Tony Lawrence wrote:
On websites like this its primarily newer less experienced and so called GWC who pay models.
While there are some talented shooters who pay models.   Those with skills who are shooting without a client test with agency models.   Most of the paid work here is nude.   I know few photographers outside of these sites that pay models.    That isn't to say what the OP can get or not.   That isn't to say what she's worth.   That isn't to say if you pay models for non nude or nude work that makes you a amateur.   However paying models to practice just doesn't work.   It doesn't work when you have no way to monetize  or make your investment back either.   

I am not saying that paying models is a bad ideal but as a general business practice it doesn't work unless their is a client.   As for how much the OP should charge.   If she's very busy charge more.   Less so then go down.   I suspect without doing nudes paid offers may be limited.   
There are my opinions.   I'm not interested in arguing my views.   Paying to practice is not a smart move in my view.   Paying when you're being paid or for stock or galley or content does.

Depends what you are paying to practice. There's a point at which it becomes more attractive to pay the money than shoot someone tf. I know if I am taking a punt on a shoot - ie, either trying stuff out I want to try out, or try out a new model to see what she's like - then tf can be very unappealing, because there are few things worse than having to sit down and edit a bunch of images that you can't stand the sight of, even when you have done your best to get something passable. On the other hand, to collaborate with someone you know quite well and with whom you have a rapport is entirely different.
Sometimes I approach a new model for tf, but it's a bloody lottery. Why put yourself under pressure to perform with someone who has minimum skill but quite possibly maximum sense of entitlement?
There's also such a thing as having an idea you've been working on and wanting to realise that purely for its own sake, without worrying about return on investment.
Then there are the stamp collectors. They are happy to pay out to produce an endless number of identikit images of very good models. They do it because it makes them happy, and they can afford it.  That's the beginning and end of it.

Someone has to pay good models, otherwise they will just piss off into the wild blue yonder.
I don't know. A lot of the time I think it is fucking crazy to a)want to take pictures of models as an amateur and b)want to be a model. For most of us the investment in emotional energy, let alone actual time, is vastly greater than the reward in terms of actual images produced. And nobody is even making you do it.
And it's trivial (mostly trivial).

Tim Griffiths wrote:

Depends what you are paying to practice. There's a point at which it becomes more attractive to pay the money than shoot someone tf. I know if I am taking a punt on a shoot - ie, either trying stuff out I want to try out, or try out a new model to see what she's like - then tf can be very unappealing, because there are few things worse than having to sit down and edit a bunch of images that you can't stand the sight of, even when you have done your best to get something passable. On the other hand, to collaborate with someone you know quite well and with whom you have a rapport is entirely different.
Sometimes I approach a new model for tf, but it's a bloody lottery. Why put yourself under pressure to perform with someone who has minimum skill but quite possibly maximum sense of entitlement?
There's also such a thing as having an idea you've been working on and wanting to realise that purely for its own sake, without worrying about return on investment.
Then there are the stamp collectors. They are happy to pay out to produce an endless number of identikit images of very good models. They do it because it makes them happy, and they can afford it.  That's the beginning and end of it.

Someone has to pay good models, otherwise they will just piss off into the wild blue yonder.
I don't know. A lot of the time I think it is fucking crazy to a)want to take pictures of models as an amateur and b)want to be a model. For most of us the investment in emotional energy, let alone actual time, is vastly greater than the reward in terms of actual images produced. And nobody is even making you do it.
And it's trivial (mostly trivial).

Hi, Tim.   Paying makes sense for example if its a great new location or if you don't want to have to deal with having to provide photos.   If you are a hobbyist it makes sense as well but not for working pros.   Especially those focused on shooting fashion, beauty, commercial or editorial work.    I play tennis for example.   I'm fair at it but I would go broke if I had to pay every time I wanted to shoot.   Someone has to pay good models, sure that's what clients are for.    If you have to make your money back.   If its for stock or gallery sure but if its to practice then no.   Please note my comment was general.   I know several great photographers here who pay models.   Yet most do so because they have a way to make their money back.

In America the average pro shooter makes under $40,000 a year.   Having to pay models out of that isn't in my view a smart financial move.   On sites like this models expect to be paid.   I understand that.   Talent paying talent doesn't work in my opinion.   Seek out models focused on getting good images or who enjoy being photographed.   This is NOT to tell anyone how to spend their money.   Their is nothing wrong with paying for the things you want and expecting everyone to value your work enough to shoot for free is silly.   Make your investments carefully
and if you are looking to turn pro or are then consider agency models.   Many test (TF) all the time.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Hi, Tim.   Paying makes sense for example if its a great new location or if you don't want to have to deal with having to provide photos.   If you are a hobbyist it makes sense as well but not for working pros.   Especially those focused on shooting fashion, beauty, commercial or editorial work.    I play tennis for example.   I'm fair at it but I would go broke if I had to pay every time I wanted to shoot.   Someone has to pay good models, sure that's what clients are for.    If you have to make your money back.   If its for stock or gallery sure but if its to practice then no.   Please note my comment was general.   I know several great photographers here who pay models.   Yet most do so because they have a way to make their money back.

In America the average pro shooter makes under $40,000 a year.   Having to pay models out of that isn't in my view a smart financial move.   On sites like this models expect to be paid.   I understand that.   Talent paying talent doesn't work in my opinion.   Seek out models focused on getting good images or who enjoy being photographed.   This is NOT to tell anyone how to spend their money.   Their is nothing wrong with paying for the things you want and expecting everyone to value your work enough to shoot for free is silly.   Make your investments carefully
and if you are looking to turn pro or are then consider agency models.   Many test (TF) all the time.

