Laura UnBound wrote:

You can see if youre doing a really stupid pose or making a horrible face on a 3" screen. Its of course your job to tell us "stop doing that" but..well... we all know you dont always do that, and then after the shoot when we dont get edits we hear "sorry, nothing really turned out..." or you send us photos of shit we dont like and when we ask why, its "thats actually the best thing you did all day...."

So theres that.

^^this right here

I have to deal with my agency photographers doing crap like that. Then they refuse to post my photos because they look like crap. Had they said something during the shoot it could have been corrected at that time.

GeM Photographic wrote:
Based on conversations with a significant number of models I've worked with - Cold Studios - that seems to be a universal dislike. When shooting indoors in a building with a working furnace, models prefer it warm enough that they don't have goosebumps.

My last shoot was full nude in a warehouse with no heat and he had the doors open. I caught a pretty bad cold after the shoot and even during the shoot I had a nasty runny nose. He was nice enough to let me shoot with a blanket on and then act like I was reviling myself to the camera. But once I got full nude I was shivering so hard he cut the shoot early.

Seneca Thompson wrote:
I hate:
- Clingy photographers who shoot with you a couple of times and think that you are "their" model and try to take a percentage of the money you make on a shoot. If I wanted an agent/pimp I would have one!
- Photographers who think they can give you a kiss on the forehead during a shoot.
- Photographers who just show up at your door unannounced.
- When a Photographers main topic of discussion is how they're going to leave their wife and is currently looking for a hot young girl that only wants him for his money. Cool story bro.
- Photographers who try to make you shoot something you don't want to and keeps on trying to get you to do it.
- After agreeing to a TFP shoot and making a three hour drive, the photographer provides one alright image and tries to charge for any other images.
- Photographers with great references who end up trying to get you to shoot porn.

These are only a few of the many bad things that have happened to me since I started modeling. You wonder why models want to bring escorts?

That is just crazy.

If someone showed up at my door unannounced my dogs would eat them.

Do you want to borrow one of them?

But honestly I don't think your problems are necessarily with photographers. A lot of men act stupid when they are around a beautiful young woman.

I think you have the capability to make guys stupid. BTW amazing work in your portfolio

Bravo Magic Images wrote:
Models hate personal checks

Models hate not getting their way

Models hate not being pampered

Models Hate labor day

Models hate it when they dont pause for breaks every 10 min

Models hated when they dont get images right away.

Models hate it when photographers will not allow their boyfriends to show up as Escorts and drink up all that beer wine and hard wisky they were planning on giving the model to get her drunk and stupid. Wait shes already stupid for getting drunk with photographer.

Feel better now?

Erzsebet wrote:

Its trade... what works for the photographer may not work for the model... one shot may work GREAT for the photographers port, while another may work great for the models... if it's trade, it should work out for everyone involved. You're getting very defensive in a thread like this. No one is saying DONT PAY PHOTOGRAPHERS BLARG!

great, can we work out that the model hires a retoucher to retouch the images she likes, since it is outside the time spent by either party, and the photographer then approves the final product. Wouldn't that be fair? I mean traditionally the retoucher and photographer were different roles, only recently are photographers expected to do both. So why not allow for a model to hire a retoucher if she wants additional images from a shoot?

Think about this logically,

I shoot a test shoot with a 2 make-up artists, a hairstylist, 2 models, and a wardrobe stylist. We shoot 1200 images, i make 250 selects and send them web sized and retouch 10-12 of the best from the shoot and send them to the entire team full sized.

Now lets say it takes me 10-20 minutes per image to do a retouch, and each person feels entitled to their favorite 10 images from the shoot. None of their selects coincide. Why should one team member, me, be responsible for an additional 10-20 hours of retouching that will in no way benefit my portfolio?

I am the one pulling the team together, scouting locations, creating the scene, inventing new and interesting color profiles. I'm already investing 3 times more hours in the shoot than anyone else involved, why should I invest even more time?

