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 odds 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".

There are  models in the "REAL world" of modeling who come off the street and are booked in paid jobs before they even have a test shoot. They don't even have to shoot nude to do so.

Dan K Photography wrote:
There are  models in the "REAL world" of modeling who come off the street and are booked in paid jobs before they even have a test shoot. They don't even have to shoot nude to do so.

I'm not talking about the one in a billion Cinderella story exceptions, I'm talking about the REAL world.

The fantasy stories of models you speak of are 16years old, 5'-10"+, weigh about 119lbs soaking wet, and constitute about .0000001% of the modelling world. (And likely remove their Mayhem profile as soon as they earn serious payment, if they ever had one to begin with).

And, not exactly what I'm looking for in the Glamour genre.

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!

The model's time and talent is valuable, just as the photographer's!!! If YOU want to create art, that does not mean that it is "art" for the model too. Personally, for me it is a huge turn off, if a photographer starts their port with "I don't pay models". For me it shows that they do not value my time, talent and no I will most likely not shoot with them.
Just my 2 cents...

r4u wrote:
Thank for your contris
Happy 2013 & take care

I love it. You create this shit storm of a thread, bail on it for two weeks, then come back with this response.

Classic.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
I'm not talking about the one in a billion Cinderella story exceptions, I'm talking about the REAL world.

The fantasy stories of models you speak of are 16years old, 5'-10"+, weigh about 119lbs soaking wet, and constitute about .0000001% of the modelling world. (And likely remove their Mayhem profile as soon as they earn serious payment, if they ever had one to begin with).

And, not exactly what I'm looking for in the Glamour genre.

Being agency signed is not a fantasy story in the least.   Being in the top 5% of agency signed models maybe, but many do very well as far as paid bookings go. That is the real world market.  catalog, etc.   I don't think that is a Cinderella Story, in fact I think it's actually much much harder to make it as an Internet model doing it all on your own. 


Note that I am not in favor of paying brand new internet models with no track record and no experience.


What get's me is how many people seem to think (based on what I have seen looking through thousands of ports)  that being a pretty girl in a bra makes them a model.   You guys as photographers sell them on this idea, then they try to charge the next one and the next Photographer comes into public forums to bitch about it, but then turns around and tells the next girl the same thing........ and so on and so on.

Eva Forte wrote:
The model's time and talent is valuable, just as the photographer's!!! If YOU want to create art, that does not mean that it is "art" for the model too. Personally, for me it is a huge turn off, if a photographer starts their port with "I don't pay models". For me it shows that they do not value my time, talent and no I will most likely not shoot with them.

Eva, I understand your point of view...but with some photographers it's not that we don't value your time as much as ours...it's that we ONLY value it as much as our own.
And equal "trade" of time and images.

And to some of us, it's not worth the "risk" of scheduling a paid shoot...because the models who are truly skilled are buried under a pile of unskilled amateurs that aren't interested in seriously "creating" anything except another dollar in their pocket. It's kinda like trying to find a needle in a haystack. In my area there are probably 10,000 "models" who want to "get paid" and probably about 100 with any REAL modelling skills that might be worth the $50-120/hr.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
What get's me is how many people seem to think (based on what I see looking through millions of ports)  that being a pretty girl in a bra makes them a model.   You guys as photographers sell them on this idea, then they try to charge the next one and the next one comes into public forums to bitch about it, then turn around and tell the next girl the same thing and so on and so on.

LOL! Exactly!

Not -this- photographer. I actually value the "connection" and "skills", and I expect the "artistic investment"...and that's damned hard to find these days...I think because of exactly what you describe. The quick buck.

MM is "saturated" with "Models" who post a cellphone-esque portfolio, and the "GWC's" who are willing to pay them to just show up.

And the total "collaboration" consists of one or two "tweetlike" responses (limited to a 140 character attention span).

But, I still have faith that (someday) I will find my "Muse". And hopefully she will live in Sedona AZ! LOL! Then I might be happy to offer payment other than "trade" images.

Koryn Locke wrote:
As a llama, after a certain point, the vast majority of the people contacting you for shoots have nothing to offer you in the way of images anymore. There will always be a few exceptions, but by and large, you just stop being able to benefit from shooting with the bulk of those who want to shoot you.

If, at that point, the llama is unable to start receiving financial compensation for her work, there is no longer a motivation to continue llamaing, or producing anything at all. As a result, llamas who have developed a large skill-set, strong portfolio and excellent work ethic will quit at the point when they COULD have been producing their best work --- and helping you to produce your best work.

This, completely. I hardly even shoot anymore, because people here would rather save a few shekels on a girl who has no idea what she's doing than to pay an experienced llama who actually shows up on time and ends up giving good images (me).

