Posted by Sand Angel: 
* pulls up a comfy chair and grins *

LOL..Pass the popcorn!

Posted by Jerry Bennett: 
...any idiot with a digital camera and a website could call themselves a "photographer"...no talent hacks giving everything away for free 'cause they just want to ogle some pretty girls and look important.   

Who?  Me? 

Posted by James Graham: 
I really don't understand all the banter about semantics...
Life is not black & white, even though my photographs are...

As a photographer, if you can get a paying gig, get it. I'm doing one next week. If you are a model, ditto.

However, if there is someone you'd like to work with that will trade their talent and Time for your talent and time it's a win/win. You both get something from the collaboration that would not have existed otherwise. Call it a Test, if you must. Call it a Mumbo Face Dogpatch Banana (MFDB) - whatever...

Tonight I am working with a model that I wouldn't have thought would ever work with me wiothout charging me a rate. She's very well known and has shot with the best of them. She liked my stuff and contacted me. Now, if I'd  been an asshole, I could have said, "well, sure, but you know, I charge X dollars har har har (smug laugh." If I'd been her, I would have stold me to fuck off. I viewed it as a great opportunity and tomorrow I will have the results of our gig and we'll both have the images to exploit!

As fas as expenses go - everybody hurts. The model spends on wardrobe items, makeup, manicures, pedicures, salons and transportation. I buy film, batteries, take cabs, spare bulbs, postage, hard drives, computer programs and blank DVDs/CDs...

I do tend to default to the Southern Gentleman dogma - I open the door, buy food, water, coffee, and if it's late and/or sketchy -  cab/car fare...

Ditto.

Posted by Brandon Luna: 
Ok, first lets line a few things out and get some facts straight.
1. TFP/TFCD didn't exist as a term until web modeling sites came along. Before that it was called (and is still called in the non-web modeling industry)Test Shoot.
2. A few years back before the digital boom PROFESSIONAL photographers typically charge a nominal fee for test shooting in the larger markets. Because of the advances of digital photography and the large number of new GWC (guys with cameras) coming along, it has become harder and harder to charge for Test Shoots because of all the GWC giving stuff away.
What all the GWC's dont understand is this one fact: when you give away a disc of your raw images to models on a TFP/TFCD shoot, you are basically giving away the equivelant of your negatives which back in the day, photographers would never do. The model would get prints of all the shots, that was it.
Should we be giving away CDs of raw images at these test shoots? Personally I do not. I give a cd with up to 30 edited shots full resolution (watermarked with my company name) and websized. I also give all raw images but all of these raw images are labled PROOF across the image. This is done for two reasons. First reason is, I dont want shots I don't particularly like getting edited and put on the web. Second reason is, if the model likes some of the shots from our test shoot at a later date, she can always get back to me and let me know.
My 2 cents

I don't want raw images..who does? (if they do ..they are crazy, who wants to sit and batch convert raw images..hundred  images or more??)  I don't want pics of me blinking or caught mid -retard expression...throws those out....what i want is a digital contact sheet (like in the old school) to pick my frames out and only have the finals on cd.

It's a test. I would think it should benefit both model and photographer.

Posted by James Graham: 
Hey Sib - I got some of those mid-retard ones of you...

I love you james but I will gnaw your ankles off if you post them..haha...j/k..no seriously I'm vicious like a crazed chipmunk..don't toy with me

Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: 
I'd have no problem paying a model $10 - $25 for TFP...That WAS your question, wasn't it?

ya know?

i love it how people think we don't do anything at all

Posted by Hel Inferna: 

Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: 
I'd have no problem paying a model $10 - $25 for TFP...That WAS your question, wasn't it?

ya know?

i love it how people think we don't do anything at all

I know what you mean...This total disregard for the model's role in images is a logic wall i cannot climb over.  The way these guys go on about how to give models even less than we do now is beyond me. 

