OG Foto wrote:
I even get flaked on by models I have shot with in the past or are my friends

Rik Austin wrote:
Just like in gardening you want to weed early.  The key is recognizing them.  Then either don't bother with them or insist on a pre-shoot meet if your not sure.  Still no guarantees but it dropped my flake rate from 30% to about 5%.  I've shot about 150 models so the numbers are approaching statistically significant.


First, this is not model bashing.  These aren't models, they're Flakes.  HUGE difference.  Flaking is also not strictly the providence of models.  Photographers flake too, as do all the other categories. 

Rik's FEW System:  Flake Early Warning Signs:

1.   Newbie that wants "to try this modeling stuff cause everyone tells me I ought to be a model."

2.   Cell pics in portfolio or if what real pictures they have are too small to really examine.

3.   Newbie with no experience that is "looking for paid jobs only."

4.   List a mySpace page (though a few "real" models do this).

5.   Wants to exchange multiple emails without pinning down a date.

6.   Won't switch to a real email address and send a cell phone number after several exchanges on MM.  This is 100% accurate in my experience.  Your mileage my vary.

7.   Has sluggo ("manager").

8.   No references.  This is soft since most new models or photographers won't have shoot with many others.  Sure they won't list the ones they've flaked on but the more they have worked with the better.

9.   If their stated stats don't match the pictures.

10.  If their profile is less than 4 lines.

11.  If their profile is all about what they love in life.

12.  If their profile has the word "no" more than once.

13.  If anything in their profile is in caps.

14.  They say, "TFP only with (pick one: exceptional, amazing, fantastic or published) photographers and their portfolio isn't one of the above words.

15.  Says in their profile if they can't bring her escort she won't come.  10 billion threads on escorts but points to remember:  1) that's one more person to flake and kill the shoot  2) so much interference at the shoot that its a waste of time  3) depends on who the escort is - very important  4) should always be discussed first.
If they say "escort the first time or if the photographer doesn't have 3-5 references" and the model actually has experience, my experience has been good. 

16.  If they are from your area but won't set up a pre-shoot meet.  Not an absolute either way.  My favorite model was too busy (and I think too trusting) and I almost didn't shoot with her.   Also I have had others flake after good pre-shoot meets.

17.  Paying does not guarantee they will not flake.  It may cut the flake rate down but my experience has been mixed.

18. The more a potential model gushes over your portfolio the less likely they are to show up.  Shows a certain immaturity, the starry-eyed adolescent.

19.  If a model approaches you first, for some reason unknown to me, the flake risk goes up.

20.  Age is inversely proportional to flaking.  I find this particularly true with 18 and 19 year olds.  Seems to start dropping off at 20.

Great list, thanks for putting it up.  I've found that things like this are true as well, and I'll add that they don't want to talk on the phone, they may text, but won't pick up the phone.

Isaiah Brink wrote:
Great list, thanks for putting it up.  I've found that things like this are true as well, and I'll add that they don't want to talk on the phone, they may text, but won't pick up the phone.

richardsphotographybc wrote:
This:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardsph … /lightbox/

LOL. I think I heard that one!!!

Shot By Adam wrote:
Always ask what the health of their grandmother is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnrCsaSICEE

That was funny. How many times can Granny die? Too many times and too many ways....

Warning: Your Gran might twice die if you join MM

Damien Design wrote:
. People have mentioned perfecting your vetting process but I can not find any information on what that process should be. .

It can help to differentiate between boredom and excitement.  In my estimation, there are two types of gals who post online modeling profiles. There are those who are doing it to relieve boredom, and there are those who are truly passionate about modeling

Those who are alleviating boredom are posting a few photos that are usually not representative of what they currently look like, in order to generate some short-term attention. Old photos and non-constructive inquiries like “pick me” and “very interested” are giveaways to this type of response.

Fortunately, there are plenty that are very passionate about modeling. This shows in their portfolios and their messages. You will see plenty of activity in the form of recent portfolio uploads. Their conversations will also be driving towards a shoot, with details such as schedule and contact information.

Bare Essential Photos wrote:
To OP --

Yes, I did 5 shoots with the MM model who flaked on me this past Sunday. Called me afterwards saying that she slept through the alarms she set to wake her up.

That's why you want to check in one last time before going to the shoot. Could had saved on gas and time and gone for a morning jog.

GreatMomentsPhotography wrote:
That's why you want to check in one last time before going to the shoot. Could had saved on gas and time and gone for a morning jog.

You're being too presumptuous in your comment.

1) It was at my homestudio.
2) I left a couple of text messages during the morning of the shoot. Didn't set up anything because she didn't respond back.

Meanwhile ...

Tony Lawrence wrote:
How can I make you NOT post on MM?

Some suggestions:
1)  Stop people from posting the same thread over & over.
2)  When you post, try posting fair-minded & constructive advice.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
See, I can't because I don't  control you or what you say.   Photographers have zero control over models.

:  True.  Yet, photographers tend to lock their cars when they park downtown.  I'm willing to bet that nearly all of us have insurance.  Many of us have been vaccinated against terrible diseases.  People still look both ways before crossing the street.  And so forth.

Newsflash:  There are unreliable people on Model Mayhem!  If a photographer is unwilling to take simple precautions, then they need to take some responsibility. 

Look -- if we accept your premise that "Photographers have zero control over models", then all I'm suggesting is that photographers take some control over the stuff they can control, like filtering out unreliable models  -- OR -- you gonna get flakes.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Sure you can ask about a model but just because she's been reliable with someone else has little bearing on your shoot.

