Tamara Bickley Makeup wrote:
<snip>

So why do so many people assume I will also do hair?

<snip>

I don't assume that all MUA's do hair, but I usually ask. I know there are some who don't do hair, and that's fine. But of those I worked with (more than those listed in my credits, since I haven't updated them for a while), all but one does hair. With odds like that, I'm not going to assume that an MUA doesn't do hair, either.

Working with an MUA who also does hair simplifies things. The more moving parts (people) are involved in a shoot, the greater the chances that something will go wrong, and someone won't be able to be there.

julietsdream wrote:
*Definition of ab·surd (b-sûrd, -zûrd) adj. 1. Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable.......

*Really..??......I don't think it's unreasonable to...not *Expect*...but *Hope* that I am working with people who are *willing* (not expected) to do more then even they know they are capable of..??...who said anything about someone hiring you to do styling and then *expecting* you to do a full head of both hair and make-up, when no one told you beforehand(who does that?)..??...Not me.!!!..you do what's good for you...and I will do what's Good for me...I seldom answer these forums, because everyone will have a difference of opinion and I am not here to 'fight' with anyone...everything I CAN do is *congruous*(definition-appropriate or harmonious) with what I do...styling, make-up, hair, etc.etc...just because I Can do it, doesn't mean I expect *you* to do it...however...for ME....I am much more wanting to take on a person who is *Willing*(if needed) to try something new(that's Great if a MUA can also do hair, or wants to try), when I am asked to pick a team for a job I am doing..!!..I always try to get people who specialize in their craft, however that isn't always a possibility...so...you pick the person who is 'more then willing to try' to go above what is expected...I am sorry for *you* that seems unreasonable, for others, it's not..!!
  Thanks by the way for the *Images that inspire me* list you just added me too...in that pic, I did the hair, the make-up and the styling, made the clothing and jewelry, picked the model, etc...why, not because I wanted to do everything...but because I was 'capable' of doing it and we didn't have to scramble for a different person, to do just one thing, when the MUAH cancelled..!!...I never said you were not a team player if you ONLY want/can style...however...I WANT someone who is capable of 'no limits' on my team, I see nothing wrong with being able to do more then one thing, in a pinch, if needed(no, it's not required, but helpful)..!!

Tiffany_B wrote:
You're still evading my very simple questions and I'm certain it's because both you and I know that the answer to them is "no, that as a photographer you're never going to be asked, let alone expected by a client to be able to do any of the extra things that you may choose to do and that you're damn sure not going to be passed over for a job because you're not "versatile" enough to do more than come to set and take images."

The issue is that the OP even had to ask this question at all.

I agree with you that being able to skillfully do more than one thing on set is a good thing but I'll never understand why it only seems that there's an expectation (or hope, or desire or whatever the heck you choose to call it) about this when it comes to stylists, MUAs and hairstylists.

I guess I must just be lucky that every single makeup artist that I have hired has been able to do light hair.

No one I know hires a wardrobe stylist for headshots.

I am not trying to evade your question -- I am not the only one telling you that the ability to do light hair is going to give someone an edge over someone that can't.

But I assume nothing -- I ask makeup artists if they can do hair or light hair.

If I need complicated stuff a hair stylist is the first person I book -- I have a particular favorite and I did not even know she could do makeup until she hired me to develop her portfolio for her new website which was hair and makeup.

IMO it is more common to have a makeup artist that does light hair than a hair stylist that does makeup or that has a full kit.

For a makeup artist to have some hairspray and a curling iron in her kit is not a big deal. To me light hair is a ponytail, smoothing something out, a little fix here and there -- not updos and all that.

LenochkaG wrote:
Sorry, it's my first time replying on forum - I am still figuring it out

No worries.

You did fine

Chicchowmein wrote:

No worries.

You did fine

Thanks

LenochkaG wrote:
I personally do both - makeup and hair, but I charge extra for hair... honestly, for the first 2 years of my career I wasn't interested in hair at all... but it changed over time.. I started doing it because a lot of offered jobs required makeup artist to do both - so I was practicing and found that it's really cool and sometimes even do it at home for fun and to practice new creative styles for next photo shoot..
I believe you are very creative person and it's really cool and great to try and experiment.. but not on film sets or jobs that require certain look to be accomplished in a small period of time - you can't improvise  - you have to do what you have to do - so you are not "enjoying the creative process" - it becomes simply technical
But I think that the main reason why it's so common nowadays - because budgets are smaller and people are trying to get away with paying less - because, as it was said before - if makeup artist does hairstyling he or she won't usually charge as much as a separately hired professional hairstylist.. I think it's all about money..

