreographer is the primary creator and dancers help bring their vision to reality. that's no disrespect to the dancers. until the dancer decides to become a choreographer, they are in a supporting role.

same would obviously apply to a movie director. no director in the world would give an actor all the outtakes so they could put together an alternative version of the movie.

all that said - i don't think it's morally wrong for a model to ask for all the shots. i just personally wouldn't agree to it. i'm very confident that the quality of the images i provide the model are more than enough to make the trade a fair deal.

JR in Texas wrote:
Whether you are a model or photographer the best way to get to the top is to shoot a lot, edit ruthlessly, and show only your very best work.

Fucking A, man! Perfectly-said!

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

Alixx Rose wrote:
some models might not understand the "offensive" bit of their request.
I like seeing all of the raw images, so I can see what poses I did that didn't work so I can improve on them, or not do them again.
If you, the photographer, didn't use a third of the photos because, for example, the model kept leaning one shoulder forwards and all of those photos looked bad/awkward, the model should be able to see those pictures and correct herself in future shoots.

As a model who is still working on perfecting her posing skills I agree. It's nice to see where you need more work.

Something else I will add...everyone has different ways of seeing things. A photographer might see something in one picture and a model might see something in another. In may case, I agree that a model has no need for 500 bad images, but it would be great to just see them and maybe even discuss some ideas you may to make an "ok" image into something great with some post work.

I've asked for raw images before, some photographers are ok with it, some aren't. I don't push the subject if they're not ok with it. Nor am I a diva about it, it is afterall a TF shoot.

That's just my humble opinion of course. I've been lucky and gotten some great work from TF shoots I've done.

Gator River wrote:
I'm far from an ego-freak, but I just don't want my name on something I'm not satisfied with.

Exactly.

THIS is exactly is what I have hoped to make clear to many of the newer models so they understand...and WHY I posted this thread in the Model section.

It's not about massive photographer egos, it's about keeping the standards (and our own public/Mayhem image quality) up to a higher public level. ONLY the "best foot forward" type scenario.

Just as models don't want various and vulgar images created with their "likeness" put out to the public, it's the same for (most) photographers.

In fairness, if for any reason the model asked me to not use a certain (TF*) image (for any reason) in my portfolio I would be happy to take it down. Most of us just want our "best work" put forward, not our mistakes or photochopped/unfinished/misfires. Nor do we want to spend a week editing 150 images to "final product" quality on a 2hr "trade" shoot.

It's about Mutual Respect, and a "win-win" fairness.

Bryan Benoit wrote:

You obviously assign very little value to your images

My images help market models and make them real money in bookings.

Exactly

Alixx Rose wrote:
some models might not understand the "offensive" bit of their request. I like seeing all of the raw images, so I can see what poses I did that didn't work so I can improve on them, or not do them again.
If you, the photographer, didn't use a third of the photos because, for example, the model kept leaning one shoulder forwards and all of those photos looked bad/awkward, the model should be able to see those pictures and correct herself in future shoots.

Jojo West wrote:
As a model who is still working on perfecting her posing skills I agree. It's nice to see where you need more work.

I would be happy to work with any new models as a "photographic mirror" to help them develop THEIR modelling poses, and at reduced rates! You can practice your poses all you want, and I will act as your "mirror"...and I will be happy to help YOU "learn better posing".

We won't be creating artwork together, but you WILL have something better than a mirror for feedback and learning. (all RAW files included).

Lauren Grace wrote:
I agree with many people on here. From a model's perspective. I do not want raw images. I have no need for 200 pictures of myself where only about 10% are really decent. I however WOULD like to see them all! I am looking for different things in a photo then the photographer is. If I give my time time for TF I expect to be able to choose what I want for my portfolio. Also some photographers do a great deal of processing and others do the bare minimum (blemishes, lighting fixes, etc). I have worked with some wonderful photographers and 90% followed through with exactly what they told me. However one issue I have run into has been really good photographers with NOT very good processing capabilities. A few times I've gotten pictures and been slightly disappointed they didn't look more "polished" or "finished". I feel like some models ask for the unedited ones for the purpose of trying to find a re-toucher to edit to their expectations (most likely w/o the photographer's permission!)

+1

BodyartBabes wrote:

Models need to stick to THEIR guns and NOT work with photographers who do not give them FAIR COMPENSATION for their time.

Photographer egos are way too big, and models put up with it.  Or some, do.  Some learn. 

The best way to avoid problems is to discuss BEFORE hand, and maybe get a CONTRACT in writing.  *NOT* a release, a CONTRACT.  After all, TF* is an agreement (CONTRACT) like any other.  THEFT of service applies to TF* just as it applies to a paid shoot.  In one, the "payment" is images, while in the other, it's cash, but it's *STILL* payment.

Photographers think one image is enough for a TF* shoot, but they are WRONG.  Dead wrong.  And, if that image is below par, has a watermark, etc, they are actually STEALING from the model, since the model has put in the *SAME* time as they have, and has not gotten anything she can use.  *THAT* is the key to a TF* agreement.