Perhaps.  But if she has been unreliable with someone else, would that influence your decision or the agreement terms you negotiate with the model?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
You seem ... seem to ask the peanut gallery their opinion on many subjects.   Windows 8, investing , tablets, etc.

Well, I still think derogatory terms are inappropriate for a cogent debate.

I don't ask for opinions, I exchange opinions.  Sometimes other people's opinions have had influence on my decision making; sometimes not.  What's wrong with that?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I and many other people just go for things and are less cautious.

Got no problem with that, except when these people get burned by a no-show model and then start a yet another thread expecting us to blame the model.  I have no problem with gamblers, but stop crying when the roll turns up craps.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
The OP has expressed his feelings.   I respect that as well yet he is not responsible for what that model did nor how you feel about what happened to him.

Well, let's be honest here -- the OP did more than express his feelings.  He said, in part...

Damien Design wrote:
Can anyone help with an effective vetting process. As it stands right now I have had enough and I'm about ready to give this up. Thanks in advance for any help.

He asked for help, and I shared my effective vetting process (which includes more than checking references).  You do things differently.  I didn't bring up anything about how I feel about what happened to him until you came here trying to push my buttons.

Damien Design wrote:
I know this has been posted numerous times before, but the flaking issue really has me ready to quit. Some have mentioned never having a flake while others say it is the nature of tf shoots. Today really brought things to a head with me as I talked to the model on the phone. She stated she is not a flake and would never not show for a shoot. Well I gave her two confirmation calls last week. She did not respond to either, I sent her a message on Thursday which she replied to on Friday stating "yep I'll be there tomorrow". Our shoot was scheduled yesterday at a local park which I had to drive too, she never showed and didn't answer her phone. I've had great tf shoots and have always shot numerous times with those models. People have mentioned perfecting your vetting process but I can not find any information on what that process should be. Can anyone help with an effective vetting process. As it stands right now I have had enough and I'm about ready to give this up. Thanks in advance for any help.

I feel your pain...but, in all seriousness, get used to it and just expect it.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
How can I make you NOT post on MM?

Some suggestions:
1)  Stop people from posting the same thread over & over.
2)  When you post, try posting fair-minded & constructive advice.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
See, I can't because I don't  control you or what you say.   Photographers have zero control over models.

:  True.  Yet, photographers tend to lock their cars when they park downtown.  I'm willing to bet that nearly all of us have insurance.  Many of us have been vaccinated against terrible diseases.  People still look both ways before crossing the street.  And so forth.

Newsflash:  There are unreliable people on Model Mayhem!  If a photographer is unwilling to take simple precautions, then they need to take some responsibility. 

Look -- if we accept your premise that "Photographers have zero control over models", then all I'm suggesting is that photographers take some control over the stuff they can control, like filtering out unreliable models  -- OR -- you gonna get flakes.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Sure you can ask about a model but just because she's been reliable with someone else has little bearing on your shoot.

Perhaps.  But if she has been unreliable with someone else, would that influence your decision or the agreement terms you negotiate with the model?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
You seem ... seem to ask the peanut gallery their opinion on many subjects.   Windows 8, investing , tablets, etc.

Well, I still think derogatory terms are inappropriate for a cogent debate.

I don't ask for opinions, I exchange opinions.  Sometimes other people's opinions have had influence on my decision making; sometimes not.  What's wrong with that?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I and many other people just go for things and are less cautious.

Got no problem with that, except when these people get burned by a no-show model and then start a yet another thread expecting us to blame the model.  I have no problem with gamblers, but stop crying when the roll turns up craps.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
The OP has expressed his feelings.   I respect that as well yet he is not responsible for what that model did nor how you feel about what happened to him.

Well, let's be honest here -- the OP did more than express his feelings.  He said, in part...


He asked for help, and I shared my effective vetting process (which includes more than checking references).  You do things differently.  I didn't bring up anything about how I feel about what happened to him until you came here trying to push my buttons.

I say what I say because I feel you look down on other shooters.   Its great that you pay and don't get flakes and you share that and the fact you have this circle of friends every post about flakes.   Many if not most of us can't pay.   You ask for people's opinions and then many times you argue about what they offer.   Sometimes their views may stray a bit afield but that's part of the charm of MM.   If I leave my car doors unlocked and some criminal steals my stuff.   Its not my fault.   He is at fault.   Should I have used more precautions, sure.   Maybe I was in a rush.   Maybe my doors don't work.   Maybe I planned to return and my hands would be full.   The thief is at fault not I.   So lets discuss models.   When a model agrees too a shoot I expect her to show.   I ask for a confirmation call.   Yeah, I know how you feel about that.

I don't race around asking other people about her.   I don't care if she cut a fart at their spot.   I'm not interested in anything but MY sessions.   So what can we do to make others more reliable?   Answer that and you'll be rich.   Today a model who seems to be dependable flaked on me.   She's worked with folks I know.   She's called and replies to emails quickly.   I don't know what happened today and I don't care about her reasons.   I fully understand that people do what is important to them.   I can't make you not post.   I am not responsible for how you feel about what I say in these threads because I have ZERO control over you and your feelings and what you do.   As I don't control models either.

Its insulting when you say that people choose to work with unreliable people.   Its mean when you hint that the photographers are responsible in some way for flakes.   Every time you post to these threads I just imagine you seeing some person who trips on a crack in the sidewalk and as you walk by you say.   'Should have watched where you were walking buddy.   Its your own fault you fell.'

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I say what I say because I feel you look down on other shooters.

