London Fog wrote:
So let me get this straight, a L'Oreal (a French company) scout spotted Miss Hottie, they offered her a contract which has now been completed some 48hrs or so later!

And why? Because she made a comment 'ready to hunt Americans today'

...and the reason for terminating her contract was/is...???

Am I missing something here?

Actually I think it had more to do with hunting and shooting a gazelle...

PETA and L'Oreal apparently had a long and expensive, public battle over the treatment of animals before settling things at one point (for $1.2 million and a stop to animal testing).  This photo and signing would probably have caused them a great deal of grief.

I don't think there was much of an issue with the "hunting americans today" joke on the day of the Belgium / USA World Cup game.

Filles de Pin-up wrote:

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.


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.

That's an interesting take. I don't think models need the kind of portfolio they usually end up with, but i do think there is a place for a well thought out portfolio. First off they need to tell the difference between a pic that sells the model and a pic that sells the photographer, and then jettison any image that sells the photographer. Actual image quality is irrelevant. Photoshop is irrelevant. Composition is irrelevant.
What is vital is a picture that makes a photographer sit up and ask 'hello...who are you?'.
That's what I look for, anyway.

Filles de Pin-up wrote:

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.


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.

It's a no win situation for photographers who pays for everything and all win for models in every way.

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

Images by MR wrote:
The OP has nothing to do with TF.

My mistake, I thought it had everything to do with TF.
Inexperienced newbie models that do not see the value of getting experience, a proper port, and networking with knowledgeable photographers.
Instead, expecting $100/hr to stand there lost...

If the "bunch of photographers ranting" had the opportunity to work with a stunner, they would be bragging, not ranting.

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.

Filles de Pin-up wrote:
I'm willing to wager that 1st job didn't pay $100/hr.

No, you're right, and my lighthearted literal reminiscence wasn't really equating the two. 

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

Filles de Pin-up wrote:
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.

I don't see a problem. If a person can make $100/hour with no experience...

Selling cars, or
Stocking shelves, or
Rainmaking for venture capitalists, or
Playing a banjo on a street corner, or
Modeling for ersatz artists willing to pay it, then...

More power to them. Who am I to stand in the way of legal purveyors and their willing markets?

If you're a photographer and you just don't agree with a newb model, no experience, charging questionable amounts of money to pose, then don't hire the model. Move on to another. Problem solved.

Dan Howell wrote:
exactly how many GWC sessions does it take for a model to be considered experienced around here anyway?

Some here are vastly over-estimating the VALUE of experience gained by models working with MM photographers. Personally I am more concerned with the bad habits models pick up from bad photographers.

Good point!
I work with a model and pay her if she has a good portfolio.

Dan Howell wrote:
exactly how many GWC sessions does it take for a model to be considered experienced around here anyway?

Some here are vastly over-estimating the VALUE of experience gained by models working with MM photographers. Personally I am more concerned with the bad habits models pick up from bad photographers.

I like this

But all the same, it's still a good yard stick to compare with the actual work they've produced.
Sure one might click on an 'experienced' 'paid only' models portfolio with certain expectations in mind, but having done so only to find trashy shots littering their portfolio it makes it all to easy to conclude where their priorities lie.

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.

That last part is no where near accurate at least soldier wise. 1 after the initial 72k it takes to train a soldier is done they still have to train 5-6 days a week with new equipment which add up to ungodly $$ which is why US downsizes forces any chance they get. I don't really see the downsizing of dance models, actors, athletic models, etc.

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:

I tend to stress the partnership rather than the employer/model paradigm that some invoke, too.  The models and I create together.  There are two sides of the camera and each side is doing its part to make a photograph.   We should all start acting as if that were the case.

LightDreams wrote:
"Publicity stunt by L'Oreal?"

Yeah, that was probably the original plan (something like "Yes, you too can be picked out of a crowd and turned into a supermodel with L'Oreal"...).

Before they realized the "publicity" was about to backfire on them with the hunting rare game animals shot...

That's funny, looking at that picture of her in the stands I started wondering if it wasn't set up. She looks styled.

Fifty One Imaging wrote:
Catchy Name. She'll get work, if She wants it.

I'm not sure with that dead oryx in her past.