Modell T wrote:
Most Models show up for paid shoots...cash incentive.

I have zero problem with models flaking on our "Trade" shoots...it doesn't happen...it just requires a good pre-shoot collaboration and mental investment in the concept from both parties.

For what I like to create, the "cash" (from either side) adds a "pressure" that changes the energy and expression of the shoot. With the simple "trade" there is a (more relaxed) payment of final images for both of us.

Modell T wrote:
Most Models show up for paid shoots...cash incentive.

I wish this was true - lol

IMAGINERIES wrote:
I yet have to work with a "would be model" that is not like a puppet...Good pose bad facial expression or vice versa, all the little details such as feet, hands, etc
But yes you have some naturals...Like dancing some can... some....can't

+1. And from my experience, Trained Ballet Dancers are the best, and DO make natural models. VERY intouch with their "presence" and "energy", and how it looks to an audience. Trained in constant (proper) hand and feet positioning...as it becomes "second-nature" to them.

Damianne wrote:
Every shoot is paid. If your images aren't worth payment to the model, money can work, but every shoot is paid in some form or fashion.
Operating in "favors" doesn't really work, and would you even really want a model that feels like they're doing you a favor by being there? That's just asking for, well, unprofessional behavior since they feel like any involvement is above and beyond.

+100

Shot By Adam wrote:

Wow...this thread is going to go over about as good as a fart in church.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....oooooooh...HA HA HA HA!!!

Brian Scanlon wrote:
That's because, for some llamas, it's about supplementing their income and not about the art.

Why can't it ever be both?

Jessie Shannon wrote:
Why can't it ever always be both?

fixed that for you

Brian Scanlon wrote:
That's because, for some models, it's about supplementing their income and not about the art.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
Why can't it ever be both?

For some it's ONLY about the art; they'll turn down any work they don't find fulfilling, whatever the pay.  For most, they want to make beauty, and they'll do lesser work for a certain payment.  But for some, it's ONLY about pay, and not the results. 

The same is, of course, true of photographers.

Art of the nude wrote:

Brian Scanlon wrote:
That's because, for some models, it's about supplementing their income and not about the art.

For some it's ONLY about the art; they'll turn down any work they don't find fulfilling, whatever the pay.  For most, they want to make beauty, and they'll do lesser work for a certain payment.  But for some, it's ONLY about pay, and not the results. 

The same is, of course, true of photographers.

While we all (I hope) agree that you are perfectly correct in your analysis the question was "Why" can't it be both ever (or always.)

Art of the nude wrote:
For some it's ONLY about the art; they'll turn down any work they don't find fulfilling, whatever the pay.  For most, they want to make beauty, and they'll do lesser work for a certain payment.  But for some, it's ONLY about pay, and not the results. 

The same is, of course, true of photographers.

Spot ON.

NewBoldPhoto wrote:
While we all (I hope) agree that you are perfectly correct in your analysis the question was "Why" can't it be both ever (or always.)

It's about the model's primary focus and the personal investment. Is the focus on getting paid and getting done...or is it about being "invested" in the artistic outcome. Too many models are of the "getting paid by the GWC" focus, and seemingly few are about the artistic outcome.

It's hard work (and takes skills). Instead the "I-just-have-to-show-up-to-get-paid-by-the-GWC-for-his-"spank bank" is all to common. (especially with newer models that think this is "easy money"). It's disappointing.

And it always shows in the model's expressions (and in the many "GWC" threads here).

REAL artistic collaboration is RARE, and you can tell in the email communications. If you have to REPEAT the "concept" in each email...it's NOT going to be an "invested" model shoot. If the communication is in small letters, and she's typing text-speak in broken half-sentences with her thumbs...it's likely NOT going to be an "invested" model shoot.

Ty Lockhart wrote:
I love this feed.

I took some time away from this site to build up a small studio. Finally got it up, got back on this site about a week ago amped! And suddenly realized many of the experienced models I'd like to photograph are charging $100-$300?! for a photo shoot.

Even some of the less experienced ones are charging $50.
It's like every lady who has a portfolio on here is charging, regardless of skill set or looks.

I admit I have a long way to go with creating glamour images similar to what some of you guys are doing. But paying each girl to model for me as I work to get there seems not a good business move, I'd have to close my studio to do so.

