Images by MR wrote:
I see a bunch of threads started by photographers ranting why would anyone pay a new model with no experience.

It's all about looks.   Here's a example.

Axelle Despiegelaere,   I doubt she's not doing much free testing.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/17-ol … 00694.html

You don't know that she wont be doing testing with the agency.  Most agencies I know of DO in fact send new models for testing.  Although a model can get signed based on a few poloroids or in this case, some close up shots of her in the stands.   It is an exceptional situation, and certainly is NOT the norm.  Besides, you think that she is going to have a profile on MM now?  I sort of doubt it.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

You don't know that she wont be doing testing with the agency.  Most agencies I know of DO in fact send new models for testing.  Although a model can get signed based on a few poloroids or in this case, some close up shots of her in the stands.   It is an exceptional situation, and certainly is NOT the norm.  Besides, you think that she is going to have a profile on MM now?  I sort of doubt it.

+1

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
Paying someone with no experience at all in my opinion is silly. Would you pay a new photographer to shoot your wedding knowing what you know?

You're opinion is silly when it comes to new faces.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Images by MR wrote:
I see a bunch of threads started by photographers ranting why would anyone pay a new model with no experience.

It's all about looks.   Here's a example.

Axelle Despiegelaere,   I doubt she's not doing much free testing.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/17-ol … 00694.html

Your right, when a new model is first signed to a big agency they often pay photographers for test.  Sometimes they will see a really great face and ask to test with them for free, bonus for that new model.

In fact that is why a lot of new models are listed as in development.  They are going to do lots of test before they get sent to real clients, so they are not really "no expiernce" when they start getting paid gigs.

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:

You're opinion is silly when it comes to new faces.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Well thanks Andrew.  Very informative.

Images by MR wrote:
I see a bunch of threads started by photographers ranting why would anyone pay a new model with no experience.

It's all about looks.   Here's a example.

Axelle Despiegelaere,   I doubt she's not doing much free testing.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/17-ol … 00694.html

Now I can see why photographers look so silly 'ranting' about being reluctant to pay inexperienced models.
There are needles to be found in those haystacks boys and girls, better get your cheque books out.

Thank you for that insightful input MR

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:

You're opinion is silly when it comes to new faces.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

I find calling someone else's opinion silly is in fact "silly!" 

What are we, a bunch of silly billy goats? 


Andrew, if you disagree with his opinion, just say so. 

In my opinion, the agency that signs her will very likely have her test with select photographers.  That is what agencies do with new "potential" models.  She is beautiful, but that does not mean that she can model.

Rik Williams wrote:
Now I can see why photographers look so silly 'ranting' about being reluctant to pay inexperienced models.
There are needles to be found in those haystacks boys and girls, better get your cheque books out.

Thank you for that insightful input MR

A random fan having gotten her picture taken, then gets an agency contract as a result is about as likely to happen as a dude being arrested, having his mug shot go viral and getting a modeling contract ... oh wait!   That happened too!  However, they are signed by modeling agencies willing to take a chance on them. 

I could be wrong, but I have heard that typically modeling agencies will have new models test with select photographers.  I know that not all test shoots are free, so sometimes it's a paid gig for the photographer.  That is how it works.  They might not allow the model to have a profile on Modelmayhem depending on the contract and agency.  They are more often found on Facebook along with the top agencies.

Now as far as rants about new models asking for pay on their profiles on Modelmayhem, one thing is totally unrelated to the other.  Rants are stupid.  That is why rants are not allowed in General Industry. Ranting about anyone asking for pay is stupid, unless you are stupid enough to have paid and not gotten what you expected.  Modelmayhem is not exclusive to professionals, so pretty much anyone with a few pictures can join.  As photographers, you and I decide if someone is worth paying.  It is a choice.

By the way, I see the young lady already has a Twitter account!   Why don't you guys tweet her and ask to shoot?

Images by MR wrote:
Axelle Despiegelaere,   I doubt she's not doing much free testing.

No one has ever been booked off their polaroid for a client gig... where do you think she's going to get a portfolio to send to art directors?

