Rick Fink wrote:
I make generalizations because generalizations are generally true. I deal with specifics in specific cases.

I think your opinion sucks but I honestly like your work!

You're a talented photog and you have your own vision which I respect.

If I studied your work I could learn something from it.

I didn't ask you to praise me or blow smoke up my ass.

"Your opinion sucks" doesn't answer my question.

This is a specific case - me.

Be specific about why my opinion sucks.

Greg Kolack wrote:

I didn't ask you to praise me or blow smoke up my ass.

"Your opinion sucks" doesn't answer my question.

This is a specific case - me.

Be specific about why my opinion sucks.

You asked my opinion about your work and I said it was good. Take it or leave it.

I don't care for your style of disagreement which I find more combative than informational.

PashaPhoto wrote:
now in ot ?

wow... this thread is really making the rounds today

Discussions about modeling are not model related.

Rick Fink wrote:
You asked my opinion about your work and I said it was good. Take it or leave it.

I don't care for your style of disagreement which I find more combative than informational.

I did not ask for your opinion of my work. I asked for your opinion of why you thought the fact I didn't pay models was wrong.

Greg Kolack wrote:
Tell me personally what you think of me and the way I work.

I give you permission to say anything.

Tell me honestly, in straightforward terms, what you think is wrong with with how I work, and what is wrong with the way I deal with models.

You either have a serious problem with reading comprehension or you are blatantly lying when you say i asked you what you thought of my work. I didn't ask for your opinion of my work, I asked you for your opinion of HOW I work.

You have your chance and now you are running away with some lame excuse. You are a typical troll - making claims and arguments but when you are called on it you refuse to answer with a reply other than a generalization, or a lame statement like "if you are bored, leave," except to those who agree with you. When this thread appears to be dying out, you come in and bump it to keep it going, or by praising the few who appear to be agreeing with you.

That is the sure sign of a troll

Greg Kolack wrote:

I did not ask for your opinion of my work. I asked for your opinion of why you thought the fact I didn't pay models was wrong. You have your chance and now you are running away with some lame excuse. You are a typical troll - making claims and arguments but when you are called on it you refuse to answer with a reply other than a generalization, or a lame statement like "if you are bored, leave," except to those who agree with you. When this thread appears to be dying out, you come in and bump it to keep it going, or by praising the few who appear to be agreeing with you.

That is the sure sign of a troll

hey, i agree with him...

i agree that he should continue paying models... girls are broke nowadays, you know, and better him then me

PashaPhoto wrote:
now in ot ?

wow... this thread is really making the rounds today

Yep - now that it's in OT the OP is really going to have to bump it a lot more to keep it active.

Brooks Ayola wrote:

Discussions about modeling are not model related.

This is about modeling?  Silly me.  From about page 2 forward I thought it was about delusion, dick waving and defensiveness.  OT seems a good fit.

Essential Form wrote:
This is about modeling?  Silly me.  From about page 2 forward I thought it was about delusion, dick waving and defensiveness.  OT seems a good fit.

Essential Form wrote:
This is about modeling?  Silly me.  From about page 2 forward I thought it was about delusion, dick waving and defensiveness.  OT seems a good fit.

Isn't that what most of the threads are?

OpenMinds wrote:

OK, you are obviously into this strictly as a hobby, because you completely skip the fact that many photographers have expenses themselves, or need to make a living at this.  The reason many photographers exist is to make a living.  Sure, some want to create "art" and whatnot, and thats all fine and dandy, and they can pay all the models they want.  Others of us don't pick up a camera unless someone is paying is to do so.  Does that mean we've lost the passion for our craft?  Of course not.  It simply means that shooting pictures of pretty girls isn't a novelty to us, and we want to be paid for our skills and experience.
How about you go post a thread telling models to pay their photographers for making them look so great!

+1.  Photographers have the expensive equipment, have to deal with logistics, and more often not, the creative aspects.  The photographer also has the power to make someone look their worst, or their best...intentionally.