I'm going to risk a bit of potential back-lash by saying that, in my opinion, there are very few professional standard models with profiles on these sites, so it would make sense for there to be quite a lot of amateur models who want to shoot for the fun of it.
Instead what there seems to be is a lot of people who are living in some kind of world they have created for themselves, where they are potential professional models in what they refer to as 'this industry'.
The brutal fact is that I can take a walk into my local town centre on pretty much any day of the week and see girls who are more attractive, have better posture, and more regular features, than most internet models. Not that they are everywhere, but out there they are. In fact, i know a thirty something mother of four who is in better physical shape than most models - much better, in fact, and much better looking.
What does that mean? It means that internet models are quite nice looking, but nothing out of the ordinary.
Most of them can't pose, either. In their heads they are dynamic, or sultry, or whatever, but usually all they project is Blue Steel variant.
For a reason that I understand quite well but which is anathema to the people involved, who simply won't hear it, a mythical world is nurtured on these sites, and everything is done to encourage models that they have prospects they simply do not.
So they don't shoot for the fun of it, which is about the only sane thing they could do. If they shoot tf it has to be with 'awesome togs'; it has to be 'beneficial to my portfolio', the images have to 'better than what is on my portfolio'; it has to be 'for publication'. It is almost never purely recreational. And skanky old lechers like me tolerate the pie-eyed bullshit in order to get close to be a bit of nubile flesh once in a while.
Ever done Facebook? Ever been exposed to the endless stream of narcissistic drivel/blogs/articles and general musings of girls who are relentlessly marketing themselves to men who have zero interest in what they are saying and whose sole concern is to get an eyeful of the latest snatch upload? I defy any man of 40 to be interested in what someone half his age, who he does not know, is doing. I can barely tolerate being talked at by people I care about - how the fuck am I supposed to care about 'what me and my little pony did on my holidays'.

Tim Griffiths wrote:

I suppose I'd more or less agree, although I don't know why you felt the need to re-state the whole business about tf vs paid/how much who needs to earn/value of paying a professional etc etc. It's fairly obvious that it doesn't pay to work a couple of hours at a similar rate you'd charge for a whole day, not when such a short duration gig is going to wipe out a half day or more.

That's exactly right. Not much disagreement here. I enlarged on it for the benefit if the op, and for photographers who can't seem to accept that so continue to delude themselves and others that £20 an hour for two hours is good pay and the model should accept. Of course they don't; and often don't reply or politely decline.

Tim Griffiths wrote:
I don't care much for tf, and I've shot roughly on a 50/50 tf/paid split, but then again I don't much care for paying out good money for poor models. If there's one thing I've learned about this malarky, in so far as it manifests on the internet site, it is that utter bullshit is never in short supply, nor is the fantasist who spouts it - whichever side of he lens he or she is on. People come along and stick professional this, professional that on their bios and it is very often nothing more than a sort of manic wishful thinking.

You can tell who the professionals are from their credits, or if they are agency signed, etc. Admittedly it's harder to tell an exclusively nude art model as she won't have third party clients or tears. But she will have credits from good photographers and evidence in their portfolio

Tim Griffiths wrote:
i know what I need to pay to get an excellent model because i recently cast for one and, while the casting was so specific it filtered out a good 80 percent of models on the net, I got serious interest from two of the most in demand art nude models in the uk. In the case of the one I have never seen anyone better in five years, anywhere - at least where models who have profiles on these sites is concerned. So if the OP is going to have a profile on one or more of these sites then she needs to be realistic about what she can charge, and forget rates of £60/£70 ph for short gigs, because there's no market for it.

If there is a third party that is what they will be used to paying and more from agencies. Many agencies insist on two hour minimum. So they will have a rough idea of budget either expressed hourly or for the job. For use in a magazine ad, campaign, on a website, lookbook , catalogue, posters etc the budget is given. So I have explained the situation to photographers they can book me cheaper by the day and they say look this is the budget you may as well have it. Other times, I've been booked for two hours at £70 an hour and then asked if I will after all let them have my day rate. This is so common in fact I rarely used to book something for the afternoon/evening.  Given carrying on shooting for hours for an extra £35 seems attractive after I've spent an hour with MUA of the two booked.
Of course glamour models have magazines as the third party and are mist certainly looking at decent hourly rates.
It comes down to commercial use. Arguably Art nude has less commercial use and third parties it's true; so there may be less market for it. But if an exclusively nude art model is used to getting £150 a day doing life drawing she will still be after at least that in total for the day. Probably mire because again that not being available for three days for an art class that calls to offer when she's booked by a photographer could cost her a lot. But I think you understand that. You may balk at a
high hourly rate but will be used to negotiating a day or half day rate that gives the model what she's after as you acknowledge below.

Tim Griffiths wrote:
What you quoted for day rates, though, is fine. I actually think she has the chops (if that is the right expression) to get the paid work. A lot of art nude models are little better than mannequins who can move a bit. She's obviously a ton better than that.

Yes she is. She can model. And she would be great for what many photographers want but all she is saying is she doesn't want to do tf nude. Maybe like me she already has a ton and it isn't generally going to sell us as models to third parties. And as you realise, and I acknowledge, there isn't much of a market for photographers paying £70 an hour but third parties will. But it's always worth a try for photographers to ask and say what they are willing to pay. There is an irony here actually that I have hinted at in the past: partly because of the lack of commercial use or third parties  for art nude photography in the UK (except glamour), art nude modelling is actually less lucrative than clothed! In the USA it may be different because travelling art nude models there appears to be high demand for. But as you also say, a good art nude model is worth paying rather than messing about with less experienced models.

As for photographers insisting talent shouldn't pay talent and that £20 an hour for two hours is good money and models should be grateful; well let them carry on getting blanked and flaked on.

