Isis22 wrote:
OP-Check your Tags and delete the offensive one.

Thanks. I saw it a few hours ago and blocked him. How immature.

BrianG  wrote:
Do you have a copy of the model release?  If so, feel free to message me directly.

Thanks, I don't have a copy. I didn't think this would happen. It was supposed to be casual.

logannye wrote:
I changed the bio after all this. It used to say "mainly paid gigs, open to TFs with cool concepts." I tried to word it as politely as possible.

The first problem here is you're using your bio as a screening process instead of using your communication as a screening process. Also, you might want to consider understanding the vocabulary of things a bit more. Your bio states, "Will do some TFs...", and grammatically, that doesn't make much sense. The term "TFP" is a fabricated term created by people on the Internet who didn't understand what a "Test Shoot" was. It originally started as "TFCD" or Trade For CD, which implied a model would trade his or her services in exchange for a CD of images. Over time, the term evolved into "TFP", or "Trade For Photos. So when you say, "Will do some TFs" you are saying, "Will do some Trade Fors". It just sounds amateur-night.

The photog was very cryptic about where the photos would be,

Then why on Earth did you shoot with him? Odds are that whatever photos he shot of you, he's not going to get rich with them. I an assure you of that. So what are you so fearful of? So a photographer has a bunch of photos of you and he doesn't want to give you any, for some reason. WHAT he is going to use them for really isn't relevant. What IS relevant is why you never discussed the specifics on how many retouched, finished photos you would be receiving after the shoot. Consider yourself educated now on how you communicate with photographers. This was a very simple lesson and luckily for you, not a very expensive one either. So you wasted your time with some dipshit who doesn't want to give you photos after the shoot. Life sucks, move on. You OBVIOUSLY didn't work with anyone who was a professional with a decent reputation that could have easily been verified, so consider this being schooled on the matter a bit. If the photographer was cryptic about how many finished photos you would would be receiving, you shouldn't have shot with him. Period....end of discussion. This isn't rocket science, and guess what, there are other photographers in NY too. You don't have to shoot with the first guy who comes along.

and I signed a model release. (Won't be doing that again on TF.)

Yes, you will. OK, well, you don't HAVE to, but you will if you plan on modeling for anyone other than a GWC you will. Don't throw a tantrum because you don't understand how the process works. In the future, you need to discuss receiving a "Usage License" from whomever you shoot with. If they are a photographer who has more than 2 IQ points, they'll know what this is. It's a simple agreement stating, from the photographer, how many finished photos you will be receiving and how you can use them. It's a very simple document. If it's an amateur photographer you're working with, they may not have a contract in place already for this so just ask them to write you an email documenting what the end result of the shoot will be so at least you have it in writing. If a photographer doesn't want to do even that, then skip them. It's really just that simple.

For the record, if a model dared showed up on my shoot and refused to sign a model release, she would be exiting through the entrance within 30 seconds. I don't have that problem though because I discuss model releases and usage license terms with all models I work with before the shoot.

I got some texts with photos of the camera screen. After asking and asking and saying I was not planning on paying anything, I got one of the poorer photos in b&w. I asked for only two of the phtots retouched or unretouched, and he said I wasn't getting anymore for free. So being screwed over like that, I changed the bio.

You're 25 years old. Stop acting like you're 6.The guy you worked with was a low-level amateur who had no idea how to send you proofs, did not organize the shoot well, and the list goes on and on. You used poor judgement in who you shot with and you wasted an afternoon. Life sucks, now move on. Use the education you can get from these forums on how to vet photographers and book with someone who will want to give you what you're looking for in trade. They are out there. Throwing a tantrum about it won't make things better and be prepared to deal with the bad as well as the good as you advance your modeling career, or ANY career for that matter. That's life, it sucks sometimes, so learn from your mistakes and have a positive outlook instead of a negative one and in time, you'll come out ahead.

Should I release the MM name on here, go to moderator, change my bio back?

You should write a nice bio with more than 2 sentences and keep it positive. Tell your visitor who you are, why you want to get into modeling, what kind of photographer you are looking for (and keep it nice...don't write something foolish like, "I'm not looking for some jerk who won't return photos" or something like that), the genres you'd like to shoot with, and so forth. Tell your visitor something about you and create value as to why that photographer should want to work with you. Suddenly, you'll see a change in the types of people who want to work with you.

Or, you can stay the course, be negative and nasty, and see where that gets you. Trust me on this, my way works better.

Laura Bello wrote:

I'm pretty sure posting the person's name is against the rules and I'm not sure if going to a mod would help but you could try.  Really though it's not like he's doing anything illegal.  One of my best friends is a good photographer and she has a terrible habit of not giving models photos if she doesn't like them on trade shoots.  Now obviously she doesn't try to extort money out of the models but either way they don't get anything out of the shoot.  This just happens sometimes, which is why it can help to check references with the people you're shooting with.

snip

Trade.

If the images are crap, no matter whose fault, then they are not going to see the light of day.
Should I give the model images that I will never be able to use but they are bad, and in fact may cause my reputation harm?
Trade means I get something and the model gets something. If I am getting nothing, then how is that fair.
Flip side of the coin.

However, if the photographer is halfway decent, there should always be something for the model.

Your friend is one of those photographers that should be paying models.

And anybody I shoot with knows there is a chance that nothing will come of it.

Some agency models have never used anything we shot. Others have used many. Luck of the draw, chemistry and creativity at the moment.