Khotography -- DK wrote:
+1.  Photographers have the expensive equipment, have to deal with logistics, and more often not, the creative aspects.  The photographer also has the power to make someone look their worst, or their best...intentionally.

And the models could choose not to work with them.

Or the photographers could choose not to contact them.

Blah blah blah, this could go back and forth all damn day.

Pay, don't pay, who cares. Do your business how you see fit, but don't expect other people to do it your way cause you think it's the right way.

I could get to Illinois by going west for about an hour, or east for days. Sure one way makes a lot more sense, but the other way is equally as fascinating if I'm not looking to take the quick route.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
And the models could choose not to work with them.

Or the photographers could choose not to contact them.

Blah blah blah, this could go back and forth all damn day.

Pay, don't pay, who cares. Do your business how you see fit, but don't expect other people to do it your way cause you think it's the right way.

I could get to Illinois by going west for about an hour, or east for days. Sure one way makes a lot more sense, but the other way is equally as fascinating if I'm not looking to take the quick route.

You should probably reread my post.  What business did I state?  The point was that the original OP should stop complaining since photogs have just as much invested in a TF shoot.  Sheesh.

Khotography -- DK wrote:
You should probably reread my post.  What business did I state?  The point was that the original OP should stop complaining since photogs have just as much invested in a TF shoot.  Sheesh.

I was pointing out, that the "equipment" argument is moot. Models spend money too. And to be honest, any good busniess man shouldn't have to tell people they're paying for his gear, that should automatically be included in each shoot/rate. You should know how many shoots per year you plan on doing, and divide that by the cost of gear, or whatever the math is. You shouldn't need to announce it.

But models don't care how much you spent on gear, classes, workshops, computers, studios, software, etc.

Just like I really don't care how much models spend on clothes, make up, hair, exercise, food, jewelry, etc.

It's already understood that people spend money on their careers. When you use it as a leverage or arguing point, than you've already lost the argument.

I was pointing out that your response to a response, that was in response to a response of a response, was pointless because this whole argument is circular, and really is just a waste of time.

Khotography -- DK wrote:

I think if you got off your high horse and actually reread what was posted before you would realize you're just reiterating what I was saying.

Maybe I just don't see how I reiterated what you said, since I believe the equipment argument isn't a valid argument for models paying photographers.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
Maybe I just don't see how I reiterated what you said, since I believe the equipment argument isn't a valid argument for models paying photographers.

I thought it was very clear that the other half of the argument was stated in the very first post.  I also thought it was clear that the OP isn't viewing his argument from a professional standpoint.  As a photographer yourself, it should come as no surprise that all too often, models, and hobbyist photographers don't understand exactly how much time and effort a professional photographer invests to earn a living.  He stated that for signing a release, she should get paid.  While the argument can go in circles for ages, my post was intended for the OP as a direct response to what he originally posted.  He wasn't asking for us to argue amongst ourselves, but was asking for our input on HIS point of view.  Therefore, I thought it was obvious what my post was stating.  I should have been more articulate and formed a cogent response and clarified that it was for him specifically.  I also think you are confusing my statement with someone else's.  I wasn't saying the model should get paid, nor that the photographer should get paid.  Just clarifying for the OP what a trade shoot is aside from a direct definition translation.

DG Photography Services wrote:
I can only speak from personal firsthand experience, but I am wary of paying models for TF* gigs.  Mostly it's from the lack of preparation done on the model's part.  Several individuals I have encountered simply want me to furnish everything and then want compensation on top of that.  Even those who contact me first.  Odds are that I'll be spending more time and money on the shoot than she will.

This is a bit of an off topic suggestion, but to the models I say spend some time networking in your area.  Find good MUAs and hairstylist, and talk to various venues about being a shooting location.  Having these in your back pocket will help make TF* gigs a team effort.  I treat this as a business, and I spend time networking and getting venues and crew in my back pocket, why wouldn't a model who wants to be in the business of modeling?