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

+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.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!

Dan K Photography wrote:
There are  llamas in the "REAL world" of llamaing who come off the street and are booked in paid jobs before they even have a test shoot. They don't even have to shoot nude to do so.

Hence the existence of MM where else would you get llamas nakkid.

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 llamas please!

Yes. Everything's value must be recognized. Even a trade of skill for time must have value to both sides, for it to be valid.

It sounds like you are trying to manipulate the market, by dictating the rules regarding when someone should be compensated monetarily.

Time itself has value, and that is what a lot of MM photographers recognize when they hire llamas.

Although it may not be the case in all situations, some llamas DO find themselves in situations where they have concurrent offers from different photographers.

All other things being equal, what do you think gets the slice of the llama's time? TFP or paid?

If you don't recognize the value in a person spending some of his/her short llamaing time on this planet, with someone that WANTS/NEEDS him/her to llama for a photo session, then why pay for anything at all?

I am sure a lot of people that make a living selling photos, paintings, sculptures, music, and literature disagree with your characterization of art.

Jordan Bunniie wrote:
Why do you feel the need to come into the model forum saying we dont deserve to be paid?

+100

by the way, how is not paying models working out for you so far OP?

MnPhoto wrote:
Time itself has value, and that is what a lot of MM photographers recognize when they hire models.

Believe me, there are many models who don't recognize the value of the photographer's time!

In a typical local "trade" shoot, I believe it takes the model -maybe- 2hrs to get ready for the shoot and another 1/2hr to travel to the location. Yet, I hear many models complain about ONLY receiving 5-10 finished images (probably 3-4hrs editing) from the "trade".

How many hours does a model expect the photographer to spend "pay" (in editing time) to create the number of finished images in "trade" of -her- 2.5hrs invested?

It is quite common here to read about "new" models complaining they want ALL the images from the shoot. For me, in a typical 2hr shoot, that would require editing about 150 images...or about a weeks worth of editing...in exchange for the model's 2.5hrs of pre-shoot time.

So, I feel my 15-20 finished edited images is MORE than fair "payment" for the model's 2.5hrs of pre-shoot time invested getting ready for "our" shoot. The time we spend together at the shoot...is a wash of equal time. And I sure don't feel I owe the model for her time spent the day before at her Pilates class.

Raven-Lily wrote:
obviously you need to establish the level of model you are talking about.

You could be talking about any level, if they are new like me, then i dont expect payment. Buts its nice if someone offers.

if say you booked a model like a male model friend of mine, who earns £5,000 a shoot simply because his photos end up all over the world, he has no idea where they will end up and he also cant leave the house without being recognised and hounded by teenage girls. He is paid that much simply for compensation for the other things he has to deal with when hes not physically shooting.

a lot of models need payment to cover costs such as gym memberships to keep their bodies looking good, they have to buy their own clothes, shoes, make up for shoots (not many models get paid enough in their regular jobs to cover these costs)

What if everyone stopped paying photographers for their weddings, or their baby portraits? simply because its an 'art'

+1

I agree with this statement. We invest in our clothing and our makeup, and it's difficult to travel sometimes. So we put out and sometimes break our banks to create wonderful art and express ourselves with what will hopefully be the right partner in art/buisiness. And sometimes, that person we work with, we regret working with after it's all said and done. So certainly I think perhaps balance is needed. Negotiations and figuring out what is fair trade, what is fair payment is also what needs to happen.
But a model doesn't want to walk in and wait until after the photos are done and the Photographer looks at them all, assesses his amount of work and 'deducts' his amount of time from the amount of time the model put in to come up with a payment. She wants to be paid upfront to ensure she gets paid. So she doesn't get ripped of, as so many of us have (from what I've heard, but the smart model knows how not to get ripped off, one would assume)

So I think that this is something that the model and photographer needs to really, really assess, and it isn't really anyone's business what goes on in terms of payment or no payment, or item trade for work.

As long as everyone's happy, who gives a damn? But if someone isn't happy well then... oops. You can't please them all.

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!

If there's no commercial issue, then paying the model is pretty much her only reward.

Aera Crescent wrote:
+1

I agree with this statement. We invest in our clothing and our makeup, and it's difficult to travel sometimes. So we put out and sometimes break our banks to create wonderful art and express ourselves with what will hopefully be the right partner in art/buisiness. And sometimes, that person we work with, we regret working with after it's all said and done. So certainly I think perhaps balance is needed. Negotiations and figuring out what is fair trade, what is fair payment is also what needs to happen.
But a model doesn't want to walk in and wait until after the photos are done and the Photographer looks at them all, assesses his amount of work and 'deducts' his amount of time from the amount of time the model put in to come up with a payment. She wants to be paid upfront to ensure she gets paid. So she doesn't get ripped of, as so many of us have (from what I've heard, but the smart model knows how not to get ripped off, one would assume)

So I think that this is something that the model and photographer needs to really, really assess, and it isn't really anyone's business what goes on in terms of payment or no payment, or item trade for work.

