Monad Studios wrote:
I know there are some photographers who get paid work from models.  But they're the exception.

Far more money flows from photographers to models than flows from models to photographers.

So, anyone, model or photographer, can say that s/he will only work for money; but it's a lot more likely to work out for the model.

Yeah, exactly... but why is that?

SteveHaywardPhotography wrote:

Yeah, exactly... but why is that?

Because it's a lot more likely to get GOOD photos from an inexperienced model than it is from an inexperienced photographer.

Either a photographer has the skill to create professional-looking images, worthy of being paid for, or s/he doesn't. 

A model can be 1st day on MM, with NO images in her Portfolio and she still may catch the eye of someone who is looking for someone with her look and still may be able to give a great final product.

That being said, I do not think that beginner models should be demanding pay when they don't have the Portfolio to back it up.

(In all fairness, I've seen plenty of photographers demanding pay, who have absolutely no business asking for a dime)

SteveHaywardPhotography wrote:
Hey Everyone.

I would appreciate some feedback on something that appears to be rife in the modelling community and I must admit, I'm a bit confused. There are LOTS of models that have absolutely dreadful portfolios, where the pictures have been taken in the mirror, in their bedroom with a phone camera, and where under "experience" on their profile they put the honest answer of "no experience". OK, all good so far. But, I so many of the same models only want to do "paid work". What is all that about? There seems to be this general kind of unspoken belief, certainly on MM and purestorm etc, that models get paid and photographers do the paying. To suggest to most models on here that they should pay the photographer rather than the other way round... well, you'd get laughed at. I guess what I'm saying is, is it right that only the very experienced photographers get paid and yet models get paid right from the start? A kind of "if you want to shoot me then you will have to pay" and not "if you want me to shoot you then you will have to pay". Doesn't seem fair - or am I missing something?

They may want paid work but I can very easily use another model.
I have only paid experienced models because they are much easier to work with and I get more and better images.

Monad Studios wrote:
I know there are some photographers who get paid work from models.  But they're the exception.

Far more money flows from photographers to models than flows from models to photographers.

So, anyone, model or photographer, can say that s/he will only work for money; but it's a lot more likely to work out for the model.

SteveHaywardPhotography wrote:
Yeah, exactly... but why is that?

You have been told several times in this thread.  Let me try again:

A photographer is paid for his skills. It takes time and experience to develop those skills.  One of the more important skills, for those photographers who work with people, is the ability to direct models to get what they need from them.  Photographers who can't do that tend to hire only "experienced" models; good commercial and fashion photographers are hired in large part for their ability to get what they need from the model they are given by the client.

A model is paid for her look. It's useful if she has skills, but not necessary.  It is quite common for completely inexperienced commercial or fashion models to book high paying work shortly after being taken on by an agency . . .  because it's the photographer's job to make it all work.

If, after all that, you still don't get it . . . you probably can't get it.

SteveHaywardPhotography wrote:
  Doesn't seem fair - or am I missing something?

1)  Everyone has the absolute right to ask for whatever compensation he/she wants.

2)  The other party has the absolute right to accept, decline, and make a counteroffer.

3)  No one has the right to tell another what their rates should be.  In fact, in many cases, that's illegal.

4)  You don't know the model's circumstances -- you can't speak for her.

5)  The quality of the images in a model's portfolio is no guarantee of the quality of her skills or her suitability to the specific project.

6)  No two models are alike -- just because a model doesn't have experience, that doesn't mean she's not worthy of payment.


My advice:  Make a counter offer or move on.  The marketplace, not you alone, will determine whether the model is successful.  If you don't want to pay models in general, or that particular model, that's your right.  You ain't the model's daddy, so you have no right to lecture her.

SteveHaywardPhotography wrote:
Hey Everyone.

I would appreciate some feedback on something that appears to be rife in the modelling community and I must admit, I'm a bit confused. There are LOTS of models that have absolutely dreadful portfolios, where the pictures have been taken in the mirror, in their bedroom with a phone camera, and where under "experience" on their profile they put the honest answer of "no experience". OK, all good so far. But, I so many of the same models only want to do "paid work". What is all that about? There seems to be this general kind of unspoken belief, certainly on MM and purestorm etc, that models get paid and photographers do the paying. To suggest to most models on here that they should pay the photographer rather than the other way round... well, you'd get laughed at. I guess what I'm saying is, is it right that only the very experienced photographers get paid and yet models get paid right from the start? A kind of "if you want to shoot me then you will have to pay" and not "if you want me to shoot you then you will have to pay". Doesn't seem fair - or am I missing something?