People keep saying an even trade, an even trade is everyone spending the exact same amount of time on the shoot as everyone else. It will never be an even trade for a photographers. It is your responsibility as a model to look at the work of the people you are going to work with in a test shoot and decide if that is the type of work you want in your portfolio.

vbabe wrote:
-Don't show me the images once in awhile during our shoot. (I would also like to know how I'm doing!)

well, technically I shoot film on most of my latest work that I am working on, so there is no digital back on the camera to show images.   However, good photographers should have a good bed side manner where they can encourage you and keep you going through out the shoot for the poses that they need and that pull out your strengths for inexperienced models which replaces seeing images.

vbabe wrote:

TFP should be treated no less than Paid. TF is the agreed compensation. If I spent my time and gas traveling to a TF shoot, I would not be happy if a photographer didn't want to spend any time giving me a few shots I really liked. Most models don't expect to see all the digital image. I had a photographer who uploaded what he thought were the best shots. The agreement was, model picks 6 images of her favorite for editing and he picks 6 of his favorite for editing and sending then sending the 12 final images to the model. I thought that was more than reasonable.

again lets break it down

TFP should be treated no less than Paid.

-bullshit. Paid if paid. Tf is a trade, which means that TF shouldn't be treated as anything less than TF

TF is the agreed compensation.

Yep, sure is. You traded your time for the photographer's time in shooting you. What exactly entitles you to more of the photographers time then he or she gets of your time? Would you consider painting their house for a few hours while the retouch additional images?

If I spent my time and gas traveling to a TF shoot, I would not be happy if a photographer didn't want to spend any time giving me a few shots I really liked.

First of all, the photographer also spent their time and paid for gas to go to the shoot. Second, if a model isn't smart enough to know the quality and type of images produced by a photographer before the shoot, it is not the photographers responsibility to change themselves in order to fulfill an unrealistic expectation. Expect photographers to give you images very like what they have in their portfolios, based on their ability to be consistent and a model's ability to fucking model.


I had a photographer who uploaded what he thought were the best shots. The agreement was, model picks 6 images of her favorite for editing and he picks 6 of his favorite for editing and sending then sending the 12 final images to the model.

yep, you sure did have that. I had a model who offered to fuck me after the shoot. Doesn't mean I expect all my models to fuck me.

Star wrote:

great, can we work out that the model hires a retoucher to retouch the images she likes, since it is outside the time spent by either party, and the photographer then approves the final product. Wouldn't that be fair? I mean traditionally the retoucher and photographer were different roles, only recently are photographers expected to do both. So why not allow for a model to hire a retoucher if she wants additional images from a shoot?

Think about this logically,

I shoot a test shoot with a 2 make-up artists, a hairstylist, 2 models, and a wardrobe stylist. We shoot 1200 images, i make 250 selects and send them web sized and retouch 10-12 of the best from the shoot and send them to the entire team full sized.

Now lets say it takes me 10-20 minutes per image to do a retouch, and each person feels entitled to their favorite 10 images from the shoot. None of their selects coincide. Why should one team member, me, be responsible for an additional 10-20 hours of retouching that will in no way benefit my portfolio?

I am the one pulling the team together, scouting locations, creating the scene, inventing new and interesting color profiles. I'm already investing 3 times more hours in the shoot than anyone else involved, why should I invest even more time?

People keep saying an even trade, an even trade is everyone spending the exact same amount of time on the shoot as everyone else. It will never be an even trade for a photographers. It is your responsibility as a model to look at the work of the people you are going to work with in a test shoot and decide if that is the type of work you want in your portfolio.

Youre missing (or purposefully refusing to see) the point.

Ideally, we'd like to believe that the photographer will choose "the best" photos for both them and the model, and that the photographer and models needs from that shoot are on the same page.

However, this is not always true. There IS a such thing as a "photographer image" and "model image", what works for one may not be the ultimate best for the other, and in that case neither party should be stuck with ONLY the other parties best shot. They should each get something that works for THEM. Unless one party went into the shoot KNOWING that they were going to be shooting Photographer/model images and doesnt expect something that will really help them personally.

If one party is dissatisfied with the picks the other party made from the shots...its not fair that they have to just "deal with it", that isnt fair, that isnt even, that isnt equal, and that isnt actually beneficial...which is what trade is about...mutually beneficial shoots. So no, the dissatisfied party shouldnt have to hire someone to fix a botched trade shoot, they should be able to come to an agreement with the person they shot trade with that doesnt cost them extra, because then its no longer trade.