I'm curious why you charge extra for hair? You're not the first to respond that way, but I really do wonder.

Most professionals I have worked with are very capable of doing hair, and it's usually not an extra expense in terms of money, but it is in terms of time. If the schedule is tight, one person won't usually work and a hairstylist is usually wise. Otherwise, most charge half day/full day rates and they are there to work for a half day or full day regardless of the task so long as it's hair/makeup. I've heard that for filming gigs, they are often even required to do whatever else is needed on set even if it's not related to hair/makeup. Like an all hands on deck sort of thing (I don't work in film, I've just heard it's not uncommon).

curiosa des yeux wrote:
I'm curious why you charge extra for hair? You're not the first to respond that way, but I really do wonder.

Most professionals I have worked with are very capable of doing hair, and it's usually not an extra expense in terms of money, but it is in terms of time. If the schedule is tight, one person won't usually work and a hairstylist is usually wise. Otherwise, most charge half day/full day rates and they are there to work for a half day or full day regardless of the task so long as it's hair/makeup. I've heard that for filming gigs, they are often even required to do whatever else is needed on set even if it's not related to hair/makeup. Like an all hands on deck sort of thing (I don't work in film, I've just heard it's not uncommon).

Not everyone quotes half day and day rates. I used to bring in a local MUA for commercial headshots -- I don't anymore. It is easier for me to do it myself for clean natural -- I get what I need  and I don't need to worry that it is not enough budget to bring someone in for one look. For commercial headshots often the MUA would come do the look and go.

I have worked with some good people but I have also worked with people that don't understand what good clean natural is and they go too big on the eye.

Clean natural is the hardest thing to get. And I am not in Miami so there are not as many good makeup artists where I am. If the ones I used were booked on production work I was screwed.

So this was the primary reason I took makeup classes.

Chicchowmein wrote:
I guess I must just be lucky that every single makeup artist that I have hired has been able to do light hair.

No one I know hires a wardrobe stylist for headshots.

I am not trying to evade your question -- I am not the only one telling you that the ability to do light hair is going to give someone an edge over someone that can't.

But I assume nothing -- I ask makeup artists if they can do hair or light hair.

If I need complicated stuff a hair stylist is the first person I book -- I have a particular favorite and I did not even know she could do makeup until she hired me to develop her portfolio for her new website which was hair and makeup.

IMO it is more common to have a makeup artist that does light hair than a hair stylist that does makeup or that has a full kit.

For a makeup artist to have some hairspray and a curling iron in her kit is not a big deal. To me light hair is a ponytail, smoothing something out, a little fix here and there -- not updos and all that.

I think that it's hilarious that you're "not trying to evade your question" but that you still haven't answered them. Just admit it that as a photographer you have the benefit of not being asked or expected to do anything that falls outside of the realm of taking the images. This may mean casting for models and scouting a location in addition to shooting and editing but no one is ever going to pass you over for a job if you can't also do hair and make-up and/or pull wardrobe. Period.

Beyond that I'm not an idiot, I'm aware that no one hires a wardrobe stylists for head shots and I have no idea where that statement even came from on your end.

Finally, "light hair" (like most industry things) is subjective. For you it's a ponytail, maybe a little smoothing. I guarantee you though that if you ask 5 or 6 people that same question that you're going to get different answers. Just like plenty of people don't realize how much work goes into "natural" make-up a lot of people underestimate how difficult it can be to get perfectly tousled bed head or a sleek chigon because they look simple.

Mary wrote:
Sorry I have no time to read the comments just the OP.... I was just talking to one of the people that work for me today.... You really need to do both makeup and hair in most markets because you are up against very good people that do both...

You simply can't compete in most markets if you can't do both.  The bridal area is not the market I'm referring to.... that's another story but on a commercial or editorial job, most clients want a very well rounded talented artist who does both and these talented people are plentiful and until that changes you won't be able to compete successfully. 