Well, according to you, I have no control over what you feel, so there's nothing I can do about it.  Further, I'm not feeling motivated to do anything about it, either.  I have repeatedly said stuff like "Got no problem with that" or "Do what works for you", and I am careful to separate my opinions from facts & judgments, but clearly you have already decided that I "look down" on other shooters, so be that way.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Its great that you pay and don't get flakes and you share that and the fact you have this circle of friends every post about flakes.   Many if not most of us can't pay.   You ask for people's opinions and then many times you argue about what they offer.

The guy asked for vetting processes, and I shared mine.  I have an excellent flake ratio.  He, you, and everyone else is free to do whatever they want, but unlike the "it's just gonna happen" & "it's always the model's fault" crowd, I at least have provided some constructive suggestions.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I don't race around asking other people about her.   I don't care if she cut a fart at their spot.   I'm not interested in anything but MY sessions.

I don't race around either.  It's not much of an effort at all. 

If you are interested in anything but YOUR sessions, why chime in on these forums and why do you take it upon yourself to counter every suggestion I make?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
So what can we do to make others more reliable?   Answer that and you'll be rich.

Actually, I think it's really easy to make others more reliable:
1)  Starve the unreliable ones.  If the prospects of the unreliable ones dry
     up, they won't be a problem any more.
2)  Reward the reliable ones.  We do that by recommending the reliable
     ones to other photographers (you know, the people you think of as
     'the competition").
3)  Make sure that every candidate understands that if she burns one of
     us, everyone else is going to hear about it.

Besides, I'm not advocating that we make everyone else more reliable; I'm just saying that if unreliable people bother you, learn how to filter out the unreliable ones.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Its insulting when you say that people choose to work with unreliable people.

Well, I don't recall ever saying that people choose to work with unreliable people.  What I say is what I just said above, "if unreliable people bother you, learn how to filter out the unreliable ones", and I'll even go further to say that if you insist on not filtering your potential models, then you will just have to accept what you get.  Not the same thing.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Its mean when you hint that the photographers are responsible in some way for flakes.   Every time you post to these threads I just imagine you seeing some person who trips on a crack in the sidewalk and as you walk by you say.   'Should have watched where you were walking buddy.   Its your own fault you fell.'

No, I repeat, "if unreliable people bother you, learn how to filter out the unreliable ones".  If you don't take precautions, you'll get burned on occasion.  Further, if you do the same thing over & over (e.g. refusing to vett your models), you should expect the same results.

OG Foto wrote:
I get flaked on a lot. At first I became angry and frustrated. Now, it's just part of the process. I even get flaked on by models I have shot with in the past or are my friends....go figure. Personally, I will never shoot a model in Vegas again. I am 2 for 12 with models there. Yeah, 2 models out of 12 who have shown up.

Sorry your frustrated. We feel your pain. Never work with her again and move on to the next flake.....

It's pretty bad here in L.A. too. I've had a few in recent months... all were for PAID shoots (1/2 day shoots at that). One was a very experienced/published model... turned out that she simply forgot. Another (also somewhat experienced) simply didn't show... sent her an PM the next day asking what happened, and then she blocked me without responding. Another called on the way over to say her BF dumped her that morning, and she didn't think she was fit to model that day (only a semi-flake on that one).

Northern Lights Images wrote:
I get the manic depressive flake, who messages me 100 times about ideas and concepts and blah blah and they end up blowing you off.

LOL.
You must be a magnet for them !

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I say what I say because I feel you look down on other shooters.

Well, according to you, I have no control over what you feel, so there's nothing I can do about it.  Further, I'm not feeling motivated to do anything about it, either.  I have repeatedly said stuff like "Got no problem with that" or "Do what works for you", and I am careful to separate my opinions from facts & judgments, but clearly you have already decided that I "look down" on other shooters, so be that way.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Its great that you pay and don't get flakes and you share that and the fact you have this circle of friends every post about flakes.   Many if not most of us can't pay.   You ask for people's opinions and then many times you argue about what they offer.

The guy asked for vetting processes, and I shared mine.  I have an excellent flake ratio.  He, you, and everyone else is free to do whatever they want, but unlike the "it's just gonna happen" & "it's always the model's fault" crowd, I at least have provided some constructive suggestions.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I don't race around asking other people about her.   I don't care if she cut a fart at their spot.   I'm not interested in anything but MY sessions.

I don't race around either.  It's not much of an effort at all. 

If you are interested in anything but YOUR sessions, why chime in on these forums and why do you take it upon yourself to counter every suggestion I make?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
So what can we do to make others more reliable?   Answer that and you'll be rich.

Actually, I think it's really easy to make others more reliable:
1)  Starve the unreliable ones.  If the prospects of the unreliable ones dry
     up, they won't be a problem any more.
2)  Reward the reliable ones.  We do that by recommending the reliable
     ones to other photographers (you know, the people you think of as
     'the competition").
3)  Make sure that every candidate understands that if she burns one of
     us, everyone else is going to hear about it.

Besides, I'm not advocating that we make everyone else more reliable; I'm just saying that if unreliable people bother you, learn how to filter out the unreliable ones.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Its insulting when you say that people choose to work with unreliable people.

Well, I don't recall ever saying that people choose to work with unreliable people.  What I say is what I just said above, "if unreliable people bother you, learn how to filter out the unreliable ones", and I'll even go further to say that if you insist on not filtering your potential models, then you will just have to accept what you get.  Not the same thing.


No, I repeat, "if unreliable people bother you, learn how to filter out the unreliable ones".  If you don't take precautions, you'll get burned on occasion.  Further, if you do the same thing over & over (e.g. refusing to vett your models), you should expect the same results.