But after reading this feed, I do understand now why models (some of them) should be paid by the photographer. The problem I think is there are now a WHOOOOLE  LOT of ladies on here who think just because they have a few pictures showing t&a they should be paid. I can't do it. There's about 3 models in Louisville, Ky. who really stand out and I might fork over cash to have photo shoots with them one day.

Ideally, I don't think a photographer should have to pay a model. I think it should be a tf situtation.

Or, I like when models are just getting started and they pay photographers who helped develop them.

I wonder what's the percentage of each of those categories on this site? Is it more photographers who pay models, models who pay photographers, or equal trade. I just got back on this site, but it seems to me there are more photographers who are paying models. And, there's nothing wrong with that, I just can't afford to do it and keep my studio.

First of all, try heading up here, just a bit up north to Cincinnati. Lots of talent who will shoot for TF with a good photographer.

Secondly, as a rule of thumb as to who pays who, my method is simple. Whoever has the better portfolio makes the offer; TF, cash, live chicken, etc..

I have had new "models" offer to shoot with me for only half their rates if they can have some photos too. I just politely decline and tell them that I only pay very experienced models.

New models require a lot of work to shoot with. They have no idea how to pose, how to stand, or even how to breathe. It never ceases to amaze me how many "models" don't even know how to smile evenly, instead of giving that Bell's Palsy half-smirk.

It may seem unfair, but new models, I do charge. They're not only getting images for their port, but they're also getting a lot of coaching from me and my experience. And for the talented ones, REFERRALS for networking with my friends who are designers, makeup artists, magazine editors, and fashion show coordinators.

DougBPhoto wrote:

For every model that should not be paid, there are probably two "photographers" who should not be paid.

For those who are genuine models, it is idiotic to think they should not be compensated for their work.

When people do work for you, they get compensated, pretty basic concept.

What form that compensation happens in, that is a different matter, as it can be trade, barter, money, or something else the model deems valuable.

If you're making art (a painting), do you not pay for your paint, your canvas, your brushes?

If you're making art (a sculpture), do you not pay for your medium and your tools?

If the model is contributing to your art, of course they deserve compensation, unless you feel that acrylics and brushes are more valuable than models?

AG_Boston wrote:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....oooooooh...HA HA HA HA!!!

Applause! Applause!

Francisco Castro wrote:

First of all, try heading up here, just a bit up north to Cincinnati. Lots of talent who will shoot for TF with a good photographer.

Secondly, as a rule of thumb as to who pays who, my method is simple. Whoever has the better portfolio makes the offer; TF, cash, live chicken, etc..

I have had new "models" offer to shoot with me for only half their rates if they can have some photos too. I just politely decline and tell them that I only pay very experienced models.

New models require a lot of work to shoot with. They have no idea how to pose, how to stand, or even how to breathe. It never ceases to amaze me how many "models" don't even know how to smile evenly, instead of giving that Bell's Palsy half-smirk.

It may seem unfair, but new models, I do charge. They're not only getting images for their port, but they're also getting a lot of coaching from me and my experience. And for the talented ones, REFERRALS for networking with my friends who are designers, makeup artists, magazine editors, and fashion show coordinators.

Sending you a friends add now. Maybe I can come on a shoot with you, adjust a light or hold a reflector. Thanks for the idea, that's right up 64.

Bill Tracy Photography wrote:
I'm amazed no one has started a thread about not paying models before!

Exactly. There are just too many "new" models (and some experienced ones) that just show up for the "cash" (many with no skills, but still expecting payment)...and the expression of "gee, I wonder who's texting me right now..." or "did I leave the garage door open at home..." or "what should I have for lunch today..." shows up in their facial expressions and lack of "energy" or lack of "connection".

I instead want models who are "invested" in the energy of the shoot.

And I don't want to be paid (either)...because then I'm the one "under the gun". I just like a simple relaxed, easy-going photoshoot where both parties are working for the best images possible, and having fun doing it.

r4u wrote:
They say " every work must be paid"
I don't consider art as a work.
And a photograph (true one;) ) works too, no?
If there 's no commercial issue, don't pay models please!

