Miss 5 11 wrote:
I may as well be rewarded for giving better value during a shoot.

What if I secretly value clothed models more?

Then I'd be totally getting away with a bargain!

Amelia G wrote:
When I do paid nude shoots with models, the rate is the rate.

My rule is that I never shoot anything unless the model is 10000000% comfortable with it and wants to do it.

Just my opinion, but photographers and models who get super obsessed with precisely how explicit something is . . . well, they need to think about having their art actually say something, if they want to be artists.

Many forget...they just shoot for the sake of shooting.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I have photographed open leg.  I didn't ask the model to pose that way.  She just did it on her own.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
There was no need for the comment.

Jerry, your calibre of wisdom often goes beyond comprehension.

Although some of my images may be a little edgy, I would never shoot open leg unless discussed with the model prior to the shoot.
Believe it or not Jerry, there is a line of respect and responsibility you should always maintain as a photographer, or you risk having your reputation destroyed.

But at the opposite end of the spectrum, I've experienced a few models who have agreed to shoot nude work, only to show up, move the goal posts, then expect to be paid for clothed work. I'm not sure if this happens often, but I expect it's a bit of a con that a few desperate and unprofessional players try out on others from time to time.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
1. Does open leg style art nude give better value than the less revealing style.

I don't think so.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
2. Therefore should it be a paid more?

You could ask what you want.  (as usual).

Miss 5 11 wrote:
3. What are the consequences if I do open leg style?

Especially when paired with certain poses, usually is judges as erotic or pornographic.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
4. Does it matter to anyone really?

Sure matter for a certain number of people given that there will never, on any topic, universal agreement.

But what really should matter is only what you and the photographer wanted.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
It's a tricky line to walk. All pretty girls understand this in every office and work place in the land. Just part of being an attractive young female. I call it being the object of a biological imperative all men are burdened with. Single, married or otherwise. It never leaves them alone, poor bastards.

Not sure what you mean by "tricky line to walk". A lot of men are respectful. It's the poor women who feel like they are the object of desire for all men, that I'm sorry for. Not all men should be seen through such a narrow view.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
I enjoy this work and my photographers have all been sincere men wanting to create a numinous image of what occupies their mind most in this life - An inviting naked female. Even the ones that wanted me to use toys or do POV sex acts with them were only asking, not pushing.

I can see how your viewpoint about men in general is biased. Why are you describing yourself as "inviting". Maybe that's part of the problem you've been having. There are a lot of photographers who shoot for art, and not for the nakedness and invitation of a young female. Those are the ones you should strive to work with.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
I may as well be rewarded for giving better value during a shoot.

To me, nudity does not equal "higher value". Either it's something I want to shoot, or not, depending on the concept. Otherwise it feels like, "hey, if I show you this body part that is really inviting, then you'll have to pay more."

It looks like you added a few things to your profile in hopes of making your boundaries very clear. Hope you have better luck in the future.

CHAD ALAN wrote:
...It looks like you added a few things to your profile in hopes of making your boundaries very clear. Hope you have better luck in the future.

She even states exactly what she likes, (i.e. is looking for) in her profile stating the regulars and the person that she is shooting it with.

Good for her.
Jen

Amelia G wrote:
When I do paid nude shoots with models, the rate is the rate.

My rule is that I never shoot anything unless the model is 10000000% comfortable with it and wants to do it.

Just my opinion, but photographers and models who get super obsessed with precisely how explicit something is . . . well, they need to think about having their art actually say something, if they want to be artists.

Amen to that!

Miss 5 11 wrote:
I'm thinking of putting up my fee to $150/hr for art nude.

My fee for art nude now is $100/hr for poses you'd see in paintings in the National Gallery but I sense that photographers always have that touchy question in the back of their mind....

"Will you open your legs please"?

I oblige because I'm uninhibited and, as I'm naked anyway, why not show completely that I'm female. Celebrate that I have a vagina, why hide the fact? Why feel shame?

But I'm wondering if perhaps I should be charging more since I'm willing to go that extra mile and reveal more.

So I thought I'd put these questions out there.

1. Does open leg style art nude give better value than the less revealing style.

2. Therefore should it be a paid more?

3. What are the consequences if I do open leg style?

4. Does it matter to anyone really?

I'd like to hear from models that do and those who don't and their reasons. And from photographers who find asking for open leg difficult and those who are comfortable and get what they want. Do you pay extra... Like a tip if the girl gives a little more.

$150 is a bit steep... one of the best models on MM lives here in town, and I don't think she charges that much

I'd say, keep your rates flat. Makes negotiating muuuch easier. Your time is your time, you shouldn't be paid by the % of skin showing

Nadia ModelTx wrote:
$150 is a bit steep... one of the best models on MM lives here in town, and I don't think she charges that much

I'd say, keep your rates flat. Makes negotiating muuuch easier. Your time is your time, you shouldn't be paid by the % of skin showing

The OP is in Australia, and $150ph is pretty much the top rate of full time professional art-nude models.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
I may as well be rewarded for giving better value during a shoot.

I think if you agree to model, you should give your best regardless of what the shoot entails...

Yury Averkiev wrote:
Just came across this post and decided to check your portfolio. Well it mostly look like an ordinary soft home porn. You might as well become a "cam girl"...