Again, this is just from my firsthand experience so I may be jaded in my views.

oh lord

Khotography -- DK wrote:

I thought it was very clear that the other half of the argument was stated in the very first post.  I also thought it was clear that the OP isn't viewing his argument from a professional standpoint.  As a photographer yourself, it should come as no surprise that all too often, models, and hobbyist photographers don't understand exactly how much time and effort a professional photographer invests to earn a living.  He stated that for signing a release, she should get paid.  While the argument can go in circles for ages, my post was intended for the OP as a direct response to what he originally posted.  He wasn't asking for us to argue amongst ourselves, but was asking for our input on HIS point of view.  Therefore, I thought it was obvious what my post was stating.  I should have been more articulate and formed a cogent response and clarified that it was for him specifically.  I also think you are confusing my statement with someone else's.  I wasn't saying the model should get paid, nor that the photographer should get paid.  Just clarifying for the OP what a trade shoot is aside from a direct definition translation.

It's 3:30 in the morning. I don't want to try to process things like "cogent," my lexicon and cognitive facilities get severely limited after shopping all day.

BUT... communicative drift is expected after 14 pages. ESPECIALLY 14 pages in 24 hours.

But my comment was directed at you specifically, because I assumed you were claiming the gear argument is a valid reason for expecting people to pay you. I saw no implication that it was directed at the OP for his juxtaposition of the trade vs paid debate. For that I apologize. I just don't believe as business people, it needs to be made clear that they are paying for our gear. People subconsciously expect that you know how to charge enough to cover your costs; ALL of your costs. But strangely when you point it out to them, they get pissed. They don't like to be reminded that they're paying for something you already have because it's understood.

I'm sure had I been well rested, or it had been 10 hours ago, I would have comprehended  that differently.

My bad!

DG Photography Services wrote:
I can only speak from personal firsthand experience, but I am wary of paying models for TF* gigs.  Mostly it's from the lack of preparation done on the model's part.  Several individuals I have encountered simply want me to furnish everything and then want compensation on top of that.  Even those who contact me first.  Odds are that I'll be spending more time and money on the shoot than she will.

This is a bit of an off topic suggestion, but to the models I say spend some time networking in your area.  Find good MUAs and hairstylist, and talk to various venues about being a shooting location.  Having these in your back pocket will help make TF* gigs a team effort.  I treat this as a business, and I spend time networking and getting venues and crew in my back pocket, why wouldn't a model who wants to be in the business of modeling?

Again, this is just from my firsthand experience so I may be jaded in my views.

You're wary of paying for TF shoots?

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:

It's 3:30 in the morning. I don't want to try to process things like "cogent," my lexicon and cognitive facilities get severely limited after shopping all day.

BUT... communicative drift is expected after 14 pages. ESPECIALLY 14 pages in 24 hours.

But my comment was directed at you specifically, because I assumed you were claiming the gear argument is a valid reason for expecting people to pay you. I saw no implication that it was directed at the OP for his juxtaposition of the trade vs paid debate. For that I apologize. I just don't believe as business people, it needs to be made clear that they are paying for our gear. People subconsciously expect that you know how to charge enough to cover your costs; ALL of your costs. But strangely when you point it out to them, they get pissed. They don't like to be reminded that they're paying for something you already have because it's understood.

I'm sure had I been well rested, or it had been 10 hours ago, I would have comprehended  that differently.

My bad!

When I itemize my services for a client I never add my equipment, computer, or software prices.  Clients don't care about that stuff at all.  By no means do I think a photographer deserves to get paid based on equipment used, but on work.  I just think the OP needs to realize that the model isn't the only one at the shoot.  It is late though, and this has been a long thread.  I just kind of tried to skip the drivel along the way so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a lot.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
You're wary of paying for TF shoots?

us largely tf models are unreliable and shitty it sounds

Gabrielle Heather wrote:
us largely tf models are unreliable and shitty it sounds

haven't you even done tf? 

edit:  i think i misread that. nevermind.

MisterC wrote:

I cannot argue that.

Yeah, but at least trees and rocks don't flake, or turn up 2hrs late!