You started this by with your comment and quote to my Scooby-Do remark.   I didn't say your name.   You didn't have to say anything but you did.   Your method of vetting models works for you and that's wonderful.   The OP called his and drove to meet her and she flaked.   That's not his fault.   What you've done and frankly what you always do is add insult to injury.   The OP has worked with lots of MM models so he's doing something right.   Do you remember your 'rant' thread about a model who couldn't make a shoot because she was working with another photographer and she left too late for your session.   We chided you a bit and said it was your fault.   Remember?   I bet you don't.   I do though.   Just as what another member said when he wrote about your vetting process.

I'll paraphrase it;   Person wants to make a reservation at a restaurant.   Have you eaten at any of our sister restaurants, sir?   He's asked.   No the customer says.   Sorry, sir but we only serve patrons who we know or have eaten at our sister establishments.   Feel free to respond or not but its your choice.   I can't make you and I don't care either way but I will never put you down for any bad thing you share with us.   Not when its out of your control.   Doing that would make me a asshole.   I'm a ass mind you.   I don't want to be a asshole.

Damien Design wrote:
Can anyone help with an effective vetting process. As it stands right now I have had enough and I'm about ready to give this up. Thanks in advance for any help.

As far as San Diego goes, 95% of the "models" on M/M are worthless. So that cuts it down quite a bit from the get go! 

Tony Lawrence wrote:
You started this by with your comment and quote to my Scooby-Do remark.   I didn't say your name.   You didn't have to say anything but you did.   Your method of vetting models works for you and that's wonderful.   The OP called his and drove to meet her and she flaked.   That's not his fault.   What you've done and frankly what you always do is add insult to injury.   The OP has worked with lots of MM models so he's doing something right.   Do you remember your 'rant' thread about a model who couldn't make a shoot because she was working with another photographer and she left too late for your session.   We chided you a bit and said it was your fault.   Remember?   I bet you don't.   I do though.   Just as what another member said when he wrote about your vetting process.

I think I have a stalker.  I present the above as evidence of a personal vendetta that has little-to-no relevance to the topic of this thread.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I'll paraphrase it;   Person wants to make a reservation at a restaurant.   Have you eaten at any of our sister restaurants, sir?   He's asked.   No the customer says.   Sorry, sir but we only serve patrons who we know or have eaten at our sister establishments.   Feel free to respond or not but its your choice.   I can't make you and I don't care either way but I will never put you down for any bad thing you share with us.   Not when its out of your control.   Doing that would make me a asshole.   I'm a ass mind you.   I don't want to be a asshole.

Okay, I'll play.

Your example is, of course, ridiculous & has little relevance to this discussion.  Let's change it.  Say you talk to your friends & they say that they had horrible food at Charlie's Grill.  Say you talk to your family & they say that they had bad service at Charlie's Grill.  Say you read a review in your local paper & they say that the prices at Charlie's Grill is too high.  Suppose you are going out for your anniversary & you go to Charlie's Grill, and when you are there, you get bad food, bad service, and a high check.  Is that totally Charlie's Grill's fault.  Why didn't you listen to your friends, your family, and the review in the paper?  Why did you go to Charlie's Grill in the first place, especially when you had all this valuable feedback beforehand?


Look -- analogies are never perfect, but some are illustrative. 

More to the point, Tony, it seems, has a personal vendetta against me -- he has one perspective on the "flake problem" and I have another.  I accept his perspective, but Tony can't seem to accept mine. 

As always, do what you want, but again, I reiterate:  If unreliable people bother you, learn how to filter out the unreliable ones.

Damien Design wrote:
I know this has been posted numerous times before, but the flaking issue really has me ready to quit. Some have mentioned never having a flake while others say it is the nature of tf shoots. Today really brought things to a head with me as I talked to the model on the phone. She stated she is not a flake and would never not show for a shoot. Well I gave her two confirmation calls last week. She did not respond to either, I sent her a message on Thursday which she replied to on Friday stating "yep I'll be there tomorrow". Our shoot was scheduled yesterday at a local park which I had to drive too, she never showed and didn't answer her phone. I've had great tf shoots and have always shot numerous times with those models. People have mentioned perfecting your vetting process but I can not find any information on what that process should be. Can anyone help with an effective vetting process. As it stands right now I have had enough and I'm about ready to give this up. Thanks in advance for any help.

Do what agencies do:
1. Meet first.
2. Schedule sessions with people that are relatively local.
3. Confirm shortly before the start of the session.

It is hard to confirm one hour before a shoot, if it takes you more than an hour to get to a location, but if you do not know if the model is on her way, then don't hit the road. (See step 2). Easier said than done? True, but definitely the most professional way of handling these situations.

Try to schedule a backup plan/model for the same shoot. You can always work with both models, or go to your other shoot, if it was scheduled very tentatively.

Aside from quickly blacklisting unreliable models*, agencies make it a habit to work with local talent in order to reduce the amount of "stuck in traffic" situations when they send someone to a job.

*MM discourages blacklisting, because it falls into the category of outing.  It must be because disgruntled participants will likely embellish and gossip behind someone's back, instead of confronting them directly.

Edit: It goes without saying that phone numbers (not just email addresses) are very essential in order to maximize good communications. It's just part of being considerate. If someone does not feel comfortable exchanging numbers, then just move on. It is a red flag in my book.

ChiMo wrote:

As far as San Diego goes, 95% of the "models" on M/M are worthless. So that cuts it down quite a bit from the get go! 

The quality of the models you're shooting probably scares 95% away.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
The quality of the models you're shooting probably scares 95% away.

