nyk fury wrote:

exactly. communication is key. but a profile is not really communication. it's an entrance. what lays behind a krunky profile may be little different than what lays behind an excellent one. grain of salt.

I don't think or thought anyone would actually read that stupid profile of mine,  but some do, did  and found me rather amusing if not altogether weird..

the lonely photographer wrote:
I don't think or thought anyone would actually read that stupid profile of mine,  but some do, did  and found me rather amusing if not altogether weird..

'the lonely photographer', that's a good one

photographer profiles are shit. it's models' profiles that necessitate scrutiny.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
"Don't worry about what people think; they don't do it very often."
Jacqueline Delisle

LOL! Nice.

T-D-L wrote:
shit if they're credited on MM.  Credits are overrated.  Credit in Numero or W magazine?  Sure.  Credit on the internet in some random website?  Not at all.

I'm still reading through this thread, so I don't know if someone has already addressed this.  Credit on "some random website," principally here on MM, is *very* important to us "internet models" who primarily work from sites like MM, Fetlife, CZ and omp.  The internets are all we have, so if someone sees us in another person's portfolio and wants to work with us, but can't find a credit with which to find us, we lose out on work.

Fotopia wrote:
I surely hope this isn't considered thread "high jacking" if so I'll delete it.

My dilemma with this site, and the reason I no longer post castings here, and will be deleting my account September 1st,  is less about my having the  3 deadly sins red flags of having 1. no mayhem models credited, 2. no updates, and 3. no link to my  professional site.

The difficulty is about novice models in my area have too little industry knowledge to recognize actual green flags when they see them.

One can't list ASMP member numbers, APA activities, New York Art Directors Club awards, or ACP fine art exhibition track record, as area models have never heard of them.

I have been here quite some time, writing a number of local "models", and no one has ever enquired about credentials, qualifications, real world photographic accomplishments, and media recognition.

The false security of having other criteria for vetting is why so many awful experiences are reported here.

Have you considered working with experienced models, rather than novices?  I find that credits and accomplishments often matter (or at least factor in to the decision-making process) to experienced models, because they appreciate photographers who are more likely to do something interesting with images of them.

MelissaAnn  wrote:
No offense taken, you proved my point.  The fact that you don't credit because you generally only work with agency models is one of the key reasons for not crediting that I mentioned.  Your current port/lack of credits tells me (as a freelance model) everything I need to know so that I don't bother wasting my time contacting you. It's nothing personal, and it's actually a great screening method for me. 

Not crediting models is also a great way for photographers (like you) who want to deter a very large percentage of freelance models from ever contacting them or working with them.

no worries. Nothing personal also, but I generally only collaborate with any MM folks on a trade basis if I am working on very rare personal projects (the only reason I have a MM account). Of which currently I am working on publishing my first book. So if you are looking for freelance paid gigs, it is beneficial for us both to not waste each others time as you mention. I do respect freelance models for what they do though, and as I mention if someone does want to know who is in my profile, they can always send me an inbox to ask.  glad to know that my profile is effective for what I want it to do though.

Isobel Wren wrote:
I'm still reading through this thread, so I don't know if someone has already addressed this.  Credit on "some random website," principally here on MM, is *very* important to us "internet models" who primarily work from sites like MM, Fetlife, CZ and omp.  The internets are all we have, so if someone sees us in another person's portfolio and wants to work with us, but can't find a credit with which to find us, we lose out on work.

...and when i see that, which i do quite a lot, i think briefly about writing the shooter about the model. but then i don't.

Fotopia wrote:
I surely hope this isn't considered thread "high jacking" if so I'll delete it.

My dilemma with this site, and the reason I no longer post castings here, and will be deleting my account September 1st,  is less about my having the  3 deadly sins red flags of having 1. no mayhem models credited, 2. no updates, and 3. no link to my  professional site.

The difficulty is about novice models in my area have too little industry knowledge to recognize actual green flags when they see them.

