Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
{extreme snippet}

This is LONDON.

Thought this lyric was appropriate (not the repressed part)

Oh, here is London
"Home of the brash, outrageous and free"
You are repressed
But you're remarkably dressed
Is it real?
And you're always busy

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
This is LONDON. It isn't your world.

Eliza does have a point.

Angela Hamilton wrote:
I am a professional dancer (contemporary/ballet) and a model. I get paid modelling work and still do TFP, but will only ever do paid nude shoots. Have only recently moved to London and recently joined MM and have been approached by many photographers asking me for my rate. I have no idea what to say!
For a nude shoot?
For a dance shoot (specialist skill)?
For a nude+dance shoot?
For a clothes (fashion,beauty,commercial etc)/
What are everyone's thoughts on a fair rate for these kinds of shoots?

I may be one of the few replying who routinely pays UK models for nude shoots. That would appear to make me a GWC.

natural beauties of qld wrote:
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.

I think top models can command that. If they are agency models that's what they are used to. But because of that a lot of the time they will and can twiddle thumbs and hold out fir the four jobs,a month that pay that.. Freelance models and models who are with agencies who don't get them much work are likely to know that the edge we have is being able to negotiate day rates that get us what we need: a days wages. Journeyman models arent going to get much more than that and therefore our advantage of undercutting the models and agencies who can't or won't do reduced day rates is what gets us work.

I'd also try making an offer eg "well I will pay you the $450 for the whole day" if you really want her for a casting.

Thanks for the comment re my post being informative. There are some here who think I have an agenda or somehow disapprove of tf etc but thats nonsense. My efforts are simply to help photographers liase effectively with models by seeing how it can be from our point of view.

CHAD ALAN wrote:
Thought this lyric was appropriate (not the repressed part)

Oh, here is London
"Home of the brash, outrageous and free"
You are repressed
But you're remarkably dressed
Is it real?
And you're always busy

Ha ha theres a few on MM who'd like to repress me!

Can't stand Morrissey but that's apt yes.

It's also of note that for the fashion house where I worked as fit model, our own wardrobe when we walked in and out of that door was even highly important. Even the shop girls own image and wardrobe are important. AP girls are all incredible style wise; and a fair few of them also models.

I think London is a special case. The US is a country where the whitening of teeth is essential (not here unless we are selling toothpaste)but you can just dress sloppily as a model; whereas in London style is the important thing. Nevertheless I am sure many US models can still get work because their style and image personally has been cultivated and they have good,wardrobe. True it's less important at top level , and the same to an extent here but we mostly aren't doing that and most normal third party clients need a model who has a little style herself; and even large clients can buy into that.

Hugh Alison wrote:
Eliza does have a point.


I may be one of the few replying who routinely pays UK models for nude shoots. That would appear to make me a GWC.

Take no notice of that mantra because it's all it is.
I know for a fact some claiming they don't pay do.

It's a snide snobbery to see any photographer who pays,a model as a gwc.
Some can of course get away with saying it if they are top pros or offering stellar port images like Stefano. Some can even charge models if it's exactly what they want. I know one guy here for eg that has such a shrewd styling team and studio like a movie set he can.

A small minority of photographers can test models here and with agencies....but there's no way those images can be used commercially very often so that's another limitation.

But it's laughable when one sees photographers who say they don't have to pay models and then see their 'models'. Oh yeah they may be beautiful sometimes but they aren't models.  Meanwhile, I see photographers who just get on with it , paying and shooting famous models for a fraction of their agency fees. They know who they are

The truth is most photographers shoot tf when they can, pay as you say really good models in the field they want for reasonable fee, and love to get models paid more than their normal rates when they get  third parties. The relationships that build up of backscratching networking and mutual tf collaborations like editorial that can result from paying the right model for the right job can be very beneficial to all. TF in my experience is normally reserved for those who have paid us in the past and put us forward to their third parties. The other tomes it's for grand artistic visions and editorials  with stylists galore.

