Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3846
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Michael Pandolfo wrote:
None of us are responsible for someone else's expenses.
That's a recipe for disaster that only ends up as a pissing contest for who spends more. You bought a new pair of shoes? Great. I just bought a $275 battery grip. Pay me. See? It doesn't work...for either side.
When a photographer starts talking about "needing" to be paid because he's spent $20,000 on his equipment, everyone laughs. Rightly so. The amount someone spends on modeling/photography has no bearing whatsoever on one's value and whether one should be paid. Thank you for the post about this bogus "entitlement" of payment idea...that's exactly what I was trying to say! Well spoken!
Model
Damianne
Posts: 15978
Austin, Texas, US
c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I thought the idea of a hobby is not to make money but to pay for it. Definition of "hobby" has no bearing on whether or not you invest or make money off of it.
I paint sometimes, that's also a hobby. I typically don't even take my pieces out of the house, let alone attempt to sell them.
My friend makes hair clips and sells them on etsy. She made a profit of $700 last year. Also a hobby.
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
I thought if you make money of a hobby then it becomes a ' paid job' with taxes to pay from it's income.
Model
StephBar
Posts: 165
Seattle, Washington, US
-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Yes, because the market for images of unknown internet models is so strong these days...
He could make millions! 
/sarcasm
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com -shrug-
To each their own.
Model
Damianne
Posts: 15978
Austin, Texas, US
c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I thought if you make money of a hobby then it becomes a ' paid job' with taxes to pay from it's income. *its
There isn't a legal definition for hobby, so citing tax requirements doesn't really have anything to do with it.
Photographer
r4u
Posts: 115
Paris, Île-de-France, France
Have a nice year 2013 
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
tonyfromsyracuse wrote:
WE.....need llamas more than they need us. so we have to offer an incentive otherwise it will be back to the days of bananas in a bowl.
the days of rock star photographers is coming to a close what with affordable cameras and intuitive software programs that can put hundreds of template sheens and concepts on pictures. I know thats difficult to swallow, but you've all seen the ports on MM.
yes many photos look amazing....but essencially you are seeing clones of the same poses and concepts....only the names and llamas are changed.
why pay? cause the llamas themselves here are finally starting to understand, they dont "need" us to take nude pictures of them.
they are starting to understand they are so beautiful...WE need them, which is why so many now, are moving towards... pay me. Nude llamas want pay. Yep. And get it.
Clothed llamas, not so much.
I paid one llama, one of my first, for a clothed shoot.
Let's just say I did not get my money's worth and leave it at that.
But the idea that I "need" a llama to shoot... is ludicrous.
I "need" a camera, a subject and some level of skill.
(If I were a painter, I could skip the camera and subject, IF I had LOTS of skill!)
But, that said, I am willing to pay llamas for the same reasons already mentioned; if time is tight and I dont want to worry about providing images on a deadline, if my vision requires a certain body type or skill (like ballet) that I can not get in trade, or if I want a seasoned professional who can turn an 8 hour shoot into 1 by giving me exactly what I want in an expeditious fashion.
As we are all individuals, we all have our own opinions on this matter.
This is mine. 
My two cents, YMMV
Daeda1us
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Yes, because the market for images of unknown internet models is so strong these days...
He could make millions!
/sarcasm Aera Crescent wrote:
-shrug-
To each their own. Clearly your sarcasm meter needs adjusting!
(Note: that was NOT sarcasm )
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Photographer
Supermodel Photographer
Posts: 3309
Oyster Bay, New York, US
r4u wrote:
I don't consider art as a work. Do you believe in the existence of artworks?
Photographer
Ken Pegg
Posts: 1858
Weymouth, England, United Kingdom
r4u wrote:
I don't consider art as a work. I don't consider eating as work, yet I still have to buy food.
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Misty R H wrote:
Models usually want all of the images because often the model likes different pictures than the photographer because they are looking at different things. The photographer is looking at lighting, composition etc. The model is looking at her/his facial expressions, how flattering the pose is, wardrobe malfunctions. I would be fine with getting a limited number of the pictures as long as I get to choose with ones I get. With the photographers approval of course. What happened on my most recent shoot. (pics not up yet)
I took hundreds of pictures.
I then went through an picked a few from each look and after a first pass edit, posted them to a private site and sent the models the link to THEIR pics only.
Each model picked some of those pictures for editing.
I will edit some of the pictures the models picked AND pictures I pick later. (You know the drill. "I think this pic has potential, so I will spend hours editting it to see if it develops. If it does, great! If not, *shrug* on to the next pic!")
We both have input. Hopefully we end up with edits we both like.