As long as everyone's happy, who gives a damn? But if someone isn't happy well then... oops. You can't please them all.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, you may have gone out to spend money on gym memberships and clothes and makeup, but  has spent $10,000 on their cameras, lenses, and lighting.

Count that up to $20,000-30,000 if that includes studio space and a photography-related education.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
"How many hours does a model expect the photographer to spend "pay" (in editing time) to create the number of finished images in "trade" of -her- 2.5hrs invested?

It is quite common here to read about "new" models complaining they want ALL the images from the shoot. For me, in a typical 2hr shoot, that would require editing about 150 images...or about a weeks worth of editing...in exchange for the model's 2.5hrs of pre-shoot time.

So, I feel my 15-20 finished edited images is MORE than fair "payment" for the model's 2.5hrs of pre-shoot time invested getting ready for "our" shoot. The time we spend together at the shoot...is a wash of equal time. And I sure don't feel I owe the model for her time spent the day before at her Pilates class.

Models usually want all of the images because often the model likes different pictures than the photographer because they are looking at different things. The photographer is looking at lighting, composition etc.  The model is looking at her/his facial expressions, how flattering the pose is, wardrobe malfunctions.  I would be fine with getting a limited number of the pictures as long as I get to choose with ones I get. With the photographers approval of course.

Jordan Bunniie wrote:
Why do you feel the need to come into the model forum saying we dont deserve to be paid?

A stick in a hornet's nest...

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Believe me, there are many models who don't recognize the value of the photographer's time!

In a typical local "trade" shoot, I believe it takes the model -maybe- 2hrs to get ready for the shoot and another 1/2hr to travel to the location. Yet, I hear many models complain about ONLY receiving 5-10 finished images (probably 3-4hrs editing) from the "trade".

How many hours does a model expect the photographer to spend "pay" (in editing time) to create the number of finished images in "trade" of -her- 2.5hrs invested?

It is quite common here to read about "new" models complaining they want ALL the images from the shoot. For me, in a typical 2hr shoot, that would require editing about 150 images...or about a weeks worth of editing...in exchange for the model's 2.5hrs of pre-shoot time.

So, I feel my 15-20 finished edited images is MORE than fair "payment" for the model's 2.5hrs of pre-shoot time invested getting ready for "our" shoot. The time we spend together at the shoot...is a wash of equal time. And I sure don't feel I owe the model for her time spent the day before at her Pilates class.

It is nice to be quoted, but preferable to be quoted in your entirety. This way an argument doesn't ensue over something that is being taken out of context.

If you quote my post in its entirety (not one sentence) you will see that I am addressing the aspect of the OP's post regarding photographers, which are looking for individuals to spend time modeling for them.

Regardless of whether the person trying to fill the role of "photographer" or "model" is qualified, the question was about putting value on someone's time (modeling) or artistic talent (photographer).

Compensation exists in different forms: money, knowledge (teaching), experience (practice), association (celebrity sessions), or portfolio images (prints or files).

Some people choose to pay money, because they need a subject. Once the session is complete the model is on her way, and expects nothing else in return.

Others offer trades for compensation (as listed above).

If the individual wishes to pursue freelance modeling as a career (or simply better compensation rates), then s/he will shoot a lot of tests and trades in order to respectively, gain experience and acquire images so the best marketing tool (a quality portfolio) improves quickly.

If the individual is pursuing freelance modeling as a quick way to make some money, then s/he will drop rates during every potential negotiation.

Regardless of how you feel about yourself as a photographer, your only option is to accept the terms or pass.

Raven-Lily wrote:
a lot of models need payment to cover costs such as gym memberships to keep their bodies looking good, they have to buy their own clothes, shoes, make up for shoots (not many models get paid enough in their regular jobs to cover these costs)

I would only pay for your time for my shoot...at a fair price.
For myself, that would be in "trade" images.

If others want to pay in shoes and gym memberships that's totally up to them.

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:
This thread. What a fuck-ton of nonsense.

Please keep your post brief and to the point in future! :-)

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!

Well I generally only shoot TFCD but from now on I will pay models just to annoy you.





j/k

optimistic negatives wrote:

Just to play Devil's Advocate, you may have gone out to spend money on gym memberships and clothes and makeup, but  has spent $10,000 on their cameras, lenses, and lighting.