BOTH parties need to come away with something of value ot them.  If they don't, then there is NO REASON TO WORK TOGETHER TF*!!  NONE.

That "value" could be as little as good will, or networking, or it could be "testing" for another job/shoot, etc.   But it has to be of value to BOTH parties, EQUALLY. 

Photographers *think* that because they put a value of $100 on an image, the image is worth $100 of a _MODELS_ time.  It's *NOT*.   The models' time is worth as much as the photographers -- and if she is a working in-demand model, maybe more  THat whole "I've got $10,000 in equipment" is just bullshit.  It always was, and always will be.

The models' time is HERS.  If she wants to SPEND it doing a TF* shoot, that TF* shoot has to be worth that TIME. Maybe she could be cleaning her house.  Or reading a book.  Or sleeping in.  But it's HER TIME.  Not yours.  And if you want it, you need to PAY -- more than a few low res watermarked images.

The *REAL* problem is photographers are trying to use TF* as way of getting "FREE" models, *NOT* for what it was meant to be -- eg: a way to turn down-time into productive time.

TF* is *NOT* a means of "free" and many people have been surprised by what happened to them in court when a "FREE" shoot became commercialized --  especially if the model was "mis-informed" of the purposes, and intent.  That whole "release" thing where you claim commercial use, *ONLY* applies if the model was given FAIR compensation, and *IF* there was no intent to defraud.  Unfortunately, most TF* has become an intent to defraud.  Theft of services/time.  And more.

TF* is a way to shoot "STOCK" photos, to turn down-time into productive time (STOCK) or test out IDEAS, concepts, etc.  SOMETIMES it's a way of doing a "commercial" shoot on a shoestring budget, if EVERYONE agrees that it's a trade, and the goal is a published tearsheet.  But, even then, someone is paying more than others, or a makeup artist is consuming supplies, etc.  TF* OFTEN includes some compensation for materials and travel, it's TIME that is traded, *NOT* commercial goods.

There are a *LOT* of problems with TF* as practiced here, and  I've only a touched on a few that piss me off, time and again.  There are more.

But as for "RAW" images, if you consider the RAW to be a "NEGATIVE" then the models never got the negatives.  *BUT* since you can make high-res JPG files that are nearly as good, and more than adequate for most purposes, giving them the JPG files is *NOT* unreasonable.  I do.  I buy flash drives in bulk, or when I see them for $5.  And, 8 gig drives are now readily available "on sale" for $5-6.  I'm getting 16 gig drives for $9 locally in the big-box stores.  Sandisk, pony, HP, etc.  Not generic.

The thing is, you just have to get over the fact that *YOU* want to control everything.  Maybe as an old stock/news photographer, I'm used to turning photos in, and not having control over the final use.  But, I got my expenses paid, perks, and such.  I got to keep shooting. 

Decide what is most important to you.  Happy models and a full shoot schedule or tight control and an empty schedule.

Right now I'm at the point (I think because I do give so many images is part of it) where we have more models willing to work, than I can fit into the schedule, or find photographers for.   

(And before anyone starts up, *I* need to charge for use use of my studio space, lighting, overhead, equipment breakage, prop loss, insurance, etc.  So, while the models are willing to work TF* the photographers have to pay a little for what they get.  *I* don't get anything out of letting people use my stuff for free -- remember, "trade" has to be of value to BOTH parties.  "trade" doesn't replace that broken light or blown unit. Around here, photographers want stuff for free... not just models.  They want events, workshops, use of YOUR studio, even free food.  Pisses me the hell off.  I set up another group for the more serious photographers, willing to PAY for their hobby, art, etc.  It's much, much smaller, but we have a much,. much better time!)

TF* is *NOT* free.  It's a form of BARTER.  and Barter has rules going back millennia, to earliest man, which people here, in the last decade, seem to want to redefine.

Scott

WTF..............WOW ???

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Exactly! In fact it's almost insulting to have a model ask for the RAW/all files as part of the TF* shoot...it's like asking for the photographer's negatives and the freedom to trash them at will.
Nope. Sorry.

That is NOT part of a typical "trade", and it would cost good $$$ to "buy" the normal (all files) "total package" where you-buy-the-ownership of the images deal.

I know EVERYTHING is "negotiable" but I'm speaking in general guidelines of a "typical" TF* shoot, to help clarify WHY we are this way.

I think also that "trade" happens at different levels -

perhaps a request for a lot of images is not inappropriate when beginning photographers and models are shooting together to learn and grow....

when I trade it is most often with established models working for rates, who want some port development.  In this instance, probably one shot per look is all they are going to use.  A selection of three or at most five images is more than adequate for this.