$150 hr in Oz is pretty much top rate for the best of the best. For what you seem to be happy with, many, many models will do at a much lower rate, some for free. Without top notch shots from quality photographers to back up that price I think that any model is going to price themselves right out of the market.
Merry Christmas

Vincent Arthur wrote:
If you don't lose work and end up earning more for the same effort...good for you!

If your bookings drop, adjust accordingly.

I like what this guy said.
also you can always check here for a guide line on this topic http://www.independentmodeling.com/IM/J … rates.html

revolucion foto wrote:

I think if you agree to model, you should give your best regardless of what the shoot entails...

I agree 100 %, it should never be a scale of talent offered according to pay. That would take quite a different name than pure modeling. I am not referring to the amount of nudity here but the model's effort to offer the best photographs regardless of what these may be and what the agreed upon pay is..

Your rates are on the very top of the scale, I've shot quite a few gorgeous  models among them beautiful Australians  who paid me for their portfolios, including nudes. The only opinion on rates I could offer you would be to be competitive. you know your market, there will be more takers and I believe you'll earn far more in the long run if you're among many who charge X than if you position yourself as charging Y. In the U.S, $150.00/ hour is generally for more than spread shots. I understand there is a difference with Australian dollars. I like the fact you're comfortable with your body. Models who are, are easier and more pleasant to work with, regardless of what the photographs are about, even shooting fashion or anything unrelated to nudes. Many models don't even shoot nudes at all. One gets better quality photographs if a model isn't preoccupied by every inch of skin showing that may not even be in the photograph.

nudeXposed wrote:
There's no doubt you have a vagina, but I'm fairly sure that no-one except medical students would wish to view your internal organs. Vulva or Mound of Venus is the term you're searching for.

As someone who recently had to do training with medical Models who had training on grading our clinical skills , (medical) I really had littel care to actually see the vagina other than for speculum insertion and appropriate care. However I surely doubt the models were paid the rate that photographic models who flash their vagina do. This was more akin to art modeling or life modeling and the four models who assisted for my medi cal class, (nurses, docs, physician assistants and nurse practictioners,) were very cool folks who were modeling in order to help patients in the future and not likely for any sense of thrill at aquiesing or suprirsing a photographer who pushed boundaries.
Jen
P.s. apologies for rampant typos! Happy New Year's Champaign wishes and bliss.

revolucion foto wrote:

I think if you agree to model, you should give your best regardless of what the shoot entails...

well said

John Jebbia wrote:
,

Damn !!! I saw your name in this thread I was expecting a classic response

More disappointment 2nite

Miss 5 11 wrote:
In my new profile I state that a definition of 'explicit' is available on request. When they enquire I tell them:

These explicit poses would involve open leg, my fingers touching my open labia but no penetration or toys.

The term 'erotic art nudes' could mean anything. All in the eye of the beholder. At least 'explicit' is a more precise term and one used in legal definitions.

I haven't had any porn enquiries yet. I always make everything clear with a photographer before shooting explicit nudes and seek references from models they have shot before me.

It's true they may feel more licence to go further with a model who advertises "explicit' I'll have to wait and see but even a fashion shooter can push the boundaries a bit if they feel they can.

It's a tricky line to walk. All pretty girls understand this in every office and work place in the land. Just part of being an attractive young female. I call it being the object of a biological imperative all men are burdened with. Single, married or otherwise. It never leaves them alone, poor bastards.

I enjoy this work and my photographers have all been sincere men wanting to create a numinous image of what occupies their mind most in this life - An inviting naked female. Even the ones that wanted me to use toys or do POV sex acts with them were only asking, not pushing.

I declined, they understood.

Previously I was already posing explicitly in my 'art nude' poses out of inexperience. Then I realised what I was doing and decided to separate out that style, call it 'explicit' and charge more for it.

I may as well be rewarded for giving better value during a shoot.

I'll see how it goes anyway.

Bingo. Now if only more models and photographers had this kind of handle on reality we wouldn't have hysteria generated every time it is discovered that men with cameras have a sexual interest in their subjects.

Amelia G wrote:
When I do paid nude shoots with models, the rate is the rate.

My rule is that I never shoot anything unless the model is 10000000% comfortable with it and wants to do it.

Just my opinion, but photographers and models who get super obsessed with precisely how explicit something is . . . well, they need to think about having their art actually say something, if they want to be artists.

Wow this is exactly correct. This is why those kind of models seeking definitions are best suited to the GWC with a big budget... Or the GWCBB

Miss 5 11 wrote:
I'm thinking of putting up my fee to $150/hr for art nude.

My fee for art nude now is $100/hr for poses you'd see in paintings in the National Gallery but I sense that photographers always have that touchy question in the back of their mind....

"Will you open your legs please"?

I oblige because I'm uninhibited and, as I'm naked anyway, why not show completely that I'm female. Celebrate that I have a vagina, why hide the fact? Why feel shame?

But I'm wondering if perhaps I should be charging more since I'm willing to go that extra mile and reveal more.

So I thought I'd put these questions out there.

1. Does open leg style art nude give better value than the less revealing style.

2. Therefore should it be a paid more?

3. What are the consequences if I do open leg style?

4. Does it matter to anyone really?

I'd like to hear from models that do and those who don't and their reasons. And from photographers who find asking for open leg difficult and those who are comfortable and get what they want. Do you pay extra... Like a tip if the girl gives a little more.

Your time is your time, whether your legs are open or closed. Open leg photos and videos sell for more, but are you going to keep track of how many minutes your legs were open?