One can't list ASMP member numbers, APA activities, New York Art Directors Club awards, or ACP fine art exhibition track record, as area models have never heard of them.

I have been here quite some time, writing a number of local "models", and no one has ever enquired about credentials, qualifications, real world photographic accomplishments, and media recognition.

The false security of having other criteria for vetting is why so many awful experiences are reported here.

It's the quality of your work that matters, not your credentials.

You only have 8 images displayed & all of them are from 2009.  You haven't provided any links to outside work, and it also appears you haven't worked with any MM models.  The small sampling of outdated images in your port isn't enough for most models to make a decision to trade with you, and there's nowhere else to view more of your work.

Have you considered paying models, or at least updating your port?

Laura UnBound wrote:
[first page, first post]

Yes!

Babalon Salome wrote:
[original post]

If these are all on a page together or with a handful of the things Laura said, this is definitely a thing.  Has to be multiple things here to get a flag, with the exception of real name crediting for a girl who deliberately has a stage name. I  feel legit violated when someone uses my real name for a public credit. I have a stage name for a reason, you know.

Laura UnBound wrote:
Black lists dont bother me so much unless theyre poorly written ("THIS MODEL IS A BITCH!" vs "I do not recommend ___") or when your black list is longer than your pleasant list. ... YOU are probably the problem.

Totally! In the 8 years I've been working, I only have maybe 10 people at most who I'd warn models away from.

Ash Photographic wrote:
Self portraits (male photographers).

One or two well shot photos are fine.  Sometimes a photographer wants to round out his portfolio with shots of male models, but can't find any. Or a photo on the front page (not in his gallery) that just says, "so you know what I look like" to be able to spot him if we're meeting in public.  A lot of photos of him, or references to, "I'm a model, I love doing couples erotic nudes." keep me from contacting him blah blah blah not a dating site blah blah I don't do nudes with men.

To add a yellow flag of my own:
Misogynistic rants or rants about how, "all models" are shitty/stupid/immature/flakes.  If that's the lens you take to women -IN MY EXPERIENCE- you view us only as objects not worthy of respect who are shitty/stupid/immature/flakes.  You're going to approach the shoot with a chip on your shoulder and are more likely to be cruel during the shoot, demand more than my comfort level, and discount me or get mad if I have to ask about anything after the shoot.  My needs don't matter, since I'm just a silly girl.

I actually DON'T view "no escorts" as a flag in and of itself.  To me that says that the photographer has been around enough and worked with enough people to know that escorts can sometimes be (I said can and sometimes, not always!) shifty and/or distracting to the model.  So to me "no escorts" is more often a good thing, if it's phrased in a positive light* and not accompanied by more than one other yellow flag.

*positive light:
"No escorts please."
"I don't allow escorts, here are some references to check to make you feel more comfortable"

Fotopia wrote:
I surely hope this isn't considered thread "high jacking" if so I'll delete it.

My dilemma with this site, and the reason I no longer post castings here, and will be deleting my account September 1st,  is less about my having the  3 deadly sins red flags of having 1. no mayhem models credited, 2. no updates, and 3. no link to my  professional site.

The difficulty is about novice models in my area have too little industry knowledge to recognize actual green flags when they see them.

One can't list ASMP member numbers, APA activities, New York Art Directors Club awards, or ACP fine art exhibition track record, as area models have never heard of them.

I have been here quite some time, writing a number of local "models", and no one has ever enquired about credentials, qualifications, real world photographic accomplishments, and media recognition.

The false security of having other criteria for vetting is why so many awful experiences are reported here.

I don't think the average model would know what any of those industry terms meant.   They will only judge you based on what you display.   Eight images is fine by the way for any reasonable model in my mind to decide if she likes your style of work.   On a personal note.   Models who want to shoot with just do.   They don't waste time.   Either someone appeals to you or they don't.

Sita Mae wrote:

Have you considered working with experienced models, rather than novices?  I find that credits and accomplishments often matter (or at least factor in to the decision-making process) to experienced models, because they appreciate photographers who are more likely to do something interesting with images of them.