Posted by Brandon Luna: 
Ok, first lets line a few things out and get some facts straight.
1. TFP/TFCD didn't exist as a term until web modeling sites came along. Before that it was called (and is still called in the non-web modeling industry)Test Shoot.
2. A few years back before the digital boom PROFESSIONAL photographers typically charge a nominal fee for test shooting in the larger markets. Because of the advances of digital photography and the large number of new GWC (guys with cameras) coming along, it has become harder and harder to charge for Test Shoots because of all the GWC giving stuff away.
What all the GWC's dont understand is this one fact: when you give away a disc of your raw images to models on a TFP/TFCD shoot, you are basically giving away the equivelant of your negatives which back in the day, photographers would never do. The model would get prints of all the shots, that was it.
Should we be giving away CDs of raw images at these test shoots? Personally I do not. I give a cd with up to 30 edited shots full resolution (watermarked with my company name) and websized. I also give all raw images but all of these raw images are labled PROOF across the image. This is done for two reasons. First reason is, I dont want shots I don't particularly like getting edited and put on the web. Second reason is, if the model likes some of the shots from our test shoot at a later date, she can always get back to me and let me know.
My 2 cents

Posted by Sanders McNew: 
But people must eat, models no less than anyone else.   

I thought models dont eat... lol

Posted by Jeremy Lelii: 

Posted by Sanders McNew: 
But people must eat, models no less than anyone else.   

I thought models dont eat... lol

I've had two models collapse mid-session.  Both said that they had not eaten all day so they would not look too big in the photos.  Don't get me started.

Sanders.

Posted by sibyl: 
I don't want raw images..who does? (if they do ..they are crazy, who wants to sit and batch convert raw images..hundred  images or more??)  I don't want pics of me blinking or caught mid -retard expression...throws those out....what i want is a digital contact sheet (like in the old school) to pick my frames out and only have the finals on cd.

It's a test. I would think it should benefit both model and photographer.

I speak on behalf of all photographers when I say, "I love you."

Posted by Sanders McNew: 
I'm not sure I should even try a response here, since my views are so out-of-step with those expressed in this post.  FWIW, Here are my thoughts.

1.  It is as pointless to rant about how the digital democratization of photography has ruined your business model (which doesn't really bother me) as it is for me to rant about how digital photography is driving wet photographic processes from the market (which I care about tremendously).  The world is changing.  If it means your meal ticket is going away, well, visit Flint and tell it to the (former) auto workers.

2.  I got into a bit of a food fight over this subject in an earlier iteration of this discussion.  On reflection, I appreciate that there are two very different communities here, each largely talking past the other.  On the one side are the guys who hope to make money photographing aspiring young women with starry dreams.  (I would throw them into the "Guys With Cameras" category, but that would invite a food fight.)  On the other are photographers who consider themselves artists.  The artists expect to pay for their subjects' time; the others expect to be paid for their time.

I posed a simple test in an earlier post, that was overlooked.  But I think it goes to the heart of the question.  When a photographer who charges shoots a client, does he ask for a release and use the images for his own purposes?  If the answer is yes, then I consider that abusive.

3.  I agree with Melvin and James, that in the end it is up to the photographer and model to find common ground on terms of work.  That said, I think there are photographers who abuse the position of power they occupy with respect to the models they photograph.  As a rule, if a woman agrees to work for me, for my benefit, and is signing my release so I can make use of her images, then I believe she should be compensated for her time. 

4.  Yes, my images are of value, and the rate I pay my subjects reflects that.  But people must eat, models no less than anyone else.  My conscience does not rest so easily when I ask a stranger to stand in front of my camera, naked, for hours on end for my benefit, if I do not pay her something for her time, over and above copies of the images we create.

5.  I appreciate that photographers must eat too.  But if you are on the artist side of the divide, then there is no excuse for not factoring in the cost of hiring your subjects into the price of your art.  If you cannot afford it, you ought not be doing it.  Kodak's not giving me my Tri-X, Agfa's not supplying me gratis with Rodinal.  If you can't afford to do right by your subjects, go shoot trees until you can.

And if you're on the commercial side of the divide:  Well, you will do what the market will bear in a world full of GWCs.  But I hope you have enough of a conscience left to feel at least a twinge of guilt if you ask your paying clients to sign releases for you at the end of the session.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net

I admire you more and more with every post you make.  I'm glad you're here to show us that one can be a successful photographer without taking advantage of the people that help us get where we're going.

