Rick Fink wrote:
I started this post on the Model page because I wanted models to know what they are getting paid for- a legal document that gives the photographer all the rights and ownership of images from your work together!

And many photographers will compensate the models for this with images from the shoot.  What is the problem?  According to your earlier post you suggest the value to the model of providing these rights (or more accurately waiving their rights) at $25.  Is it so hard to imagine that a model would value images for her portfolio at $25 or more?

Shaholly wrote:
Since you brought this up... I have been dealing with similar issues with photogs. Some will get extremely offended once I give my rates. Anyway, what do you as a photographer consider to be reasonable rates for me?

Implieds?
Topless?
Clothed/portrait?

thanks

That question needs to be asked in the "Critique" forum, although even there, most responses won't be very helpful.

Just out of curiosity, do you get "extremely offended" when photographers give you their rates?

Shaholly wrote:
Since you brought this up... I have been dealing with similar issues with photogs. Some will get extremely offended once I give my rates. Anyway, what do you as a photographer consider to be reasonable rates for me?

Implieds?
Topless?
Clothed/portrait?

thanks

You ought to start your own thread rather than hijacking this one.

Rick Fink wrote:
I started this post on the Model page because I wanted models to know what they are getting paid for- a legal document that gives the photographer all the rights and ownership of images from your work together!

I would guess that most models who sign releases know it is they are agreeing to.

And, except in very limited cases, the photographers always own the images, whether the models get paid or not, and whether they sign a release or not, unless the photographer specifically offers them a document turning ownership over to the model.

Rick Fink wrote:
A lot of you seem to think I'm secretly a manager.

Maybe I'm secretly a model who has bopped a photog on his head and stolen his identity in order to make outrageous claims!

And if anyone thinks this thread is a waste of time then quit wasting your time.

Again, just please explain exactly what you do when you say you try to find models work.

Rick Fink wrote:
Check touring model rates.

The best touring models generally charge $100.00 an hour.

Look at their portfolios and make a comparison to your own work.

thanks so much

Shaholly wrote:

wow attitude much?!

I am following up his post with a question... it fits right here in this thread thank you..

You guys can keep arguing with him about paying your models... But since he offered the post I think it only fitting that my quandary is in this thread

thanks so much for your opinion

I find this question completely appropriate to the forum!

Rachel Jay wrote:

That's great and all, but everyone's ways of doing things are different, and each individual has the right to throw their policies out the window if the right opportunity arises. 

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.

I personally NEVER work *TF, and unless your a nude model there is absolutely no point in doing *TF nudes because they won't help your book, no agency will put them in a portfolio. I have had some of the most prestigious photogs on this site offer a shoot *but only nudes* with a signed release etc. That won't help my book so I don't care how great of a photog it is, I won't do it. Not my genre, not in my best interest.

Art of the nude wrote:

That question needs to be asked in the "Critique" forum, although even there, most responses won't be very helpful.

Just out of curiosity, do you get "extremely offended" when photographers give you their rates?

Depends on how good a photog he is, honestly... But the thing I think that is missing in this thread is that you've lost perceptive...  A shot is nothing with out a fabulous photog and a makeup artist! That is for sure! However, the model is the face, the body the overall image that is up (in ads, billboards, prints and more often then not, THE INTERNET!!!)  Now you don't want to pay your models because its your work and, I understand that. BUT!!! It is not you online or out for the world to look at forever!

Myself along with millions of model photos are on sights like these but then get snagged, ripped of and used on other sites etc.. (weather, you the photog, pays them for taking it or not.

Just think about it...

Shaholly wrote:
Depends on how good a photog he is, honestly... But the thing I think that is missing in this thread is that you've lost perceptive...  A shot is nothing with out a fabulous photog and a makeup artist! That is for sure! However, the model is the face, the body the overall image that is up (in ads, billboards, prints and more often then not, THE INTERNET!!!)  Now you don't want to pay your models because its your work and, I understand that. BUT!!! It is not you online or out for the world to look at forever!

Myself along with millions of model photos are on sights like these but then get snagged, ripped of and used on other sites etc.. (weather, you the photog, pays them for taking it or not.

Just think about it...

Why should I pay an internet model when agencies send me models whenever I want to test with?

If it's a paid job the client is the one hiring and casting the model not me.

Rick Fink wrote:
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!

I say good luck to those experience photographers and it's because they can.
Maybe one day the op will be in the same standing as these experienced photographers.