Tim Griffiths wrote:
Suppose you saw another Twiggy at the checkout in Marks and Spencer. Would she be worth your money?
IIRC she went from total obscurity to stardom over the course of a weekend (or thereabouts).
She needed no experience or training at all. Zilch. All she needed was to look the way she looked. Is it really ever any different?

I see twelve Twiggys a week... the problem is none of them have her personality, drive, flexibility, or work ethic.

Most of the agency model process is not weeding out people who look ugly... the majority of it is establishing which people can work well.

James Jackson Fashion wrote:
I see twelve Twiggys a week... the problem is none of them have her personality, drive, flexibility, or work ethic.

Most of the agency model process is not weeding out people who look ugly... the majority of it is establishing which people can work well.

But surely, when she was discovered, she had none of that - she was just a teenager who looked amazing. They saw her one day and put her on the cover of a magazine the next.
Michael Parkinson tells an interesting story about her. He was with her and a crew in a film studio one day, and he noticed one of the cameramen slowly circling her at a distance. After he'd finished Parkinson asked him what he was up to, and the man told him that he had filmed many beautiful women over the years but that he had never seen anyone like her, and was circling her to see if he could find any flaw/bad angle. He concluded that she didn't have any, and was the most beautiful creature he had ever seen.
A documentary showed her in the back of a cab, talking to camera not long after she had been discovered. There was nothing remarkable about her personality at all, she was in every respect a normal girl who had nothing particularly interesting or insightful to say (unsurprising given her lack of life experience). She just had that look.

Tim Griffiths wrote:
She just had that look.

I disagree.  What she had beyond that look was the ability to not get hung up in some morass or another.  I've seen and worked with many models that have "that look" ... much like I've met many women on the street who have "that look"...

Twiggy had the good sense to answer positively when asked, "would you like to model?"  Today if you asked her that same question, likely as not, you'd get accused of verbal harassment.

James Jackson Fashion wrote:

I disagree.  What she had beyond that look was the ability to not get hung up in some morass or another.  I've seen and worked with many models that have "that look" ... much like I've met many women on the street who have "that look"...

Twiggy had the good sense to answer positively when asked, "would you like to model?"  Today if you asked her that same question, likely as not, you'd get accused of verbal harassment.

Maybe where you live is better for that than where I live, or maybe I just don't keep my eyes open enough. I reckon I've seen, over the past year or so, perhaps two women who I could imagine on the cover of a fashion magazine - although with the photoshop manipulation going on these days maybe I've actually seen a hundred and just don't know it.

James Jackson Fashion wrote:
No one has ever been booked off their polaroid for a client gig... where do you think she's going to get a portfolio to send to art directors?

No one? I know for a fact that isn't true.

Audrey Quock got her first gig booked off nothing but a polaroid.

Images by MR wrote:
I see a bunch of threads started by photographers ranting why would anyone pay a new model with no experience.

It's all about looks.   Here's a example.

Axelle Despiegelaere,   I doubt she's not doing much free testing.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/17-ol … 00694.html

Typical apples and oranges opinion, comparing MM to the real world. Two similar but totally different creatures.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Audrey Quock got her first gig booked off nothing but a polaroid.

Audrey Quock does not do US catalog and lifestyle work (the category most models would like to get in eventually because it is bread and butter work).

James Jackson Fashion wrote:

Audrey Quock does not do US catalog and lifestyle work (the category most models would like to get in eventually because it is bread and butter work).

She did when she started. Her first gig was a catalog shoot. Booked off a polaroid in NYC from an agency on E 32d St.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

She did when she started. Her first gig was a catalog shoot. Booked off a polaroid in NYC from an agency on E 32d St.

Color me stunned... I've never heard of anyone doing anything like that.

AMPhotgraphy wrote:
The girl in the OP is gorgeous and while I'm not sure I'd pay someone of her caliber, I wouldn't expect her to pay me, either.  I'd happily shoot TF with her.

IMO, there are some models out there with no (or very little) experience who think they deserve to be paid for some reason.  They might trick GWC's to pay them cause they'll wear a wicked weasel bikini and bend over but they probably aren't very talented and aren't agency quality. 

