ClevelandSlim wrote:

i'm not worried about the gwc title, it has never applied to me.  i've been shooting for almost 5 years, with a camera set to auto.  my clients never complain and often RAVE about the end result.  i had a client that their order called for about 100 pics, and 19 minutes of .avi video (enough for a single layer dvd) of the chic shaking a relatively large ass, totally non nude.  the chic/model was getting $200 and the shoot would take approximately 2 hours.  the client was paying me $600 for the package, and he had exclusive rights to it.  i have shot over 30 models for this client in the past 2 years.

i don't know why others here are seemingly upset because there is a market for things that you may not particularly like, agree with, or want to tolerate.  but get f*ckin over it... this is america.

photogs that think the only way for a real photog to make money is to be charging the model, it hurts their ego to pay a model... well it doesn't work for me like that.  if a client steps to me, and says "can you shoot this like this for this much..." then i am off and running to find the model that fits the bill, and i will make the offer, i will even negotiate up until it would no longer be a good business deal for me because the model wants too much.  it's just business.

funny though, that some can not have the scope to see that you can make more money by paying a model a large enough fee to actully get the work done in a timely manner, rather then be wasting time trying to find the model you need for $30 per hour.  by the time you locate that i have already delivered three or four shoots...

it's just business

Huh? 'GWC's don't have clients.

John

John Allan wrote:
Huh? 'GWC's don't have clients.

John

ClevelandSlim wrote:
i'm not worried about the gwc title, it has never applied to me... it's just business

i'm not even going to post about it anymore.  everyone here at MM seems to know so much about the business that they even know what is going on in someone else's daily affairs.

i'm here only to better myself as a photographer, and to work with more legitimate models.  so i don't pay em??? cool.  i can pay the strippers for the adult nudes, i have no problem with that.

LOL

ClevelandSlim wrote:

John Allan wrote:
Huh? 'GWC's don't have clients.

John

i'm not even going to post about it anymore.  everyone here at MM seems to know so much about the business that they even know what is going on in someone else's daily affairs.

i'm here only to better myself as a photographer, and to work with more legitimate models.  so i don't pay em??? cool.  i can pay the strippers for the adult nudes, i have no problem with that.

LOL

Cleveland, I think you took that the wrong way.  GWC's don't have clients.  If you have clients it doesn't matter if you're using a brownie.  You're happy, client is happy, etc.

If you have a market that will sustain the pay rates mentioned above, great for you.  The point is that other than the adult industry, and a few select jobs (very few), I am not seeing job offers that can justify anything close to that for non-nude work.

If you're a fine art nude model with 5 years experience, maybe 75-100/hour isn't so unreasonable.  You and I won't be shooting because I have no clients interested in fine art, nor in paying that much.  In fact, if it's for your portfolio development and you want images, that is a service that I charge for.

Photographers, if you're paying the model, why are you also giving prints.  Portfolio development is a business, and by paying a model to develop their portfolio, you're killing the photography business.  That's worse than shooting TFP.  You're paying to develop someone's portfolio and career.  Should be the opposite.   hmmmmmmm

Mary wrote:
$100.00 an hour doesnt sound like much to me. Doing my makeup and hair, finding an escort, Driving to some strangers studio,  taking my clothes off for a stranger, trying to look comfortable with stranger shooting me, knowing what the photos will probably end up in some weirdos bath room....putting my stuff back in the car and driving home, owing escort god knows what for protecting me from the potential rapist/ serial killer/GWC. Sorry, I don't get where this is too much?

please note the attempt at humor, I'm not talking about any of the extrememly talented photographers here...just talking in general  LOL!

I'm sorry Mary but this could be looked at from the other angle as well (sorry for the quotations):

$100.00 an hour does sound like much to me. I have to set up the studio, charge batteries, get props ready and it's far from over for me after the shoot is over. There's still a lot of post production involved, editing and enhancing which requires a lot of time and then there's a money factor. Think about cameras, lenses, studio lights, backdrops, props, batteries, computers... The list goes on.

Now the stranger drives into my studio. Just as she's trying to look comfortable with the stranger shooting her, I'm trying to look comfortable with the stranger posing there. And if she gets CD or proofs - my precious work, the result of a lot of my time and money invested - she could be the reason it ends up in some weirdos bathroom.