So let those who think models dont get paid by decent photographers dream on and wonder why it is they can't get them tf and feel insulted unnecessarily, and just get on with what you want to do.
For what it saves photographers on buffering about with wannabes, girls,who have no modelling skills yet, and flake left right and centre, paying a suitable experienced model a reasonable fee can be the best money a photographer can spend. And it seems to me it's the gwcs that are the ones that don't get that.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
It's a snide snobbery to see any photographer who pays,a model as a gwc....
*snip*
But it's laughable when one sees photographers who say they don't have to pay models and then see their 'models'. Oh yeah they may be beautiful sometimes but they aren't models.  Meanwhile, I see photographers who just get on with it , paying and shooting famous models for a fraction of their agency fees. They know who they are ...
*snip*
So let those who think models dont get paid by decent photographers dream on and wonder why it is they can't get them tf and feel insulted unnecessarily, and just get on with what you want to do.
For what it saves photographers on buffering about with wannabes, girls,who have no modelling skills yet, and flake left right and centre, paying a suitable experienced model a reasonable fee can be the best money a photographer can spend. And it seems to me it's the gwcs that are the ones that don't get that.

We're getting off topic, as usual, but it's worthwhile stuff to say.

Anecdotally, I'll add: I was recently contacted by a photographer who had a portfolio that left me lukewarm, let's say, so I quoted my rates. He replied quite offended that I should think he's one of those dirty-old-man hobby photographers who pay models. (HUH? What the hell does age have to do with it?) I politely replied that I've modeled for awhile now, thus limiting trade work, and that I don't think it's at all 'perverse' for hobby photographers to pay for models any more than to pay for their expensive equipment. He replied that agencies were sending him models all the time and that he's capable of bringing out new moods and poses in even experienced models (To which I thought, okay, then why do you need to contact MM models?)

As the conversation dwindled, I checked his profile again and saw that he had made sure to add the fact that he was 20-something years old. As if that would convince more models to TF with him... Ain't nobody got time to try and set that way of thinking straight.

/end rant

Ida Saint-Luc wrote:
Ain't nobody got time to try and set that way of thinking straight.

/end rant

Nobody under 35 can be a pervert - it's a scientific fact!

Ida Saint-Luc wrote:
We're getting off topic, as usual, but it's worthwhile stuff to say.

Anecdotally, I'll add: I was recently contacted by a photographer who had a portfolio that left me lukewarm, let's say, so I quoted my rates. He replied quite offended that I should think he's one of those dirty-old-man hobby photographers who pay models. (HUH? What the hell does age have to do with it?) I politely replied that I've modeled for awhile now, thus limiting trade work, and that I don't think it's at all 'perverse' for hobby photographers to pay for models any more than to pay for their expensive equipment. He replied that agencies were sending him models all the time and that he's capable of bringing out new moods and poses in even experienced models (To which I thought, okay, then why do you need to contact MM models?)

As the conversation dwindled, I checked his profile again and saw that he had made sure to add the fact that he was 20-something years old. As if that would convince more models to TF with him... Ain't nobody got time to try and set that way of thinking straight.

/end rant

No I think it's very worthwhile your rant. Every model here gets that abuse back at some point if one politely declines and I think any new model should be made aware they may get it. This is why models end up not responding.
The problem being that every photographer thinks they are worth tf and every model needs to do it. Neither are true. And even top photographers aren't always going to get tf models.

TF should be viewed as a now and again thing whoever one is; and not everything is compatible but it doesn't mean one is worse than another; it can just mean that a model hasn't got time to do tf or she doesn't think it apt for her port.  Same vice versa of course when models approach photographers. They may just be too busy it's not an insult if the answer is no.

As for the age/look thing, this is another myth that photographers believe. Most ports we have no clue of age or looks and it simply doesn't matter to me if I'm shooting with an eighty year old dribbling hunchback or an 18 year old student and I have never known what a photographer will look like until meeting. But photographers imagine it's a factor. I did turn down a 17 year old who wanted to shoot Newton style stuff. His port was great but he did ask if his,age was a problem so I told him to contact me following year.

The only problem I ever had was with a guy on his twenties at the time and not unpleasant looking, and with fashion mag credits galore so not a gwc,  but :
http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/ne … on_models/

Another Italian Guy wrote:
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...


Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

And a few professionals as well:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/1730687

If you are spending a few thousand of your own money to get a portfolio shot which will attract major advertising clients, I imagine you use someone like Raphy who is going to do what it takes to get the shot.

18+:
http://www.ashleycameron.com/2013/09/mythical-siren/

18+:
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … c1eb84.jpg

We "non-professional GWCs" are just lucky to be able to work with models like her.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Take no notice of that mantra because it's all it is...
I know for a fact some claiming they don't pay do...

It's a snide snobbery to see any photographer who pays,a model as a gwc.

Thankyou Eliza.

What it really means - and I'm irritated enough not to be as tactful as usual - is that I make a higher hourly rate than most photographers, and I know what it costs me to do a TF shoot.