Since modeling is about a _LOOK_, I (and many others) do not give a rat's ass wha's in a model's portfolio as long as it's not porn, and it _DOES_ answer the basic questions about her "look."

What DOES NOT belong in a model's portfolio are photographer-promotion images that do nothing to show off the model's look, and what he/she can do for me/my client.

The model's portfolio is *NOT* a means of showcasing photographers, it's a means of her showing what she's got --*NOT* what she's done -- in order to get more work.

Tear sheets and *REAL* advertising are good only so much as they show what OTHER PEOPLE were willing to pay or take a risk on the model to showcase thei product.  The more tearsheets, the less brandable the model is, or the more brandable, if they are all for the same company and the less she can brand your product/service.

Models DO NOT NEED great "art" in their portfolios!! They are the product.

Posts like the OP's are a joke, and a troll for trying to get paid work for the photographer  (translated:  Models shoule be paying me -- which is total bullshit), and really, really should be banned deeper and more harshly than the escort threads.

And, finally, models -- MODELS -- don't pay photographers!!  Clients pay.  A model who pays is a CLIENT not a model.  She may be the subject of the photo, but is not a "model" for the artists vision since she is paying.  There is an obligation for the photographer to deliver -- and not simply be creative on *HIS* dime.  Models do not pay photographers!!

Oh, and that whole thing about agencies/etc liking to see s a few tear sheets to see that people really did pay to have the model's look promote their product -- goes along with an agency *NEVER* asking for money from a model.  Models don't have any.  If an agency makes their money from models, that's *ALL* they make it on.  The idea is OPM -- Other People's Money.  And, to sign a good model -- money or not -- before the competition does.

So, models, continue to ask for -- and get -- fair compensation for your time.  Be it _REALLY_USEFUL_ images -- without huge watermarks and in a size you can use in your portfolio and print up for your promotion, or _CASH_.   You are _WORKING_ so get paid!!  TF* is a _TRADE_ and as such must be _FAIR_

Eryn M Gombos wrote:
I got paid right from the beginning 

For WEARING CLOTHES!

Even when I had your typical MYSPACE shots

!!!!

scary

It did cause me to become a little jaded fast.  To be honest.

+1

SteveHaywardPhotography wrote:
Thanks everyone. I think the truth is that I'm getting jealous... my portfolio is getting better all the time - I think I'm an OK photographer and yet I need to be able to make that jump to charging for my work. I appreciate I've got a lot to learn yet to get up there with the big guys but the truth is I've already come a long way and I'm proud of where I am. I'm jealous that models seem to be able to charge from the word 'go'. I NEED MONEY, PEOPLE!!!  :¬(

Well, you're not going to make money whining on the web about how unfair life is.  It's up to you to make money at your business.  If a model has a good enough grasp of business and marketing to make money without experience, good for her. There are plenty of photographers who begin making money with very little experience -- but they have drive, ambition and good business skills as well as talent.

J Sharp  wrote:
That's not always the case. 

There are plenty of models on here who would pay the right photographer.

Would I pay an new model who only had crappy pictures in her portfolio? Sure, if she had the look I was looking for and really wanted to shoot with her.

Would I pay an highly experienced model who has a ton of credits to her name?  Not unless I saw it as some benefit to me.

Every case is different.  I personally couldn't care less if a model with a crappy portfolio says paid only.  Not my business.  The market will determine if she's successful or not.  There are too many other options open to me to really care about what someone else is doing, and it certainly isn't my place to tell them what they should do.

Agreed!!!

Eryn M Gombos wrote:
I got paid right from the beginning 

Me too.  But it was for my bendabilities and my nude comfort
in front of the camera from the word go!

BodyartBabes wrote:
What DOES NOT belong in a model's portfolio are photographer-promotion images that do nothing to show off the model's look, and what he/she can do for me/my client.

The model's portfolio is *NOT* a means of showcasing photographers, it's a means of her showing what she's got --*NOT* what she's done -- in order to get more work.

If that is ALL that is in her book, that's true.  At least a few of the pictures have to represent the model well.  But, having done that, it's both normal and useful to have outstanding images that may not showcase the model, if only to show the level of photographer/client the model can attract.  As an example:

BodyartBabes wrote:
Tear sheets and *REAL* advertising are good only so much as they show what OTHER PEOPLE were willing to pay or take a risk on the model to showcase thei product.

This I do not understand:

BodyartBabes wrote:
The more tearsheets, the less brandable the model is, or the more brandable, if they are all for the same company and the less she can brand your product/service.