I am not saying you can't find the occasional client that will pay for both....but I find this to me very rare.  I would have lost about 99% of the jobs I have had in my lifetime if I did just hair or makeup.

If you "hate" hair.... I suggest you stick to brides who will hire hair and makeup separately.

I suggest on commercial jobs the you charge a half or full day and not for services you provide.  Most clients on commercial jobs won't understand anything but day or half day.... I only find per services relevant in the salon world and that really doesn't translate into the professional freelance arena

I'm going to just quote Mary here and other very, very experienced makeup artists that have basically said the same thing.

As far as editorial work goes I am not sure you are speaking from a position of experience. I don't see any tearsheets in your portfolio unless I am missing something.

I don't know if it would make my opinion more valid if I posted from my makeup artist profile but I consider myself still primarily a photographer with makeup and styling abilities.

I don't expect anything but the reality is any extra skill set someone brings to the table makes them that more valuable just like anything else in life.

Tiffany_B wrote:

I think that it's hilarious that you're "not trying to evade your question" but that you still haven't answered them. Just admit it that as a photographer you have the benefit of not being asked or expected to do anything that falls outside of the realm of taking the images. This may mean casting for models and scouting a location in addition to shooting and editing but no one is ever going to pass you over for a job if you can't also do hair and make-up and/or pull wardrobe. Period.

Beyond that I'm not an idiot, I'm aware that no one hires a wardrobe stylists for head shots and I have no idea where that statement even came from on your end.

Finally, "light hair" (like most industry things) is subjective. For you it's a ponytail, maybe a little smoothing. I guarantee you though that if you ask 5 or 6 people that same question that you're going to get different answers. Just like plenty of people don't realize how much work goes into "natural" make-up a lot of people underestimate how difficult it can be to get perfectly tousled bed head or a sleek chigon because they look simple.

Sleek chignon I would consider an updo and finally you have singled me out to argue with yet pretty much everyone here is telling you the same thing.

I don't know if you are aware of who Mary is?

Chicchowmein wrote:
Sleek chignon I would consider an updo and finally you have singled me out to argue with yet pretty much everyone here is telling you the same thing.

I don't know if you are aware of who Mary is?

This isn't an argument it's a conversation, there's a difference. And for the record if you actually look through this thread you'll note that you're not the only other poster that I've replied to so you haven't been singled out.

Additionally with your idea of what a sleek chigon is you've made my point in that what constitutes "light hair" will differ based on the individual.

Finally, I do know who Mary is (although only from the forums). I also know that by her own admission she hasn't read the entire thread and so while her comments are well intentioned they're not exactly 100% relevant to the OP who stated that her work isn't for t.v. or film and that she's only done a few commercial and editorial shoots which is what Mary seems to be specifically referencing. It is likely on those jobs that 1) they specify needing someone who can do both and 2) Will not insist that someone who is being honest with them about their skill set still does something outside of it.

Makeup by Aviva Leah wrote:
I think that in a test situation, it makes even more sense to have a separate hair stylist and makeup artist. Since no one is being paid, the photographer can't complain about having to pay two people, and everyone will get stronger images if everyone involved is an expert in their craft/field.

Although then again... it's a good opportunity to practice hair if you are an MUA who wants to build or practice some skills.

While it is always great to have people who are experts in their respective field the reality is that sometimes it can be harder to coordinate the extra people in a test/trade shoot.  If I can manage to schedule me, the MUA and a model for the same time and it doesn't take 10 emails to do it, then I am happy.  Adding in an extra person for hair, might mean an extra few rounds of emails.

Also, if speaking from an entirely Model Mayhem perspective, there are 43,611 people who are registered on the site as Makeup artists, and 12,536 who are registered as Hair stylists.  That's over three times as many MUA as Hair stylists.  When I have posted castings for both positions I always get more MUA responding than Hair. 

Also, some model testing is paid work, where the model or agency pays a photographer to shoot for the model's book.  In this case the MUA/H should also be paid, and paying only one means savings for the client, or more money to go around for the photographer and MUA.

Denise Hutter MUAH wrote:
I remember taking a class a million years ago where the teacher said " keep your tools sharp because if they become dull someone with sharper tools will get the job"
I always remember this and make sure I continue to educate myself...to keep my tools sharp.