Posted by Sanders McNew: 
I'm not sure I should even try a response here, since my views are so out-of-step with those expressed in this post.  FWIW, Here are my thoughts.

1.  It is as pointless to rant about how the digital democratization of photography has ruined your business model (which doesn't really bother me) as it is for me to rant about how digital photography is driving wet photographic processes from the market (which I care about tremendously).  The world is changing.  If it means your meal ticket is going away, well, visit Flint and tell it to the (former) auto workers.

2.  I got into a bit of a food fight over this subject in an earlier iteration of this discussion.  On reflection, I appreciate that there are two very different communities here, each largely talking past the other.  On the one side are the guys who hope to make money photographing aspiring young women with starry dreams.  (I would throw them into the "Guys With Cameras" category, but that would invite a food fight.)  On the other are photographers who consider themselves artists.  The artists expect to pay for their subjects' time; the others expect to be paid for their time.

I posed a simple test in an earlier post, that was overlooked.  But I think it goes to the heart of the question.  When a photographer who charges shoots a client, does he ask for a release and use the images for his own purposes?  If the answer is yes, then I consider that abusive.

3.  I agree with Melvin and James, that in the end it is up to the photographer and model to find common ground on terms of work.  That said, I think there are photographers who abuse the position of power they occupy with respect to the models they photograph.  As a rule, if a woman agrees to work for me, for my benefit, and is signing my release so I can make use of her images, then I believe she should be compensated for her time. 

4.  Yes, my images are of value, and the rate I pay my subjects reflects that.  But people must eat, models no less than anyone else.  My conscience does not rest so easily when I ask a stranger to stand in front of my camera, naked, for hours on end for my benefit, if I do not pay her something for her time, over and above copies of the images we create.

5.  I appreciate that photographers must eat too.  But if you are on the artist side of the divide, then there is no excuse for not factoring in the cost of hiring your subjects into the price of your art.  If you cannot afford it, you ought not be doing it.  Kodak's not giving me my Tri-X, Agfa's not supplying me gratis with Rodinal.  If you can't afford to do right by your subjects, go shoot trees until you can.

And if you're on the commercial side of the divide:  Well, you will do what the market will bear in a world full of GWCs.  But I hope you have enough of a conscience left to feel at least a twinge of guilt if you ask your paying clients to sign releases for you at the end of the session.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net

Posted by Brandon Luna: 
Ok, first lets line a few things out and get some facts straight.
1. TFP/TFCD didn't exist as a term until web modeling sites came along. Before that it was called (and is still called in the non-web modeling industry)Test Shoot.
2. A few years back before the digital boom PROFESSIONAL photographers typically charge a nominal fee for test shooting in the larger markets. Because of the advances of digital photography and the large number of new GWC (guys with cameras) coming along, it has become harder and harder to charge for Test Shoots because of all the GWC giving stuff away.
What all the GWC's dont understand is this one fact: when you give away a disc of your raw images to models on a TFP/TFCD shoot, you are basically giving away the equivelant of your negatives which back in the day, photographers would never do. The model would get prints of all the shots, that was it.
Should we be giving away CDs of raw images at these test shoots? Personally I do not. I give a cd with up to 30 edited shots full resolution (watermarked with my company name) and websized. I also give all raw images but all of these raw images are labled PROOF across the image. This is done for two reasons. First reason is, I dont want shots I don't particularly like getting edited and put on the web. Second reason is, if the model likes some of the shots from our test shoot at a later date, she can always get back to me and let me know.
My 2 cents

well said

Posted by James Graham: 
Call it a Test, if you must. Call it a Mumbo Face Dogpatch Banana (MFDB) - whatever...

I'm calling it Mumbo Face Dogpatch Banana from now on. I just hope somone else knows what I mean...

James is a gentlemen. He even paid for the malt liquor and syringes.

Posted by Sanders McNew: 
When a photographer who charges shoots a client, does he ask for a release and use the images for his own purposes?  If the answer is yes, then I consider that abusive.

Far from being an abuse this is a normal part of the negotiations that ultimately determine usage rates.

For example it is standard practice for editorial commissions that after a brief exclusivity period the photographer is free to resell the images elsewhere. Whereas for advertising it would be more likely that a much longer exclusivity period would be required.