That's why I only shoot TF with friends, or for special projects.

That's also why "Talent doesn't pay talent" - because talent is broke.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Ha ha theres a few on MM who'd like to repress me!

Can't stand Morrissey but that's apt yes.

It's also of note that for the fashion house where I worked as fit model, our own wardrobe when we walked in and out of that door was even highly important. Even the shop girls own image and wardrobe are important. AP girls are all incredible style wise; and a fair few of them also models.

I think London is a special case. The US is a country where the whitening of teeth is essential (not here unless we are selling toothpaste)but you can just dress sloppily as a model; whereas in London style is the important thing. Nevertheless I am sure many US models can still get work because their style and image personally has been cultivated and they have good,wardrobe. True it's less important at top level , and the same to an extent here but we mostly aren't doing that and most normal third party clients need a model who has a little style herself; and even large clients can buy into that.

I think it looks bad when people's teeth are neon glowing white. My initial reaction is to assume they have dentures. Teeth shouldn't glow in normal daylight.

Hugh Alison wrote:
And a few professionals as well.

We "non-professional GWCs" are just lucky to be able to work with models like her.

We are indeed

And for the sake of clarification, the "GWCs" I was referring to in my previous posts are certainly NOT the serious amateur photographers who hire models in order to create art; they're the guys who will hire any girl willing to get naked for the cheapest amount of money so they can shoot some snapshots for their spank banks. Most of them are not going to be willing to pay somebody like Raph or Ella Rose or Ivory Flame to enhance their portfolio or to make art prints for sale in galleries and they've probably never heard of those models either!

My point to the OP was that if she wants to command the same kind of rates as somebody like Raph then she needs to drop her "Only doing it grudgingly for the cash" attitude, get some cracking art nudes in her portfolio and set about marketing herself to the kind of photographers (amateur and professional) who actually care about the results they get.

If she doesn't then she runs the risk of ending up in line behind Tracy from the chip shop and Debbie from the checkout in a queue to get her kit off for £20 for some sleazy guy to take a few snaps for his spank bank and to show to his mates at the pub! And he's only paying £20 because he absolutely doesn't care whether she's a dancer or what she has in her portfolio as long as she's willing to get naked for less money than Tracy or Debbie!



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
We are indeed

And for the sake of clarification, the "GWCs" I was referring to in my previous posts are certainly NOT the serious amateur photographers who hire models in order to create art; they're the guys who will hire any girl willing to get naked for the cheapest amount of money so they can shoot some snapshots for their spank banks. Most of them are not going to be willing to pay somebody like Raph or Ella Rose or Ivory Flame to enhance their portfolio or to make art prints for sale in galleries and they've probably never heard of those models either!

My point to the OP was that if she wants to command the same kind of rates as somebody like Raph then she needs to drop her "Only doing it grudgingly for the cash" attitude, get some cracking art nudes in her portfolio and set about marketing herself to the kind of photographers (amateur and professional) who actually care about the results they get.

If she doesn't then she runs the risk of ending up in line behind Tracy from the chip shop and Debbie from the checkout in a queue to get her kit off for £20 for some sleazy guy to take a few snaps for his spank bank and to show to his mates at the pub! And he's only paying £20 because he absolutely doesn't care whether she's a dancer or what she has in her portfolio as long as she's willing to get naked for less money than Tracy or Debbie!



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Now look here. There is a obvious  logical flaw in your position.

1. Models should charge the same fee nude or clothed as you are paid for modelling not being nude.

2. There is no chance to make money as a model if you aren't industry standard if you don't do nudes.


These are in contradiction.

It would actually suggest if that IS the case that nude models SHOULD charge more for nudes as demand is higher and supply lower. The truth is it's fallacious. It's just as likely to get clothed work paid as nude. One can market themselves one or the other or both. The Op us just as likely to get paid work for clothed as nude. But she appears to be saying she doesn't want to do tf nude. I never had to either.

Now I have no problem with people wanting to paint or shoot the human form nude. But to say that ONLY nude is worth paying for is nonsense. It may be all you want to concentrate on; but artists and photographers also want to paint and shoot models clothed for artistic purposes. And I have found in fact more paid interest in shooting me clothed than nude so that confirms it. Third parties are certainly less in the market for nudes. It's why I don't charge more for nude ( or didn't when I was doing nude obviously at the moment it's not prudent for me to do so) .Because demand is not as high as one would think and commercial outlet for nudes limited APART from glamour.