Yes, actually about 90% of my work has been with full time, agency signed, NYC, and European professional models.

They have all known what copyright, ASMP, NYADC, and MFA's are.

I had the naïve idea of giving work to those that need it most, local novices, but experience has shown that to be unworkable.

Show me any other area of business in which those offering work have to bend over backwards to prove themselves worthy to inexperienced, entry level applicants.

Fotopia wrote:
Yes, actually about 90% of my work has been with full time, agency signed, NYC, and European professional models.

They have all known what copyright, ASMP, NYADC, and MFA's are.

I had the naïve idea of giving work to those that need it most, local novices, but experience has shown that to be unworkable.

Show me any other area of business in which those offering work have to bend over backwards to prove themselves worthy to inexperienced, entry level applicants.

By "offering work" do you mean paid?

I have no problem with trade shoots, and do NOT consider them "free."  But, if you're offering a trade, then you need to make an impression on terms the other party can understand, and offer something that THEY understand has value to them.

If a photographer only shoots "goth", then a trade shoot with a top NY agency model which didn't include goth would have no value to him (or her), even if the model's portfolio was fabulous, and packed with tear sheets from "real  industry" stars.

Same is true of models; you need to communicate, and show your merits, in terms they understand.  Or pay cash.

Fotopia wrote:
All of my models are paid.

I expect an actual "model" to know how to pose, and  to know of some the industry terminology, and the top industry organizations, otherwise, in my opinion, they are girls with pictures.

welp, theres why youre not getting your moneys worth. why are you paying newbies? handing them some cash doesnt magically give them all the knowledge and experience you expect them (a newbie?) to have.


Also, for internet models, its not really important for most of us to know anything about "top industry" anything, because its not an area we're ever going to work in. Im 5 feet tall, its worthless for me to know anything about agencies or real-world-clients because Im never going to have anything to do with them. I need to understand internet modelling and how to deal with freelance networking with dudes shooting out of their living rooms on weekends, hoping their wife isnt going to kill them for having another naked girl half their age from the internet in the house.



Sita asked you if youve considered working with experienced models. That doesnt only apply to girls signed with agencies, there are dozens of internet models with oodles of experience and can give you just as much as an agency girl (which you should already know because youre top 12 is filled with some of them)

Isobel Wren wrote:
*positive light:
"No escorts please."
"I don't allow escorts, here are some references to check to make you feel more comfortable"

Fotopia wrote:
I never said that I pay "newbies," I indicated that 90% of my work is with proven agency talent, all of whom are paid, leaving  10% that are not signed, yet are not novices, and are capable enough to earn their pay.

My top 12 friends are those who's work I greatly admire, regardless if self-employed or not. Unfortunately, none of them are in my geographic region.

I meant well when beginning this thread, I thought some additional criteria for vetting photographers could prove useful, as the usual methods relied upon here often are ineffective. I have been mistaken.

I thank everyone for their insights, have a great weekend.

Your response to sita was this:

Fotopia wrote:
Yes, actually about 90% of my work has been with full time, agency signed, NYC, and European professional models.

They have all known what copyright, ASMP, NYADC, and MFA's are.

I had the naïve idea of giving work to those that need it most, local novices, but experience has shown that to be unworkable.

Show me any other area of business in which those offering work have to bend over backwards to prove themselves worthy to inexperienced, entry level applicants.

the word novice means someone inexperienced. Ie: newbies. Following your first two sentences up with the bolded one would lead a person to believe the remaining 10% were the local novices you did not enjoy working with.

art of the nude tried to figure out why you had a poor experience with the local novices and asked what the compensation was, you said you pay all your models, again leading the reader to believe that you paid the local novices (newbies)

Which leads to me questioning why youd do that, when you could pay an experienced free-lance model and get the same quality (albeit, in a non-agency standard size) as you would from an agency model.


Most the people in your top 12 travel, make them an offer.

