Innovative Imagery wrote:
Ah no, we can never agree. 

Your work is great

Innovative Imagery wrote:
Well, OK, I was wrong.

I'm going to call that as a win to me

Innovative Imagery wrote:
There ya go again, being all super awesome and shit, ruling the disciplines of comprehension and not taking things out of context or altering their meaning in any way.

Thank you.

Innovative Imagery wrote:

K I C K H A M wrote:
Cost-wise, it is still a better analogy than peanut butter. Especially because the peanut butter will also have nothing left over.

But it will take a few sandwiches to get there !   

K I C K H A M wrote:
The point is, there is a difference between physical cost and value.

That is true, but I don't think the intrinsic value should be ignored.

K I C K H A M wrote:
As a photographer, I would give someone images if I paid them. Simply because "why not."

Because if they have value, they could pay for them.  After all they thought enough of their work to have you pay for it.  Isn't it just as appropriate to pay for your good work as a photographer?


You could look upon it as part of your advertising budget, but I expect you will get more value for that investment if you put them other places and just sold the model the one or two that she was interested in.  IF the only place to get a copy was from you for money, that would enhance their value and make a sale much more likely.  An example would be a promotional poster, brochure or postcard sent to image buyers.

Photographers have to stop giving away their imagery, if they want it to have the most value possible.

Because they aren't likely to buy prints from me. Just like I'm not likely to buy them from someone who has paid me.

But, if they are available to me, I may put them on my site.

For this specific case, I would do this not only in their interest (because clearly I liked them enough to pay them), but also (and mostly) in my interest.

I understand that different people have different reasons for hiring models (needed a specific look that the model happened to fit, though the model has little following/experience/etc) and there are several scenarios and situations where different things make sense, not to mention personal preference.

It also depends on WHY the photographer paid. Is this a portfolio scenario where one person's work wasn't "good enough" for trade? Or is this a scenario where it's paid work because of the usage?

Abby Hawkins wrote:
Depends on the pay/agreement.  If it is any combination of pay/images, then, yes, I am expecting images.  If the agreement is just pay, I'm not expecting images.  I'd love to see what the final product looks like, but I'm not expecting anything (certainly not a hi-res copy).

Same.

Usually the photographer's I work with give me some images after our shoot anyways because they want me to post them and share them. More promotion for them.

Dan K Photography wrote:
I bet most professions have these cons. In constructions it's the "Give me a large discount and I will hire you for that big project I am doing next year"

Yep, heard that one once or twice!

JadeDRed wrote:
I wanna have your baby !

Don't they all. 

Brian Diaz wrote:
One should expect whatever compensation is agreed upon before the shoot takes place.

Different photos have different uses, so sometimes it makes sense for a model not to have any access to the photos.  In other cases, there's no need to restrict such access.

I wish more people understood this. I make agreements before the shoot and do everything in my power to keep them. I pay much of the time because geography is an issue and if I have to go someplace to shoot, I want a model there as promised.

I give out pics because I almost always want to and don't have any interest in selling at this time.  But  do not ever recall a paid model telling me I was somehow expected to give images in any form.  And off hand, I have shot about 50 models from MM give or take a few.

If I was shooting a specific thing for $$ or an obligation.  No images would be forth comming an it would be a part of the shoot agreement.

KelliOnLineGlamourNude  wrote:
Also, MANY tfp photographers think they run the entire show, that they're in charge of EVERYTHING, from models hair/make-up, outfits, to poses, theme, location and duration of shoot all the way to selecting which pics. Many are very confused what tfp stands for.

TFP
Time for Print or Pictures (since we are in the digital age)

When I posted that (sorry, to lazy to change accounts)... I was just giving you an explanation why most of the time paid models might get photos.. as that's how I do it when I pay a model.. I will give them what I edit from the shoot... they don't get a choice.

When I do TF.. They absolutely have quite a bit to say about what is shot and poses THEY want and have a MAJOR input value on what is going to happen and when.

