intense_puppy wrote:
I do agree with this, but I'm starting to see a shift away from it which is making it difficult to determine whoa re proper models and whoa re pretenders.
I think it's because as a lot of the guys are both paying the models and giving them photos to use, like it was a trade shoot (just a theory people!)

yup. also, some of the models demand that in addition to their compensation they require the images

Ecliptic Productions wrote:

yup. also, some of the models demand that in addition to their compensation they require the images

I don't really understand why though.

Is it the models being diva's or the photographers being idiots? Who's to blame?

intense_puppy wrote:
I don't really understand why though.

Is it the models being diva's or the photographers being idiots? Who's to blame?

i think both

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
I think models who expect to be paid must bring the following to each paid shoot

1. That they bring energy and a sense of adventure right out of the gate.
2. That they have exceptional ports that are up to date

3. That they are in great physical shape
4. That they have not shot with another photographer earlier that day
5. That they act prodessionaly and with a sense of humor
6. Creative powers with the ability to follow direction.
7. That if they are paid they will not receive images or have any rights to them
8. Leave the hipster attitude at the studio door
9. Know hair and make up


That's all I can think of now

I don't know why, reminds me this utopian thingy

3

Tony Lawrence wrote:
A bit of a change but many of the models here could make some money if they understood human nature.   When I lived in Texas a local guy paid for a models hair, make-up, outfit and something for her.   We both shot her.   A few weeks later when I spoke to him he asked if I had heard from her.   No, I said.   He said he hadn't either and he had sent her some photos.   No, thank you from her.   No acknowledgment she received her photos either.   This is a dude that might have hired her again.   No photographer wants to feel like a John.   Not that he expected a date or friendship but good manners and consideration may get you re-hired.

that is why i will not pay unless i'm making money on the shoot. i'd say that the majority of "models" on here are not models, they're just girls who think they're models because they're good looking riding a high horse because average "guy with camera" photographers will pay them money. oh well, the world keeps spinning.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
A bit of a change but many of the models here could make some money if they understood human nature.   When I lived in Texas a local guy paid for a models hair, make-up, outfit and something for her.   We both shot her.   A few weeks later when I spoke to him he asked if I had heard from her.   No, I said.   He said he hadn't either and he had sent her some photos.   No, thank you from her.   No acknowledgment she received her photos either.   This is a dude that might have hired her again.   No photographer wants to feel like a John.   Not that he expected a date or friendship but good manners and consideration may get you re-hired.

Yep, been there done that.

What's a little worse is if you discuss other future shoots on set with the model and they enthusiastic, throwing in ideas themselves and whatnot. Then you send them pics from this shoot later on and never hear from them again.

The only conclusion I could draw was that my work was shit. No problem with that.

That is until I cast for something new and behold - they respond all happy and beaming and "let's shoot".
*sigh*

It's become far too depressing and mercenary for me.

intense_puppy wrote:

Yep, been there done that.

What's a little worse is if you discuss other future shoots on set with the model and they enthusiastic, throwing in ideas themselves and whatnot. Then you send them pics from this shoot later on and never hear from them again.


This is so true... In fact if no one paid for models on this site than models would be happy to pose for TF . The fact that photographers pay for marginal models who do this as a hobby is what skews the whole dynamic.

Look it's simple if I am getting paid than I pay the models. If not I supply them with non watermarked hi and low res images plus 10 to 20 high quality 9x12 prints. Also if there is an outstanding image I print and frame as well as sign a print as well. If I shoot multiple times with a model I produce a book and than present her with her very own book as well.  I find that far better than pay and more than many photographers do for their models.

I would say the majority of models on MM are not professional. They don't return messages, they don't show up ready to shoot, they can't pose.  So with rare exception I have stopped using MM models really about 1 in 8 are MM

I have developed a team of models about 6 or 7 that I shoot with multiple times, adding and subtracting from the list one or two throughout the year.


The only conclusion I could draw was that my work was shit. No problem with that.

That is until I cast for something new and behold - they respond all happy and beaming and "let's shoot".
*sigh*

It's become far too depressing and mercenary for me.

RKD Photographic wrote:
As I've said elsewhere today - with so many models offering TF, why pay? Even if you want to shoot nudes there are plenty of models willing to work for trade.
The only reason I can think of would be inexperienced photographers wanting to build a portfolio, but even then there are ways around that.

