If I was always at the studio and had time for someone to come in it wouldn't be a big deal. But, I'm not always there, I have other things to do, and what's talked about can usually be done over a phone call or a few emails.
Things get different if it's a bigger job or a larger team, but really nothing is done in a meeting that can't be phone calls or emails.
*edit* and I always feel these meeting threads talk about what happens after the casting took place. If it's a casting or go-see then just call it that.
May be ok to do for less experienced models, if you want to take the time. I've had preshoot coffee twice and have an ongoing good working relationship with both. More experience models/photogs view it as a waste of time.
For what it is worth, I will not shoot with someone who requires a premeeting (including paid gigs). I feel that it is a waste of my time. I guess there are cases where I would make an exception, but I have not come across an instance where I was willing to make such an exception to date.
Hero Foto wrote: how are they paying for the shoot then?
They're not. But that previous post was a great way to imply that models are paying you and securing the shoot with a deposit. Not the most subtle, but 'A' for effort.
They're not. But that previous post was a great way to imply that models are paying you and securing the shoot with a deposit. Not the most subtle, but 'A' for effort.
i don't agree with the 90% thing. i'd have gladly paid all my models if i had funds for that.
i've only ever had one pre-shoot meeting and that was at the model's request. it's hard enough getting them to show up for the shoot, much less for a pre-shoot meeting. and for my part sometimes the models are coming from 60-90 minutes away. i think it's more something for the model if she's worried the guy might be a creeper.
i do think that pre-shoot planning meetings can be helpful. review wardrobe and ideas for the shoot. we do them with our senior high school girls and sometimes for boudoir as well. and of course for weddings.
Don Garrett
Posts: 3,775
Escondido, California, US
When I was hiring models for my art many years ago, and making initial contact with them "off the street", or in ads in the local college newspaper, I would often meet with them first, for dinner or some other non-business related talk. It was not necessary, but was usually cordial, and fun. Here, the models I use are usually on a travelling schedule, and I contact them through email, phone, or MM message first. I usually don't actually see them before shooting with them. It is less personal, and, often less fun, but the job gets done.
I would say that you don't have to follow any rules, or procedures, but I do advocate for having fun, and making the model comfortable with you, if/when possible.
Of course, my work is only for the sake of making art, and has very little commercial value, so everyone has a different purpose, and, therefore, has different needs.
-Don
So far I am doing TFP, so I like to meet with models for coffee. See what I am getting. Also to break the ice, I suppose I got in this habit because initially I was photographing only nudes, often art models I knew but sometimes unknown models from an ad in a local alternative hippy type newspaper. Maybe now as I foray more into fashion photography it will not be so important, but if I get burned hiring a model for fashion and she looks a lot different (as in weight gain, hair cut) things could be different.
True horror story-- this life drawing art model was gorgeous, 22, long jet black beautiful hair, great at posing. So I hire her for one of my initial nude photography sessions. I had to pick her up at her apartment, she had no transport. I pick her up and just unbelievable, she has shaved her head. Yeah, Sinnead O'Connor bald, okay maybe 1/8 inch long hair at best, marine recruit boot camp shaved. Unbelievable. So there you go, who you hire and who shows up can be quite different.
For my shoots, it would be a complete waste of time, for both myself and the model and I'm sure I'd loose the vast majority of models if I insisted on that.
For those planning a more expensive shoot, with models closer by, I can see where it might make sense.
A new model here recently sent a PM wanting to "collaborate" on a number of themes including one that was too "out there" to describe in writing. She said I should call her. . .but didn't list a number. I suggested we meet for coffee at a place of her choosing to discuss what she had in mind.
And the cyber crickets chirped on. . .
So, I think a "pre-meeting" might serve as a screening tool so long as it didn't take up too much time and was convenient for everyone. Of course, doing this as a hobby instead of a job means I'm not loosing money in the form of my time by doing this.
I would like to meet with the models ahead of time. But for the most part that will never happen unless they live in the same city that I do. I for the most part have to go by what other photographers have to say about the model before I would hire her for a shoot. bs
money_train wrote: I read that "why pay model" thread, sounds more than 90% of model are Not worth to pay.
First of all, any thread entitled "why pay model" is not likely to get a representative cross section of opinions. The title itself is prejudiced already. I happen to think that many, if not most, models are worthy of being paid.
money_train wrote: Does photographer need pre meeting with model before booking? only for less than 10 mins, take few test shots and have a quick chat.
I understand it could waste model's time, however is it a good idea to do so?
What is the objective of such a meeting?
For some, it might be worth it. For others (including me), a pre-meeting would be an inadequate substitute for checking references.
I see it as a complete waste of time for both parties. Pre-shoot meetings are important for wedding clients. They're useless (in my experience) for model shoots.
money_train wrote: Does photographer need pre meeting with model before booking?
only for less than 10 mins, take few test shots and have a quick chat.
I understand it could waste model's time, however is it a good idea to do so?
It depends. First of all, I don't see it as a waste of time for anyone involved if the shoot is important enough to all parties involved.
It's really a case-by-case basis though and there is no one answer to your question that would encompass all shoots. For example, if I'm doing a high-end TFP shoot with makeup artists and costume designers and hair stylists, then I believe it's mandatory that we all meet for a short meeting prior to the shoot so we can get a good read off of one another. It helps everyone to brainstorm how to make the shoot the best possible. It also allows us to look one another in the eye and make sure we're all on the same page for deadlines, etc. I like to review the TFP agreements and releases then as well. This saves time during the day of the shoot and keeps things on schedule.
If I'm working with a model for a client, it goes both ways though. If the client has already chosen the model, knows what they want, then a pre-shoot meeting has no real impact one way or the other as far as how I'm going to do the shoot, so I see it as being an unnecessary step. However, if a client asks me to book a model for a shoot of theirs and they are unwilling to hire from an agency, then I make it mandatory that we meet for an interview and pre-shoot meeting primarily because, as someone else mentioned, a models' photos from six months ago are not always an indication of how they look TODAY.
It may be good for some projects, but generally it takes more time and effort than it is worth.
I do like to meet when I am considering a model for a specific look in a paid job. Unless the model's portfolio clearly shows the ability to do the job I will ask for a meet and test before committing to pay.
I do a lot of video work. When I recruit from MM and they do not have a reel but list acting as an interest, I like to meet beforehand to get a test reel of how they look on camera. The look of a models portfolio does not translate directly to how they look in HD video. This makes sense to me. For still photography, not so much.
| 
| 
| edu