My two cents, YMMV
Daeda1us
Photographer
PaulHomsyPhotography
Posts: 131
Los Angeles, California, US
Good Egg Productions wrote:
You're not my mother.
Please don't tell me what to do. +1
It isn't your business to tell others what to do. Do your thing and don't tell others how to do theirs.
Photographer
PaulHomsyPhotography
Posts: 131
Los Angeles, California, US
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! Do your thing but don't tell others what to do. Your statement implies that the model's time and effort are irrelevant. What's irrelevant is whether there is a commercial use of the photos taken or not. Printing photos, sending photos of a shoot to a model via email or paying a particular model are all forms of payment. Everyone's time is valuable. If you feel a model's time isn't. Yours isn't as well.
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
I don't see the reason or point in paying models when they too benefit from images produced.
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I don't see the reason or point in paying models when they too benefit from images produced. I think a great reason for paying models is so that I can shoot with models who DON'T benefit from the images I can provide. Which is why I'm picky, very picky, about who I would pay.
Model
Jessica Vaugn
Posts: 7328
Los Angeles, California, US
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! That's absolutely fine. Models who feel otherwise will shoot with other people who do not agree with you- and you will find other models who agree with your specific beliefs.
This argument is a really simple one.
Do yo thang!!
Photographer
Francisco Castro
Posts: 2628
Cincinnati, Ohio, US
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! It costs a model gas, time, energy to shoot for YOUR art. Why should a stranger go to all that trouble?
Model
Stormee
Posts: 2463
San Antonio, Texas, US
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:
Well, if you don't pay SURELY you share copyright to all the images,right? Why?
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
...geez...I get SO frickin' tired of seeing/hearing this argument on MM!
Reality IS what reality IS...supply and demand...the market will bear what the market will bear.
OP - like do you really think that photographers will stop paying models just because YOU don't want to pay them...then magically, you'll be able to get all the free models you want? 'Sounds like the kind of logic 4-year olds have - they WANT what they want, they want it now, and they don't care what reality is. Seriously - NO amount of bitching and moaning or saying "models should pay photographers" or "models should model for free" is going to change reality!
I'm sicker of this argument than even the escort argument, or the one about what "implied nudity" is!
There are lots of reason to pay models, including being able to shoot what YOU want to shoot, rather than what the model wants to shoot...or being able to shoot a model who travels (who you wouldn't otherwise be available to shoot, because she wouldn't be traveling if she couldn't make money from doing it).
Photographer
Camerosity
Posts: 5805
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I thought if you make money of a hobby then it becomes a ' paid job' with taxes to pay from it's income. I've known people who listed something as an occupation (and claimed deductions as a business), then had the IRS declare the occupation to be a hobby. Even if the IRS declares something to be a hobby and disallows the deductions, they still tax the income.
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
Francisco Castro wrote:
It costs a model gas, time, energy to shoot for YOUR art. Why should a stranger go to all that trouble? Because were worth it and in some cases excel a models value.
As for art in regards to art nude I don't bother much with as I'd think any model who gets her kit off being naked will get work.
Value to me is when you test a model and she gets signed to an agency or an increase in bookings.
Others just want something different in their books.
Model
Damianne
Posts: 15978
Austin, Texas, US
Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:
Well, if you don't pay SURELY you share copyright to all the images,right? lolno
Model
Damianne
Posts: 15978
Austin, Texas, US
c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I don't see the reason or point in paying llamas when they too benefit from images produced. Neither does anyone else, unless of course you're getting paid by an external party.
Or if you want to use the images commercially and gain money from them that way (and don't want the llama to do the same).
Otherwise, no point or reason in paying the llama when they too benefit from the images produced.
However most of the time llamas are paid, they DON'T benefit from the the images produced.
Your work won't benefit every llama ever, and you might want to work with one of those llamas.
I've also been paid when the photographer wanted to be able to take as long as they wanted to edit the images. I've received images from paid shoots over a year later; that would have been unacceptable if I were trading for them.
Photographer
PR Zone
Posts: 897
London, England, United Kingdom
PAY MODELS
Because it is MUCH cheaper than TFP
If you make money from this - at all - then you know what your time is worth
MOVE all considerations of what 'other people want' from your mind and GET RID of the 'are they ready' messages, by simply choosing to....