Albeit a positive one (and I agree that is likely), this still falls within the concept of "unsolicited critiques", don't you just love MM rules?

MnPhoto wrote:
Albeit a positive one (and I agree that is likely), this still falls within the concept of "unsolicited critiques", don't you just love MM rules?

Not "unsolicited critiques" you just get to a point where when you've worked with some of the best so it becomes more difficult to find models.
Models will also shy away when they see a photographers port full on beautiful models..... especially if there not over processed.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
You started this by with your comment and quote to my Scooby-Do remark.   I didn't say your name.   You didn't have to say anything but you did.   Your method of vetting models works for you and that's wonderful.   The OP called his and drove to meet her and she flaked.   That's not his fault.   What you've done and frankly what you always do is add insult to injury.   The OP has worked with lots of MM models so he's doing something right.   Do you remember your 'rant' thread about a model who couldn't make a shoot because she was working with another photographer and she left too late for your session.   We chided you a bit and said it was your fault.   Remember?   I bet you don't.   I do though.   Just as what another member said when he wrote about your vetting process.

I think I have a stalker.  I present the above as evidence of a personal vendetta that has little-to-no relevance to the topic of this thread.



Okay, I'll play.

Your example is, of course, ridiculous & has little relevance to this discussion.  Let's change it.  Say you talk to your friends & they say that they had horrible food at Charlie's Grill.  Say you talk to your family & they say that they had bad service at Charlie's Grill.  Say you read a review in your local paper & they say that the prices at Charlie's Grill is too high.  Suppose you are going out for your anniversary & you go to Charlie's Grill, and when you are there, you get bad food, bad service, and a high check.  Is that totally Charlie's Grill's fault.  Why didn't you listen to your friends, your family, and the review in the paper?  Why did you go to Charlie's Grill in the first place, especially when you had all this valuable feedback beforehand?


Look -- analogies are never perfect, but some are illustrative. 

More to the point, Tony, it seems, has a personal vendetta against me -- he has one perspective on the "flake problem" and I have another.  I accept his perspective, but Tony can't seem to accept mine. 

As always, do what you want, but again, I reiterate:  If unreliable people bother you, learn how to filter out the unreliable ones.

You don't have too address me in the third person.   I'm right here.   Personal agenda against you?   Nah, I just don't like how insufferable and how much you look down your nose at those who have flakes.   There is NO way to filter out unreliable people because we never really know who's unreliable until they are unreliable with us.   One of your methods is to pay.   Something many here can't do.   Another is to ask local shooters when many here including me who's a social butterfly but they and I don't 'share' models or helpful tips about photography.  You didn't get my restaurant analogy?   Try this.   If a new model contacted you too shoot some work she was paying you for would you not shoot her.

Would you say to her.   Sorry, Ms. but you don't have a proven track record with other local photographers I know I can ask about you.   That would be goofy, right?   If that new model for whatever reason didn't show you'd repeat that to other local shooters?   So much for professionalism.   So what does work to stop flakes?   Sadly nothing.   All we can do is arrange sessions.   Ask for confirmations and hope models show.   Some will and some won't.   Some of the best on this site have had them.   Even when paying.   It happens with agency models.   The reality is that many of the models we want to shoot are young and may not have worked with any or many photographers.

They tend not to stay active all that long.   When they aren't being paid no matter how good your work is they may not show.   There are risks in everything we do but the key too remember is you can't make models or people more reliable.   Accept that some won't be.   As for you.   We all have different ways of seeing things.   Based on your many threads and comments.    You are a very cautious person.   Example:   What do you guys think of Windows 8?   I wanted to tell you.   Why not try for yourself and tell us what you think.   Another example;   What do you guys think about tablets?   Which is the best?   Just buy a few.   You seem to be doing well.   I don't dislike you nor I'm I stalking you.   Nor I'm I saying that your methods aren't effective.   I am saying you are a bit of a boor about its delivery but hell so I'm I.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
You started this by with your comment and quote to my Scooby-Do remark.   I didn't say your name.   You didn't have to say anything but you did.   Your method of vetting models works for you and that's wonderful.   The OP called his and drove to meet her and she flaked.   That's not his fault.   What you've done and frankly what you always do is add insult to injury.   The OP has worked with lots of MM models so he's doing something right.   Do you remember your 'rant' thread about a model who couldn't make a shoot because she was working with another photographer and she left too late for your session.   We chided you a bit and said it was your fault.   Remember?   I bet you don't.   I do though.   Just as what another member said when he wrote about your vetting process.

I think I have a stalker.  I present the above as evidence of a personal vendetta that has little-to-no relevance to the topic of this thread.



Okay, I'll play.

Your example is, of course, ridiculous & has little relevance to this discussion.  Let's change it.  Say you talk to your friends & they say that they had horrible food at Charlie's Grill.  Say you talk to your family & they say that they had bad service at Charlie's Grill.  Say you read a review in your local paper & they say that the prices at Charlie's Grill is too high.  Suppose you are going out for your anniversary & you go to Charlie's Grill, and when you are there, you get bad food, bad service, and a high check.  Is that totally Charlie's Grill's fault.  Why didn't you listen to your friends, your family, and the review in the paper?  Why did you go to Charlie's Grill in the first place, especially when you had all this valuable feedback beforehand?


Look -- analogies are never perfect, but some are illustrative. 

More to the point, Tony, it seems, has a personal vendetta against me -- he has one perspective on the "flake problem" and I have another.  I accept his perspective, but Tony can't seem to accept mine. 