I had a particularly fiesty exchange with one of them from MM a few weeks ago, I said I'd shoot her TF and she demanded that I paid her.  Based of what?  She's not agency repped and she's not tall enough to be.  She informed me that she was totally booked for the next three months.  Few weeks later?  Yep, port still looks like shit.

I totally see where you're coming from.

I guess it basically comes back to "what am I getting out of this"

Inexperienced models who push the "pay me" clause are usually only ever going to attract GWCs  and the standard of work will most likely be of little interest or value to the model. Often the mindset will be focused on the quick and easy cashola, not the serious modeling role in the future.

Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with this, it's just one part of the internet modelling phenomena that currently exists.

I mean, good luck trying to find a talented photographer who is willing to pay you for your inexperience when there are usually experienced ladies happy to do the same with them for free.

Models who are more concerned with a possible modelling profession are usually the ones who are happy to sacrifice a little of their time with a good photographer who is willing to shoot with them for a mutually beneficial return.

As long as there are cashed up GWCs (and sites like this) there will always be inexperienced models who expect to be paid... supply and demand.

So there is really no surprise her portfolio still looked like shit

Images by MR wrote:
I see a bunch of threads started by photographers ranting why would anyone pay a new model with no experience.

I personally feel that whenever you want anyone for any reason, for them to come to your shoot, they still have gas and time that should be re-reimbursed.

Gas stations do not take pictures as a form of payment.

You can not travel back in time with pictures (well maybe you can?).

But my point is, asking someone to work for you for free, and then ranting when they don't accept it, is just showing how unreasonable one can be.

The entertainment industry is plagued by people who work for free, this is not the problem, the problem is that people with the project will always lean towards people willing to work for free and not hire real trained talent.

Have you noticed lately that there are no new movies with trained talent?

This is just a problem that is going to get worse if we keep the flood of free work, I personally do not encourage anyone to work for free, when one person works for free, someone else who worked hard and deserving does not get paid.

PS: not all models are meat, dance models, actors, athletic models, etc, go through decades of training and spend more energy and money on their education than soldiers and doctors combined and doubled.

Photos by DeanR wrote:
At the centre of the debate is the term "free".
As long as people keep equating TF = free = no value = worthless, this squabble will never end.

In my profile page, I recognize the model's contribution, but also my skills as well:

If I contact you, it means I am willing to trade my time and talent in exchange for your time and talent.
In other words, TF*
If you reply asking for pay, the offer expires.


Seems to work, I get a lot of interest from Paid Assignment Only models...

TF = FREE came up on an FB group. The following is my response.

It is often bandied about here and elsewhere that working trade/TF/TFP etc. is working for free. Trade means you put in your time, I put in my time, I hopefully get some images, and you hopefully get some images. But, if you feel it is working for free, giving your time away, then it means that you consider my images to have no value. And if you consider my images, work and talent to have no value, then I would prefer to not work with you.

Now to expand a little.

Trade should benefit *both* parties in some way. The ways may not necessarily be the same for model, photographer, MUA, etc. For everybody it could simply mean practice and keeping sharp, even if ALL the images turn out to be crap. It could be testing out new equipment or way of using it. It could be testing out new hairdo, makeup, weight gain or loss. It could be to advance, improve your portfolio. Everybody needs fresh stuff, even if you are a hobbyist.

And of course everybody hopes to trade up, at least from their point of view. Something new, something interesting, something that will look better in my portfolio than whatever is there now. If shooting you will not improve my portfolio, then I won't shoot you. And if my images won't improve your portfolio, you should not shoot with me.

Ok, major exceptions to the above. Bored and just want to do something. Payback and willing to help someone who is just getting started. Photographer/model is a friend and you are doing a favour. Lots of exceptions of course.

Justin wrote:
I'd like to get paid for something in which I have no experience in. Well, come to think of it, that would've been my first job.

I'm willing to wager that 1st job didn't pay $100/hr.

Justin wrote:
If you can swing it, more power to you.

The problem with this situation is that photographers need a portfolio to show clients that they are capable of producing an image of some standard of quality (low or high as the case may be). Models are a different animal. They don't need a killer portfolio. In fact it is proven over and over again they just need the correct look. Photographers wrongly repeat what the world says to them, "You need a better portfolio to get paid". Not so for models.