If you want people to pay you, charge for your shoots.
If you want to pay people to shoot exactly what you want when nobody wants to work on the same page as you under a trade agreement, pay someone.
If you can have a meeting of the minds with someone on a shoot, then you do trade, and you BOTH benefit. If you dont both benefit, one of you fucked up, and you owe it to the party you screwed over to make it right. Either a reshoot if they want it, or you edit a photo they like even if you dont think its the greatest of the greatest photos.



Youve got a really one-sided view of how trade ought to work... only in a way that benefits you and your idea of whats right for not only yourself but also the model.

Laura UnBound wrote:

Youre missing (or purposefully refusing to see) the point.

Ideally, we'd like to believe that the photographer will choose "the best" photos for both them and the model, and that the photographer and models needs from that shoot are on the same page.

However, this is not always true. There IS a such thing as a "photographer image" and "model image", what works for one may not be the ultimate best for the other, and in that case neither party should be stuck with ONLY the other parties best shot. They should each get something that works for THEM. Unless one party went into the shoot KNOWING that they were going to be shooting Photographer/model images and doesnt expect something that will really help them personally.

If one party is dissatisfied with the picks the other party made from the shots...its not fair that they have to just "deal with it", that isnt fair, that isnt even, that isnt equal, and that isnt actually beneficial...which is what trade is about...mutually beneficial shoots. So no, the dissatisfied party shouldnt have to hire someone to fix a botched trade shoot, they should be able to come to an agreement with the person they shot trade with that doesnt cost them extra, because then its no longer trade.

If you want people to pay you, charge for your shoots.
If you want to pay people to shoot exactly what you want when nobody wants to work on the same page as you under a trade agreement, pay someone.
If you can have a meeting of the minds with someone on a shoot, then you do trade, and you BOTH benefit. If you dont both benefit, one of you fucked up, and you owe it to the party you screwed over to make it right. Either a reshoot if they want it, or you edit a photo they like even if you dont think its the greatest of the greatest photos.



Youve got a really one-sided view of how trade ought to work... only in a way that benefits you and your idea of whats right for not only yourself but also the model.

and you equally have a one sided view, your own. You are not even allowing that a model should choose who to work with based on the portfolio presented and they should expect images that reflect the work already shown.

If a model wants more of the photographers copyrighted imagery, because that is what it is, then they can find a way to trade for it. They have traded their time, but that trade has happened. It is over. What else can they trade?

And if what they want is something that would traditionally be paid for then maybe they should go ahead and offer to pay for a retoucher to retouch additional shots.

In the end the bulk of the responsibility for the final product rests on the photographers. The only person in the group who is needed if you want an image. There is a reason the photographer owns the copyright, and not the entire team.

ALL of this can be discussed PRIOR to a shoot. But i think you will find the vast majority of photographers with the resources and talent to put together a truly great shoot will not agree to release anything other than the images they feel are a reflection of their work.

And good for us, because in the end the success or failures of an image rest on our shoulders. From conception to casting to final product WE are the ones with our asses on the line.

There is a misconception that there are images that are good for models that are not good for photographers. The fact is that if an image isn't good for a photographer, then it isn't good for a model either. The vast majority of models on MM are horrible, dreadful, terrible art directors and choose unimaginably crappy images on their own. The photographer chooses the location, puts together the team, drives the concept, why the hell wouldn't they also be the most qualified person to chose the images?

No good photographer is purposefully shooting images that will not benefit the team. Work with good photographers.

CHOOSE wisely who you work with and you will be happy with the images you get from a shoot. If you feel the images provided were not the best for your book then choose a photographer who shoots what you want and need for your book next time.

Star wrote:

and you equally have a one sided view, your own.

Really? Its not JUST my view if other people agree with me, and its not JUST a view from a model if other photographers agree with me, and youre assuming that all I do is model/take into account a models interests, which isnt a fair or correct assumption.

You are not even allowing that a model should choose who to work with based on the portfolio presented and they should expect images that reflect the work already shown.

