rig500 wrote:
If I can add my 2 cents, what makes me chuckle is when a model puts "paid assignments only" and under experience, they write "none".

This.
Especially when they "Don't do nudes so don't ask. Not implied either."
And the ones that do think that just because they are willing to get naked, they should be compensated.

I'm all for models/photographers getting paid, but you have to bring more than your body to the table.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
If you cant afford professional models no problem, but please don't slag us off because we are entitled to do this, and have numerous employers (artists, designers, boutiques, hair companies, ad agencies, promo agencies, performing arts agent work and other third parties as well as photographers) who can and do afford it. There us this ridiculous conception here by some that $100 for a hour shoot is great money. It isn't , because it's one off, it's only one or two hours, and it can cost us $1000 to take it by not being available for other work that week from employers offering regular work.

Where did I "slag us all off"? Where did I say you aren't entitled to do this?

You say $100 an hour isn't great money, but what else can you do that will get you that much money for an hour's work? If it takes you 6 hours to prepare for that one hour, then you're right, it's not all that great. I think of it this way, though (perhaps it's because I'm a photographer) ... it takes me time to prepare, too.

This means charging batteries, formatting memory cards, making sure other batteries are good, testing equipment, etc etc. This time also includes driving to a locale that is close to where the model lives (or at least where they want to shoot) and back home.

So if the shoot is in Philadelphia (for instance), it's a 2 hour or so ride round trip in addition to all the other preparations. If I were to hire a model who at least thinks they're good, then they want me to pay them $1-200 to work for an hour or two. It's "not good money", though. No thanks. I'll stick with the models who will shoot TF even if they have little or no experience.

I'll say it again for clarity: I'm not saying NO model is worth this much money. I'm saying I can't/won't pay that much. If there is a model who thinks they're worth that much and they can get it, great ... right on ... get it while you can. You'll just have to get it from someone else for the time being because I don't have it that way.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
Where did I "slag us all off"? Where did I say you aren't entitled to do this?

You say $100 an hour isn't great money, but what else can you do that will get you that much money for an hour's work? If it takes you 6 hours to prepare for that one hour, then you're right, it's not all that great. I think of it this way, though (perhaps it's because I'm a photographer) ... it takes me time to prepare, too.

This means charging batteries, formatting memory cards, making sure other batteries are good, testing equipment, etc etc. This time also includes driving to a locale that is close to where the model lives (or at least where they want to shoot) and back home.

So if the shoot is in Philadelphia (for instance), it's a 2 hour or so ride round trip in addition to all the other preparations. If I were to hire a model who at least thinks they're good, then they want me to pay them $1-200 to work for an hour or two. It's "not good money", though. No thanks. I'll stick with the models who will shoot TF even if they have little or no experience.

I'll say it again for clarity: I'm not saying NO model is worth this much money. I'm saying I can't/won't pay that much. If there is a model who thinks they're worth that much and they can get it, great ... right on ... get it while you can. You'll just have to get it from someone else for the time being because I don't have it that way.

You are entering this after months of arguing on this issue, so I wasn't just meaning you individually slagging off models asking $100 an hour, I mean a lot of photographers are.

$100 an hour is great money if you are working forty hours a week guaranteed for extended periods. Hell even $25 an hour is then.

It's crap money if you only do three shoots a week for an hour a time. In London, that won't get anywhere near your rent. Now THIS is the important thing. If a model COMMITS to those three shoots, she will likely lose one or several of these
1. A weeks fitting modelling at $40-$400 an hour (yes you read that right) for maybe three weeks.
2. A two day a week art college gig life modelling at $35-$60 an hour for TWELVE weeks
3. A five day promotional modelling gig at a trade fair at $200 a day.

Or she may have to do some other flexible job on the side of being a model. So she may dance, act, do burlesque etc and again miss out on potential big jobs by taking the three one hour shoots that week.


I am in a non primary market now in Wales so there's far less modelling work, and I don't sing dance or act. I can't do promo because it involves travel to major exhibition centres, and I need to be close to my uni work. I have to do four or five hours on that each evening. So I temp.