And if you're talking about the risks, how about this? What if the model just plays it and wants to get in my studio with her escort to rob me and steal my expensive equipment?


I'm also making it humor. It's easy to push things to the extreme. In the meantime I'll just shup my big yapp and stick with what Doug has said: "its not like im paying them" - though I'm mere GWC.

ClevelandSlim wrote:
if a client steps to me, and says "can you shoot this like this for this much..."

I for one think you're blowing smoke.  Why would a client pay you for pics as bad as you posted on your port?

Paul

bobby sargent wrote:
Just wanted to see if ANYBODY in their right mind pays any internet model their asking price of $100 an hour?

Oh I know that there are a lot of GWC'S who want to see a girl or any girl naked and they will pay that kind of money.

But are there any for real photographers who will pay that kind of money to any model on the net?

Yea I really want to know. bs

I'm an amateur with a passion for photography, and I have a decent portfolio of both nude and non nude work.  I've worked with professionals who's entire livelyhood is based on modeling, and I've worked with amateurs who had never posed before in their life.

$100-150/hour does seem like a lot money, but when you consider a model may only have a single 2-3 hour shoot in a week, well you do the math.  If modeling is how they make their living, then they need to charge for it.

A professional model I worked with, was kind enough to do a nude TFP session with me.  Normally, the 2.5 hours I spent working with her would have cost $350.  If I had been able to pay her, I would have done so and it would have been worth every penny.  She was a very busy person, doing non nudes for $50/hour and nudes for $150/hour.  There was a lot of demand for her, and it was easy to see why.

If a model is worth the money, it is obvious fromthe quality of her work, and who she has worked with.

So far I have never paid a model, but when I am able to I know several who I would be more than happy to pay for the priviledge of working with them.

scorp

Paul Ferrara wrote:

I for one think you're blowing smoke.  Why would a client pay you for pics as bad as you posted on your port?

Paul

WOW!

Paul Ferrara wrote:

I for one think you're blowing smoke.  Why would a client pay you for pics as bad as you posted on your port?

Paul

you're entitled to your opinion player.  you and your cheerleader; but my living room (where i was shooting last year and the year before) for several hi-financed adult sites; is the "focal point" of a very popular adult site for all to see.

but, glad you know me so well paul

Robert_Vega wrote:
no way in hell i would ever pay a hundred bucks an hour for an internet model.
i'd like to be explained the point as to why the photographer must pay at all.  does not the model and photographer both offer equal services to one another?  the model gets as much out of it as the photographer.

i want to elaborate so bad.  but i'm not.  you guys continue to have fun with it.  i'm lying, i don't make any money shooting for adult sites.  as a matter of fact, emg was right.  the only ones making any money off it are the movie companies.  every one else from models to photogs to whoever, they just particitpate cuz it's fun.

LOL

Angie Rae wrote:
Yes they will, sad but true! I've had photographers offer me that much money to photograph me, but have never found it in my conscience to take it. I will shoot TFCD for the poor guys just starting out. I make enough money from my real job and don't need to take money for pics to update my portfolio, or update their's...so I will always shoot for them for just pics. I guess some people just don't have a conscience.

Well said Angie.
You should be applauded for not jumping on the bandwagon to prey on beginning and not-up-to-par "photographers".

John

John Lavery wrote:
Most would probably consider me a GWC (though any model I've worked with will tell you I'm not a perv), so maybe I'm proving the rule rather than challenging it.

John - LOL!  We're all either pervs and/or exhibitionists. The only difference is whether we are Professional about it or not.

-Rowen

Michael Sloane wrote:
I like to think that the nudes I do are fine art in the truest sense of the word. $100 an hour would need to be for the most experienced model who is going to bring something to the shoot.
Most models who do nudes are willing to pose naked for the camera but are not great models and need lots of direction. While I cannot always pay models who do nudes, I do offer a percentage of print sales. Generally between $25 - $50 is the range that I've paid.