The only models 'here' that should be charging are those offeri
ng nude or 'hard' fetish shoots - I personally think there shouldn't be any difference between a model shooting clothed or naked, but there is and that's that - they have a commodity that people are willing to pay for and for models not to exploit that market is just stupid. Nude shoots are a genre that even inexperienced models can make money from if they have a good body and few inhibitions, so why not try and capitalise on that while you're young?
I know a LOT of female university students who model solely to supplement their income while going through college - very few continue after graduation. Most model nude as that's where the money is. Most of those images never even go into their portfolios as it's the money
they're after, not the glory.



I never pay models nude or otherwise. And I'm sorry but talent is not a commodity .

Models asking pay for fashion-portrait-lingerie shoots on internet sites like MM are simply deluded. Those that need a few head- and full-length shots for an agency interview will pick someone whose work is adequate and shoot TF - agencies don't need top-end portrait-fashion work to judge a model's worth. If the images look OK they'll bring them in for a test-shoot anyway.

I only shoot models at the weekends for fun - work is what I do during the week and that involves sportsmen and politicians mostly - and they already get paid.
If a client was to approach me for an advertising or product shoot which required a model, I'd source them through an agency or pick someone I've previously worked with who I know is 100% reliable, not look for them on an internet site.

r4u wrote:
They say " every work must be paid"
I don't consider art as a work.
And a photograph (true one;) ) works too, no?
If there 's no commercial issue, don't pay models please!

Don't you put this thread up every couple of months?

How about don't tell people how to conduct their business, and try telling an artist not to charge money for their paintings...

Eurocat wrote:

I don't even know what to say to that...

+1 Why does he care what other photographer do? he is out to get us, haha.

r4u wrote:
No more?

Correct, no more. This thread has played itself out and you should leave it to rest.

Sirensong wrote:

this!...zombie thread...stop visiting! LOL

r4u wrote:
They say " every work must be paid"
I don't consider art as a work.
And a photograph (true one;) ) works too, no?
If there 's no commercial issue, don't pay models please!

I don't intend to shoot many models.  The ones I have shot I have paid because a model is much more enhancing to my portfolio than Jane Doe off the street who may be a wonderful person and also have beautiful physical features but cannot give "that look" which a model provides.  Secondly, I like to shoot in remote areas and asking a strange woman to accompany me out to the backwoods must take a lot for her to do.  Her time her trust and her talent is, I think, worthy of something more than the photo I take.

r4u wrote:
No more?

Bored troll?

r4u wrote:
They say " every work must be paid"
I don't consider art as a work.
And a photograph (true one;) ) works too, no?
If there 's no commercial issue, don't pay models please!

You get what you pay for.

If you pay nothing.  well then you get  ****

Many amateurs simply do not have enough strength in their portfolio to get the level of model they would like to shoot with.

This may not be PC  but generally speaking a good picture of a hot girl, is better received then, a great picture of a less than hot girl.

r4u wrote:
They say " every work must be paid"
I don't consider art as a work.
And a photograph (true one;) ) works too, no?
If there 's no commercial issue, don't pay models please!

You're too funny!  :-)

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
For some posing for amateur photographers has become a profession. I don't think that makes them a professional since they mainly make their money from hobbyists or GWCs.  That's ok more power to them.

As an art photographer I only want to work with mOdels who are excited to work with me and appreciate what i do. The best art models work with the best art photographers on projects for free all the time.

I have no problem finding models to work with me for free.

I do Pay one model who is quite sought after, who loves my work and lives a couple miles from me... Other than that it is a very generous TF.

this is pretty damn well said. the only difference for me is that it's the paid models i can't seem to get. seems it's because my stuff is too creepy for them, that - even though getting paid - they would feel tarnished. so, whatever.

MainePaintah wrote:
I am an artist and I paint pastel paintings.

If I paint a still-life painting, I have to go out and buy flowers and fruit or fish to put in my still-life so I have something to paint.

If I go outside somewhere to paint a landscape painting, I have to go buy gas for my car and lunch somewhere and drive around until I find a nice landscape scene to paint.

If I want to paint beautiful models, I have to pay them to model for me and take poses that I want them to take, so I may paint figure paintings.