Wow, that's a pretty ignorant statement coming from someone who isn't a model. As a model, I enjoy the art, but often can't travel UNLESS it's paid work, to travel just 2 hours away to shoot for several hours involves not only the gas money, but taking the entire day off my PAYING job. Models usually will compromise, and most of the work we get paid for is nude. So, basically, we should just do whatever you say and no one should pay models because you're not professional enough to consider options of payment? If a photographer requests to shoot for me for a specific job, yes I'm going to ask if there is a form of compensation, just the same if I tried to hire a photographer for a job, I'd expect them to want payment. So, you can shoot all the amateur models you want, but good luck shooting anyone professional with THAT attitude.

r4u wrote:
They say " every work must be paid"
I don't consider art as a work.
And a photograph (true one;) ) works too, no?
If there 's no commercial issue, don't pay models please!

I'll chime here too...

Yes.  Your statement is ignorant. So you say no true artist will ever pay or get paid for their work?   

You may do with your own art what you want.. don't tell others what to do with theirs.

I love taking photos for a living.  Granted it's within the parameters of client's needs. But I really enjoy creating images they love while meeting their requirements.   

Frankly, getting paid makes it possible for me to continue doing what I love. Why should you or any try to take that away from professional models? 

You're being childish and selfish.

orias wrote:
great all the logic has scared him off

now i will not have the chance to fly over to shoot for his art projects in exchange for a pat on the back and massive debt for my effort.

pout

You can always shoot with me, I'll give you a pat on the back.

MesmerEyes Photography wrote:
Apparently I been doing this wrong. All the models I have paid, I want my money back. Good job by the way! *Appreciative pat on the back and a big grin*


You can always shoot with me, I'll give you a pat on the back.

wooohooo,  self worth +1

lol

Art of the nude wrote:

Brian Scanlon wrote:
That's because, for some models, it's about supplementing their income and not about the art.

For some it's ONLY about the art; they'll turn down any work they don't find fulfilling, whatever the pay.  For most, they want to make beauty, and they'll do lesser work for a certain payment.  But for some, it's ONLY about pay, and not the results. 

The same is, of course, true of photographers.

I know I would rather pay someone who's in it for the art because that person is more likely to work hard and provide better results than a person who considers the cash their main result. OP, why not compensate the model who invests all she can to make sure you get great art and/or improve your portfolio?

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
It would be interesting if a model was paid on "merit" (successful images) instead of just for showing up. Kinda like the REAL world of modelling...lots of "tests" and proven results before landing a paid gig. Here, a model "throws up" a couple cell-phone-like images and puts a "pay me" line in her Profile. And I guess the so-called "GWC's" must line up to pay it.

Hell, I would be willing to pay an amazing model that I KNEW could provide the skills for me. One that showed up enthused and invested in the concept. But, here on Mayhem it's pretty much of a 1:10 "crap shoot"...and the odds are pretty thin. That's why I lean more toward the "mature" models...to try to tip those odds in my favour.

I'm sure it's the same for models finding photographers for portfolio work, except the model isn't usually paying $50-120/hr for the risk.

There are just TOO MANY unproven "new" models...and I can't bring myself to afford the (proven) experienced "travel" models. I will not risk $50-120/hr on that kind of "maybe" deal. So, I continue to shoot "trades".

I never have, but you could always try a modeling agency.  They're more likely to be very professional and worth the money.

Sky Donohue wrote:
OP, why not compensate the model who invests all she can to make sure you get great art and/or improve your portfolio?

Yup! If only that were possible. Payment for proven skills and results. A model that showed up enthused and invested in the concept. A real "collaborator". (I wish!)

Maybe one in ten show up like that...with a serious invested interest and advance planning in the concept.

Rhiannon Davis wrote:
You refer to yourself as artist which I find ironic. Mainly because I've NEVER had an ARTIST hire me and expect not to pay.

I'm assuming you are replying to the OP, and not the post above you?

Rhiannon Davis wrote:
You refer to yourself as artist which I find ironic. Mainly because I've NEVER had an ARTIST hire me and expect not to pay.

If you're trying to say that people who don't pay models are not artists, then I think you're maybe taking things too far in the other direction. I know a lot of art photographers who do at least some TF. Some of them pay few models. I don't think any of that has anything to do with whether they're artists or not.

I don't always pay models, and I don't never pay models. If I made enough off of my work I would always pay them. I certainly don't buy the OP's argument that they should not get paid if it's only about art, because photographers can profit from art.