Most fine art models (ie figure not playboy) tend to have a better idea of what good photography is and are generall artiscally inclined themeselves and if they like your work are usually willing to work out a deal that puts money in their pocket but not the expense of your budget.

mike

Exactly.

ClevelandSlim wrote:

you're entitled to your opinion player.  you and your cheerleader; but my living room (where i was shooting last year and the year before) for several hi-financed adult sites; is the "focal point" of a very popular adult site for all to see.

but, glad you know me so well paul

You know what? Slim is an Internet photographer and isn't pretending to be anything other than that. Seeing that I got my start shooting pretty much the same way, I respect this. Industry standard for adult content, whether it be T&A or fetish, is pretty much 100 per hour. It is what it is.

Honestly Paul, I'm still trying to figure out where the arrogance is coming from. So you're good at the technical stuff. So what? Your lighting is one-dimensional, none of your photographs have indicated you have an eye or much creativity. Stick to shooting your senior portraits and stop showing your ignorance.

John Allan wrote:
Well said Angie.
You should be applauded for not jumping on the bandwagon to prey on beginning and not-up-to-par "photographers".
John

Thanks John. I could never charge ANYBODY that much money to shoot me, beginners, experienced photographers, ANYBODY! I only expect to get paid, when it's a real job, not just for pics to add to someone's portfolio. We all need new pics to keep our ports updated, which benefits the model AND photographer. I don't think models realize how much money, even the beginners sometimes have put into their camera equiptment and such. My photographer has spent nearly over $7,000 for his camera equiptment and studio, and I love him to death, and would never charge him. We help each other out. If I make money from his pics, he will always get half, and I'm sure the same goes with him. Thanks for the sweet response. I'm just honest and realistic and feel really bad for the photogs who actually feel the need to pay models, especially internet models that kind of money, just to get new pictures!

bobby sargent wrote:
But are there any for real photographers who will pay that kind of money to any model on the net?

Yea I really want to know. bs

Well, I don't know what you call 'for real', but I have paid that rate for models for some shoots.  I consider myself for-real and when I select a model for a particular purpose I will pay an adequate fee.  If I am doing so, it is because I expect to make it back and then some.  And if by paying competitive fees to models I get the chance to work with one or two more models than other photographers who are competing for the same clients, then I come out even further ahead.

What I don't find 'for real' are people who begrudge quality models a decent fee for their contribution.  Quality models can be found with a wide range of experience.  Honestly, a model who has 20 + web photographer sessions under her belt can pick up so many bad habits that sometimes I'd rather work with a new face.  My magazine clients will pay me the same fee if the model has worked with 1 or 100 photographers before me.

If you find $100/hr for nude modeling w/ a signed model release at least a fair rate or even a bargain, you'd be shocked at how much commercial models get for keeping their clothes on.  Geeze, if you don't think a particular model is worth that fee either a) don't shoot her and stop complaining or b) get better clients who will compensate you better.

Angie Rae wrote:

Thanks John. I could never charge ANYBODY that much money to shoot me, beginners, experienced photographers, ANYBODY! I only expect to get paid, when it's a real job, not just for pics to add to someone's portfolio. We all need new pics to keep our ports updated, which benefits the model AND photographer. I don't think models realize how much money, even the beginners sometimes have put into their camera equiptment and such. My photographer has spent nearly over $7,000 for his camera equiptment and studio, and I love him to death, and would never charge him. We help each other out. If I make money from his pics, he will always get half, and I'm sure the same goes with him. Thanks for the sweet response. I'm just honest and realistic and feel really bad for the photogs who actually feel the need to pay models, especially internet models that kind of money, just to get new pictures!

But in all fairness to the models who do that, they aren't the only "bad guys" here. The photographer victims contribute to the whole perpetuation of the paradigm, by not standing up for themselves and simply refusing to pay the usuary rates. If the victims didn't participate, the whole unscrupulous paradigm would simply collapse under its own weight.

John

John

ClevelandSlim wrote:

you're entitled to your opinion player.  you and your cheerleader; but my living room (where i was shooting last year and the year before) for several hi-financed adult sites; is the "focal point" of a very popular adult site for all to see.

but, glad you know me so well paul

I dont think the fact was if your making money...i think he was trying to say ur photos are not that good...its possible ppl are paying u but ..ur photos are not good....but ur work duz fit into the Adult Industry so get paid my freind

Rowen wrote:

John - LOL!  We're all either pervs and/or exhibitionists. The only difference is whether we are Professional about it or not.