Tim Griffiths wrote:

I'm going to risk a bit of potential back-lash by saying that, in my opinion, there are very few professional standard models with profiles on these sites, so it would make sense for there to be quite a lot of amateur models who want to shoot for the fun of it.
Instead what there seems to be is a lot of people who are living in some kind of world they have created for themselves, where they are potential professional models in what they refer to as 'this industry'.
The brutal fact is that I can take a walk into my local town centre on pretty much any day of the week and see girls who are more attractive, have better posture, and more regular features, than most internet models. Not that they are everywhere, but out there they are. In fact, i know a thirty something mother of four who is in better physical shape than most models - much better, in fact, and much better looking.
What does that mean? It means that internet models are quite nice looking, but nothing out of the ordinary.
Most of them can't pose, either. In their heads they are dynamic, or sultry, or whatever, but usually all they project is Blue Steel variant.
For a reason that I understand quite well but which is anathema to the people involved, who simply won't hear it, a mythical world is nurtured on these sites, and everything is done to encourage models that they have prospects they simply do not.
So they don't shoot for the fun of it, which is about the only sane thing they could do. If they shoot tf it has to be with 'awesome togs'; it has to be 'beneficial to my portfolio', the images have to 'better than what is on my portfolio'; it has to be 'for publication'. It is almost never purely recreational. And skanky old lechers like me tolerate the pie-eyed bullshit in order to get close to be a bit of nubile flesh once in a while.
Ever done Facebook? Ever been exposed to the endless stream of narcissistic drivel/blogs/articles and general musings of girls who are relentlessly marketing themselves to men who have zero interest in what they are saying and whose sole concern is to get an eyeful of the latest snatch upload? I defy any man of 40 to be interested in what someone half his age, who he does not know, is doing. I can barely tolerate being talked at by people I care about - how the fuck am I supposed to care about 'what me and my little pony did on my holidays'.

Careful, Tim.   I mean that.   I would not want  you to get half the hate I do.   Some of the models
here have a agenda.   They don't want models to do TF.   nor do they.   The more models they get
to charge for everything the better.   Many of the ladies that join are focused on the quick dollar.   They
see MM as a way to make easy cash.   They quickly lose intrest when they see how much work is
needed.   ... and I ain't mad at 'em.   If I was being asked to pose in my kit or nude for photos
that would do me no real good and I couldn't show them in polite company.   I'd want to be paid.   Add to
that mix that many newer models have no ideal what good photos mean.   Judge that by the selfies so
many show.   

The larger problem is that some models here give a false ideal of what this is all about.   Telling
models they make $50.00 or more per hour and $100.00 an hour plus for nudes does real harm.
Because many of these guys simply can't pay that much.   Forget how much equipment they have, etc.
They don't have the money.   I get pushback on this all the time but our mim. wage is less then $10.00
and hour.   Someone offering you $25.00 for several hours should be considered.   Instead models
are discouraged from accepting work even when they aren't shooting.   We all lose.   Women who
want quick money might consider dancing.   That's not a put down but modeling isn't quick or easy
cash.   

Models like the OP have to in my mind develop good negotiation skills.

AJScalzitti wrote:
Models are paid almost entirely based on their look, assuming they can deliver professionally, their wardrobe doesn't matter.

Ask for the rate you think your time is worth, adjust as needed.  Trade when it bennifits you and always look to grow and improve yourself.  It's that simple.

Fallacious as any specialised genre model will tell you. They get booked partly for their wardrobe if they do pin up, gothic, alt, etc etc.
Also with the Op, her dance skills will get her plenty of work. So it isn't all about a look.

Furthermore, photographers who think it is and put that to a third party can cost themselves credibility with that third party. I've said before, a photographer choosing a 17 year old with fake tan and limited experience when the third party wants sophistication or genuine edge or something else they want to convey to their target audience is going to fail. If you.look at small designers and boutiques, they often choose their own models who represent them at every level from showroom to fashion show to magazine ad to website. Many freelancers, particularly genre girls, represent various clients for several years at everything. We get that because we cultivate our image and public. I represent four milliners alone; one of my friends, a burlesque star, six retro fashion houses and one of those milliners too.

Of course it's still about a look I guess; but it may not be the look one expects and our wardrobe/cultivated image can be a part of that.

I would agree with the trade when it benefits you though. Usually that will ne before you have decent port pics, or for editorial, or a high value Art project. Most journeyman models in London aren't going to need frequent port updates as in fact one will get enough from.photographers,who have paid you anyway. Obviously if you are with an agency you may test with a photographer they have asked you to. If you are aiming at an agency, you may want to tests with agency approved photographers. But if one isn't agency bound, there's no point.
From a photographers point of view of course, testing has no model release for commercial use. That gets brushed over.

So actually trade and testing have their place of course but it's not simply a question of if the pictures will benefit ones port. I had a list of twenty or so photographers who wanted to shoot with me when I started. Some I'd even initiated.
But the reality was I was soon swamped with paid work. The odd time I  was free they weren't. So even though it definitely would have benefited my port , I had to put paid work first and never had aspiration to an agency or do more magazine work etc. I was quite happy doing what I was doing it was exciting and interesting and paid most of the time. I couldn't see how it could get better so why did I even need to shoot more tf?  I wasn't ever going to be on the cover of Elle but I was working alongside models who were and that was way beyond my expectations.

The Op can get this work with her modelling and dance skills immediately. I'd recommend she signs up with a talent and promo agency or approaches someone like BMA. They have their own approved photographers many of whom are here incidentally. If she really loves someone's work that's another time tf may be an option; but it's facilitating it when both model and photographer are routinely engaged in paid work that can let such plans cool and eventually get forgotten. The Op would also be in high demand as a life model - which in London us a fantastic way to network. All sorts of people do it (comic book illustrators, movie story board people, fashion designers, media people, music industry people, theatre directors and actors,etc) and often at the right places that opens doors and social networking that really cannot be bettered and the spin off work bountiful. Any model who is dynamic and interested in a life of exhibition private views and parties etc  will fare well in that environment if they enjoy it and there is never a question of tf.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
.

Even if she has a nice look, many photographers will NOT want to pay her premium rates for nudes if they feel she lacks enthusiasm when they could instead hire somebody like Raphaella WithLove who is also a dancer, has a lovely look and a great portfolio and clearly loves shooting all sorts of nudes!





Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

With respect if you wanted to shoot dance images would you not
just hire a dancer even a experienced professional dancer who
has never had a Photoshoot is likely to give you better images
than a girl who can just stand on here toes IMO ,eg the very first shoot
i actually did was when i was in my first year of ballet school around 12 years old
with kingfisher books . they made a book full of publishable DANCE images with a 12 year old student who had never even looked at a professional camera before  .