And be very careful what you day about working in a chip shop I know a very very talented fashion student at LCF who models a bit too , and I think she'll go far....who works in a chip shop!

But seriously....it's certainly better to do quality nudes tf or paid than do pink ra ra skirts for paid by gwcs. That much I will agree on. The problem us the guys wanting to pay us £20 for an hours work want to put us in a pink ra ra skirt or shoot amateur glamour BECAUSE they don't know they are a gwc and parade around site saying they don't have to pay models becabuse they can get girls off the street etc and give us abuse if we decline their generous offers!

Another Italian Guy wrote:
We are indeed

And for the sake of clarification, the "GWCs" I was referring to in my previous posts are certainly NOT the serious amateur photographers who hire models in order to create art; they're the guys who will hire any girl willing to get naked for the cheapest amount of money so they can shoot some snapshots for their spank banks. Most of them are not going to be willing to pay somebody like Raph or Ella Rose or Ivory Flame to enhance their portfolio or to make art prints for sale in galleries and they've probably never heard of those models either!

My point to the OP was that if she wants to command the same kind of rates as somebody like Raph then she needs to drop her "Only doing it grudgingly for the cash" attitude, get some cracking art nudes in her portfolio and set about marketing herself to the kind of photographers (amateur and professional) who actually care about the results they get.

If she doesn't then she runs the risk of ending up in line behind Tracy from the chip shop and Debbie from the checkout in a queue to get her kit off for £20 for some sleazy guy to take a few snaps for his spank bank and to show to his mates at the pub! And he's only paying £20 because he absolutely doesn't care whether she's a dancer or what she has in her portfolio as long as she's willing to get naked for less money than Tracy or Debbie!



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Sorry; yes, I think you and I are fairly closely in agreement...

... there's a big market to take fotos of "baps and flaps"* - and a large number of girls happy to have them shot - at inflated prices. In fact, there are other UK model/photographer websites (not MM) which seem to cater for especially this...

Edit... * "baps and flaps" is a  UK term for a photographic specialisation - also known as a "bacon butty".

Explained here... but NSFW: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p … on%20butty

Hugh Alison wrote:
I think you and I are fairly closely in agreement...

... there's a big market to take fotos of "baps and flaps" - and a large number of girls happy to have them shot - at inflated prices. In fact, there are other UK model/photographer websites (not MM) which seem to cater for especially this...

Yessssss......I had an eye opener at those sites and fled here. But I can tell you....NONE of them know they are gwcs and ALL expect you to shoot tf or offer twenty quid. AND they want your...errr....bacon butty.... for that! Polite decline met with " you're up yourself luv...I could get you in Fiesta are you mad?" They have no concept that a million quid wouldn't persuade me to do that and if a model does it she may not only fail to get future modelling work but also lose another career. I mean I am talking not the well shot glossy Playboy topless glamour stuff but tacky adult and continental stuff amateur glamour etc and even really naff stuff masquerading as art nude.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Yessssss......I had an eye opener at those sites and fled here. But I can tell you....NONE of them know they are gwcs and ALL expect you to shoot tf or offer twenty quid. AND they want your...error....bacon butty.... for that! Polite decline met with " you're up yourself luv...I could get you in Fiesta are you mad?" They have no concept that a million quid wouldn't persuade me to do that and if a model does it she may not only fail to get future modelling work but also lose another career. I mean I am talking not the well shot glossy Playboy topless glamour stuff but tacky adult and continental stuff amateur glamour etc and even really naff stuff masquerading as art nude.

Actually, when you get spammed by "models" who are 50 lbs overweight, mid-forties, and with a handful of crappy, explicit nudes in their portfolio, asking if you want to shoot for five times the rate charged by really good models - and they have plenty of very satisfied references on the other sites... you realise there are multiple markets.

Hugh Alison wrote:
Actually, when you get spammed by "models" who are 50 lbs overweight, mid-forties, and with a handful of crappy, explicit nudes in their portfolio, asking if you want to shoot for five times the rate charged by really good models - and they have plenty of very satisfied references on the other sites... you realise there are multiple markets.

Ha ha....or more likely it means they have shot with three photographers tf and appeared in Readers Wives twice and now thats their apprenticeship done it's time they earned what Katy Price earns as they have bigger boobs anyway and she doesn't even do the naughty stuff....she hasn't even got a webcam!

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Now look here. There is a obvious  logical flaw in your position.

These are in contradiction.

I really don't see how you find this contradictory Eliza

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
1. Models should charge the same fee nude or clothed as you are paid for modelling not being nude.