Rick Fink wrote:
I really think that photogs should generally pay models for shoots!

I try to get paid work for a lot of the models I work with but keep running into the fact that many experienced photogs want to do trades or get paid themselves!

My feeling is that the model and I co-create the images but since I ask her to sign a release form she should get paid.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because I see talented models and photogs butting heads over should a nude shoot be paid or trade.

Then there's the implication that any photog worth his salt won't pay models and only the GWC's pay.

Even if it's a totally trade shoot I'll offer the model $25 for her signature on the release form.

You're going to be very popular. lol

Rick Fink wrote:

Are many models paying you?

More than you might guess

Although I've quit making a living off photography and gone back to working in IT which I love too... so money isn't really the issue.

Angelus Complex wrote:
13, going on 14 pages? C'mon ya'll, I'm not trying to read all this shit. lol

+ 1

I'm with you here. Time to lock this timewaster.

Khotography -- DK wrote:

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
It's 3:30 in the morning. I don't want to try to process things like "cogent," my lexicon and cognitive facilities get severely limited after shopping all day.

BUT... communicative drift is expected after 14 pages. ESPECIALLY 14 pages in 24 hours.

But my comment was directed at you specifically, because I assumed you were claiming the gear argument is a valid reason for expecting people to pay you. I saw no implication that it was directed at the OP for his juxtaposition of the trade vs paid debate. For that I apologize. I just don't believe as business people, it needs to be made clear that they are paying for our gear. People subconsciously expect that you know how to charge enough to cover your costs; ALL of your costs. But strangely when you point it out to them, they get pissed. They don't like to be reminded that they're paying for something you already have because it's understood.

I'm sure had I been well rested, or it had been 10 hours ago, I would have comprehended  that differently.

My bad!

When I itemize my services for a client I never add my equipment, computer, or software prices.  Clients don't care about that stuff at all.  By no means do I think a photographer deserves to get paid based on equipment used, but on work.  I just think the OP needs to realize that the model isn't the only one at the shoot.  It is late though, and this has been a long thread.  I just kind of tried to skip the drivel along the way so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a lot.

That's what I was getting at. It shouldn't be an itemized thing. You shouldn't even have to itemize it. The rates a photographer chooses to charge should be more than enough to cover the cost of running the business, without having to be itemized. The itemizations should be for things like editing, time, prints, licensing and stuff like that

Khotography -- DK wrote:
I blame mothers.

Agreed.

Gabrielle Heather wrote:

us largely tf models are unreliable and shitty it sounds

That goes without saying

What I was commenting on, was why on Earth would anyone PAY the model on a TRADE shoot? That's like fighting for World Peace

Rick Fink wrote:

You asked my opinion about your work and I said it was good. Take it or leave it.

I don't care for your style of disagreement which I find more combative than informational.

Rick, I'm sure I missed it but do you pay your models just the $25.00
when they sign the release or is it also a hourly amount or
a flat rate.   Please excuse me if you've written it already.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
That goes without saying

What I was commenting on, was why on Earth would anyone PAY the model on a TRADE shoot? That's like fighting for World Peace

I have done more than my share of trade. I really only ask for compensation from a photographer whose skills I do not think will benefit my portfolio anymore. I am about creating art, but now I am able to desire a certain level of work in my portfolio.

I suppose you are right, and that asking for money on a TRADE, would be silly, but there are other forms of trade. You had a bit of an elitest attitude there in some of the words you chose.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
I could get to Illinois by going west for about an hour, or east for days. Sure one way makes a lot more sense, but the other way is equally as fascinating if I'm not looking to take the quick route.

My preferred method is going east as in slow, informal, and low cash cost. Paying models does not fit into that plan.

Rachel Jay wrote:
I've seen plenty of models who will work nude TF* with the right photographer.  I also know that some of the folks with huge glaring "NO TF*!!" banners have worked TF* with the right model.

So "no" doesn't really mean "no". Hmm. Hey, I'm looking for a model for a nude shoot. Would you be interested?