|
Forums >
General Industry >
18+ TFP. Why?
It seems your a lil upset that photographers are now takeing the time to shoot models that are free to shoot nude tfp while your working your way to paid nude work. Belive me it is not going to take as much food off your plate when you take into consideration that once photographers find out that paying an expieranced well trained nude model who knows her craft from a model that has no idea what she is doing other than showing off her nudie parts. You will benefitt from the fact that you have a greater chance in this busines than those that you are so worried about takeing food from your plate. Jan 12 13 07:57 pm Link Laura UnBound wrote: This. Nothing disappoints me more than going to a shoot that I had been soooooo excited about, and having things turn out experimental and then terrible, leaving me with nothing useable. Not only does it feel like a waste of my time, but it also pretty much ruins all desire to work together in the future. Jan 12 13 08:01 pm Link Bravo Magic Images wrote: Paying a great model is certainly worthwhile, but it's far from the case that models who charge are always better than those who don't. I've done trade shoots with some fantastic models, and just shot a promising novice today. Meanwhile, some of the models who send me rates (most recently, $150/hr for art nudes) are people I'd think twice about doing trade shoots with. Jan 12 13 08:03 pm Link Because naked is fun??:-)) Jan 12 13 08:16 pm Link In my case they work for TF . Because they want to be in The catalog for the shop. Jan 12 13 08:18 pm Link Art of the nude wrote: I'm with you on this one. It seems that most models on MM overrate themselves. Many fail to see the value in doing TF* with talented photographers in order to get quality images for their portfolios. A model's willingness to be nude in front of the camera doesn't automatically qualify her to be paid. Jan 13 13 08:04 pm Link Herb Way wrote: I couldn't agree more! Jan 13 13 08:09 pm Link Art of the nude wrote: Well stated! This follows the same logic that by hiring and paying a "Professional Photographer" that you will always get better images than working with an "Amateur / Hobbyist Photographer" The logic just does not follow! Jan 13 13 08:32 pm Link Herb Way wrote: A-men!!! If I may be so bold as to bold the critical point. Jan 13 13 08:38 pm Link NewBoldPhoto wrote: Apparently this critical point is over the heads of most MM models who pose nude. Many are squandering oportunities to move ahead and elevate themselves. Jan 13 13 08:59 pm Link The first nude models I've worked with were for trade, merely because I was a broke college student and I needed experience. Hell, the very first nude I ever shot was my 31-year-old photography tutor. Although these days I do pay nude models, I always try to bargain because A. Most of the nude models out there aren't up to the standard I worked with back during 2011. I shot a nude model for $40 and she did AMAZING. No other model has matched her, and I'm especially insulted by a lot of models are just beginners and have NO references or justifications as to why their fees are so high. And B. The models who ARE justified in their rates (years of experience, tons of references, were published, ect) occasionally will do nude for TF if the concept is awesome enough. (And I've had some GREAT concepts in the past) Jan 13 13 10:05 pm Link Plus, there seem to be a stigma that if the photographer is asking you to pose nude for free he must be a perv. Well, I've worked with plenty of models who have told me that they've done paid work with photographers that are just as pervy, which always resulted in them leaving early. One interesting story I had was a model who was supposed to shoot an implied nude with me on top of a skyscraper. She arrived (VERY late) and she looks around and says "where's everyone else?" I ask "everyone else?" She replies "the makeup assistants, the stylists, the security team." I tell her it's just her and me, and she calls me an amateur pervert, turns around, and walks out the door. I saw her again a few months later during a video gig; as soon as she saw me she told my client not to let me in because I was a "GWC." (My video was later featured on my client's website.) Jan 13 13 10:09 pm Link Vampman Studios wrote: Oh what a peach?! Jan 13 13 10:46 pm Link Art of the nude wrote: I wouldn't shoot with her. The most that I have ever paid was $130/hr for an exceptional glamor model. She was worth her rate. Jan 14 13 04:30 am Link Vampman Studios wrote: Unfortunately, some of these women harbor some really outrageous notions and some just can't seem to get that TF* is not posing for free. Jan 14 13 05:39 am Link I shoot anyone and everything . . . but clients are the only ones wanting to pay these days . . . It makes me rethink who my clients are, when models don't want to pay for my services . . . sometimes I'll offer a trade . . . besides the Model might get some work from a Client by having my work in their port. I don't market the models brand . . . you do. Jan 14 13 05:53 am Link Because I'm a nude model and people pay me to get naked in front of their camera - but they grow bored of the same old portfolio shoots, so I always need something new and good to show 'em. Like, adv. Oh, and also because I love to be naked in front of talented people's camera ♥ Jan 14 13 05:55 am Link Emily Hayworth wrote: Well said. Also, my experience has been that it's a maturity issue as I've found that models who are at least 30 are much more likely to appreciate the value of TF* to develop their portfolios. The younger they are, the more likely they are to expect to be paid just for being nude regardless of their portfolio, experience, or appearance. Jan 14 13 06:21 am Link |