Of course I am. Unfortunately, a person doesnt shoot 100% perfectly 100% of the time. On occasion what we see in a persons portfolio and what we get (even if we specify that we want exactly whats in the portfolio) are different. Every model also doesnt look/photograph the same, or have the same portfolio needs. What works for model A isnt inherently the perfect fit for model B.

If a model wants more of the photographers copyrighted imagery, because that is what it is, then they can find a way to trade for it. They have traded their time, but that trade has happened. It is over. What else can they trade?

Again, this is presuming that a photographer doing what THEY want/need is all the time and effort they need to put forth to make a Trade shoot sufficient, and if the models needs are somewhere outside the scope of what the photographer needs, then the model has to "pay extra". Thats not what trade is for. Trade is mutually beneficial. If you feel like youve gotta go too far out of you way to sufficiently satisfy the other party, then charge them from the get-go, its obviously not a trade shoot to you.

And if what they want is something that would traditionally be paid for then maybe they should go ahead and offer to pay for a retoucher to retouch additional shots.

In the end the bulk of the responsibility for the final product rests on the photographers. The only person in the group who is needed if you want an image. There is a reason the photographer owns the copyright, and not the entire team.

ALL of this can be discussed PRIOR to a shoot. But i think you will find the vast majority of photographers with the resources and talent to put together a truly great shoot will not agree to release anything other than the images they feel are a reflection of their work.

And good for us, because in the end the success or failures of an image rest on our shoulders. From conception to casting to final product WE are the ones with our asses on the line.

Some stuff I dont feel like addressing

There is a misconception that there are images that are good for models that are not good for photographers. The fact is that if an image isn't good for a photographer, then it isn't good for a model either.

I never said there was a photo that was good for a model but not good for a photographer. What I meant by "model images" and "photographer images" is that there are images that better showcase a models abilities, and photos that are more geared to showcasing the photographer.

For example, I did several series of double-exposures


Really cool for me, but pretty worthless to the models in terms of showing what they look like or their modelling abilities because, frankly half their bodies/faces arent even visible in most of the shots. Thats a photographer photo, other photographers think its neat, other models dont look at it and go "oh god I need THAT for my port!"

Location shots like this one https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/11340374 18+ are "photographer photos"
While the model can say "I did this super cool shoot in a great location" its not actually useful for her portfolio because it doesnt do anything to showcase HER, you can barely even see her.

Models may like the way they look and want to do them for the "sake of art" or the "experience" or to have something pretty or whatever, but they rarely do them to actually enhance their own portfolios.

On the flipside, people like shane (the photographer above) have no use for things like headshots, which a model DOES need.

Shots like this : (still using shanes work) https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/263528#263528 are a decent medium. Cool location for him, and a photo where the model is actually big enough to actually make out WHO it is for her.

He obviously felt both photos were up to snuff enough for him to release them, but one is FAR more useful to a model than the other, while both satisfy him.

Nobody is asking a photographer to release photos they dont LIKE or feel arent their best. Theyre simply saying that sometimes what a photographer picks only works BEST for THEM, not BOTH parties, when there often ARE images that are suitable for both that get skipped over.

The vast majority of models on MM are horrible, dreadful, terrible art directors and choose unimaginably crappy images on their own. The photographer chooses the location, puts together the team, drives the concept, why the hell wouldn't they also be the most qualified person to chose the images?

And some photographers pick horrible images too, And sometimes the photographer ISNT handling ALL the details. I know what you're personally used to but thats not how everyone works, especially not here.

No good photographer is purposefully shooting images that will not benefit the team. Work with good photographers.

CHOOSE wisely who you work with and you will be happy with the images you get from a shoot. If you feel the images provided were not the best for your book then choose a photographer who shoots what you want and need for your book next time.

Obviously. I dont know anyone who picks shitty photographers on purpose.

Star wrote:
[again lets break it down

TFP should be treated no less than Paid.

-bullshit. Paid if paid. Tf is a trade, which means that TF shouldn't be treated as anything less than TF

Correct on the secondTF shouldn't be treated as anything less than TF. But I call bullshit on the bullshit part.