No way is that a stab at Raphella she's SO beautiful  & i haven't looked
at barely any of her  dance images so this is not meant to sound catty or directed at her in anyway , but  can't you just tell by looking at this girls feet/legs that she's a real life professional dancer rather than someone who did it at uni or can walk around on her toes a little ?

NB this is an actual question not a statement as i do not know
anything about photography or modelling .

no-one wrote:
Can't you just tell by looking at this girls feet/legs that she's a real life professional dancer rather than someone who did it at uni or can walk around on her toes a little ?

Sadly, I can't

I'd have to see her 'dancing' I guess, and even then I'm not well versed enough to know a good dancer from a bad one as long as she doesn't fall over!

As for Raph, I've never worked with her but I used her as an example because she markets herself as a dancer, is extremely popular with amateurs, and is one of only a couple of girls in the UK that I know of who actually charge and get the premium 'dancer' rates I mentioned in my first post.

Whether she can do that amazing thing that you can - pirouetting around on one toe with the other foot up behind your head! - I have no idea!





Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

no-one wrote:
Can't you just tell by looking at this girls feet/legs that she's a real life professional dancer rather than someone who did it at uni or can walk around on her toes a little ?

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Sadly, I can't

You're not alone! I'm regularly horrified in particular by the photos of 'dancers' en pointe around MM et al. 'Omg! Don't...do that...you'll hurt yourself!!!' I say to myself, cringing, as the over-saturated photo proceeds to get 1,000 likes because she's half-naked and is, albeit it veryyy precariously, on her toes in gaudily colored point shoes.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Sadly, I can't

I'd have to see her 'dancing' I guess, and even then I'm not well versed enough to know a good dancer from a bad one as long as she doesn't fall over!

As for Raph, I've never worked with her but I used her as an example because she markets herself as a dancer, is extremely popular with amateurs, and is one of only a couple of girls in the UK that I know of who actually charge and get the premium 'dancer' rates I mentioned in my first post.

Whether she can do that amazing thing that you can - pirouetting around on one toe with the other foot up behind your head! - I have no idea!





Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

There are hundreds of models in London alone that are professional dancers with ballet, contemporary dance, RADA trained etc and their skills ensure they are in demand. Your cite is wonderful model true but there are many more here and they are going to be getting paid work be it in productions, modelling for photographers, or doing promo as performers. They may not get their entire living from photographic modelling but there are always photographers who can use their skills as dancers actors performers etc as there is obviously a skills crossover. That is one reason why agencies like MOT and BMA will always take such people regardless of height.
You must have heard of Josephine McGrail for example:
https://m.modelmayhem.com/785055

https://m.modelmayhem.com/24710

https://m.modelmayhem.com/1836249

A model I used to live in the same house as:
https://m.modelmayhem.com/347419

https://m.modelmayhem.com/443175

Then of course theres the lead singer of Maleficent:
https://m.modelmayhem.com/124634
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2yt1hz3tIc0

https://m.modelmayhem.com/819746

https://m.modelmayhem.com/1859986

One of the best models I've ever worked with or known; concert pianist, ballerina, burlesque star and model
https://m.modelmayhem.com/1185616

Elle:
https://m.modelmayhem.com/1858002

https://m.modelmayhem.com/1553475

Lets not forget the guys:
https://m.modelmayhem.com/2016796
https://m.modelmayhem.com/575110

Or other cultural dance
https://m.modelmayhem.com/856492


I could go on and on and on as I am sure you are aware some do nude; some don't. They all have impressive ports and many have amazing credits. They are just a few of many I am aware of in London with some form of classical dance background. Some may do tf for the right photographer at times when their schedule allows. Some won't. Some will work with amateur photographers; some won't. All are worthy if the vast majority of photographers on MM of that there is  little doubt.

Ida Saint-Luc wrote:
You're not alone! I'm regularly horrified in particular by the photos of 'dancers' en pointe around MM et al.

Well it's pretty obvious that Nina is the real thing

http://tinyurl.com/pqtav3w (18+)

While she was posing like this I asked if she could possibly twirl around a little to give me a better angle for the shot (kind of half-thinking that I was asking something impossible but I asked it anyway) and guess what... she bloody did it!!

Now that's impressive!

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Stefano there are hundreds of models in London alone that are professional dancers with ballet, contemporary dance, RADA trained etc and their skills ensure they are in demand.

Thanks for the list Eliza.

But how many of those girls will shoot ballet nudes? That's what the OP is asking about - whether she can get more money for nudes and especially for ballet nudes.

There aren't many dancers on the photographic modelling scene who will shoot full nudes. Raph, as far as I know, is one of them, as is Nina who posted above.

But generally speaking, most nude models can't really dance and real ballet dancers won't shoot nudes. That's why a genuine nude ballet dancer can command premium rates for photographic modelling.



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Another Italian Guy wrote:

Well it's pretty obvious that Nina is the real thing

http://tinyurl.com/pqtav3w (18+)

While she was posing like this I asked if she could possibly twirl around a little to give me a better angle for the shot (kind of half-thinking that I was asking something impossible but I asked it anyway) and guess what... she bloody did it!!

Now that's impressive!


Thanks for the list Eliza.

But how many of those girls will shoot ballet nudes? That's what the OP is asking about - whether she can get more money for nudes and especially for ballet nudes.

There aren't many dancers on the photographic modelling scene who will shoot full nudes. Raph, as far as I know, is one of them, as is Nina who posted above.

But generally speaking, nude models can't really dance and real ballet dancers won't shoot nudes. That's why a genuine nude ballet dancer can command premium rates for photographic modelling.



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Yes I see but as I have said before it's what type of nude photography one does. I know some of those girls would model for Marco Sanges or you without a question. But would they model for a gwc for money nude? No. Because to do so may COST them dearly because the wrong kind of nudity can alienate clients. So one always had to be selective in the type of nude photography one does. And dance nude....well lets say it can be 'precarious' and a lot of trust needed. The model you cite I can also imagine being very selective with whom she works.

This big demand for nude models who can dance. Well where is it? Not once was I, a classically trained pole dancer   and Pilates freak, ever approached to do a paid nude shoot doing that despite those much commented on.images in.my old port?  You'd think there'd be demand but no everyone wants to pay to put me in clothes it seems . I really wanted to do some arty nudes on a pole and nobody asked. Now I daren't.