I'm a bit more controlling about my paid shoots (me paying the model) because I am paying.. I want exactly the concept I am thinking of.. if the model wants a say, she should TF* with me.

Some models I have found are so high in demand and are basically "supermodel" status on MM, they can demand almost anything they want and photographers will fall head over heals to shoot with what ever crazy demand they throw at them.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Whatever the agreement entails between the model and photographer I have no problem with.

What I find in certain instances is that the model, usually a hobbyist who both wants to make money AND have images for her portfolio, fails to see images themselves as holding value.

Actually, I see photographers making comments like "Well, I don't see the point of not sending a paid model a few images from the shoot..." Would you say the same thing if each image cost you $50? Would you have a problem translating that to cash and just sending the model an extra $200 because it would be petty not to?

Images have a value. Cash has a value. You can use any combination to compensate someone. But to EXPECT additional payment after a shoot is not understanding the value an image holds. And, unfortunately, that belief is perpetuated by a lot of amateur photographers.

Could not agree with you more.

JadeDRed wrote:
Cash has a value that equals it costs. If you give a model £50 she gains £50 and you lose £50.

The value and cost of images vary. Sending a copy of an image you already have will cost you close to nothing but will probably have a higher value to the model. In that way it can be a pretty smart way to work, you can get extra happy model for minimal outlay.

I'm not giving images to a model that thinks my pictures suck.

A model can always ask for pictures I have already posted and I will send them to her, but I'm not going out of my way to send something she doesn't want in the first place.

Jeff Fiore wrote:

I know what you mean and I agree, I'm talking about local models, not traveling models. Photography is my job too, this is all I do and yes, I do like to eat occasionally too

Ah, ok. I just wanted to make sure that you guys understand that my charging doesn't mean I look down on you as photographers. It just means this is my job.

CNP Photography wrote:
I gotta disagree with this. It is one or the either. You're either paid with photos or cash, why should you be paid with both?

I concur! We call that attitude having your cake and eating it! Actually, I nearly always do, but if you expect it, your delusional!

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

Hey, I have a GREAT job for you. It requires a week of your time and full attention and it doesn't pay you anything...and you'll have to pay all your expenses as well.

But it will be incredible exposure for you.

I'll send the contract right over.

I shall commit to the job with greatest of enthusiasms!

T-D-L wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the whole "If you give the model images to use, it's beneficial to you to double your exposure"....

If the photos I were capable of producing were of such quality that the model would use them....then why am I paying in the first place?  It seems to be a matter of people getting taken advantage of if you ask me.  Photos have value, and if you expect/use them....you're getting paid twice essentially.

+1

K I C K H A M wrote:

Because they aren't likely to buy prints from me. Just like I'm not likely to buy them from someone who has paid me.

But, if they are available to me, I may put them on my site.

For this specific case, I would do this not only in their interest (because clearly I liked them enough to pay them), but also (and mostly) in my interest.

I understand that different people have different reasons for hiring models (needed a specific look that the model happened to fit, though the model has little following/experience/etc) and there are several scenarios and situations where different things make sense, not to mention personal preference.

It also depends on WHY the photographer paid. Is this a portfolio scenario where one person's work wasn't "good enough" for trade? Or is this a scenario where it's paid work because of the usage?

I just checked Kelli Kickham's Klout score, which is somewhat of an indicator of online and social media influence. Its 59, which is actually pretty darn good and she reaches over 3000 people with her posts. Therefor if she added your photos to her social media portfolio or posted them on twitter you would have the potential to reach over 3000 people.

T-D-L wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the whole "If you give the model images to use, it's beneficial to you to double your exposure"....

If the photos I were capable of producing were of such quality that the model would use them....then why am I paying in the first place?  It seems to be a matter of people getting taken advantage of if you ask me.  Photos have value, and if you expect/use them....you're getting paid twice essentially.

I actually agree with this.
But, Like I said before, if I already edited the photos of my choosing, I didn't lose any time sending her a copy...

That being said.. I am paying because I have nothing the model wants.