-Rowen

Ok, so I'm not a perv to the point of making the models uncomfortable. I like to think I don't fall into the "creepy photographer" category, but that's a whole 'nother thread!

Dan Howell wrote:
If you find $100/hr for nude modeling w/ a signed model release at least a fair rate or even a bargain, you'd be shocked at how much commercial models get for keeping their clothes on.  Geeze, if you don't think a particular model is worth that fee either a) don't shoot her and stop complaining or b) get better clients who will compensate you better.

well said Dan

PDXImaging wrote:
Course my favorites, while on the subject, are the new models with nothing in their portfolios that want $100, $150 an hour.  What planet are these models from???

I had a model contact me and tell me she loved my work and she wanted to work with me...then we get things almost setup and she was like ok its 125 hour..I was like UHHHH yeah right!! First off it wasn't a shoot for a client 2nd we both would have gotten pictures to use in our portfolio.

Now I will pay a model that I have worked with before when I get paid work from clients. But as far as just shooting nothing specific really I would never pay, especially someone I have never worked with before...

Just my 2 cents...

Dee wrote:
I had a model contact me and tell me she loved my work and she wanted to work with me...then we get things almost setup and she was like ok its 125 hour..I was like UHHHH yeah right!! First off it wasn't a shoot for a client 2nd we both would have gotten pictures to use in our portfolio.

Now I will pay a model that I have worked with before when I get paid work from clients. But as far as just shooting nothing specific really I would never pay, especially someone I have never worked with before...

Just my 2 cents...

You know, it just totally negates the compliment. I haven't run into it much here, but definately on OMP.
Get a mail from a model who says "I think you do such beautiful work, I really want to shoot with you - and BTW: I charge $xxx per hour"...

You know she couldn't describe one single image I have in my portfolio if her life depended on it...

John

Paul Ferrara wrote:

I for one think you're blowing smoke.  Why would a client pay you for pics as bad as you posted on your port?

Paul

Paul... You're my friend and so is Slim. Whenever I go to Cleveland, he's one of the first people I call, and i'm telling you as a friend to shut up, because dude makes a LOT of money doing what he does. The sites he caters to are some of the top black adult sites online. So WHAT his stuffs not technically sound and lighting is off, SOMEONE is buying it at a large production rate (and yes I know who they are, some of you even peek at these sites when you think the coast is clear). PLUS it's not always about the pics, it's mostly video work, which is pretty good... Way better than his pics. lol

Dead issue, carry on.

John Allan wrote:

You know, it just totally negates the compliment. I haven't run into it much here, but definately on OMP.
Get a mail from a model who says "I think you do such beautiful work, I really want to shoot with you - and BTW: I charge $xxx per hour"...

You know she couldn't describe one single image I have in my portfolio if her life depended on it...

John

OH so true.  I have to agree with you on this one.  I like your style.  bs

Monsante Bey wrote:
I don't pay NET models (girls who just have photog credits on their resume and that's it) but I will pay a model who happens to be online... There IS a difference.

Models who happen to be online have real world accomplishments away from the net. They do real world things and get paid for it. Modeling is primarily their life, not working at Wal-Mart during the week. They deserve what they ask for, long as it's not too demanding.

So a poor old hag like me ain't worth a dime cuz i have a day job  Bey?    how can I pay for my new dentures???

Actually folks I do plenty of tfp/cd for those that find me worth their time now if you want me at your trade professional event  oh hell yeah this girl demands her pay.

ClevelandSlim wrote:
EMG was right.  the only ones making any money off it are the movie companies.  every one else from models to photogs to whoever, they just particitpate cuz it's fun. LOL

Please qoute me correctly. I'm sure I said the only ones that are making money are the movie companies and anyone else that's making money is because they've got a side hustle.