I bill myself MUAH. But I do not do cuts or chemical work. I will do wardrobe and styling in a pinch and I enjoy all of it! I'm pretty fast, but not as fast as 2 or more professionals who are at the top of their game.  I prefer to work in a team atmosphere with so much creative energy bouncing around we all get energized instead of drained.

But I know that budgets are smaller then they use to be, where a decade or more ago I would be hired to do one skill now it's 2 or more skills. I don't charge extra for makeup & hair, I charge by full or half day + travel and expenses.

Do you have any contacts in the East side of Los Angeles with the same attitude?  Photography is my hobby.  I don't have a big budget or any buyers.

Tiffany_B wrote:

I think that it's hilarious that you're "not trying to evade your question" but that you still haven't answered them. Just admit it that as a photographer you have the benefit of not being asked or expected to do anything that falls outside of the realm of taking the images. This may mean casting for models and scouting a location in addition to shooting and editing but no one is ever going to pass you over for a job if you can't also do hair and make-up and/or pull wardrobe. Period.

Beyond that I'm not an idiot, I'm aware that no one hires a wardrobe stylists for head shots and I have no idea where that statement even came from on your end.

Finally, "light hair" (like most industry things) is subjective. For you it's a ponytail, maybe a little smoothing. I guarantee you though that if you ask 5 or 6 people that same question that you're going to get different answers. Just like plenty of people don't realize how much work goes into "natural" make-up a lot of people underestimate how difficult it can be to get perfectly tousled bed head or a sleek chigon because they look simple.

I know I am not the person you asked, but in my somewhat limited experiences I have found that the photographer is expected to provide everything.  There are two situations I have been involved in:

1. I am shooting for my own purposes (portfolio, stock photo, editorial submissions).  In these cases I am assembling the team to get the job done that I want.  If I can't work on trade then I will have to pay for the services of all involved, so when I can get someone to do the job of two people for less than hiring them separately this is a good thing.  When I am shooting like this I almost always undertake the wardrobe styling myself as that is something I can do better than hair or makeup, but I know not as well as a wardrobe stylist.  But if the concept does not need really distinct clothing I can get away by doing two jobs.

2. I am asked by a client to do a job - they brief the end result they want and expect me to put together the entire team.  I am given a budget or need to quote the project and bid to get it.  If I can find a team where one or more people can multi-task then I can fit it within a budget or bid a bit less than someone else who hires individual people.  If the job clearly requires specialists in each field then that is what I hire, but if someone who is a generalist can do the job that's good too.  Most lifestyle and portrait jobs I pitch for don't need incredible up-dos or special effects makeup so any number of the talented MUA/H talents I have worked with are suitable for the job.

I don't know how other photographers work, but I have a pretty good handle on the skills of the handful of people I work with on a regular basis so terms like "light hair" are understood.  And most of the time I will share a mood board with the artists ahead of the shoot and they will let me know if there is anything which they can't do, and we find a solution.

In order to remain competitive in photography we all need to look for ways to save money and win the jobs.

A final thought - no one expects Mario Testino to do the hair or makeup when he is hired by Vogue or Vanity Fair for a shoot.  That would be absurd.  But they also don't expect him to haul the lights and stands up three flights of stairs, and run cables, or break down the soft boxes at the end of the shoot.  He likely has several assistants along to help with that.  But most of the photographers here on MM are doing all of those things and more.  So don't make it sound like we are sitting around eating bon-bons while we make the MUA work his/her fingers to the bone doing hair, makeup and wardrobe.

Just my $0.02

Makeup by Aviva Leah wrote:
I think that in a test situation, it makes even more sense to have a separate hair stylist and makeup artist. Since no one is being paid, the photographer can't complain about having to pay two people, and everyone will get stronger images if everyone involved is an expert in their craft/field.

Although then again... it's a good opportunity to practice hair if you are an MUA who wants to build or practice some skills.

my reality.

Having the luxury of a separate hair person is great but not always possible. Of course I would always like a full team whenever possible -- on the other hand I like being able to control my set as well so even though it is more work I know what is my head and I get full creative control when I do it myself.

If elaborate hair was required for sure a hair person would be crucial -- often for a basic test that is not the case.

I am going to go with -- if you are a makeup person who is capable of at least some light or basic hair you are going to book jobs over someone that can not or will not do at least light hair.