Laura UnBound wrote:
art of the nude tried to figure out why you had a poor experience with the local novices and asked what the compensation was, you said you pay all your models, again leading the reader to believe that you paid the local novices (newbies)

There you go.  I should just sit back, since Laura is going great, but . . .

If you are offering to pay the models (to be specific, the MM / novices, although those are NOT equivalent descriptions) then they have reason to be concerned about safety, actually getting paid, and such, but can't be expected to know about "industry" credentials, since you have DEFINED them as not being knowledgeable.

If you are NOT offering to pay them cash, they are logically going to look to the images you would be providing, and still be concerned about safety and such.  If you don't show recent, relevant, work, how would they know?

Laura UnBound wrote:
Which leads to me questioning why youd do that, when you could pay an experienced free-lance model and get the same quality (albeit, in a non-agency standard size) as you would from an agency model.

Perhaps paying LESS?  I could, in theory, pay a novice whose look was similar to you, say $15/hr, and potentially get similar value to your rates (not sure what they are, but presumably a lot more than that).

Fotopia wrote:
I never said that I pay "newbies," I indicated that 90% of my work is with proven agency talent, all of whom are paid, leaving  10% that are not signed, yet are not novices, and are capable enough to earn their pay.

My top 12 friends are those who's work I greatly admire, regardless if self-employed or not. Unfortunately, none of them are in my geographic region.

I meant well when beginning this thread, I thought some additional criteria for vetting photographers could prove useful, as the usual methods relied upon here often are ineffective. I have been mistaken.

I thank everyone for their insights, have a great weekend.

you should read this:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st18256052

Isobel Wren wrote:
Misogynistic rants or rants about how, "all models" are shitty/stupid/immature/flakes.  If that's the lens you take to women -IN MY EXPERIENCE- you view us only as objects not worthy of respect who are shitty/stupid/immature/flakes.  You're going to approach the shoot with a chip on your shoulder and are more likely to be cruel during the shoot, demand more than my comfort level, and discount me or get mad if I have to ask about anything after the shoot.  My needs don't matter, since I'm just a silly girl.

THIS. BIG TIME.

Danielle Reid wrote:
For me it's not what's in the photograoher's profile as much as how he projects himself on these lovely forums. Most people here think just because someone is thousands of miles away, means they can act like a complete ass and get away with it. An example of how wrong that is was given to me just yesterday.

If a photographer comes to me wanting to shoot (or basically saying I fail at modeling and he can magically make it better for a fee) and I've noticed how negatively he acts in a public forum, then I'm not going to want to shoot with him.

I also pay attention to what people post in the forums.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I also pay attention to what people post in the forums.

and many models here are real sleuths. you can tell by the way they weigh things and the way they analyze statements that they are paying very close attention to what shooters express, and you know damn well they are searching posts by MM#. saying weird shit in here, like i do, keeps the inbox very quiet

Laura UnBound wrote:
lack of crediting the models in their portfolio
lack of "thanks for the great shoot!" "I cant wait to shoot with you again" etc positive tags from past shoots
been on the site for years and years but still has very few photos, or is currently active but all photos are from years and years ago. (begs the questions what have you been doing, and/or why wont more people work with you?)

outright lies like "Ive been published in ELLE, Vogue, GQ, etc" but their work is beyond obviously not publication quality and they dont exhibit any of the tears in their portfolio.
A handful of really great photos and then one or two that are just downright awful and dont fit in with the rest whatsoever. Makes me wonder if you actually took all the photos youre showing, or if the good ones were set up by someone else (workshops) and youre not actually that good on your own.

Really long rambling bios about how much they just oh so love the female body and its so sexy and sensual with its curves and smooth skin and suppleness and yadda yadda....oh but they're just appreciative, totally not creepy! (If you have to TELL people youre not creepy...either you deep down know that your behavior will come off that way or someone has outright told you so...and you probably ARE. ) Bios are meant for Who, what, when, where, why, not what gets your rocks off in the shower, regardless of how flowery you can make it sound.

Awesome post.