Anyway theres quite a few good models for you and other UK photographers in that list.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Anyway theres a few for you in that list.

Haha - thanks!

Maybe I should employ you to organise my shoots for me! Will pancakes be OK?





Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/pqtav3w (18+)

While she was posing like this I asked if she could possibly twirl around a little to give me a better angle for the shot (kind of half-thinking that I was asking something impossible but I asked it anyway) and guess what... she bloody did it!!

Now that's impressive!


Thanks for the list Eliza.

But how many of those girls will shoot ballet nudes? That's what the OP is asking about - whether she can get more money for nudes and especially for ballet nudes.

There aren't many dancers on the photographic modelling scene who will shoot full nudes. Raph, as far as I know, is one of them, as is Nina who posted above.

But generally speaking, most nude models can't really dance and real ballet dancers won't shoot nudes. That's why a genuine nude ballet dancer can command premium rates for photographic modelling.



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

I agree, beautiful model, obviously highly trained --not what I was referring to

I wonder if most professional ballerinas don't model nude because of the GWCs who'd be looking to recreate that photo of Nina, but standing 180 degrees from where Stefano was

Kiddingggg

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
....So one always had to be selective in the type of nude photography one does. And dance nude....well lets say it can be 'precarious' and a lot of trust needed. The model you cite I can also imagine being very selective with whom she works.

Oh! Eliza beat me to it

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Haha - thanks!

Maybe I should employ you to organise my shoots for me! Will pancakes be OK?





Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

I have many testimonials to this effect from photographers who have struggled with MM. Others have even suggested I start an agency. But that doesn't interest me I just  like to help put people onto one another as the interface isn't going to work if people don't sample effectively and learn how to communicate well. The classic faux pas is the hostile approach for example as though we are not worthy of them and can't command pay. It won't get a reply.

But I think you do alright with your own sampling strategy and pleasant manner. But I think there are one or two there that you may not have come across.

Hugh Alison wrote:
The successful art nude models we have been talking about tend to be solidly booked three or four months in advance. They are so successful because they are so bloody good, and so cost-effective to shoot.

One of them I made plans with last February for a shoot in July.
Another I have a shoot organised with for June, and she may have a day free in May.

I don't doubt it but it can be the same for models who don't do nudes too - it isn't the nudity alone. A good model is a good model regardless if whether she does nudes or not and will be booked up at least a month in advance. If they do life modelling (which many do) sometimes a term.

However, doing ...as Ida has implied ....dance nudes with lets say ....a photographer with less integrity than you guys.....could be a risk. So even nude art models have to be selective. And that doesn't always mean gwc v pro. A sensitive student doing nudes is going to be more up my street than some multi Paul Raymond mag published photographer yelling "show me the money"


And yes with any professional model it is going to be cost effective to shoot. They are less likely to flake and they are going to know what to do. Better to work and pay a little than waste time on wannabes who don't even show up when the photographer has gone to a great deal of effort and expense.

Another Italian Guy wrote:

Haha - thanks!

Maybe I should employ you to organise my shoots for me! Will pancakes be OK?





Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

She would prefer £s. 

Another Italian Guy wrote:

Sadly, I can't

I'd have to see her 'dancing' I guess, and even then I'm not well versed enough to know a good dancer from a bad one as long as she doesn't fall over!

As for Raph, I've never worked with her but I used her as an example because she markets herself as a dancer, is extremely popular with amateurs, and is one of only a couple of girls in the UK that I know of who actually charge and get the premium 'dancer' rates I mentioned in my first post.

Whether she can do that amazing thing that you can - pirouetting around on one toe with the other foot up behind your head! - I have no idea!





Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

yeah sure & good for her as said haven't looked at her work enough to qualify criticism neither would it be my place to say - no doubt she can pull off all sorts of tricks.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
... A good model is a good model regardless if whether she does nudes or not and will be booked up at least a month in advance...

One of the examples I gave was six months in advance.

no-one wrote:
yeah sure & good for her as said haven't looked at her work enough to qualify criticism neither would it be my place to say - no doubt she can pull off all sorts of tricks.

As I said, I'm, not qualified to judge either. I'm only going by the fact that she advertises herself as a ballet dancer, is very popular on the amateur circuit and seems to get booked a lot for that kind of work....





Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

no-one wrote:
yeah sure & good for her as said haven't looked at her work enough to qualify criticism neither would it be my place to say - no doubt she can pull off all sorts of tricks.

Hugh Alison wrote:
One of the examples I gave was six months in advance.

Again can be normal.
Commitment to a steady fit job, a tour of India with the IPL plus grid work, a theatre production, or a terms solid work at an Art college can soon get you to a good few months in advance.

Of course if it's photographer bookings solid as her only income for that long that's some going especially if they arent glamour.
Not saying it's not possible in the UK as I am aware of some that have done that but both clothed and nudes. Certainly travelling nude models in the USA have schedules that require months in advance bookings.

And certainly few professional models who are that much in demand is going to do tf and probably are a bargain!

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
There is no right answer. Rates vary by region and experience. Try to find out what similar models in your area are charging, and go with that. If you're booking tons of work, raise your rates. If you're not booking anything, lower them.

Also note that many photographers frown upon so called "stripper rates," charging more for nude than clothed.

Couldnt have said it better! Supply and demand. Simple economics. However I do think some models have way to big expectations on pay. If you're shooting for a huge magazine, sure you charge an hourly rate well over $100 but if a single photog is hiring you for his port or to submit you to be published, then take it easy with the rates lol. BUT make sure in the release it states if these photos are sold you get a percentage!!!!! I usually give the model 20%

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Fallacious as any specialised genre model will tell you. They get booked partly for their wardrobe if they do pin up, gothic, alt, etc etc.
Also with the Op, her dance skills will get her plenty of work. So it isn't all about a look.