Just before starting my current temp job which is lowish hourly pay, I was offered a few modelling gigs just after signing with the,temp agency. I declined luckily. Because the next day I got several weeks solid temping so it would have cost me over $3000 to do a couple of interesting but one off modelling jobs.

So I really have to be selective. As do most models who do this professionally or semi professionally.

It doesn't make any difference whether certain photographers dont think it's worth it. That is their choice. But this thread exists because many photographers do not understand how models have to structure their business plan alongside other modelling or non modelling work.

Now does it make sense why $100 an hour for one hour is not good pay?
Taking that and losing out one of the examples I gave given you is economic suicide. You may do it for an editorial or,something maybe but not for just port building. Of course a model could always flake if the regular job turns up......but to me if you are committed to a shoot you don't do that just because a better offer comes up.


Models don't generally need tf when they model fairly regularly. Even photographers paying us often give us images. So it's more likely to be inexperienced models. If you have the time and inclination to tutor them, and take a risk on someone without industry references fine. But then we've seen all those resulting threads too.

The op asked a question I've attempted an answer and also tried to explain why $100 an hour isn't good pay because it's not regular or long hours, and can cost us availability for the latter work. If you aren't in the market, just move on as you would on any market where you are unwilling to pay asking price. Alternatively, ask their day rate because most of us have much cheaper day rates , or up the ante and go for editorial submissions which most models will consider tf especially if some expenses are paid, or there's some (quality) sample wardrobe to keep etc.

Mortonovich wrote:
Pretty much. In fact, as far as MM goes, I'll be the odd man out and say I refuse all payment. If I have to be motivated by money to take someone's picture here, I don't want to do it.

With all the problems of free work brining down the value of talent in this industry, I do agree with you on that point.

Some of my best work have been with people willing to work for free because they wanted to make the art more than the money.

I have paid a lot of unprofessional people with little motivation and got exactly that.

But I think the problem with working for free is not the people willing to work for free, but those who are looking to hire unprofessional, untrained talent, for free just to save some money.

In the "large scale", there is a huge influx of free meat (supply) in the entertainment industry, and trained actors who have spent more money and energy on education and training than doctors and soldiers combined, are simply not hired because "unskilled meat" exists for free.

You can see the result of this right now, no new movies or original good TV shows lately. Lots of remakes and campy cartoons.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

You are entering this after months of arguing on this issue, so I wasn't just meaning you individually slagging off models asking $100 an hour, I mean a lot of photographers are.

$100 an hour is great money if you are working forty hours a week guaranteed for extended periods. Hell even $25 an hour is then.

It's crap money if you only do three shoots a week for an hour a time. In London, that won't get anywhere near your rent. Now THIS is the important thing. If a model COMMITS to those three shoots, she will likely lose one or several of these
1. A weeks fitting modelling at $40-$400 an hour (yes you read that right) for maybe three weeks.
2. A two day a week art college gig life modelling at $35-$60 an hour for TWELVE weeks
3. A five day promotional modelling gig at a trade fair at $200 a day.

Or she may have to do some other flexible job on the side of being a model. So she may dance, act, do burlesque etc and again miss out on potential big jobs by taking the three one hour shoots that week.


I am in a non primary market now in Wales so there's far less modelling work, and I don't sing dance or act. I can't do promo because it involves travel to major exhibition centres, and I need to be close to my uni work. I have to do four or five hours on that each evening. So I temp.

Just before starting my current temp job which is lowish hourly pay, I was offered a few modelling gigs just after signing with the,temp agency. I declined luckily. Because the next day I got several weeks solid temping so it would have cost me over $3000 to do a couple of interesting but one off modelling jobs.

So I really have to be selective. As do most models who do this professionally or semi professionally.

It doesn't make any difference whether certain photographers dont think it's worth it. That is their choice. But this thread exists because many photographers do not understand how models have to structure their business plan alongside other modelling or non modelling work.

Now does it make sense why $100 an hour for one hour is not good pay?
Taking that and losing out one of the examples I gave given you is economic suicide. You may do it for an editorial or,something maybe but not for just port building. Of course a model could always flake if the regular job turns up......but to me if you are committed to a shoot you don't do that just because a better offer comes up.