Models create a valuable service and deserve to be paid.

I have also bartered with models for years, so both ways work for me!

Well put!

Brian Scanlon wrote:
That's because, for some models, it's about supplementing their income and not about the art.

THIS.

Please. I am involved enough in "art." Unfortunately, I can't eat digital pictures, and I don't want to eat dead pointe shoes, so......

I say we take a stand, and nobody pays this photographer, ever.

Northern Lights Images wrote:
because gorgeous women dont just stop by your place on a whim and for free, what model gets totally naked and lets you take many images for no compensation,

No kidding.  Sometimes you have to go to THEIR house.



(and yes, images can be compensation)

Rachel-Elise  wrote:

THIS.

Please. I am involved enough in "art." Unfortunately, I can't eat digital pictures, and I don't want to eat dead pointe shoes, so......

I say we take a stand, and nobody pays this photographer, ever.

I actually agree .... don't pay the photographer. I think people would be better served if most if not all shoots were on a TF basis.

Find the model or find the photographer you feel could best represent the work you want to have created and work TF.

Let us not forget the new category of modelographer, where model turned photographers are shooting with each other TF all the time.  So these pay only models shoot plenty of TF between each other.

For the rest don't work with them. Most models don't really want to shoot with a paying hobbiest or GWC, they make fun of them in threads in the forums all the time.


I see it this way, if I am getting paid then for sure the model should be getting paid their full rate.  If I am not getting paid but if I can contribute to your port than work TF, if I can't contribute to your port than please don't work with me.  I would rather the model be excited to work with me and view my work as beneficial to her.

As a photographer I am asked to shot magazine work all the time for free with the promise of the exposure and some future commitment. And I have done these shoots Gratis for that promotion.

Know Idea wrote:

Northern Lights Images wrote:
because gorgeous women dont just stop by your place on a whim and for free, what model gets totally naked and lets you take many images for no compensation,

Actually every model I work with. Don't believe the myth, there are plenty of amazing models out there that will shoot for prints and CDs

Rachel-Elise  wrote:

Well put!

As far as Art goes
What did Van Gough pay with.... Ummm most of the time portraits

Who did Man Ray, Stieglitz , Picasso pay... Their models were their friends, wives and lovers. models who were forever tied to their work not to be paid.  What each of these models received as a result was immortality.


I can see the need for professional paid agency models for Fashion, and even for glamour but not for art photography


Hey for those art models who travel and have turned their images into a business, well good luck and god bless, they work very hard for what they do. And I really applaud them.  I can appreciate their ports and some of the artistic images within.

However, they are not what I need as an artist.

Northern Lights Images wrote:
Because gorgeous women dont just stop by your place on a whim and for free, what model gets totally naked and lets you take many images for no compensation.

Take a look at my portfolio and my Tumblr and my website

However, I think the models who shoot trade with me would disagree about the 'no compensation' part - they get images that will book them paid work from shooting with me, and for many that will be a lot more lucrative in the long run.

One model left me a reference on another site recently which says (among other nice things): "Working with him transformed my portfolio and got me loads of work." That's the real value of a good trade, right there - images that get you paid work




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Northern Lights Images wrote:
because gorgeous women dont just stop by your place on a whim and for free, what model gets totally naked and lets you take many images for no compensation,

Images can be compensation. I shoot TF nudes with a lot of wonderful, talented girls.

Shilo Von Porcelaine wrote:
If it's your project and you're a photographer, you pay a model.
If it's your project and you're a model, pay the photographer.

(Of course, if it's agreed on otherwise and it interests/benefits both parties equally, then it can be TF...I don't think anyone should work for free unless it's something they would do anyway.)

As for shooting for the art...that bothers me because it implies that art is not compatible with a career or making money. Just because someone is an artist does not mean they will work for free.

Nice try, but you have it exactly backward.  So how many photographers you have paid. While it may happen rarely and it does happen with agency models, I see it rarely happen on MM.

Art is compatable for making money but from the artists side. Professional models are not needed for many art photographers. Only on the pages of MM where hobbyists and GWCs abound. 

So traveling models go around the country shooting TF with the great photographers and charge $100 to $125 per hour for the rest of the wanna bees and have the temarity to call that "reasonable"

Sirensong wrote:

Yet they continue to respond to it...