I'm opposed to "stripper rates", not to charging a fair (and flexible) rate for the job.

As far as photographic modelling for photographers goes... (and let's not confuse the issue by talking about Fit, Promo or Life modelling here please):-

- If a girl shoots nudes and can get clothed modelling work via a site like this at the same rate as nude work then obviously it could make sense to take it. (Although many of the art models I know actually prefer shooting nudes because it's less hassle and requires them to carry less luggage!)

- If all she can get is work requiring at least some nudity for some of the time she's shooting, then that's a nude shoot and should be charged at her normal rate. (This, whether you like it or not, is the most likely scenario for girls who shoot nudes and who book work through sites like this.)

- If she's offered a clothed (or nude) job at less than her normal rate then it's up to her to decide whether to take it or decline based on the state of her diary and all other factors that she considers germane.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
2. There is no chance to make money as a model if you aren't industry standard if you don't do nudes.

We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but here goes, once again....

Yes, I know about Fit modelling and Promo modelling and Burlesque and Vintage and Life modelling for art institutions. Most of the models I shoot with have also done one or all of these things in addition to photographic modelling.

However, on a site like MM (or PP or PS or OMP or Netmodel etc. etc.) the primary type of paid work on offer is photographic modelling because these are sites that exist primarily to bring photographers and models together. So when I say that a non agency-stats girl's best chance of being paid is to shoot nudes, I'm talking about MM, not any of the 100 other ways she could get paid outside of MM!

Now, I think I need a pancake!






Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

M A R L H A M wrote:
Raphaella is pretty special.

But so far as the OP is concerned I'd say if your heart isn't properly into nude modelling then just forget it altogether. Nobody wants to work with someone who's only prepared to model nude grudgingly or if the money is right. Photographers like to think it's about more than that. And I get the feeling that anybody who tries to engage you for that style of work will sense your lack of enthusiasm for it anyway.

+1

Precisely.

Well, maybe apart from the GWCs waiting outside the chipshop for Tracey... of course!




Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Ha ha....or more likely it means they have shot with three photographers tf and appeared in Readers Wives twice and now thats their apprenticeship done it's time they earned what Katy Price earns as they have bigger boobs anyway and she doesn't even do the naughty stuff....she hasn't even got a webcam!

Hmm... took me less than 2 minutes on one of the UK sites to find one in London with 63 references this year from happy customers - so it's as reliable an income as life modelling.

Another Italian Guy wrote:

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Now look here. There is a obvious  logical flaw in your position.

These are in contradiction.

I really don't see how you find this contradictory Eliza

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
1. Models should charge the same fee nude or clothed as you are paid for modelling not being nude.

I'm opposed to "stripper rates", not to charging a fair (and flexible) rate for the job.

As far as photographic modelling for photographers goes... (and let's not confuse the issue by talking about Fit, Promo or Life modelling here please):-

- If a girl shoots nudes and can get clothed modelling work via a site like this at the same rate as nude work then obviously it could make sense to take it. (Although many of the art models I know actually prefer shooting nudes because it's less hassle and requires them to carry less luggage!)

- If all she can get is work requiring at least some nudity for some of the time she's shooting, then that's a nude shoot and should be charged at her normal rate. (This, whether you like it or not, is the most likely scenario for girls who shoot nudes and who book work through sites like this.)

- If she's offered a clothed (or nude) job at less than her normal rate then it's up to her to decide whether to take it or decline based on the state of her diary and all other factors that she considers germane.


We've discussed this ad-nauseum, but here goes, once again....

Yes, I know about Fit modelling and Promo modelling and Burlesque and Vintage and Life modelling for art institutions. Most of the models I shoot with have also done one or all of these things in addition to photographic modelling.

However, on a site like MM (or PP or PS or OMP or Netmodel etc. etc.) the primary type of paid work on offer is photographic modelling because these are sites that exist primarily to bring photographers and models together. So when I say that a non agency-stats girl's best chance of being paid is to shoot nudes, I'm talking about MM, not any of the 100 other ways she could get paid outside of MM!

Now, I think I need a pancake!






Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

That is NOT how it works if you are a model. Half if us don't even respond to photographers remember?
We USE this site to host our ports. We dont generally have websites.
So....when I see an ad for fit modelling or life modelling etc I apply citing my port and get the job see? I am NOT here primarily to network with photographers. If they want to book me I'm here but I turn most of it down and am not taking any atm. But I'm still networking with designers.

