MarkMarek wrote:

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.

Ready to bend over for the punt Sir?

Boyd Hambleton wrote:
Your lighting is one-dimensional, none of your photographs have indicated you have an eye or much creativity.

One-dimensional lighting is better than no lighting.  Now let me go find three girls who will let me stick balls in their mouths.

Paul

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.

Wow, Angie, beautiful and considerate!!!  Note to self, get to Oklahoma some day...  LOL

Paul Ferrara wrote:

One-dimensional lighting is better than no lighting.  Now let me go find three girls who will let me stick balls in their mouths.

Paul

You, sir, are a fool. Yup, 90% of my work is natural light. It's a style choice. I'm quite comfortable working with lights as well. As for the little slam on the bondage imagery, to each their own. I like to think my portfolio is pretty diverse, and yet I'm not arrogant enough to think I can't grow and develop more as a photographer. As for you, in the span of a day I've seen you tell at least three photographers that their work sucks. You're tactless and arrogant without the credentials to back it up. I'm just wondering why it's taken so long for someone to call you on this.

Zao Photo wrote:
You're supposed to pay people you shoot?

Ha! I didn't know that either!

Peggy Vee wrote:
I can't afford to do this for a hobby.  My time is worth something.  Any GOOD models are going to have to have some sort of compensation.

That's how I feel about photgraphing people.

Andy Meng wrote:
Interesting question Bobby.  I have to agree, though now I've seen rates of 125/hour for casual and up to 250/hour, 2 hour minimum for up to playboy style.  Again, not a lot of experience.

Other than through self satisfaction(GWC syndrome), how on earth would you recover that kind of capital outlay?  500 for 2 hours of shooting.  Even if you were shooting porn, I doubt a 2 hour shoot could net you $500 in sales to the web sites, let alone covering costs.   Or is the price that high?  (Don't know, don't shoot that stuff). 

I shoot some product, mostly corsets, cinchers, etc. for a company, but about all the market will bear is 50/hour.  So far, I've had good models that are happy with that rate, plus a corset.

Andy's theory is that internet models ask this, get the GWCs/perverts/molesters hiring them, have all kinds of problems, but figure if the morons will pay, then real photographers should be willing to pay even more.  haha, real photographers have to pay bills.

I wish digitial cameras had never been invented, then the GWC's/perverts/molesters could go to their titty bar and drop their 500 and photography would be a cleaner business.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

You can always tell those who actually operate a photography BUSINESS and have bills to pay.

Ditto what Andy said.

Andy Meng wrote:
Interesting question Bobby.  I have to agree, though now I've seen rates of 125/hour for casual and up to 250/hour, 2 hour minimum for up to playboy style.  Again, not a lot of experience.

Other than through self satisfaction(GWC syndrome), how on earth would you recover that kind of capital outlay?  500 for 2 hours of shooting.  Even if you were shooting porn, I doubt a 2 hour shoot could net you $500 in sales to the web sites, let alone covering costs.   Or is the price that high?  (Don't know, don't shoot that stuff). 

I shoot some product, mostly corsets, cinchers, etc. for a company, but about all the market will bear is 50/hour.  So far, I've had good models that are happy with that rate, plus a corset.

Andy's theory is that internet models ask this, get the GWCs/perverts/molesters hiring them, have all kinds of problems, but figure if the morons will pay, then real photographers should be willing to pay even more.  haha, real photographers have to pay bills.

I wish digitial cameras had never been invented, then the GWC's/perverts/molesters could go to their titty bar and drop their 500 and photography would be a cleaner business.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Yeah if digital cameras weren't invented we wouldn't have chumps like Visual dickweed around hahahahahaha!

Boyd Hambleton wrote:
You, sir, are a fool. Yup, 90% of my work is natural light. It's a style choice.

So you're down to name-calling now?  What's next?

And if your "lighting" is a "style choice," why do you assume that mine isn't?

Go away.

Paul

MarkMarek wrote:
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.

Got that right, I'm already looking to replace my Canon 20D...  I wish models appreciated more the investment photographers make.  A typical digital shoot for me involves somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000+ worth of camera equipment (more if I'm shooting both film and digital) and another $1,500+ in lights, equipment that is constantly becoming dated and depreciating with every shoot...  Not to mention MUAs, wardrobe, studio or location costs, computers, software, printers, paper, ink, licenses, not to mention my time...  But at the end of it all, one stunning pic of a model makes it all worthwhile, otherwise we wouldn't do it...

Peggy Vee wrote:
Any GOOD models are going to have to have some sort of compensation.

Exactly! Compensation (for me) = Money or GREAT images for my portfolio.....