If I agree to trade you a camera for a lens, if I don't provide the camera, it's no different than if I were to pay you "trade you some money" for that same lens.

Star wrote:
TF is the agreed compensation.

Yep, sure is. You traded your time for the photographer's time in shooting you.

Assumes facts not in evidence. A trade could be as you describe. It could be a trade where the model covers the costs [or other trade] of a MUA and the photographer covers a studio. The photographer is eligible to trade anywhere between zero and lots of images, retouched or not: it's a bleeping trade between individuals, and trying to make it sound as if your definition of a trade is The Only True Way is, in your own words, bullshit.

Star wrote:
What exactly entitles you to more of the photographers time then he or she gets of your time? Would you consider painting their house for a few hours while the retouch additional images?

If the agreement was for 'more of the photographers time', then the model is entitled to it. The same for the house painting. What did the parties involved agree on?

Star wrote:
you equally have a one sided view, your own. You are not even allowing that a model should choose who to work with based on the portfolio presented and they should expect images that reflect the work already shown.

Again, you're adding your bias to what you believe "should" be, rather than reflecting reality. (This is closely tied to the next belief you propose.)

Star wrote:
The fact is that if an image isn't good for a photographer, then it isn't good for a model either.

Again, you believe this. It's not a fact, no matter how often you proclaim it. If you expect people who disagree to consider your view, you'll need to do more than just claim it.

Reality is that which remains when belief is removed. Are you debating how you believe the world should be, or how it is for everyone? They're very different things.

John Allan wrote:
If photographers are trying to drag you to Macy's to shop - maybe you need to upgrade the photographers you work with

What's wrong with taking a model shopping at Macy's?

Starkey

vbabe wrote:
-Don't show me the images once in awhile during our shoot. (I would also like to know how I'm doing!)

Good point,

When I started in 2010, this was the SOP. 2011 and part of 2012 I stopped. For 2013 I plan to start again.

Starkey

KungPaoChic wrote:

Oh I was not really disagreeing with you -- I really don't care for these threads because they always seem to disintegrate to an us against them bickerfest instead of an educational experience.  The blocking thing after a week is silly. I don't always log on to here and don't always get notifications -- IMO an outside email is more effective.

If it was someone I really really wanted to work with I would make an exception but in general if I have a slow time it is in the summer or it may have been a particular project that I was working on. Chances are 6 months later I have already shot it and moved on to someone else.

I get people who message me in high season and don't understand that I am no longer interested and honestly I don't much pull models from here. I do think there are some fantastic models on here but in my opinion the quality has gone downhill in the last few years and agency models are easier to work with and are happy to let me pick the edits, don't ask for raws, don't expect to edit their own pictures.

It seems the more demanding and unrealistic the demands are the less experienced the models are on here.

I am sorry for your bad experiences. I have had a few, but mostly I have gained more then I expected. Especially, due to my age and size. Hey you know this was just suppose to be fun and games. There are plenty of threads about models too. lol. Not that I hate photographers, I have gained friendships from the ones I have worked with.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Star wrote:
[again lets break it down

TFP should be treated no less than Paid.

-bullshit. Paid if paid. Tf is a trade, which means that TF shouldn't be treated as anything less than TF

Correct on the secondTF shouldn't be treated as anything less than TF. But I call bullshit on the bullshit part.

If I agree to trade you a camera for a lens, if I don't provide the camera, it's no different than if I were to pay you "trade you some money" for that same lens.

Star wrote:
TF is the agreed compensation.

Yep, sure is. You traded your time for the photographer's time in shooting you.

Assumes facts not in evidence. A trade could be as you describe. It could be a trade where the model covers the costs [or other trade] of a MUA and the photographer covers a studio. The photographer is eligible to trade anywhere between zero and lots of images, retouched or not: it's a bleeping trade between individuals, and trying to make it sound as if your definition of a trade is The Only True Way is, in your own words, bullshit.

Star wrote:
What exactly entitles you to more of the photographers time then he or she gets of your time? Would you consider painting their house for a few hours while the retouch additional images?

If the agreement was for 'more of the photographers time', then the model is entitled to it. The same for the house painting. What did the parties involved agree on?