Lauren Grace wrote:
I agree with many people on here. From a model's perspective. I do not want raw images. I have no need for 200 pictures of myself where only about 10% are really decent. I however WOULD like to see them all! I am looking for different things in a photo then the photographer is. If I give my time for TF I expect to be able to choose what I want for my portfolio. Also some photographers do a great deal of processing and others do the bare minimum (blemishes, lighting fixes, etc). I have worked with some wonderful photographers and 90% followed through with exactly what they told me. However one issue I have run into has been really good photographers with NOT very good processing capabilities. A few times I've gotten pictures and been slightly disappointed they didn't look more "polished" or "finished". I feel like some models ask for the unedited ones for the purpose of trying to find a re-toucher to edit to their expectations (most likely w/o the photographer's permission!)

I did have a first recently, a shoot I did for TF where I got some really great pictures and the photographer did some minor editing then said if I wanted some more editing to find a retoucher to help me. First time, I'd ever had someone bring it up w/o me even asking.

+ 1000

Tony Lawrence wrote:

You've written this before.   Pro shooters and serious amateurs should not take your advice.   Giving out work at the end of a shoot is generally a bad ideal.   If you were a writer or song writer or performer wouldn't you want people to see your best work?   I also think that fair is fair.   Doing hundreds of images and only providing very few seems a bit unfair but... it depends on who's shooting.   If its Phillipe or Julian Wilde then those few will be winners.   However I don't think either provides images unedited images at the end of the session.   

As for controlling everything.   A photographer is the director, producer and often the client.   He/she must control every aspect of a shoot from make-up, hair to styling and after processing.   It is their work and their careers can be hurt by sloppiness in any area.   Don't give out unedited work.   Don't give out hundreds of images thinking you are being a 'nice' guy.   Pros MUST control everything that goes on in their studio and the finished product.

+1

Alixx Rose wrote:
some models might not understand the "offensive" bit of their request.
I like seeing all of the raw images, so I can see what poses I did that didn't work so I can improve on them, or not do them again.
If you, the photographer, didn't use a third of the photos because, for example, the model kept leaning one shoulder forwards and all of those photos looked bad/awkward, the model should be able to see those pictures and correct herself in future shoots.

I solve this problem by posting the entire shoot on my Zenfolio page.  It's password protected and photos cannot be downloaded without my permission.

I find that most models look at the entire shoot about 4 times.

In a TF shoot, I give 8 images of the models choice, along with images that I deem good images and have processed.

Everyone who shoots with my signs a models release along with a Usage License agreement.  The agreement allows the Model to use the photos for their self promotion but prohibits any editing of any kind, other than cropping for printing..

Drew Smith Photography wrote:
I have, to date, never been asked for a raw file.

What am I doing wrong?

Shoot weddings and that will change it. 

I promise.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
If the photographer's portfolio is strong enough for a model to want to trade with,  a few images per look, shot, chosen and edited to their typical standard, should be sufficient.

If the model is just trading with anyone just to be shooting, perhaps that is different.   

But I don't play that.

I rarely give "a few images" per look, but then I don't really shoot "looks" in a normal sense.

David J Martin wrote:
Any photographer could give you the contact sheets on a CD to take home at the end of the shoot.

I can't.  Except when I'm hosting the model for a few days.  I shoot raws, and I'm starting to do some film.  The raws take 2-4 hours to process into JPGs.  If we have that much time, I'm going to be shooting.  Normally, I get the model 2/3 of the shots or so as proofs within 4-6 hours, although my last shoot, it took a few days.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
The form of compensation is not the issue for me.  I simply prefer a business model that is about providing a final product, and has some quality control.  I don't give RAW images to the Art Director I work with, even though I know he has excellent editing skills.  Why would I give unfinished product to someone who most probably does not know how to properly finish that product?

I'm happy to turn over "unedited" files to anyone who pays the proper rate for them.  But, generally, the value of my work is in completed, final, images.

BodyartBabes wrote:
Then PAY for it.  Simple.

Trading only for what YOU want to give away, is not a valid form of barter (unless the person trading with you agrees to it).

You can OFFER that, but most people when they understand the issue will not opt to work with you.   Their time.  Their effort.  Their investment.  And *YOU* make all the decisions?  That is not what TF* is about.

Scott

I do PAY for it.  With image rights.  Just as the model pays for those rights with a release.

Some of us are able to get models to trade for what we offer.  Others are not.  If you're in the second category, perhaps it isn't the number of images you provide that is the problem.

Jojo West wrote:
It just seems that the photographers and models need to discuss and COLLABORATE more. To me modeling isn't just about standing in front of a camera and taking pretty pictures, it's about working together to make art.

JoJo, you NAILED it!  Collaboration is the key to avoiding all of these problems. Collaboration creates a "team" mentality, where concepts and expectations are understood, but also "good chemistry" that SHOWS in GREAT pictures!

It ALSO minimizes flaking from both parties, because BOTH parties are excited and enthused to create the ideas that they developed TOGETHER!

My policy:


I shoot in HiRes Jpeg, and can usually provide those finished 20+/- (more if the chemistry is good!) photos in around 24hrs time. The model never wants to see ALL the images because she KNOWS what we collaborated on, and she saw progress shots on the camera as we shoot. She just wants those 15-20 best shots, as quickly as I can provide them. Good Collaboration = quality FINISHED PRODUCT!