Furthermore, photographers who think it is and put that to a third party can cost themselves credibility with that third party. I've said before, a photographer choosing a 17 year old with fake tan and limited experience when the third party wants sophistication or genuine edge or something else they want to convey to their target audience is going to fail. If you.look at small designers and boutiques, they often choose their own models who represent them at every level from showroom to fashion show to magazine ad to website. Many freelancers, particularly genre girls, represent various clients for several years at everything. We get that because we cultivate our image and public. I represent four milliners alone; one of my friends, a burlesque star, six retro fashion houses and one of those milliners too.

Of course it's still about a look I guess; but it may not be the look one expects and our wardrobe/cultivated image can be a part of that.

I would agree with the trade when it benefits you though. Usually that will ne before you have decent port pics, or for editorial, or a high value Art project. Most journeyman models in London aren't going to need frequent port updates as in fact one will get enough from.photographers,who have paid you anyway. Obviously if you are with an agency you may test with a photographer they have asked you to. If you are aiming at an agency, you may want to tests with agency approved photographers. But if one isn't agency bound, there's no point.
From a photographers point of view of course, testing has no model release for commercial use. That gets brushed over.

So actually trade and testing have their place of course but it's not simply a question of if the pictures will benefit ones port. I had a list of twenty or so photographers who wanted to shoot with me when I started. Some I'd even initiated.
But the reality was I was soon swamped with paid work. The odd time I  was free they weren't. So even though it definitely would have benefited my port , I had to put paid work first and never had aspiration to an agency or do more magazine work etc. I was quite happy doing what I was doing it was exciting and interesting and paid most of the time. I couldn't see how it could get better so why did I even need to shoot more tf?  I wasn't ever going to be on the cover of Elle but I was working alongside models who were and that was way beyond my expectations.

The Op can get this work with her modelling and dance skills immediately. I'd recommend she signs up with a talent and promo agency or approaches someone like BMA. They have their own approved photographers many of whom are here incidentally. If she really loves someone's work that's another time tf may be an option; but it's facilitating it when both model and photographer are routinely engaged in paid work that can let such plans cool and eventually get forgotten. The Op would also be in high demand as a life model - which in London us a fantastic way to network. All sorts of people do it (comic book illustrators, movie story board people, fashion designers, media people, music industry people, theatre directors and actors,etc) and often at the right places that opens doors and social networking that really cannot be bettered and the spin off work bountiful. Any model who is dynamic and interested in a life of exhibition private views and parties etc  will fare well in that environment if they enjoy it and there is never a question of tf.

So that was to times as long as what I wrote to say model are hired based mostly on their look.  Yes a dance background puts her in a special group when a client needs a dancer, but when deciding among several models who can dance are we not back to a models look?

P.S. You are also mixing clients again, is it a real client or the photographer as a client.  Because a real client isn't going to pick a model for their wardrobe

M Day Photo and Retouch wrote:
Couldnt have said it better! Supply and demand. Simple economics. However I do think some models have way to big expectations on pay. If you're shooting for a huge magazine, sure you charge an hourly rate well over $100 but if a single photog is hiring you for his port or to submit you to be published, then take it easy with the rates lol. BUT make sure in the release it states if these photos are sold you get a percentage!!!!! I usually give the model 20%

It doesn't work like that. Magazine editorials don't pay much. If at all. A model shooting for Vogue typically gets $150.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ … ogist.html

But it could be a springboard to campaign work and fame and fortune for them.

For the rest of us rabble, we would typically get £50 for expenses plus lunch dinner drinks etc. Often editorial shoots are lavish affairs even for a lifestyle magazine.

And it works the same way. As a model your tears get you more work albeit at a lower level for mist of us


So if you want to shoot with models at minimum cost up the ante and look at editorial submission. You likely wont get paid for it either and its a tremendous lot of work but again it's a showcase for your work.

Otherwise , what's the attraction if we already have plenty of pics and only a port with 15 slots, if doing work with photographers just to hone their skills? We get paid for that by artists and art institutions and they offer us regular work. As do promo companies fashion houses boutiques designers etc. Because it's regular and long hours, to commit to a photographer and lose out on that is economic suicide. So you pay more to secure our services. It's better to book us for a day rate rather than hourly as in.mist cases if we are shooting for two hours, by the time we've travelled etc we aren't available for another job. So what models need is a days pay. So if photographers insist on hourly rates low hours then it's got to be higher.

AJScalzitti wrote:
So that was to times as long as what I wrote to say model are hired based mostly on their look.  Yes a dance background puts her in a special group when a client needs a dancer, but when deciding among several models who can dance are we not back to a models look?

P.S. You are also mixing clients again, is it a real client or the photographer as a client.  Because a real client isn't going to pick a model for their wardrobe

Thats rubbish. As I said look up all the successful genre models and see who they represent. That's not because of their 'stats and beauty' look it's because if their image and thats cultivated and wardrobe is important.

Here's three of us in one picture that get work on our wardrobe/image; in this case a millinery and a jeweller:



The model in the middle is London based and it would make your draw drop if you knew her income. She represents several big retro fashion design houses in catalogue, ad, magazine, and event and showroom work; and a lingerie company. She also has the best wardrobe of any model you are ever likely to meet.
The other two are me right and a model who specialises in vintage clothing and represents vintage boutiques. She and I regularly win fashion awards at vintage events, the races etc and get featured in a lot of media. That all gets us work from real clients.
In what way are they not real clients these designers and boutiques, millinery and jewellers, racecourse, high street stores, lingerie and hosiery companies, hairstyle companies, bridal designers, holiday companies and hotel and bars and so on we get booked DIRECT  to shoot for ? Based on our style? It is gutting to photographers I know that we have been picked by real world clients before you guys are hired but that is the way it often works. For girls with wardrobe especially. The same can happen with skills like dance they go through agents to book them for modelling jobs not photographers.
It may not be important at big campaign or top editorial level which is the work some of you do or aspire to do. And so you guys don't see the pyramid of journeyman modelling work underneath that pinnacle so don't see it works differently and an extra string to the now - be it our image or wardrobe, our performing (dance acting fire eating etc) gets us work. That's what we do down here and we can make a living from it.