Shaholly wrote:

Depends on how good a photog he is, honestly... But the thing I think that is missing in this thread is that you've lost perceptive...  A shot is nothing with out a fabulous photog and a makeup artist! That is for sure! However, the model is the face, the body the overall image that is up (in ads, billboards, prints and more often then not, THE INTERNET!!!)  Now you don't want to pay your models because its your work and, I understand that. BUT!!! It is not you online or out for the world to look at forever!

Myself along with millions of model photos are on sights like these but then get snagged, ripped of and used on other sites etc.. (weather, you the photog, pays them for taking it or not.

Just think about it...

I don't think any photographer here is saying they wouldn't pay a model for a job they are getting paid for - I think most are referring to personal projects.

And chances are if it is for a billboard or ad, there is a client, who would be paying the photographer and the model, as well as the MUA, stylist, etc.

Shaholly wrote:

Depends on how good a photog he is, honestly... But the thing I think that is missing in this thread is that you've lost perceptive...  A shot is nothing with out a fabulous photog and a makeup artist! That is for sure! However, the model is the face, the body the overall image that is up (in ads, billboards, prints and more often then not, THE INTERNET!!!)  Now you don't want to pay your models because its your work and, I understand that. BUT!!! It is not you online or out for the world to look at forever!

Myself along with millions of model photos are on sights like these but then get snagged, ripped of and used on other sites etc.. (weather, you the photog, pays them for taking it or not.

Just think about it...

Rick Fink wrote:
I am absolutely not a manager for anyone!

The thread came up because a talented model I have worked with and paid each time was having trouble getting paid for a nude shoot!

Most photogs tell the models that they need to beef up their portfolios before they find paying work and then the paying work is not there!

If I contact a model and ask her to work with me I pay her.

If you are trying to find models paying work with other photographers,that would make you either a booking agent or a wanna be manager in the models eyes.

Maybe you should let the models know,the real reason no one wants to shoot with them is most photographers on MM do not care to work thru a 3rd party per MM rules

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
Why should I pay an internet model when agencies send me models whenever I want to test with?

If it's a paid job the client is the one hiring and casting the model not me.

Shaholly wrote:
all models end up being your so called "internet models" first of all! 

but if your too good to shoot with models on MM then dont shoot them!!

if you are using them to test and practice (fucking up, taking shitty pics and posting them online etc. thats even more reason to pay them)

I assume you either didn't look at her port or have absolutely no idea what good photography looks like.

Shaholly wrote:
all models end up being your so called "internet models" first of all! 

but if your too good to shoot with models on MM then dont shoot them!!

if you are using them to test and practice (fucking up, taking shitty pics and posting them online etc. thats even more reason to pay them)

You obviously have no idea what a test is? And who says I take shitty pictures or fuck up in my shoots

and If  my client wanted to hire someone and asked me to do it for them why would I come to MM to cast when I can go to an agency and have a guaranteed that the model will be a professional and not a gamble. Even agency send their models to test (TFP).  Please get real

Greg Kolack wrote:
I don't think any photographer here is saying they wouldn't pay a model for a job they are getting paid for - I think most are referring to personal projects.

And chances are if it is for a billboard or ad, there is a client, who would be paying the photographer and the model, as well as the MUA, stylist, etc.

Rick Fink wrote:
I have been doing this since 1985 and the single most important thing I have learned is how to be a gentleman.

See; I knew how to be a gentleman when I started.  And it has nothing to do with making bad business choices.

Shaholly wrote:

Depends on how good a photog he is, honestly... But the thing I think that is missing in this thread is that you've lost perceptive...  A shot is nothing with out a fabulous photog and a makeup artist! That is for sure! However, the model is the face, the body the overall image that is up (in ads, billboards, prints and more often then not, THE INTERNET!!!)  Now you don't want to pay your models because its your work and, I understand that. BUT!!! It is not you online or out for the world to look at forever!

Myself along with millions of model photos are on sights like these but then get snagged, ripped of and used on other sites etc.. (weather, you the photog, pays them for taking it or not.

Just think about it...

And how do you propose that paying a model $25, as the OP suggests, is going to resolve the many issues you raise?

K E S L E R wrote:
Only time I pay models are when I HIRE them to be apart of my workshops. 

If you're referring to paying models for shoots/ test?  Thats ridiculous, only GWC's do that.