Star wrote:
you equally have a one sided view, your own. You are not even allowing that a model should choose who to work with based on the portfolio presented and they should expect images that reflect the work already shown.

Again, you're adding your bias to what you believe "should" be, rather than reflecting reality. (This is closely tied to the next belief you propose.)

Again, you believe this. It's not a fact, no matter how often you proclaim it. If you expect people who disagree to consider your view, you'll need to do more than just claim it.

Reality is that which remains when belief is removed. Are you debating how you believe the world should be, or how it is for everyone? They're very different things.

+1000

Danielle Kitten wrote:

My last shoot was full nude in a warehouse with no heat and he had the doors open. I caught a pretty bad cold after the shoot and even during the shoot I had a nasty runny nose. He was nice enough to let me shoot with a blanket on and then act like I was reviling myself to the camera. But once I got full nude I was shivering so hard he cut the shoot early.

This reminds me when I did a night shoot late December/early January. Photographer started late, because instead of bringing promised outfits...we were at Macy's for an hour. Anyways...the shoot went over by an hour and a half...I was just recovering from a cold and I was freezing so bad, my feet were numb and I finally had to call it quits on that shoot.

Meghan Hale wrote:
Some things I hate;

-A photographer who, during a TFP shoot, puts you in a certain pose for every shot, giving you no room to "do your own thing". This has happened to me twice, and even after suggesting a pose that I'd like to try, he shrugs it off and says something like, now put your arm there and do this exact face. Um, I'm the model...

-Photographers that don't understand how cold outdoor shoots can be. Once while doing a cemetery shoot, in the winter with just a dress on, I caught the flu, and a cold. The photographer, who was in a coat, mittens, and hat, kept complaining of the cold, while I was on the verge of passing out.

-"Maybe we can work together again and try something sexier"...

I had exactly those things happen to me....shot with this guy twice (my bad). I was recovering from a cold and a dress and open-toed heels in 40 degree weather. I was visibly uncomfortable and he kept insisting to continue shooting.

Second shoot I was stuck in one pose for nearly two hours while he seemed to not understand how to use his equipment. We ended up getting kicked out of the location and didn't get to shoot inside the church because he took so long. Took 3 hours and if I didn't insist that I needed to be somewhere, I'm sure he would have kept shooting.

Star wrote:

really, how about you pay the photographer for additional edits. WHY do people expect on a trade shoot that the photographer should spend hours after the shoot editing images they do not feel represent their work. Again, another difference between amateurs and pros.

LOL! Wow, talk about not getting the point of my post AT ALL. But I see that's already been addressed, so WTFE

SPRINGHEEL  wrote:
I really wouldn't blame them if they hate most photographers


Fuck knows I do

Has any photographer posted a what I hate about other photographers thread yet?

and did you hear the one about how many photographers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Good Egg Productions wrote:

I don't show images at all during a shoot.  What's the point?  You can't really see what you need to see on a 3" screen.  It's my job to take great images.  It's your job to give me something to shoot.  More than 50% of the time I show an image, the model immediately finds what she doesn't like about it.  That's not productive.

And on the subject of pointing out wardrobe problems during the shoot... I'm not looking to pick you up.  I'm not a therapist.  I'm a photographer and I'm trying to get the best shots I can get.  While I won't come out and say "you're too fat for that outfit", I won't pull punches and infer things.  I'll say, "hey, that is poking out there weird, can you fix it?".  Or I'll determine that the outfit simply isn't working and we'll move on to something else.

A model should be able to fix whatever she doesn't like about it. It's why we like to see the images. So we don't get a million with the same hair sticking up, or little annoying mistake.

You can communicate what's not working, but it's very aggravating when a photographer doesn't say anything, and doesn't show you pictures.

No feedback, that's the worst. How am I supposed to know if I'm doing alright if you don't let me know? An how am I supposed to know what to fix if you don't tell me?

Presley ONeil wrote:

A model should be able to fix whatever she doesn't like about it. It's why we like to see the images. So we don't get a million with the same hair sticking up, or little annoying mistake.

You can communicate what's not working, but it's very aggravating when a photographer doesn't say anything, and doesn't show you pictures.