I understand what it takes to submit a set of images to adult websites and you think that couple of hundred dollars per set is money? That's chump change compared to what the site you're selling them to is making. It's like the way I look at my tenants when I collect the rents - they're content with having just a roof over their heads but never really striving to own a house, or even two or three. Meanwhile, my mortgages get paid + monthly positive cash flow. If you can help it you never want to be the middleman.

aye provide wrote:
So a poor old hag like me ain't worth a dime cuz i have a day job  Bey?    how can I pay for my new dentures???

Actually folks I do plenty of tfp/cd for those that find me worth their time now if you want me at your trade professional event  oh hell yeah this girl demands her pay.

It's like this.

If i'm planning to make MONEY off your pics (which I don't too often here in Ohio, I make money off of video)  then yes I plan on compensating you with either money or a copy of the work, choice is yours.

But it's been my experience that NET models (not all) are indeed a troublesome lot that cause a lot of strife and headache. One minute they're pleased as punch about their pics, the next minute they want to confiscate everything because their momma/daddy/boyfriend/girlfriend/husband doesn't want them displayed or the girl modeling.

I don't see that happening with professioanl models... At least not that often.

EMG STUDIOS wrote:
I understand what it takes to submit a set of images to adult websites and you think that couple of hundred dollars per set is money? That's chump change compared to what the site you're selling them to is making. It's like the way I look at my tenants when I collect the rents - they're content with having just a roof over their heads but never really striving to own a house, or even two or three. Meanwhile, my mortgages get paid + monthly positive cash flow. If you can help it you never want to be the middleman.

Dude, he said the MODELS get $100 per, not HIM.
But you're absolutely right with the mortgage analogy. If more adult models decided to open their OWN companies and get a team of girls together.... The possibilities are bountiful. But they don't think like that, they just want the lil $200 and bragging rights.

It's like this.

If i'm planning to make MONEY off your pics (which I don't too often here in Ohio, I make money off of video)  then yes I plan on compensating you with either money or a copy of the work, choice is yours.

But it's been my experience that NET models (not all) are indeed a troublesome lot that cause a lot of strife and headache. One minute they're pleased as punch about their pics, the next minute they want to confiscate everything because their momma/daddy/boyfriend/girlfriend/husband doesn't want them displayed or the girl modeling.
I don't see that happening with professioanl models... At least not that often.

Well bless your soul for acknowledging some of us NETmodels are models( she bows down touching her forehead to the cool tile before Mr Bey's feet.).  What ALL models that have that reacationary stance when their pics hit  need to remember before they whine,,,,,,,,,

Somewhere out there REGARDLESS of images being removed or reprinted to delete him/her....he/she could be someones poster or screensaver all around the world. And IF she got paid...she better shut the $%^& up and deal with the choice he/she made.

But back to pay  I do believe certain types of work should be paid or if not allow rights so that both can make income for those types of work.

From what I see here many responding are shoot styles that tfp/tfcd for portfolio images is quite equitable. What models need to do is accept the offers that make sense travelwise and goal wise. When offered a TFP/CD access it. If you know you can not afford to get there, it is not a style you are comfortable with, etc  then decline and do not wait the shooters time.

If one accepts a TFP/CD  it is not time to negotiate for travel fees lunch etc  the offer is the off take it or leave it. You time is just as valuable as the photographer's so be wise and reasonable  in how you spend it

Robert_Vega wrote:
no way in hell i would ever pay a hundred bucks an hour for an internet model.
i'd like to be explained the point as to why the photographer must pay at all.  does not the model and photographer both offer equal services to one another?  the model gets as much out of it as the photographer.

I don't even think it's equal. If one looks at the the pricing of quality DSLRs it barely gets equal. With each shot your camera wears out and the progress in industry is so rapid that your top of the line camera is pretty much obsolete in 2-3 years. The photographer has to invest a lot of money into equipment and its maintanance to be able to shoot. Model barely takes off her clothes...

If you have paid assignement to provide particular picture for money then it might make sense to find appropriate model and pay her $100 because you're gonna make $500 on the whole thing. That's how your investment into all the expensive equipment pays off.

I have long been against TFP/CD because it's not fair with photographer. The value of assets involved is not equal. Photographers should get paid. Now you can kick my ass for what I said dammit.