Some models expressly state they are not looking to shoot with non agency approved photographers but you can bet your arse they are citing their ports in comms with agencies, designers, third parties etc and using MM to network with other models, muas, etc etc.

You guys are in the sane market for us as other model employers just because we ate on here doesn't mean we are at your beck and call!

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
That is NOT how it works if you are a model. Half if us don't even respond to photographers remember?
We USE this site to host our ports. We dont generally have websites.
So....when I see an ad for fit modelling or life modelling etc I apply citing my port and get the job see? I am NOT here primarily to network with photographers. If they want to book me I'm here but I turn most of it down and am not taking any atm. But I'm still networking with designers.

I love the way you seem to use the words "we" and "I" interchangeably, as if you speak for ALL models!

I think WE have already established that you're an outlier....



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Another Italian Guy wrote:

I love the way you seem to use the words "we" and "I" interchangeably, as if you speak for ALL models!

I think WE have already established that you're an outlier....



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Says the guy who pays in pancakes!

Look I know that models use ports as you guys would use websites.

We apply for any casting or an agency or a promo firm or an Art institution and link our ports. How do you think other models get all their work that isn't with photographers? Out if the ether?
Not all models will do it....but I know plenty who do. And they don't not respond to designers either.....

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Look I know that models use ports as you guys would use websites.

Most of the popular photographic art-nude models also have websites, and Facebook pages, and blogs...

And yes, some of them do other work, and some are with commercial agencies. But it still remains that the vast majority of paid work available to them via sites like MM is nudes.

And no, I won't tolerate a model who asks for an extra pancake for taking her knickers off!



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Most of the popular photographic art-nude models also have websites, and Facebook pages, and blogs...

And yes, some of them do other work, and some are with commercial agencies. But it still remains that the vast majority of paid work available to them via sites like MM is nudes.

And no, I won't tolerate a model who asks for an extra pancake for taking her knickers off!



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

You're very wrong  and what is more if you ARE right you sabotage your own claim that models shouldn't charge more for nude. If demand is higher then it's normal economics to charge more. But I happen to know that is a fallacy once you take the gwcs who want readers wives stuff out of the equation. If it's true however then strippers rates are a GO GO !

Look. I was perplexed once why a photographer was quoting £2k for a wedding to one client and £4k to another. I asked why. The last enquiry was for a Saturday he said. He always had more demand for Saturday; so naturally it's more expensive. Likewise, a hotel is more expensive in.peak season. So if there is more demand for nude (except I know there isn't) then it's correct that a model should charge more.

I have shown you MANY times however the majority of paid castings even on MM are not nude.  Certainly not the high pay ones. Really want me to do it again?

Ok fine.

Check yourself if you don't believe me.
Of the first 25 UK castings PAID filter today:
20 no nudity 5 nudity

I have NEVER in any area seen it as any different. Most paid castings are NOT  nude. And if you look at responses you will see what models here are after...so don't say I just speak for me.

Some good ones today actually.
Top.of the page:
FIT model for Rose and Willard
https://www.modelmayhem.com/casting/197 … earch_type[]=0&cc_country=UK&cc_state=6415&cc_city=&search_mile_range=&search_start_date=&search_end_date=&c_compensation[]=2&c_compensation_amount=&search_mm_name=&search_keyword=&search_sortby=dateadded

And thinking that putting a port up here and,waiting on photographers is an effective way of marketing oneself as a model would be as naive as an actor putting up an IMDB pro profile and expecting offers of work to come from Directors. It doesn't work that way. You have to USE your port as a model to market yourself in the real world.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Here in the US on this site most of the paid work is nude.    A lot of the unpaid and tests are clothed fashion but paid shoots are primarily nude.   That's here and OMP and other sites.   I did a search of Chicago and there are a lot of castings.   Mostly TF.   A few paid fashion but its the nude models on this site who are being paid.   I can imagine that some agency standard models might do okay with no nudes but as attractive as the OP is she isn't tall enough for many agencies.    I also find some of the models here make foolish choices.   One glaring example is not providing a working phone number unless their hired.

To me that makes little sense.   If you have privacy concerns get a cheap pay as you go phone or use FREE apps like MagicJack which give you a second number.   Google has its FREE phone app. but provide people who want to book you with a contact number.   Last year a MUA wanted to work with me.   I asked that she give me a number and I provided mine.   No she said.   I just want to use email and IM.   No dice.   I want to speak to people and photographers in many cases will want to speak with models BEFORE booking them.   Don't want to do that?   Maybe freelance modelling isn't for you.   