As always, do what you want, but again, I reiterate:  If unreliable people bother you, learn how to filter out the unreliable ones.

the food analogy is not a good one. There are too many variables which goes into a restaurant experience, to determine whether or not, those rendering their opinions have a valid "complaint." However, when it comes to a model flaking or not, it is the behavior of one which is being evaluated, and that behavior is owned by whom is misbehaving.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
You don't have too address me in the third person.   I'm right here.  Personal agenda against you?   Nah, I just don't like how insufferable and how much you look down your nose at those who have flakes.

Tony -- we are done discussing how you feel about my position.  You are entitled to your opinion, but these personal attacks are not appropriate for a thread in which the OP requested some ideas.  You don't like my suggestions, that's fine.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
There is NO way to filter out unreliable people because we never really know who's unreliable until they are unreliable with us.

I disagree.  My track record is proof against this statement.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
One of your methods is to pay.   Something many here can't do.

In my original post here, I made about a dozen suggestions, only one of which involved paying the model.  And I never said that paying a model is an indication that the model will show up -- I only said that models who are depending on modeling for their income can't afford to be unreliable.  It's the model's track record and not her rates that are an indication of her reliability.  If you can't afford them, that's fine -- I made about a dozen other suggestions, none of which had to do with paying models.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Another is to ask local shooters when many here including me who's a social butterfly but they and I don't 'share' models or helpful tips about photography.

All I did was share what works for me.  Of the last three models I've worked with, two were recommended to me by local photographers and the other was a well known traveling model.  None of them flaked.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
You didn't get my restaurant analogy?   Try this.   If a new model contacted you too shoot some work she was paying you for would you not shoot her.  Would you say to her.   Sorry, Ms. but you don't have a proven track record with other local photographers I know I can ask about you.

No.  I probably would say that my dance card is filled (and it is -- I have a long list of models I have discussed work with).  I have also said (including here in my first post of this thread) that a lot of people helped me out when I was getting started, and that I owe these people a karmic debt that I can only pay back by paying it forward.  10% to 20% of my sessions are with models who don't have a track record.  None of these have flaked on me.  Then again, models who proactively find me tend to find me through the local grapevine, and I trust that many of the local photographers wouldn't tell the candidate model about me if they didn't have a little faith in the model; in addition, these candidate models tend to understand that we local photographers talk to each other, meaning that if a model flakes on one of us, she flakes on all of us.  So, for whatever reason, it works out for me.

Finally, I'm not interested in models who want to pay me.  I have "patrons" who pay me.  If a model pays me, I have to please her; if she doesn't, I can please myself (and hopefully her).  I have a limited amount of time to devote to photography; working for other people isn't sufficiently fun for me.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
If that new model for whatever reason didn't show you'd repeat that to other local shooters?

Dunno.  Remember -- I don't experience many flakes.  This is an inappropriate & unrealistic fantasy.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
So much for professionalism.

So, I'm guilty of something that hasn't happened, isn't likely to happen, and not something I'm likely to do?  I understand why you resent me so much now.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
So what does work to stop flakes?   Sadly nothing.

I disagree.  There's a lot that can be done, as evidenced by the observation that some photographers have better flake ratios than others, even when they work with the same pool of models.  There's a lot that can be done; there just seems to be very little that you are willing to do.  Again, the OP asked for vetting process suggestions.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
All we can do is arrange sessions.   Ask for confirmations and hope models show.   Some will and some won't.   Some of the best on this site have had them.   Even when paying.   It happens with agency models.   The reality is that many of the models we want to shoot are young and may not have worked with any or many photographers.

So, you are defeated even before you try?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
You are a very cautious person.   Example:   What do you guys think of Windows 8?   I wanted to tell you.   Why not try for yourself and tell us what you think.   Another example;   What do you guys think about tablets?   Which is the best?   Just buy a few.   You seem to be doing well.   I don't dislike you nor I'm I stalking you.   Nor I'm I saying that your methods aren't effective.   I am saying you are a bit of a boor about its delivery but hell so I'm I.

Examples of responses that are not appropriate for this thread.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Not "unsolicited critiques" you just get to a point where when you've worked with some of the best so it becomes more difficult to find models.
Models will also shy away when they see a photographers port full on beautiful models..... especially if there not over processed.

I was referring to your correct reference that Chi Mo has shot excellent work with outstanding models (Whether the work is good or bad, describing it falls into the category of an unsolicited critique).

I agree that less confident models might find the work intimidating.

/critique

Damien Design wrote:
I know this has been posted numerous times before, but the flaking issue really has me ready to quit.....

Ditto. Look at my MM profile page recent update where I discuss giving up on model photography and going the route of street photography, outdoor photography, etc.  I had done lots of MM messages and also cell phone text messages with a couple of MM models the past few weeks, was all looking good except the weather here has not been cooperating until just lately. Five days ago I texted both of the models, and they have always texted back withing minutes to hours. No reply, not after a day, two days, three days, four days. So I returned clothing to seven stores as the 30 day deadline to return stuff had happened, and I was not about to be stuck with hundreds of dollars of female clothing I would never use. Then today, over five days after my last message asking if the models wanted to schedule a shoot date, one of the models communicates back. Well, I had initially said I would be paying them $200 per half day. Now I said that is off the table because I no longer have the fashion clothing I had envisioned for shots, but I am willing to do TFP. Anyhow, I feel your frustration, I am about ready to just stick with TFP occasionally, I just do not live in a town like LA/NY where there are lots of models to do high fashion shoots, I'll stick with some TFP, casual artsy shoots, and then I'll do my street/outdoor photography for fun. Again, weather and the smaller size of my city is an issue, I envy photographers who live in large cities and with milder climates.