I understand when a photographer is new he/ she would need to pay someone to get good photos, but over time as the photographer improves he/ she should not be paying models... unless he/ she is a GWC.

Vice versa with models.  If the model is new, often times they will pay an experienced photographer to shoot them so they can get good photos and bookings.

That seems to be the order of things.

+1

Rick Fink wrote:
This is so true!

It's the models image that's out there and I wonder if many photogs really get that.

I know one super talented model who is in a bitter custody dispute with her ex over their child and he's claiming she's a bad mother because she does nudes.

I have been doing this since 1985 and the single most important thing I have learned is how to be a gentleman.

Are you implying photographers who don't pay their models are not gentlemen? Because I think the dozens of models who have shot with me (far more than are in my portfolio here) would disagree with you.

I have never paid a model - I don't say this to brag or make any kind of statement, but just stating fact - and the majority of the models who I have shot with have loved working with me and loved the results, and had no problem with not getting paid.

And I'm starting to see why you wanted this left in the model forum...

K E S L E R wrote:
Only time I pay models are when I HIRE them to be apart of my workshops. 

If you're referring to paying models for shoots/ test?  Thats ridiculous, only GWC's do that.

I understand when a photographer is new he/ she would need to pay someone to get good photos, but over time as the photographer improves he/ she should not be paying models... unless he/ she is a GWC.

Vice versa with models.  If the model is new, often times they will pay an experienced photographer to shoot them so they can get good photos and bookings.

That seems to be the order of things.

The first half is true, the second; not so much.

If a photographer is certain to sell a given image for hundreds, or thousands, of dollars, it's not only fair, but probably wise, to pay the model a rate.

I spoke with one model who "never" does trade shoots.  She had just done a trade for ONE print.  Why?  It was worth (in fact, not in the photographer's head) about $1,500.

Shaholly wrote:

all models end up being your so called "internet models" first of all! 

but if your too good to shoot with models on MM then dont shoot them!!

if you are using them to test and practice (fucking up, taking shitty pics and posting them online etc. thats even more reason to pay them)

wow..

K E S L E R wrote:
Only time I pay models are when I HIRE them to be apart of my workshops. 

If you're referring to paying models for shoots/ test?  Thats ridiculous, only GWC's do that.

I understand when a photographer is new he/ she would need to pay someone to get good photos, but over time as the photographer improves he/ she should not be paying models... unless he/ she is a GWC.

Vice versa with models.  If the model is new, often times they will pay an experienced photographer to shoot them so they can get good photos and bookings.

That seems to be the order of things.

+100

Greg Kolack wrote:
maybe not billboards.. but speaking from personal experience I have had photos taken off this sight, flickr and whereever else photogs post their work. They have been used in magazine ads, t.v. ads, camera stores, printing places, etc.. not to mention all over other sites online... and because it was a trade.. i never saw a dime.. now can you expect me to think thats fair?
I don't think any photographer here is saying they wouldn't pay a model for a job they are getting paid for - I think most are referring to personal projects.

And chances are if it is for a billboard or ad, there is a client, who would be paying the photographer and the model, as well as the MUA, stylist, etc.

FYI to everyone - I did not write this - I think the quotes were screwed up.

And to the person who actually wrote this - are you saying that someone stole your work, or that the photographer who shot those photos allowed them to be used for these purposes?

And did you sign a release?

Art of the nude wrote:

The first half is true, the second; not so much.

If a photographer is certain to sell a given image for hundreds, or thousands, of dollars, it's not only fair, but probably wise, to pay the model a rate.

I spoke with one model who "never" does trade shoots.  She had just done a trade for ONE print.  Why?  It was worth (in fact, not in the photographer's head) about $1,500.

so how did she build her port from scratch without tf.
she must of had a rich daddy..


how doesnt it work both ways?

It can. it does.

not all the time, but from models/photogs who have contacted me or I have spoke to, its more or less the same process in the begining stages..

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

And how do you propose that paying a model $25, as the OP suggests, is going to resolve the many issues you raise?

I'm not. And, I'm sure he wasn't serious.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
And how do you propose that paying a model $25, as the OP suggests, is going to resolve the many issues you raise?

Shaholly wrote:
I'm not. And, I'm sure he wasn't serious.

I wouldn't be so sure.

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
at the lollery of this thread.


I need to get ready because I have an agency test in a hour I'll be back to read the rest of the fail in this thread.