Maybe it's not fair but life seldom is,

Tiffany_B wrote:
I think that it's hilarious that you're "not trying to evade your question" but that you still haven't answered them. Just admit it that as a photographer you have the benefit of not being asked or expected to do anything that falls outside of the realm of taking the images. This may mean casting for models and scouting a location in addition to shooting and editing but no one is ever going to pass you over for a job if you can't also do hair and make-up and/or pull wardrobe. Period.

On many shoots I am expected to contact designers for the pulls, scout locations and get permissions, and casting is almost ALWAYS done by the photographer, for an extra casting day fee. I also find the make-up, hair and wardrobe people.

I am absolutely expected to do all of those things, and still arrange for kraft, catering, parking, etc...

I don't know what jobs you have been on, but many many of the designers out here prefer the first contact come from me or the magazine.

Star wrote:

On many shoots I am expected to contact designers for the pulls, scout locations and get permissions, and casting is almost ALWAYS done by the photographer, for an extra casting day fee. I also find the make-up, hair and wardrobe people.

I am absolutely expected to do all of those things, and still arrange for kraft, catering, parking, etc...

I don't know what jobs you have been on, but many many of the designers out here prefer the first contact come from me or the magazine.

Thank you Star for addressing this directly. I guess I glossed over this.

Actually you would be wrong Tiffany, I shoot monthly editorials for a woman's magazine. It is part of my job to arrange everything. I contact designers. I arrange the pulls. If I don't do the pull entirely myself I am there gving the aye or nay. I hire hair and makeup. I cast and book models. Retouch or send out models.

The only think I don't do is layout the editorial itself but I even select the images and the sequence.

I have been hired over others for jobs because of my ability to be able to do whatever it takes to get a job done -- even sofar as firing someone ay of shoot and finding a replacement.

Star wrote:
On many shoots I am expected to contact designers for the pulls, scout locations and get permissions, and casting is almost ALWAYS done by the photographer, for an extra casting day fee. I also find the make-up, hair and wardrobe people.

I am absolutely expected to do all of those things, and still arrange for kraft, catering, parking, etc...

I don't know what jobs you have been on, but many many of the designers out here prefer the first contact come from me or the magazine.

Arranging/Hiring isn't the same as doing. Arranging for a designer to show up isn't the same as styling the looks and hiring a hairstylist or MUA isn't the same as doing hair and make-up yourself. And that's my point.

I'm not disputing that as a photographer you have more roles than simply taking the images, in many cases it's crucial you scout the locations and many photographers want input on the models and the rest of the team, however as a photographer you'd never be passed over for a job because in addition to shooting images you couldn't also personally style the looks, do the make-up or do the hair. Yet, it's far too often that MUAs (who bill themselves strictly as MUAs) are also expected to do hair and vice versa. I can't even tell you how many times as a stylist I've had people erroneously assume I do all three, this is an assumption people simply don't make about photographers and that's fine but at the very least acknowledge that you're not in a position where you'll lose a job because you can't do something that you're upfront about not being able to do in the first place.

Chicchowmein wrote:
Thank you Star for addressing this directly. I guess I glossed over this.

Actually you would be wrong Tiffany, I shoot monthly editorials for a woman's magazine. It is part of my job to arrange everything. I contact designers. I arrange the pulls. If I don't do the pull entirely myself I am there gving the aye or nay. I hire hair and makeup. I cast and book models. Retouch or send out models.

The only think I don't do is layout the editorial itself but I even select the images and the sequence.

I have been hired over others for jobs because of my ability to be able to do whatever it takes to get a job done -- even sofar as firing someone ay of shoot and finding a replacement.

You pull wardrobe. How many of the looks do you personally style?

You hire hair and make-up. How many heads of hair do you personally do? How many of the models do you make up?

You cast the models. Do you stand in and pose every single frame you shoot?

It's great that you can contact designers and arrange pulls but that's what stylists are for.

It's awesome that you hire hairstylists and MUAs but that's not the same as actually being tasked with their jobs. When you hire a mechanic or a plumber do you take credit in the sense that you chose them?

Finally, none of this is beyond what you've been charged with doing. You note that it's part of your job (and those are the operative words) with the magazine to do the tasks that you do. When did it become part of an MUAs job to be expected to do hair when they only present themselves as an MUA?