Models don't generally need tf when they model fairly regularly. Even photographers paying us often give us images. So it's more likely to be inexperienced models. If you have the time and inclination to tutor them, and take a risk on someone without industry references fine. But then we've seen all those resulting threads too.

The op asked a question I've attempted an answer and also tried to explain why $100 an hour isn't good pay because it's not regular or long hours, and can cost us availability for the latter work. If you aren't in the market, just move on as you would on any market where you are unwilling to pay asking price. Alternatively, ask their day rate because most of us have much cheaper day rates , or up the ante and go for editorial submissions which most models will consider tf especially if some expenses are paid, or there's some (quality) sample wardrobe to keep etc.

The condensed version of that, for me, is that you are better off working in a bank, or any kind of job, than you are modelling.
why? Because you are clever, well organised, versatile, fit the brief for a commercial model, and find it more lucrative to take lower paid (pro rata) work as a temp now that you are out of one the hot spots for modelling work. And because anyone who wants to model even in one of those hot spots has to compete with others like you (I recall for fit work you mentioned the absolute necessity to a perfect size, whether it be 10, 12 or whatever, so that is a highly selective niche in itself).
Just thought I'd mention that because I've seen quite a few models over the years pack in their day jobs to model, and your experience ought to serve as a useful guide when posing the question: 'do I have what it takes?'
That's been one of my chief difficulties with this scene, over time - the fostering of the notion that it is anything other than a hopeless waste of time and energy for all but a few when it comes to making it a proper career.
I say that safe in the knowledge that no one will take the slightest notice or, if they do, will flat out reject it. Would have more luck trying to persuade a Jihadist that when his balls are in Brighton and his cock in Aberdeen, 13 virgins won't be much use to him.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
<snip>

The op asked a question I've attempted an answer and also tried to explain why $100 an hour isn't good pay because it's not regular or long hours, and can cost us availability for the latter work. If you aren't in the market, just move on as you would on any market where you are unwilling to pay asking price. Alternatively, ask their day rate because most of us have much cheaper day rates , or up the ante and go for editorial submissions which most models will consider tf especially if some expenses are paid, or there's some (quality) sample wardrobe to keep etc.

This is all I'm going to say on this subject for now ... never mind.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
... I'll say it again for clarity: I'm not saying NO model is worth this much money. I'm saying I can't/won't pay that much. If there is a model who thinks they're worth that much and they can get it, great ... right on ... get it while you can. You'll just have to get it from someone else for the time being because I don't have it that way.

Hello,

I did not see anywhere that you said anything that warranted the long reply defending rates of pay asked for.

Why do people charge? I answered my thoughts in my first reply in this thread. Basically folks charge because they want to.

Jen

WIP wrote:
Wow Eliza you must be driving a Porsche, wearing a Rolex with  wardrobe by Gabbana.

You may have missed the fact I have funded my way through five years of PhD work inc tuition fees, with no further student debt,  only 3 of which were meagerly funded; lived in a nice part of London; and live in a very nice bay apartment where I now am. A number of photographers and models from MM have stayed here to boot so my testimony can be supported. I could not have done that doing three one hour shoots a week for $100 an hour.
Oh and I favour Mugler and Gaultier over Gabanna; and I don't drive. And if I did drive anything as naff as a Porsche if I did. And I sold a Rolex to pay for a taxidermy I wanted.

Tim Griffiths wrote:
The condensed version of that, for me, is that you are better off working in a bank, or any kind of job, than you are modelling.
why? Because you are clever, well organised, versatile, fit the brief for a commercial model, and find it more lucrative to take lower paid (pro rata) work as a temp now that you are out of one the hot spots for modelling work. And because anyone who wants to model even in one of those hot spots has to compete with others like you (I recall for fit work you mentioned the absolute necessity to a perfect size, whether it be 10, 12 or whatever, so that is a highly selective niche in itself).
Just thought I'd mention that because I've seen quite a few models over the years pack in their day jobs to model, and your experience ought to serve as a useful guide when posing the question: 'do I have what it takes?'
That's been one of my chief difficulties with this scene, over time - the fostering of the notion that it is anything other than a hopeless waste of time and energy for all but a few when it comes to making it a proper career.
I say that safe in the knowledge that no one will take the slightest notice or, if they do, will flat out reject it. Would have more luck trying to persuade a Jihadist that when his balls are in Brighton and his cock in Aberdeen, 13 virgins won't be much use to him.