However we can discuss our experiences all we want.   We aren't the OP and she's not returned lately.   Perhaps she should contact models who live in her country or city.   To me the only way to really get your feet wet so to say is to get in the water.   Post rates and if people pay you then it worked.   If they don't then lower them.   Booked a lot then go up.

Castings showing today in Illinois using paid filter
Nude 4
Not Nude 21


Now this is similar to what I cited last time we had this discussion and you are just as demonstrably incorrect then as you are now.

But you are entitled to your own opinion. It's up to others whether they believe it or not.

But carry on guys if you want stripper rates a go go because you are giving the impression the demand is high and supply lower of nude models. Be my guest just don't moan about girls you've given that impression to acting on basic high school economics

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Castings showing today in Illinois using paid filter
Nude 4
Not Nude 21


Now this is similar to what I cited last time we had this discussion and you are just as demonstrably incorrect then as you are now.

But you are entitled to your own opinion. It's up to others whether they believe it or not.

But carry on guys if you want stripper rates a go go because you are giving the impression the demand is high and supply lower of nude models. Be my guest just don't moan about girls you've given that impression to acting on basic high school economics

I saw those and rather then debate with you.   I stand by what I've said.   The paid work on sites like these is nude.   Photographers with clients need to go to real world agencies rather the roll the dice with on-line models.   However who gives a shi# about what I say.   The OP should post her rates.   She's not all that interested in nudes so based on what you've said she should start booking paid work.   Thanks for being civil.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Ha ha....or more likely it means they have shot with three photographers tf and appeared in Readers Wives twice and now thats their apprenticeship done it's time they earned what Katy Price earns as they have bigger boobs anyway and she doesn't even do the naughty stuff....she hasn't even got a webcam!

Yourself being an expert on Jordan you should know she's posed for some very 18+ XXX stuff.

The Something Guy wrote:

Yourself being an expert on Jordan you should know she's posed for some very 18+ XXX stuff.

No I can proudly say I wouldn't know

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I saw those and rather then debate with you.   I stand by what I've said.   The paid work on sites like these is nude.   Photographers with clients need to go to real world agencies rather the roll the dice with on-line models.   However who gives a shi# about what I say.   The OP should post her rates.   She's not all that interested in nudes so based on what you've said she should start booking paid work.   Thanks for being civil.

There is no need to debate. Wherever you look at castings non nude always outnumbers nude work. So as usual I have data to support my assertion.

On agencies.

BMA is a busy London agency who charge around £90 an hour. Plus usage fees. Plus lunch breaks plus minimum four hours. No commercial use on tests. Plus 150% overtime. All normal.
http://www.bmamodels.com/client-terms-and-conditions

So yes you get assurance and you pay for it. Clients know it too and use them when there is budget. However real world clients often don't have those budgets. And freelancers can undercut them obviously particularly on whole day rates.
Real world clients often come to freelance models before they go to a photographer btw. Sometimes a freelance model can introduce photographers to their regular clients to boot.

Dozens of their models are on MM btw.

So the Op can believe me, and realise that something like £70 an hour and a day rate of £195 is a reasonable and VERY competitive  rate which will get her work with her modelling ability, as a much cheaper alternative to an agency. Or she can believe you and charge $20 an hour and fail miserably to make a living and cost herself longer term longer hours bookings from other model employers.

So I think she won't have problems booking work. As long as she markets herself off site too. And she can still do tf with whoever she wants. My guess is she is probably making headway with enquiries about both while this is going on.

Hope a few models here are looking at those fit and lookbook castings from a real world client btw.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
BMA is a busy London agency who charge around £90 an hour. Plus usage fees. Plus lunch breaks plus minimum four hours. No commercial use on tests. Plus 150% overtime. All normal.
http://www.bmamodels.com/client-terms-and-conditions

So yes you get assurance and you pay for it. Clients know it too and use them when there is budget. However real world clients often don't have those budgets. And freelancers can undercut them obviously particularly on whole day rates.

Dozens of their models are on MM btw.

So the Op can believe me, and realise that £70 an hour and a day rate of £175 is a reasonable and VERY competitive  rate which will get her work with her modelling ability, as a much cheaper alternative to an agency. Or she can believe you and charge $20 an hour and fail miserably to make a living and cost herself longer term longer hours bookings from other model employers.

Redacted.

JQuest wrote:
Send them a rate you think would be fair, if they stop responding you're too high, if they jump all over it you're too low.