No feedback, that's the worst. How am I supposed to know if I'm doing alright if you don't let me know? An how am I supposed to know what to fix if you don't tell me?

I do give feedback and I normally tell the model if she has a hair out of place since she can't see anyways. I don't know who you all are shooting with but if you have ongoing issues with photographers not giving you the kind of images you need then maybe you should vet them a little more carefully.

I don't really have an issue with showing someone the back of the camera once in awhile but I find it can interfere with the flow if it gets excessive.

One thing I will tell you that I can't stand is when models, designers, MUAs take cell phone pics on set and post them to facebook when we are on a closed set and the images are for publication and I have made it abundantly clear that the magazine does not want to see images anywhere before it prints.

Other than that I have not had too many issues with models except I did have one that stole wardrobe from me.

I like most everyone I have ever worked with and have met some really great people.

Meh, you're bound to get some bad apples once in awhile.

Danielle Kitten wrote:

Feel better now?

Only if you shoot with me before the 32nd of the month.

Bravo Magic Images wrote:

Only if you shoot with me before the 32nd of the month.

Is that in February?

Laura UnBound wrote:
Theres this thread for models to rant, and its filled with photographers debating every little point.

This is why I don't frequent the forums any more.

Chicchowmein wrote:
and did you hear the one about how many photographers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Umm...one to screw in the lightbulb, and 99 to say "I could've done that"? 

Star wrote:
and you equally have a one sided view, your own. You are not even allowing that a model should choose who to work with based on the portfolio presented and they should expect images that reflect the work already shown.

If a model wants more of the photographers copyrighted imagery, because that is what it is, then they can find a way to trade for it. They have traded their time, but that trade has happened. It is over. What else can they trade?

And if what they want is something that would traditionally be paid for then maybe they should go ahead and offer to pay for a retoucher to retouch additional shots.

In the end the bulk of the responsibility for the final product rests on the photographers. The only person in the group who is needed if you want an image. There is a reason the photographer owns the copyright, and not the entire team.

ALL of this can be discussed PRIOR to a shoot. But i think you will find the vast majority of photographers with the resources and talent to put together a truly great shoot will not agree to release anything other than the images they feel are a reflection of their work.

And good for us, because in the end the success or failures of an image rest on our shoulders. From conception to casting to final product WE are the ones with our asses on the line.

There is a misconception that there are images that are good for models that are not good for photographers. The fact is that if an image isn't good for a photographer, then it isn't good for a model either. The vast majority of models on MM are horrible, dreadful, terrible art directors and choose unimaginably crappy images on their own. The photographer chooses the location, puts together the team, drives the concept, why the hell wouldn't they also be the most qualified person to chose the images?

No good photographer is purposefully shooting images that will not benefit the team. Work with good photographers.

CHOOSE wisely who you work with and you will be happy with the images you get from a shoot. If you feel the images provided were not the best for your book then choose a photographer who shoots what you want and need for your book next time.

Going with the idea that everything should be even, the situation would be very different.  Each party would be able to shoot their own concept, there would be shared copyrights and both parties would get the raw files and be able to edit them as they wish.  Most photographers would rather eat razor blades than agree to the above so compromises are made...your proposal for compromise is that the model doesn't get rights, doesn't get any real creative freedom past the shoot and just accepts what is given to them.  Where is the compromise exactly?

I'm a-okay with processing my own images...but if that were done for all shoots, that would cut my list of desirable photographers considerably.  Some tf I do for the photographer's styling in post.  I worked with cx images and wouldn't dream of taking away any of his creative freedom. However, for glamour, art nudes, etc that is generally a different story.  Photographers look more for lighting, mood, etc...models look more for personal flaws.  When the two overlap, awesome...when they don't, tough?

Star wrote:

and you equally have a one sided view, your own. You are not even allowing that a model should choose who to work with based on the portfolio presented and they should expect images that reflect the work already shown.

If a model wants more of the photographers copyrighted imagery, because that is what it is, then they can find a way to trade for it. They have traded their time, but that trade has happened. It is over. What else can they trade?

And if what they want is something that would traditionally be paid for then maybe they should go ahead and offer to pay for a retoucher to retouch additional shots.