Randall_Oelerich wrote:

Ditto. Look at my MM profile page recent update where I discuss giving up on model photography and going the route of street photography, outdoor photography, etc...

Why can't you do all?
You don't have to concentrate on just one type of photography.

MnPhoto wrote:
...Why can't you do all?  You don't have to concentrate on just one type of photography.

Not giving up completely on MM, just saying it is very frustrating, so much time spent texting and messaging models to have it fall apart, or nearly so. This is not my profession, I don't need to do fashion/model photography like some do who are developing a career-- I mean I was even offered the chance to go shoot commercial / high fashion (paid gigs) in NYC with a friend when he did it as a career, but even he decided to follow a different passion in life after doing that awhile. I do it for the art. Period.  So I will do model photoshoots when I can find a model that shows enthusiasm for a local TFP collaboration. Until then I am getting excited about street photography, nature photography (we have nature and then some up here in Duluth MN, north shore of Lake Superior, in fact I have already done outings on the north shore and been exploring HDR, liking that.)

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
You don't have too address me in the third person.   I'm right here.  Personal agenda against you?   Nah, I just don't like how insufferable and how much you look down your nose at those who have flakes.

Tony -- we are done discussing how you feel about my position.  You are entitled to your opinion, but these personal attacks are not appropriate for a thread in which the OP requested some ideas.  You don't like my suggestions, that's fine.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
There is NO way to filter out unreliable people because we never really know who's unreliable until they are unreliable with us.

I disagree.  My track record is proof against this statement.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
One of your methods is to pay.   Something many here can't do.

In my original post here, I made about a dozen suggestions, only one of which involved paying the model.  And I never said that paying a model is an indication that the model will show up -- I only said that models who are depending on modeling for their income can't afford to be unreliable.  It's the model's track record and not her rates that are an indication of her reliability.  If you can't afford them, that's fine -- I made about a dozen other suggestions, none of which had to do with paying models.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Another is to ask local shooters when many here including me who's a social butterfly but they and I don't 'share' models or helpful tips about photography.

All I did was share what works for me.  Of the last three models I've worked with, two were recommended to me by local photographers and the other was a well known traveling model.  None of them flaked.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
You didn't get my restaurant analogy?   Try this.   If a new model contacted you too shoot some work she was paying you for would you not shoot her.  Would you say to her.   Sorry, Ms. but you don't have a proven track record with other local photographers I know I can ask about you.

No.  I probably would say that my dance card is filled (and it is -- I have a long list of models I have discussed work with).  I have also said (including here in my first post of this thread) that a lot of people helped me out when I was getting started, and that I owe these people a karmic debt that I can only pay back by paying it forward.  10% to 20% of my sessions are with models who don't have a track record.  None of these have flaked on me.  Then again, models who proactively find me tend to find me through the local grapevine, and I trust that many of the local photographers wouldn't tell the candidate model about me if they didn't have a little faith in the model; in addition, these candidate models tend to understand that we local photographers talk to each other, meaning that if a model flakes on one of us, she flakes on all of us.  So, for whatever reason, it works out for me.

Finally, I'm not interested in models who want to pay me.  I have "patrons" who pay me.  If a model pays me, I have to please her; if she doesn't, I can please myself (and hopefully her).  I have a limited amount of time to devote to photography; working for other people isn't sufficiently fun for me.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
If that new model for whatever reason didn't show you'd repeat that to other local shooters?

Dunno.  Remember -- I don't experience many flakes.  This is an inappropriate & unrealistic fantasy.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
So much for professionalism.

So, I'm guilty of something that hasn't happened, isn't likely to happen, and not something I'm likely to do?  I understand why you resent me so much now.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
So what does work to stop flakes?   Sadly nothing.

I disagree.  There's a lot that can be done, as evidenced by the observation that some photographers have better flake ratios than others, even when they work with the same pool of models.  There's a lot that can be done; there just seems to be very little that you are willing to do.  Again, the OP asked for vetting process suggestions.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
All we can do is arrange sessions.   Ask for confirmations and hope models show.   Some will and some won't.   Some of the best on this site have had them.   Even when paying.   It happens with agency models.   The reality is that many of the models we want to shoot are young and may not have worked with any or many photographers.

So, you are defeated even before you try?


Examples of responses that are not appropriate for this thread.

Lets can the passive aggressive responses.   If I disliked you I'd say so.   Many pros have flakes they just don't talk them about them here.   MUA, models and stylists have been known too flake from agencies.   Its not unique to modelling either.   Some of these folks may have been reliable with others.   Once you ask a model to shoot or accept her as a model its on her.   Some people may ask others what they think about that model.   I have no time for that kind of follow up or desire to do.   So why do some photographers have fewer flakes?   Several I know who have posted they never get them are fibbing.   I won't say who.   

However I'm wasting my time aren't I.   You never get flakes and if only others adapted your methods they wouldn't either and unless they do shouldn't come and complain about them.   Does that sum up your argument?   Personally the only real vetting I do is speaking to them.   I set a day and they either show or they don't.   I don't have time to play Sherlock Holmes.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Lets can the passive aggressive responses.

Pot, meet kettle.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
If I disliked you I'd say so.

No, I think you'll just say derogatory & insulting things, like "boor" and "Scooby do", or addressing false assumptions about what I would say & do rather than addressing the OP's request.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Many pros have flakes they just don't talk them about them here.   MUA, models and stylists have been known too flake from agencies.   Its not unique to modelling either.   Some of these folks may have been reliable with others.