Sometimes a better one than many agency fashion models who can end up on debt.
Here is another former MM London girl who made it big time from her wardrobe, reputation for style, and dancing. Any photographer who clocked her but didn't shoot with her because she may have been a bit expensive must be gutted now
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millicent_Binks

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
For the Op.

I was a professional model in London for several years, so my input may be useful.

Traditionally, photographic modelling pays a high hourly rate. This is because it's irregular one off jobs and often few hours. Do tf with photographers who will benefit your port by all means; but don't swallow the yarn that £20 an hour for two hours is a decent offer because it's not; and every photographer outside the internet knows it and offers appropriate pay.

In London even the journeyman agencies charge around £50 an hour minimum; and generally insists on a minimum of two hours plus VAT and expenses.

So that's the landmark. Charge more than that as a freelance model and it's going to be harder to get.
However, the problem is that if a model is going to book a one hour session, then that commitment can cost her dearly as her book fills up.
Most professional freelance models in London will find themselves getting regular work from one of the following. If they do they will find making a living as a model much easier and sustainable:

1.Life modelling. Art institutions will pay between £15 and £25 an hour. As will Art classes, and individual artists. That may not sound enticing, bit when they may book you regularly, it is. So an Art college can book you for 8 hours for two days a week for a term. So even if that's only say £12 an hour, the lowest I did and only for colleges offering that kind of long hours regular work, that is £96 a day. For two days for ten weeks, that is £1920. Not an inconsiderable amount of money. Tax and NI paid for you too.
So what happens if you take a £50 photographer job, say in two weeks time Tuesday. Then the Art college rings up offering you such a gig?

2. Promotional modelling. Again this can pay well with long hours and regular work. In London you have many exhibition and trade fair venues. If you are educated and articulate, and have skills like dance to boot I'd recommend signing up with a promo and talent agency. Work can vary from entertainment at corporate or sports events (stilt walkers, dancers and burlesque girls on particular demand) and things like hostessing, brand ambassadors and grid girls can pay really well - typically around £200 a day ) This can also get you into a third avenue:

3. Film and tv extra work. A lot of my fellow London models did this; particularly dancers. The burlesque girls in particular I know have an impressive list of movie and TVs credits. Again even basic extra work can pay around £200 a day and you can be on set for two weeks.

4. Fit modelling. This is one of the highest paid jobs in modelling. It can pay anything from £15 an hour to £250 an hour. It can open the door to showroom and runway, and catalogue and parts shoots. Hours can be irregular or regular, and can be working for bridal designers, fashion students,  or fashion houses. You have to be exactly right proportion wise ti what the jobs advertise and have I'd say to find fashion design engrossing to enjoy it.  Again if you are taken on the books by a fashion house the work can be short notice but regular and it's work you have to prioritize. If you are unavailable due to having committed to a photographer, then you can lose out big time. They wont keep asking you.

5. Performing. You know this already I suspect. A part in a London show, or a regular dance gig like a burlesque slot can be worth a great deal of money.


So if a freelance model becomes involved with any of these she is going to have to juggle. Flaking on photographers is really frowned upon so you can't just ditch a photographer if one if these lucrative gigs comes up.
But because they are not offering you long term work or long hours, they are used to paying higher hourly rates or whole day/ job rates. Ad agencies and third parties, employing photographers for the job will also know this and seldom quibble. It's what they'd have to pay an agency model at least so don't question it in London they know models have a living to.make.

You therefore have to make it worth your while. So fifty quid simply isn't. What a model needs to be able to do is get a fair days pay regardless of hours. So therefore typically freelance models will have a high hourly rate (often more than agencies) because it's no use to us. But where we can be an attractive proposition is we can offer massively discounted day rates. So my rate for example was £80 an hour or £175 a day. I simply didn't want a one hour job. But the £175 was,at least some recompense if I lost a day or toes fit or life modelling through it. To lose it for a paltry £80 was gutting.

Every life model and fit model I worked with did photographic modelling too and had similar system. We'd also cover for each other. So if an art institution or fashion house wanted me I'd ensure I had a body double to offer them, or offer the photographer a reliable model with plenty of notice.


So my suggestion would be a similar proving structure and having a look at those other regular model employers especially as you are a dancer.

Nudity should be irrelevant to your price structure; but it is perfectly acceptable to not take nude work tf if you don't need it for your port.

Welcome to MM Angela. One thing that is clear from a look at your port is that unlike many new models you have a skills set as a classical dancer that enables you to use dynamism in pose, understand gesture, form and space, emote  etc which enables you to perform immediately what models ultimately get paid for: to model. I would however adjust your stats as these are most important for any clothed modelling.

I think that that is the most informative post that I have seen on MM this month.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Most pro models need a days pay and low hourly rates are of no interest. So actually many freelance models charge high hourly rates and low day rates.

I wish that that philosophy could spread beyond the UK. For example, I was recently approached by a model with an offer of $125/hour, $450 for a half day, or $800 for a full day.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Thats rubbish. As I said look up all the successful genre models and see who they represent. That's not because of their 'stats and beauty' look it's because if their image and thats cultivated and wardrobe is important.

Here's three of us in one picture that get work on our wardrobe/image; in this case a millinery and a jeweller:



The model in the middle is London based and it would make your draw drop if you knew her income. She represents several big retro fashion design houses in catalogue, ad, magazine, and event and showroom work; and a lingerie company. She also has the best wardrobe of any model you are ever likely to meet.
The other two are me right and a model who specialises in vintage clothing and represents vintage boutiques. She and I regularly win fashion awards at vintage events, the races etc and get featured in a lot of media. That all gets us work from real clients.
In what way are they not real clients these designers and boutiques, millinery and jewellers, racecourse, high street stores, lingerie and hosiery companies, hairstyle companies, bridal designers, holiday companies and hotel and bars and so on we get booked DIRECT  to shoot for ? Based on our style? It is gutting to photographers I know that we have been picked by real world clients before you guys are hired but that is the way it often works. For girls with wardrobe especially. The same can happen with skills like dance they go through agents to book them for modelling jobs not photographers.
It may not be important at big campaign or top editorial level which is the work some of you do or aspire to do. And so you guys don't see the pyramid of journeyman modelling work underneath that pinnacle so don't see it works differently and an extra string to the now - be it our image or wardrobe, our performing (dance acting fire eating etc) gets us work. That's what we do down here and we can make a living from it.