Count that up to $20,000-30,000 if that includes studio space and a photography-related education.

But he could sell images from TF Shoots if one agrees to that. Ideally, the Photographer and the Model should come up with their own set of unique agreements and stick to them, and be honest with one another about their expectations. I understand where you are coming from.
I am an artist aside from being an amateur model with little modeling experience (so excuse me for talking here..) So I spend money on pencils, water colors, paper, different weights of paper, and I went to college. Have I sold any of my artwork? No. But I'd like to be paid for modeling so I can continue to pay for supplies. Sure. But I digress.
The bottom line is, if the photographer feels he's spent MILLIONS AND MILLIONS (over exageration here) on equipment and education, and the model feels she's spending a lot of her time, effort, and money on other things to pursue her artistic endeavors in modeling, then they should, in my humbly inexperienced opinion, come to some sort of agreement.

-State Expectations
-Figure out rates (rather than the model charging flat rates, but some do and that's fine IMO)
-Be happy for the experience and continue to grow and improve

I don't see what the problem is here. The Photographer could open up his own studio, sell prints continuously for hundreds of dollars, whereas the model may not be able to sell anything! And the photographer may, in his agreement not share any bit of it. Some of my images may be sold for example, and all I got were 20 touched up images for my port! No cash payment! And that photographer could sell those images for 200 a pop! Plus continue to get paid memberships to his site to view my images!!! And I got nothing but 20 touched up images!
The Ideal situation would be that in the future I would be paid. But, these images were very important FOR MY PORTFOLIO (of which sadly I lost a huge amount of weight and so now they are no longer relevant to my port on MM.....)
So this photographer has 1000+ images of me that he can sell, put up as prints in his studio and sell for hundreds of dollars!! I did a ton of work for him, for 20 touched up images. He's making profit off of me, or could. It's life.

So, I completely understand your POV, and I hope people understand our POV, and that people can just come to some happy arrangements and be smart about what they sign. That's all.

Aera Crescent wrote:
But he could sell images from TF Shoots if one agrees to that.

Yes, because the market for images of unknown internet models is so strong these days...

He could make millions!


/sarcasm




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Damianne wrote:
I deserve to be paid for this hobby because I invested money into it!
*smh*

I have cookies

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

I have cookies

I have muffins!
Let's hang out.

Damianne wrote:

I have muffins!
Let's hang out.

Damianne wrote:
I deserve to be paid for this hobby because I invested money into it!
*smh*

I thought the idea of a hobby is not to make money but to pay for it.

GChucks Photography wrote:
This is a Joke. I am photographing ONLY PAYED MODELS. If you wanna be Uncle Bob who got Ok pictures don't pay, but the pictures will look like as your model looks. If you get confident, serious pro model, you get what you payed for.

If only that was true!

But sadly, paying a model on Mayhem (or Facebook, etc) is no guarantee of skill level. There are just way way way too many "wannabe's" that post a profile and expect payment for their time...yet have ZERO in the way of modelling training or creative ideas. They expect to just show up and get paid...and enough photographers are willing to pay for just that.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
What get's me is how many people seem to think (based on what I have seen looking through thousands of ports)  that being a pretty girl in a bra makes them a model.   You guys as photographers sell them on this idea, then they try to charge the next one and the next Photographer comes into public forums to bitch about it, but then turns around and tells the next girl the same thing........ and so on and so on.

This.

I have found about 10:1 "new" models are not in any way skilled "confident, serious pro models"...but are still somehow convinced they should be paid in cash. I get notices everyday for models who expect $50-120/hr...and who's work looks like a portfolio full of bad cellphone images. No thanks.

Not -ALL- "internet models" should be paid...except perhaps in test images. But, if you can throw up a few "modelling" images in a "portfolio" to get photographers to help pay for your shoes or Pilates class...more power to you!

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 would agree with you in the sense that not everyone desires monetary gain with what they do. While I haven't heard that "every work must be paid," I can say that some projects require monetary effort to get it to the level that YOU want to it.

There are very few photographers that I frequently work with for pure trade, with that said.

Raven-Lily wrote:
a lot of models need payment to cover costs such as gym memberships to keep their bodies looking good, they have to buy their own clothes, shoes, make up for shoots (not many models get paid enough in their regular jobs to cover these costs)

None of us are responsible for someone else's expenses.

That's a recipe for disaster that only ends up as a pissing contest for who spends more. You bought a new pair of shoes? Great. I just bought a $275 battery grip. Pay me. See? It doesn't work...for either side.

When a photographer starts talking about "needing" to be paid because he's spent $20,000 on his equipment, everyone laughs. Rightly so. The amount someone spends on modeling/photography has no bearing whatsoever on one's value and whether one should be paid.