May-Lu

EMG STUDIOS wrote:
Well, a lot of models have no idea the value of photography equipment. When I ask them not to pick up my camera they think I'm being a d*ckhead. I would rather say, don't pick up my camera than say. If you drop that I want the keys to your car, you're holding a rig with a combined value of over $5000

LOL, always a concern, I'm happy to let the model review images via the camera, encourage it in fact so they have an idea of what the look is, but when my 20D is dangling by the neckstrap, I have gulped a few times...  course I'm the only person that has dropped any of my cameras, so...  LOL

Paul Ferrara wrote:
So you're down to name-calling now?  What's next?

And if your "lighting" is a "style choice," why do you assume that mine isn't?

Go away.

Paul

Never said it wasn't. It's obvious to me you're not to going to stop being arrogant and telling other photographers how awful their work is, so I won't waste anymore time with you.

May-Lu wrote:
Exactly! Compensation (for me) = Money or GREAT images for my portfolio.....
May-Lu

Off topic... HI MAY-LU

EMG STUDIOS wrote:
Off topic... HI MAY-LU

Now, don't be picking on me EMG!  I am really off topic?  Sorry, must be the ZIMAs....  I know I had a point... mmmmm  Oh! yeah, either you pay me $100.00 or you provide great images!!! LOL

=P

PDXImaging wrote:
There may be some models worth paying that for, but not many.  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???

The planet where everyone can be a model.  They won't get anything except from the GWC that wants them naked..

Morphine Dream wrote:

The planet where everyone can be a model.  They won't get anything except from the GWC that wants them naked..

LOL, gotta respect a GWC with a plan...

ClevelandSlim wrote:
there are some outrageous misconceptions of the adult industry and how the economic dynamics of that industry work.  it is a $10 billion dollar a year industry... the money is real, and if you want some you can basically just go get it.  don't worry why a "gwc" would pay a model $100 per hour for nudes.  many of you are under the notion that he's paying her out of his own pocket... probably not.

don't hate the player hate the game!

Yeah right, i don't think people on this forum are talking about the adult industry, i'm sure youre right that they might not be paying out of their pocket but there are TONS of GWC's that are in fact paying out of their pocket.

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

I think most people on here have an idea that its business but you seem to think that we're all outraged by this, this whole 100 per hour thing is nothing new to any of us and after reading posts no one is confused by it. I can just see your blood pressure rising at the fact that most of us it seems refuse to pay 100 per hour to some inexperienced girl to just lay on the ground naked.

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

Ouch!

ClevelandSlim wrote:

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

Dude, relax, no one said you don't make money so why are you taking it like that?  Are you bipolar?  People are basically giving their reason as to why they would or wouldn't pay.  You're taking it personally when I and others say they wouldn't pay.  Take a valium.

Morphine Dream wrote:

Dude, relax, no one said you don't make money so why are you taking it like that?  Are you bipolar?  People are basically giving their reason as to why they would or wouldn't pay.  You're taking it personally when I and others say they wouldn't pay.  Take a valium.

paul's blowing smoke comment, to which you replied 'ouch'... was directed at me.

EMG STUDIOS wrote:
Well, a lot of models have no idea the value of photography equipment. When I ask them not to pick up my camera they think I'm being a d*ckhead. I would rather say, don't pick up my camera than say. If you drop that I want the keys to your car, you're holding a rig with a combined value of over $5000

Damn good point, you can't blame them really because how are they to know unless they've been in the business a long time.

ClevelandSlim wrote:

paul's blowing smoke comment, to which you replied 'ouch'... was directed at me.

I said ouch cause it was harsh, and i wasn't expecting to see that.

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 don't know if they're in their right minds, but GWCs paying internet models $100/hour is pretty common. "For real photographers" will pay $100/hour depending on the resale value of the images.  $100/hour for stock is far from unheard of.

PDXImaging wrote:
I'm already looking to replace my Canon 20D

Keep me in mind.

Paul

Roethke wrote:
My favorite is photographers who approach me and then expect me to pay THEM.

Its the equivalent of the model contacting a photog then with the whole here are my rates.  It goes both ways  i'm sure, although i havn't heard of a photog doing that.  if thats happened to you what did the photog say his rates were?

Morphine Dream wrote:

Its the equivalent of the model contacting a photog then with the whole here are my rates.  It goes both ways  i'm sure, although i havn't heard of a photog doing that.  if thats happened to you what did the photog say his rates were?

More than $100 an hour.  And he specified that I couldn't sell the images in any way, just use them for my portfolio.  His work was for shit anyway.

Paul Ferrara wrote:

Keep me in mind.

Paul

Actually Paul, I liked the 10D better, the battery grip didn't move like it does with the 20D and the 10D never "froze" on me, which the 20D does (I have to pop out the batteries at times just to let the thing reboot essentially, and the images tend to be too red for my liking with the 20D...).  Course I did drop the thing from about 2 feet onto concrete, so...  LOL 

Still, all in all, I get eceptional images, some of them even at 2 foot by 3 foot are amazing....