          Model            Photographer
Talent  maybe           maybe
Portfolio No              Yes
Look      Yes             No
Luck      Yes             Yes


The other wrong headed thinking is treating an 18 year old model as a consumer of art. They are not consumers of art. Museums and Art Galleries are consumers of Art. A trade is a barter with the payment being goods and services instead of cash, however most models are not the typical consumers of said goods and services.

The next problem is why would I as a photographer become a consumer of art and pay out of my own pocket $100+/hr. I am a producer of art, not a consumer of art. The reason to pay is the belief that someone is going to pay me. The reason to pay is an investment.

What makes sense from an economics stand point is agency signs model, agency pays photographer to create portfolio (investment), advertisers pay agency (return) and photographer. Non standard models without "the look" work as skilled labor for photographers to practice their craft or test new techniques.

Enter MM Internet model and the GWC.... Economic sanity goes out the window because now it is "entertainment" or a "hobby". The model is not a skilled laborer but an entertainer of the photographer. Then the wages become nonsensical because it is no longer a matter of investment, return, and profit.

Now the photographer should be marketing to the model to produce a portfolio for the model (investment) that will attract high paying GWC/hobbiests (return). So the Internet model becomes her own agency and her portfolio is her essentially advertisement. Now the photographer is consumer  and producer both, so it gets confusing.

MM is not reality nor the fashion industry.

Sandra Vixen wrote:

I personally feel that whenever you want anyone for any reason, for them to come to your shoot, they still have gas and time that should be re-reimbursed.

Gas stations do not take pictures as a form of payment.

You can not travel back in time with pictures (well maybe you can?).

But my point is, asking someone to work for you for free, and then ranting when they don't accept it, is just showing how unreasonable one can be.

The entertainment industry is plagued by people who work for free, this is not the problem, the problem is that people with the project will always lean towards people willing to work for free and not hire real trained talent.

Have you noticed lately that there are no new movies with trained talent?

This is just a problem that is going to get worse if we keep the flood of free work, I personally do not encourage anyone to work for free, when one person works for free, someone else who worked hard and deserving does not get paid.

PS: not all models are meat, dance models, actors, athletic models, etc, go through decades of training and spend more energy and money on their education than soldiers and doctors combined and doubled.

Outside of the MM world models test all the time with fashion, beauty and commercial photographers for free.   I understand how many models here feel but if its just gas money and the persons work has little value to you then why go at all.   Agency models and those looking to become pros understand that great images can get them hired.   I'm not encouraging anyone to do anything but the reality is the better shooters simply don't pay.   They don't need too.   Sadly so many models here never get better images because they just want too be paid.   We all make choices though.   Your comment about dance models and others spending more energy, money on their educations then doctors is curious.   Most of the models I know many of whom were agency signed and some freelance spent very little on anything.   Certainly not the kind of cash and time a medical degree requires.

Free is relative I guess.   Many bands play for free hoping for their big break.   Actors often do free projects to gain exposure.   Models test with photographers and photographers shoot models all for free to improve.   If you feel its not worth your time then don't do it but in my view their is nothing wrong with working free and as far as I can tell its not made a big difference to anyone but those not good enough to ever be paid.

Images by MR wrote:
I see a bunch of threads started by photographers ranting why would anyone pay a new model with no experience.

It's all about looks.   Here's a example.

Axelle Despiegelaere,   I doubt she's not doing much free testing.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/17-ol … 00694.html

I doubt that she's doing any testing. They dumped her almost instantly.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2124 … &hpt=hp_c3

Lohkee wrote:
I doubt that she's doing any testing. They dumped her almost instantly.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2124 … &hpt=hp_c3

Publicity stunt by L'Oreal?

Catchy Name. She'll get work, if She wants it.

Photos by DeanR wrote:
At the centre of the debate is the term "free".
As long as people keep equating TF = free = no value = worthless, this squabble will never end.

In my profile page, I recognize the model's contribution, but also my skills as well:

If I contact you, it means I am willing to trade my time and talent in exchange for your time and talent.
In other words, TF*
If you reply asking for pay, the offer expires.


Seems to work, I get a lot of interest from Paid Assignment Only models...

The OP has nothing to do with TF.