+1

Tony Lawrence wrote:
A while ago a MM model asked me about a paid shoot.   She was asking $50.00
a hour.   I told her that was out of my budget but I could handle $25.00, she
declined.   A few weeks later she emailed and called me and asked if I
would still do $25.00 per hour, nope.   I moved on.   That's not to say what
the OP should charge.   However deciding a rate without considering what the project is or who's shooting or other things seems silly.   Learn to negotiate.
Maybe the photographer can pick you up or arrange transportation.   Maybe the
session can be done on a day off of work or after school.   

If you don't have a job is some cash better then none?   I need money to pay
my bills or  you can listen to people who tell you
what you should charge and how they work.   Ask them to pay you or get them
to help you find work.   Odds are they can't.  I've been on MM since its start.   Few
of the models that were here when I joined are active.   Many were very pretty
a few who I knew told me the only cash offers were explicit or erotic nudes.   
That wasn't for them.   Maybe they left too early because apparently there are
thousands of well paid non nude jobs around.   I'll let them know.

I haven't been on MM since it started. I have been here six years. 3 of which I was full time professional in London across a variety of genres. Three if which I have been part time because I have another job and don't have time to bugger about for two hour jobs for $25 an hour.

I've been a model for six years and this is likely to be my last then I will be gone. Does that mean I've failed? Modelling is short term for most. That's the nature of it. There are also many other reasons people may leave: success rather than failure can be one of them (I have already cited Betsy and Millicent whose careers morphed into other areas though still model, but you also have a number of models I've cited before as that Italian guy can bear out that have joined agencies like Elite and Premier, then you have models who have become well known actresses etc. Then you have like me many models who do it to support academic studies then move on onto work that opens up. Then you have models who retire go.become mums. It is the nature of being a woman that we change our roles in society. So to suggest models who aren't here since MMs inception is down to failure rate is utter nonsense.


We have all negotiated when we are free. But literally that would be only if I found myself at a loose end. And if I was, I wouldn't negotiate that low. For a start how do you think photographers who book me regularly and have been waiting on.me to finish my work and have my usual rates waiting would feel? Oh...oh...so Eliza can't model for me for £175 but she can go model for Tony for $50. Yeah yeah that'd go down well.

So you start doing deals like that and word gets round you are finished.

Yes I may do it....may....IF it was a photographer whose vision I could get behind with enthusiasm, it was part tf, and it was £100 for the day AND it was a day where I didn't have anything else to do.


But this dream world where you live, where models don't work they twiddle thumbs and watch tv , isn't London. The Op is in London and can walk into a talent/promo agency and get decent pay straight away. She could get a job in a stage production at any time. She could do life modelling well paid and regular any time. And the latter at places like the,Mall Galleries, Royal Academy and London Sketch Club and Chelsea Arts Club can open so many doors into other modelling it's unreal. So as her diary fills up, she'd be a fool to set rates too low for low hours irregular work. If she finds herself free she can always negotiate down she can't negotiate up.


Some cash is not better than none. Tf can be better than none. But we aren't beggars with nothing else to do, and while some photographers CONTINUE to believe we are they will continue to fail to lease effectively with models here. We are busy and can be selective. If that wasn't true we'd be responding to photographers requests but as you know many of us don't. insulting pay offers are when we are busy not worth a response frankly. What all models know, and what some photographers fail to appreciate, is that a job for two hours photographic is going to involve many hours toning, waxing, skincare, manicure, chains of emails and phone calls to discuss details, wardrobe sourcing (down our end I've yet to have a job where all wardrobe was provided even editorial) , travel etc etc. That is ten hours work maybe to get paid for two. Fuck that I'd rather work behind a bar. Of course, I dont have to because both photographers and third parties in fact DO pay models their asking rates and appreciate they are fair.

When people start mouthing off about could get agency model for that who do you think you are blah blah I normally send agency terms conditions and rates pages; then block them. I don't work with people who don't appreciate what models do and wouldn't be able to follow an agency's terms and conditions, but if they do they will see what it costs even for small agencies. Of course the problems don't happen with real world photographers because they KNOW what agency models cost. They may offer tf, but at least they don't insult with arrogant offers of really low pay take it or leave it. We don't have to work with people who can't afford us.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Some cash is not better than none. Tf can be better than none.

Eliza makes some good points (when you can find them).

I shoot for free, or I shoot at my full rate.
I never shoot "cheap" - I am never going to be known as a "cheap photographer".

I use the same principle in the day job, and it works.