I have no idea how one could come to the notion that a model is "less brandable" because she has lots of tearsheets from different clients.  That will come as a huge surprise to Giselle and her agents.

BodyartBabes wrote:
Models DO NOT NEED great "art" in their portfolios!! They are the product.

See above.  Depending on the type of model, this is likely false.  For some models (primarily commercial), it's not about "art", but for many other types of models it is.  A model who has only representational pictures in her portfolio does herself a great disservice.

BodyartBabes wrote:
And, finally, models -- MODELS -- don't pay photographers!!  Clients pay.  A model who pays is a CLIENT not a model.  She may be the subject of the photo, but is not a "model" for the artists vision since she is paying.  There is an obligation for the photographer to deliver -- and not simply be creative on *HIS* dime.  Models do not pay photographers!!

This is nothing but misleading word games.  It may be true that a model is acting as the client when she pays for pictures, but the reason she is paying is because she is a model and needs professional pictures of a type and style that she can't get without paying.  Professional models do this all the time.

BodyartBabes wrote:
Oh, and that whole thing about agencies/etc liking to see s a few tear sheets to see that people really did pay to have the model's look promote their product -- goes along with an agency *NEVER* asking for money from a model.  Models don't have any.  If an agency makes their money from models, that's *ALL* they make it on.  The idea is OPM -- Other People's Money.  And, to sign a good model -- money or not -- before the competition does.

I'm having trouble parsing this to determine what claim is being made here, but it is false that agencies - including excellent agencies - do not ask models for money.  They do.  All the time.  It is very common and accepted in the industry, and models who believe that it won't happen, or that they should not sign with an agency when it does happen, are paying attention to the wrong things.

Bearz Images wrote:
It's terribly bad-mannered & disrespectful to expect anyone to work for free, regardless of their experience. I understand all budgets vary greatly. If I  contact someone for a particular shoot & end up casting that person, or persons because their looks suit my needs they're getting paid. It's absolutely profane to devalue someone because of their lack of experience.

While I agree that "experience" should not be a primary determining factor in deciding to pay someone, I do not agree that anyone is being disrespected simply because they are asked to work without payment.  If a photographer has something of value to offer models (say, to choose a random example, pictures of a type, style and quality that she can use), it is hardly disrespectful to propose to "pay" her with those for a shoot.

SteveHaywardPhotography wrote:
Thanks everyone. I think the truth is that I'm getting jealous... my portfolio is getting better all the time - I think I'm an OK photographer and yet I need to be able to make that jump to charging for my work. I appreciate I've got a lot to learn yet to get up there with the big guys but the truth is I've already come a long way and I'm proud of where I am. I'm jealous that models seem to be able to charge from the word 'go'. I NEED MONEY, PEOPLE!!!  :¬(

I rarely make money off on MM models, When MM models do hire me it is for commercial work or private work.
I make my income off of families who want formal portraits, pet portraits, dating site images, private boudoir sessions, and commercial product photography.

Pretty young girls may be lots of fun to shoot but for the most part they do not hire photographers.

MM is for fun, I shoot MM models so I can practice and hone my skills and use images in my books & websites, I use MM model as guinea pigs I learn more and sharpen my skills so when I am paid several hundred dollars by a client I know exactly what will happen.

TXPhotog wrote:

While I agree that "experience" should not be a primary determining factor in deciding to pay someone, I do not agree that anyone is being disrespected simply because they are asked to work without payment.  If a photographer has something of value to offer models (say, to choose a random example, pictures of a type, style and quality that she can use), it is hardly disrespectful to propose to "pay" her with those for a shoot.

Receiving images would qualify as "payment" would it not?

J Sharp  wrote:
Every case is different.  I personally couldn't care less if a model with a crappy portfolio says paid only.  Not my business.  The market will determine if she's successful or not.  There are too many other options open to me to really care about what someone else is doing, and it certainly isn't my place to tell them what they should do.

Exactly.  I would also suspect that the present state of the economy has something to do with how much this is increasing.

Bearz Images wrote:
Receiving images would qualify as "payment" would it not?

One might think, since I said so in the post you referred to.

TXPhotog wrote:

One might think, since I said so in the post you referred to.

Then your disagreement is what exactly?

Bearz Images wrote:
Then your disagreement is what exactly?

Nowhere in your post did you reference images as payment.  You only said how disrespectful it was to ask someone to pose "for free".  Since the typical "free" shoot here is TFCD, it's easy to read your post as being opposed to that.