Sometimes a better one than many agency fashion models who can end up on debt.
Here is another former MM London girl who made it big time from her wardrobe, reputation for style, and dancing. Any photographer who clocked her but didn't shoot with her because she may have been a bit expensive must be gutted now
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millicent_Binks

Sorry but not in my world.  A client hires a wardrobe stylist for that and a model for their look, period.  After all the client is selling their products and not the models collection, it would make no sense to do as you suggest.

AJScalzitti wrote:
Sorry but not in my world.  A client hires a wardrobe stylist for that and a model for their look, period.  After all the client is selling their products and not the models collection, it would make no sense to do as you suggest.

You live in a small world; as I said. At the top end in fashion and commercial this is how it is done. If you have a corporate client yes they have forty grand budgets for all that. But that does not happen with the vast majority of clients whose budgets are normally more like a grand. There is nothing better than having big budgets and wardrobe stylists but it's not going to be viable for many.

It's the same with fashion shows. I've been part of fashion shows where the budget is £100k. But that's been twice. I have been part of provincial and small fashion shows where the budget is a max of £2k forty times. At the first, everything worn on the runway is the clients and stylists were the beat available LFW. At the smaller ones, the models are likely to have to wear their own shoes, accessories, etc for a boutique. Any budget for styling it goes on hair and Mua. So in this case, the organisers will choose models who they know can effectively help style the shoot.

At showroom events - which you have probably never seen - the same is true. In the big fashion houses everything is styled for you. At smaller ones you are expected to help with shoes, gloves jewellery etc. Of course amodel who has extensive fashion contacts can source these for shoots from other boutiques anf designers for shows and shoots; but not showroom or events.

What happens is the boutique and designers like continuity. They effectively need a brand ambassador to represent them in magazines, on websites, in catalogues, at shows, showroom, and events. This can be simply clothing sponsorship or it can be regular paid work or both.

This is not your world so you simply don't get it. That is what I already know: photographers have a very narrow view and it's evident when they suggest models to clients (yes 'oh my god you should have seen the girl he suggested we use' comes up at almost every client I've ever worked with). I've seen models turn up with not even a pair of shoes to wear. This is where those of us who habe strong wardrobe and have perhaps other advantages (eg a degree of recognition re style, being in a band, or a burlesque star, a large following, etc can be of enormous advantage to a third party client) . And it's not like they are all small either. I've worked for big hosiery companies, high street boutiques, racecourses, hotels, tourism companies etc. The models above for major fashion houses, holiday companies, airline companies, big lingerie companies etc including on tv. We sometimes get picked for being ready styled.....because that isn't in your experience you think it doesn't exist. Just like a lot of you guys around here you know sod all about major things like fit modelling, promo modelling, grid girl jobs, performing, etc etc. So we have to go through the same rigmarole every time if having to explain to you the  how what and why models do and you never take it in.

You have your world as photographers. On forums, one encounters many amateurs and hobbyists to who photography is shooting pretty girls. That's as far as they think. Or you have those who would only pay to shoot nudes so think that's the only possible market. Then you have photographers at the top of the tree shooting campaigns and for fashion magazines. They have a different view of modelling where models fit a certain industry standard and are completely and utterly ignorant of other forms of modelling. And then you have those that aspire to be like them.

That is all fine, but not when you guys start to tell us about our world when you demonstrably know nothing about it. Nobody knows what a fit model is, what showroom is, what life modelling is, what grid girls are etc. Many of you actually cite fit modelling as a genre you'd like to shoot and date tell us about modelling!!!

You haven't got a clue many of you about the need and demand for things like character modelling and performing. One of the busiest London agencies fries many of your minds:
http://www.ugly.org/UGLY-MODELS/

And then we hear about height and yet this is one of the busiest London agencies and it's impossible in the UK to go a day without seeing one of their models in tv in posters in mags
and newspapers etc. This is what they say:
http://www.bmamodels.com/about-modelling


Now back to the models with their own styling and clients because of it. There are dozens of alt, gothic, vintage models etc representing designers in London alone. Look at credits. These are just a few I know or know of:
https://m.modelmayhem.com/737829
https://m.modelmayhem.com/721869
https://m.modelmayhem.com/347419
https://www.modelmayhem.com/5349
https://m.modelmayhem.com/1960476
https://m.modelmayhem.com/722459
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1235885
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1328553
https://m.modelmayhem.com/1185616
https://www.modelmayhem.com/656482
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1819328
https://m.modelmayhem.com/597199
https://m.modelmayhem.com/410197
https://m.modelmayhem.com/1119757


That's just a FRACTION of the alt  and burlesque girls in London who are where they are at least in part because of their OWN styling and wardrobe and the followings they have because of it.  And I have specifically concentrated mainly on the dancers because it's relevant.


No real world clients for five foot three models who dance with their own styling? You think huh?
https://m.modelmayhem.com/662843
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UsnPOgTyNEM




Now. Your world isn't relevant here. This is LONDON. And I know London modelling like the back of my hand and have worked with girls like those above to top fashion agency models from Premier when I was at AP. I know what a model can earn, and in what context, how a wardrobe and skills like dance can help both with third party clients and photographers, I know the life models the grid girls the glamour models who also do lingerie, the alt girls the burlesque girls, the performers actors and the Circus of Horrors girls, the fine art nude models and the fetish models, the promo girls the fit and showroom girls; I know girls from Premier and Oxygen and BMA and UGLY and niche agencies and promo/talent agencies and I know freelancers; I know how to deal with designers and boutiques and press offices and was a press officer and wrote editorial myself;  I know the media and ad agency people and how a campaign is done and the photographers who get some of the big ones; I know stylists and I know how the network can work etc etc etc.

This is LONDON. It isn't your world. And you haven't a clue how it works for models. Keep to your own business and advise about that because you only know a tiny facet of modelling. So quit telling grandma how to suck eggs.