PAY MODELS so you can shoot what YOU want - when YOU want - with NO REQUIREMENT to ever give anyone anything that's been touched up or otherwise
Doesn't have to be much, but - as soon as you pay - 'grief' evaporates from the situation. Flakiness reduces and workloads become less stressful. You can always CHOOSE to send shots after, but the ball is in your court, because you PAY MODELS
Otherwise: Live with the fact that one person contributes thousands of pounds worth of kit and hundreds of pounds of time while the second person turns up and looks good - and we call that 'balanced'
:-)
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
Damianne wrote:
I've also been paid when the photographer wanted to be able to take as long as they wanted to edit the images. I've received images from paid shoots over a year later; that would have been unacceptable if I were trading for them. Must have been editing/retouching one pixel at a time.
Two weeks is my max.
Example of how images benefited a model this was on test when I was a student; agency model, my first ever sitting of a model.
Did the shots model received them.
A few weeks later model writes to me thanking me for the pic's which got noticed and landed her a acting role in TV soap.
Model
_eMMe_
Posts: 866
Florence, Toscana, Italy
I quite like this thread... In Italian forum I saw a lot of similar thread all ending up with photographer claiming that model dont' reserve to be paid. It's great to know it's not the same all around the world.
Model
Damianne
Posts: 15978
Austin, Texas, US
c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Must have been editing/retouching one pixel at a time.
Two weeks is my max.
Example of how images benefited a model this was on test when I was a student; agency model, my first ever sitting of a model.
Did the shots model received them.
A few weeks later model writes to me thanking me for the pic's which got noticed and landed her a acting role in TV soap. They didn't start editing until soon before it was finished.
Some people have other lives outside of photography, but they enjoy it regardless.
I know how photos CAN help a model. Your story really doesn't mean anything.
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
It means a rather unknown model through pic taken and circulated got herself noticed and benefited by landing a role.
How about an unsigned model starting out got signed to an agency by my tests and is now touring the world in fashion shows and publications.
Photographer
KonstantKarma
Posts: 2513
Campobello, South Carolina, US
I think this has got to be the longest troll thread with no OP participation.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
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! there are some models, that perhaps don't see what you do as art....
they probably want you to pay them..
![https://i.imgur.com/m8TQi.png]()
Photographer
Harold Rose
Posts: 2925
Calhoun, Georgia, US
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 don't consider art as a work????
A photograph (true one) works too, no?
You do not consider art as a work. from your port I agree, but this world is full of very fine photographeers as artist..
I PAY EVERY MODEL I USE, THEY WORK I PAY...It is my job to justify ....
Photographer
Srefis
Posts: 960
Asheville, North Carolina, US
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! Why pay for cameras?
Lets make everything free.
Photographer
Amul La La
Posts: 885
London, England, United Kingdom
Jessica Vaugn wrote:
That's absolutely fine. Models who feel otherwise will shoot with other people who do not agree with you- and you will find other models who agree with your specific beliefs.
This argument is a really simple one.
Do yo thang!! This and do your thing/ thang yes (;
Photographer
Eleven 11 Photography
Posts: 409
Auburn, Alabama, US
I find it curious that a photographer would say don't pay a model when so many photographers rant and rave about the rise of the "momtographer", You pay them because they are good at what the do.
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3846
Phoenix, Arizona, US
1k-words-photograpy wrote:
I find it curious that a photographer would say don't pay a model when so many photographers rant and rave about the rise of the "momtographer", You pay them because they are good at what the do. Some (usually "new"/zero-skillz-divas) models think they are "entitled" to payment just because they feel you should be "helping them" pay for their gym membership and new shoes they wore to your shoot. Or just because they pose in their underwear.
They also sometimes feel they are "entitled" to all your HiRes images...and that it's okay for their boyfriend to "edit" them. (without your permission).
And there seems to be enough photographers that are actually willing provide those "payments".
Model
Shaun Tia
Posts: 1697
Phoenix, Arizona, US
You get what you pay for. Just because you label something as "art" does not mean those involved shouldn't be compensated for their work.
If you don't want to hire a professional you are more than welcome to use the 'trade' models and hope you get what you need.
But those looking for quality over frugality can choose to book someone who can deliver art in motion.
Model
Shaun Tia
Posts: 1697
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Harold Rose wrote:
You don't consider art as a work????
A photograph (true one) works too, no?
You do not consider art as a work. from your port I agree, but this world is full of very fine photographeers as artist..
I PAY EVERY MODEL I USE, THEY WORK I PAY...It is my job to justify .... +100
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
Who benefits from the pay.
If the photographer pays the model and sells the images at a profit, both parties are on a winner.
Photographers commercial portfolio benefits the photographer.
Photographer pays model and may or may not give the model a copy then the model is a winner.
Photographer gives model a copy which generates the model more work again a winner for the model.
Photographer pay a model and the image sits on a photographers port is worthless apart from a few tags ' nice pic ' which feeds the ego.
|