Tiffany_B wrote:
You pull wardrobe. How many of the looks do you personally style?

You hire hair and make-up. How many heads of hair do you personally do? How many of the models do you make up?

You cast the models. Do you stand in and pose every single frame you shoot?

It's great that you can contact designers and arrange pulls but that's what stylists are for.

It's awesome that you hire hairstylists and MUAs but that's not the same as actually being tasked with their jobs. When you hire a mechanic or a plumber do you take credit in the sense that you chose them?

Finally, none of this is beyond what you've been charged with doing. You note that it's part of your job (and those are the operative words) with the magazine to do the tasks that you do. When did it become part of an MUAs job to be expected to do hair when they only present themselves as an MUA?

Sure I can go through my tearsheets and editorials -- do you want to go through yours too?

You are avoiding the point. I don't EXPECT anything -- Reality is that someone who bring more skill sets to the table is more valuable as a team player.

I know what a stylist does. And while I would never present myself as a hair stylist but I have been hired as a makeup artist and I have done hair because the photographer asked me to

It's not a tough concept --  he /  she who brings the most to the table often gets the job.

Almost everything  you see in my portfolio was styled by me.

Tiffany_B wrote:

You pull wardrobe. How many of the looks do you personally style?

You hire hair and make-up. How many heads of hair do you personally do? How many of the models do you make up?

You cast the models. Do you stand in and pose every single frame you shoot?

It's great that you can contact designers and arrange pulls but that's what stylists are for.

It's awesome that you hire hairstylists and MUAs but that's not the same as actually being tasked with their jobs. When you hire a mechanic or a plumber do you take credit in the sense that you chose them?

Finally, none of this is beyond what you've been charged with doing. You note that it's part of your job (and those are the operative words) with the magazine to do the tasks that you do. When did it become part of an MUAs job to be expected to do hair when they only present themselves as an MUA?

I'm confused. Isn't it being said here that some photographers will only HIRE MUAs who also do hair?

There are jobs that only hire models who can do their own MU or style themselves. I'm not great with makeup, so I decline on those.

It's an issue when you show up and people expect you to do something different than what was arranged.

K I C K H A M wrote:

I'm confused. Isn't it being said here that some photographers will only HIRE MUAs who also do hair?

There are jobs that only hire models who can do their own MU or style themselves. I'm not great with makeup, so I decline on those.

It's an issue when you show up and people expect you to do something different than what was arranged.

Do you ever have jobs where they have a makeup person but no hair person?

Chicchowmein wrote:

Do you ever have jobs where they have a makeup person but no hair person?

Often. Sometimes it's agreed to before the shoot that the MUA will do hair, sometimes my hair is left natural, and sometimes I'm asked if I can do something or the MUA is expected to do hair. I've had jobs where the girl said "Sorry, I don't do hair. I can help her put it in a ponytail, if you'd like."

I've been at one paid job where the girl said she didn't bring her hair stuff with her and that her rate is higher if she has to do hair as well. Which sounded fair to me.

K I C K H A M wrote:
It's an issue when you show up and people expect you to do something different than what was arranged.

Which is exactly what the OP said happened to her on own of her shoots and was the catalyst for her putting together even a basic hair kit. She showed up on set prepped to do make-up and the photographer also expected her to do beach waves on the model's super straight hair...

Chicchowmein wrote:
Sure I can go through my tearsheets and editorials -- do you want to go through yours too?

Oh so you want to make things personal? Fine I can play that game too:

In the always witty words of Childish Gambino

"Online dudes shouting out that they better than me/I'm doin' three other jobs, b**** you better be..."

I don't have any pretty tear sheets to show you but I can tell you all about the magazine I started in my early 20s with no formal training, I have some pretty fun stories from that era...

Or I can take a picture of my bookcase and you can guess which of the books on it I wrote

Or I can I point out that statements like the one you made are exactly the type of things that turn conversations into the argument that you thought I was trying to start when in reality all that was occurring was a difference of opinion...

You refused to answer my very simple questions, consistently turning the issue and rather than stay on topic you chose to try and turn this into a pissing contest. Here's the thing: I'm confident enough in who I am and what I bring to the party that it isn't necessary for me to start little stupid battles with people online because we don't see eye to eye...but I will finish them and with that I'm done.