I gave up a PhD after a year to model for a while. I did it fully professionally for three years. I gave up modelling at a time where the fashion house which employed me as fit model were using me for runway and showroom. It doesn't get better for most particularly as I only started as,a life model. I gave it up to do something far more exciting (to me).
But modelling is nor a dream or ambition for many who actually do it, it's just something we do for a while. So its not a career where deferred gratification comes into play. A model makes her money when she is younger generally. It's not like if we do tf for ten years we will get to be top.models is it?

Have a look at the models on college thread it will give you some clue that many models are intelligent level headed girls with careers and studies that take them to their actual goals and dreams.

Modelling for me is just something I did/do to help pay the bills. And in any area where it's not regular, I'd rather temp. If I don't get my research job in the Autumn here I will likely return to London to model because there it's better money naturally. I've been offered that as my stats are unchanged. But I will only do it until I get a research post. Modelling is just what it is; it's no dream to me it's just journeyman stuff one does to make a living.

I hear models,say they want to model because they want to travel internationally. Most models don't. Most scientists do.

But if you are going to be a full time model you won't have a very effective business if you don't have relatively high hourly shoot rates because it's not regular or extended hours. That's why agencies charge similarly. We are just a bit cheaper.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

And I sold a Rolex to pay for a taxidermy I wanted.

Was that the boyfriend.

rick lesser wrote:
It kills me to read a casting where the person doing the hiring wants my years of experience to work on numerous models, creating different looks while making it sound like they are doing me a favor.  Oh and get paid zero.  Why not kiss your ring while I am at it?  I want to get paid like the rest of you.  And because I bring something valuable to the table that you all need.  I only shoot TFP with photographers and or models I have worked with in the past.  This way I know that I am doing it because we all appreciate each others talent and time.  Sometimes it is to help them out of a jam or just because we want to shoot.  All to often I have been given empty promises of images that in the end I don't get or can't even use.  So money trumps TFP!  Hope this helps explain it?  R-

Work for nothing and one doesn't get appreciated and the whole concept of trade for PRINT has been utterly forgotten. Those who expect it don't value the skills one offers whatever your role. The difference is editorial. We will all do reduced rates for that but people expecting it of seasoned pros,for 'portfolio building' don't appreciate or deserve such efforts.

+1000

Virginia P wrote:
I dunno, because modern society dictates financial necessity for survival?

This pretty much hits the nail on the head. Also:

I don't mind doing TF. It is a way learning, growing, and getting new additions to your port that represent that growth. HOWEVER. If I get a set of images back that I cannot use for my book (which I use to get the paid gigs), then didn't I just work for nothing?

A little while ago I had the privilege of meeting some industry professionals. They work with big clients, nice campaigns etc. Clients models and photographers both are after. We talked a whole bunch, had a good connection, and after a while they asked if I could show them my book. Now, I know my book is not that flawless, but I thought it was off to a good (not great) start.

They started disecting everything that was in there, simply stating that though I was a sweet girl (you are so different from all those Russians! It's a delight to talk with you! But your book sucks!), these images were unlikely to attract a paying client. They insisted I stopped working with, in their words 'tiny photographers', as they made me look bad.

What I have learned from this, is to not simply gratefully accept every trade offer that comes your way. Trade means that there's something in it for both parties. I have time, experience, a wardrobe etc. to offer. I'd like a compensation in return. That compensation could mean new images that fill up a gap in my book, or even a lesson in movement, make-up, acting. Or, cold hard cash.

I'm not banning TF from time and space, but I realise that working with the little fish doesn't help me grow anymore. In fact, it is often dragging my book down. That is exactly the opposite one would want from a TF collaboration. If you want to work with me, but are unable to provide images that take the book to a next level, I expect another way of compensation (again, the cold hard cash).

Long story short: Why would I work for pay? Nothing makes the sun rise... (voor niets gaat de zon op )