Perhaps.  Some, I believe, have insignificant flake ratios, while others have the majority of their appointments fall through.  Go figure.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Once you ask a model to shoot or accept her as a model its on her.

Perhaps, yes -- once you ask, it's too late.  But what I propose (and what the OP asked for) is that you check out the model before you ask her to pose.  Similarly, I would hope that child care centers would check out the candidate workers' backgrounds, because if they hire a known pedophile, it's not just the pedophile that will get in trouble.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Some people may ask others what they think about that model.   I have no time for that kind of follow up or desire to do.

As is your right.  If you are happy with your results, more power to you.  If you (like the OP) are not happy with your (or his) results, it would be foolish to approach sessions the same way over & over.  You are happy with your flake ratio; we therefore have nothing to discuss.  The OP is not happy with his flake ratio, and he wants some suggestions on how to improve it.  I gave him some suggestions; you've stated that there is nothing he can do.  He'll figure it out.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
So why do some photographers have fewer flakes?   Several I know who have posted they never get them are fibbing.   I won't say who.

Perhaps.  I don't know who you are talking about.  But I do know that some photographers have better flake ratios than others, even when they are working in the same local area.  Go figure.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
However I'm wasting my time aren't I.   You never get flakes and if only others adapted your methods they wouldn't either and unless they do shouldn't come and complain about them.   Does that sum up your argument?

No, that doesn't sum up my argument at all:
...  I've had two flakes in nearly 20 years.  That's "rarely", not "never".
...  Clearly, my "process" isn't understood by you.
...  Some photographers, including you apparently, are not willing to talk
     with other local photographers & form relationships with them.
...  You seem to ignore all the other suggestions I have; you are laser
     focused on one or two aspects of my recommendations.
...  I never said that people who experience flakes shouldn't come &
     complain about them; I said that if a person is unwilling to take steps
     to protect themselves, then they shouldn't come & complain about
     them.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Personally the only real vetting I do is speaking to them.   I set a day and they either show or they don't.   I don't have time to play Sherlock Holmes.

That's fine by me.  I'm betting you get more flakes than I do, and since that doesn't seem to bother you, then all is good.

But I still contend that the effort to check one model's references is significantly less than the effort you've devoted to this thread.  Further, if you have established relationships with your local models & photographers, checking references can be exceedingly easy.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Lets can the passive aggressive responses.

Pot, meet kettle.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
If I disliked you I'd say so.

No, I think you'll just say derogatory & insulting things, like "boor" and "Scooby do", or addressing false assumptions about what I would say & do rather than addressing the OP's request.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Many pros have flakes they just don't talk them about them here.   MUA, models and stylists have been known too flake from agencies.   Its not unique to modelling either.   Some of these folks may have been reliable with others.

Perhaps.  Some, I believe, have insignificant flake ratios, while others have the majority of their appointments fall through.  Go figure.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Once you ask a model to shoot or accept her as a model its on her.

Perhaps, yes -- once you ask, it's too late.  But what I propose (and what the OP asked for) is that you check out the model before you ask her to pose.  Similarly, I would hope that child care centers would check out the candidate workers' backgrounds, because if they hire a known pedophile, it's not just the pedophile that will get in trouble.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Some people may ask others what they think about that model.   I have no time for that kind of follow up or desire to do.

As is your right.  If you are happy with your results, more power to you.  If you (like the OP) are not happy with your (or his) results, it would be foolish to approach sessions the same way over & over.  You are happy with your flake ratio; we therefore have nothing to discuss.  The OP is not happy with his flake ratio, and he wants some suggestions on how to improve it.  I gave him some suggestions; you've stated that there is nothing he can do.  He'll figure it out.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
So why do some photographers have fewer flakes?   Several I know who have posted they never get them are fibbing.   I won't say who.

Perhaps.  I don't know who you are talking about.  But I do know that some photographers have better flake ratios than others, even when they are working in the same local area.  Go figure.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
However I'm wasting my time aren't I.   You never get flakes and if only others adapted your methods they wouldn't either and unless they do shouldn't come and complain about them.   Does that sum up your argument?

No, that doesn't sum up my argument at all:
...  I've had two flakes in nearly 20 years.  That's "rarely", not "never".
...  Clearly, my "process" isn't understood by you.
...  Some photographers, including you apparently, are not willing to talk
     with other local photographers & form relationships with them.
...  You seem to ignore all the other suggestions I have; you are laser
     focused on one or two aspects of my recommendations.
...  I never said that people who experience flakes shouldn't come &
     complain about them; I said that if a person is unwilling to take steps
     to protect themselves, then they shouldn't come & complain about
     them.


That's fine by me.  I'm betting you get more flakes than I do, and since that doesn't seem to bother you, then all is good.

But I still contend that the effort to check one model's references is significantly less than the effort you've devoted to this thread.  Further, if you have established relationships with your local models & photographers, checking references can be exceedingly easy.

I don't know if your suggestions are better or worse then anyone else's.   They work for you.   They may NOT be practical for others.   Many of whom do NOT belong to a circle of photographers they can reach out too for info on a new model who is likely not to have worked with anyone they know.     There you go with Passive Aggression.   " I'm betting you get more flakes than I do, and since that doesn't seem to bother you, then all is good"

We just don't know what steps others take to protect themselves but clearly if they don't follow your ideals then they deserve what they get.   You don't mean that, right?   It does appear I'm irritating you based on your long winded replies.   In a nut shell I accept that sometimes models on sites like this won't follow through or call or arrive on time or come prepared.   I don't accept that their failure is my responsibility or that I should have CHECKED up on them.