In the end the bulk of the responsibility for the final product rests on the photographers. The only person in the group who is needed if you want an image. There is a reason the photographer owns the copyright, and not the entire team.

ALL of this can be discussed PRIOR to a shoot. But i think you will find the vast majority of photographers with the resources and talent to put together a truly great shoot will not agree to release anything other than the images they feel are a reflection of their work.

And good for us, because in the end the success or failures of an image rest on our shoulders. From conception to casting to final product WE are the ones with our asses on the line.

There is a misconception that there are images that are good for models that are not good for photographers. The fact is that if an image isn't good for a photographer, then it isn't good for a model either. The vast majority of models on MM are horrible, dreadful, terrible art directors and choose unimaginably crappy images on their own. The photographer chooses the location, puts together the team, drives the concept, why the hell wouldn't they also be the most qualified person to chose the images?

No good photographer is purposefully shooting images that will not benefit the team. Work with good photographers.

CHOOSE wisely who you work with and you will be happy with the images you get from a shoot. If you feel the images provided were not the best for your book then choose a photographer who shoots what you want and need for your book next time.

:eyeroll:

Ms Selina K wrote:

LOL! Wow, talk about not getting the point of my post AT ALL. But I see that's already been addressed, so WTFE

Star never sees anything from a model's perspective. EVER. If you're model, then you beneath her...

Star wrote:
If a llama wants more of the photographers copyrighted imagery, because that is what it is, then they can find a way to trade for it. They have traded their time, but that trade has happened. It is over. What else can they trade?

I believe it is quite obnoxious to infer that a llama needs to do more than llama for the photographer in order to get some form of choice of image in a TF situation.

Star wrote:
The only person in the group who is needed if you want an image. There is a reason the photographer owns the copyright, and not the entire team.

Photographer is certainly needed but if you want a shot of a llama, so is the llama. Let's try not to add far too much importance on one person when in reality you wouldn't have a port if there were no subjects to shoot for it. There is also a reason a llama signs a release allowing you to use his/her likeness. Suppose you could go and shoot bowls of fruit.

Star wrote:
ALL of this can be discussed PRIOR to a shoot. But i think you will find the vast majority of photographers with the resources and talent to put together a truly great shoot will not agree to release anything other than the images they feel are a reflection of their work.

I agree but unless the shoot has turned out not as good as one would like which could happen and would not be a great shoot there are always options on shots that are useable and would be a reflection of the work just fine.

Star wrote:
There is a misconception that there are images that are good for llamas that are not good for photographers. The fact is that if an image isn't good for a photographer, then it isn't good for a llama either. The vast majority of llamas on MM are horrible, dreadful, terrible art directors and choose unimaginably crappy images on their own. The photographer chooses the location, puts together the team, drives the concept, why the hell wouldn't they also be the most qualified person to chose the images?

I would say there is a mistake in saying "good for" and remind you that there is no "fact" on what a good image for someone would be, it is subjective. You can look at a piece of artwork and wonder why it ever saw daylight at all, while others look at it and absolutely love it. Unless of course your going to argue that you love every shot you've ever seen published in a high end magazine or seen in a high end gallery. While there could be a "qualified" component to it (some would argue), only someone with a huge ego far to big for their own good would believe that ONLY their opinion of a subjective subject matters. While I agree to a point that it is in fact your (and the llama's) work shown and you want your work to represent you in a positive light, on a TF shoot specifically the llama isn't doing you a favour, she is working for images the same as you are and should have some form of say in the images that she believes suit her port just like you choose the ones you believe suit yours. You want the llama to have no say at all or get no choice of images, pay them IMHO.


The egotistical self absorbed legend in their own mind (IMO) attitude that some have where its all about them and what they want (seen it on both sides) is what I think is ridiculous, especially when it comes to discussion around a TF shoot where payment is in images and it's (should be) more of a collaboration among both photographer and llama and in some cases clothing designer, mua, etc. Unless of course its agreed upon ahead of time by all parties involved in the TF beforehand that its all about one persons vision, others get no choice and the rest are just "along for the ride". Then they get what they get. To each their own.