Shot By Adam wrote:

Shot By Adam, you gave a lot of useful advice and told me a lot I didn't know. The reason I shot with him is b/c I assumed I'd get everything at the end. I am over it, and I'm not throwing a tantrum, I'm reacting to someone disrespecting me and getting ppl's feedback on it. I started this profile to do modeling as a little side job, not out of vanity.

logannye wrote:
Shot By Adam, you gave a lot of useful advice and told me a lot I didn't know. The reason I shot with him is b/c I assumed I'd get everything at the end. I am over it, and I'm not throwing a tantrum, I'm reacting to someone disrespecting me and getting ppl's feedback on it. I started this profile to do modeling as a little side job, not out of vanity.

I just looked at your new bio section.

My only advise would be that, IF you have some (real) modeling pictures, or stills from acting gigs you've done, e.g. stage or film, put those up asap.

The reason for this is that once you start to have a strong(er) portfolio, showing versatility and that you worked with high end photographers and a team, your market value, literally will rise and you will get easier trade (TF's) offers from higher quality photographers or paid gigs from photographers who are willing to add you to their portfolios.

Have fun!

Herman Surkis wrote:
Trade.

If the images are crap, no matter whose fault, then they are not going to see the light of day.
Should I give the model images that I will never be able to use but they are bad, and in fact may cause my reputation harm?
Trade means I get something and the model gets something. If I am getting nothing, then how is that fair.
Flip side of the coin.

However, if the photographer is halfway decent, there should always be something for the model.

Your friend is one of those photographers that should be paying models.

And anybody I shoot with knows there is a chance that nothing will come of it.

Some agency models have never used anything we shot. Others have used many. Luck of the draw, chemistry and creativity at the moment.

I get that both parties should get something but if you know how a model looks and thats what makes you book the trade and then you think the photos suck, it's the photographer that is messing up, not the model so why should she have to get screwed?  If you're worried about your reputation just ask the model not to credit you when she posts them if she chooses to use them somewhere.  Unless the model shows up looking nothing like her pictures or poses terribley I think she's owed at least one photo for her portfolio and they can choose to use it or not. 

And the person in question is an RIT graduate, she should be able to shoot well enough where both her and the model are getting something they can use but instead she's notorious for not giving models photos.

Laura Bello wrote:
I get that both parties should get something but if you know how a model looks and thats what makes you book the trade and then you think the photos suck, it's the photographer that is messing up, not the model so why should she have to get screwed?  If you're worried about your reputation just ask the model not to credit you when she posts them if she chooses to use them somewhere.  Unless the model shows up looking nothing like her pictures or poses terribly I think she's owed at least one photo for her portfolio and they can choose to use it or not. 

And the person in question is an RIT graduate, she should be able to shoot well enough where both her and the model are getting something they can use but instead she's notorious for not giving models photos.

If that person is notorious for producing bad images... so bad that the person is embarrassed to give images to the models... that means that she might have a shot of going back to RIT and ask for some of her tuition back...

She probably shouldn't have been admitted to RIT if she has so little talent that she can't get anything out of some models!

udor wrote:

If that person is notorious for producing bad images... so bad that the person is embarrassed to give images to the models... that means that she might have a shot of going back to RIT and ask for some of her tuition back...

She probably shouldn't have been admitted to RIT if she has so little talent that she can't get anything out of some models!

I've seen her work and it's about as good as other people going there.  I really feel like RIT doesn't guarantee that you come out shooting like Meisel, which is part of the reason I dropped out after a semester, there's tons of graduates that are good photographers but not great. 

The thing is I've looked through some of the sets and the photos aren't bad, she just doesn't like them enough and is too lazy to edit them if they're not amazing, which is partly my point.  Sometimes the photographers won't give models images just cause they don't like them not because they're terrible or unusable and I don't think that's fair to the models who put in the hard work and actually might want them for their portfolio.

Laura Bello wrote:
Sometimes the photographers won't give models images just cause they don't like them not because they're terrible or unusable and I don't think that's fair to the models who put in the hard work and actually might want them for their portfolio.

Absolutely, totally agreed, Laura!

It is not fair to the models!

logannye wrote:
I changed the bio after all this. It used to say "mainly paid gigs, open to TFs with cool concepts." I tried to word it as politely as possible. The photog was very cryptic about where the photos would be, and I signed a model release. (Won't be doing that again on TF.) I got some texts with photos of the camera screen. After asking and asking and saying I was not planning on paying anything, I got one of the poorer photos in b&w. I asked for only two of the phtots retouched or unretouched, and he said I wasn't getting anymore for free. So being screwed over like that, I changed the bio.

Should I release the MM name on here, go to moderator, change my bio back?

Maybe do some research on what a model release is, a limited or unlimited license of images, etc.

I wouldn't shoot TF with a model if she didn't sign a release. Why would I , if I couldn't use the images ?

Laura Bello wrote:
I get that both parties should get something but if you know how a model looks and thats what makes you book the trade and then you think the photos suck, it's the photographer that is messing up, not the model so why should she have to get screwed?  If you're worried about your reputation just ask the model not to credit you when she posts them if she chooses to use them somewhere.  Unless the model shows up looking nothing like her pictures or poses terribley I think she's owed at least one photo for her portfolio and they can choose to use it or not. 

And the person in question is an RIT graduate, she should be able to shoot well enough where both her and the model are getting something they can use but instead she's notorious for not giving models photos.

We are getting off topic here, and not sure if we should take it PM.

However, yes, yes, no and no. 
Meaning I somewhat agree with you.

Staring at the end.
That is why I said your friend is one who SHOULD be paying the models.

I have tried getting a model to not credit, or to credit, and it is always hit and miss. In life you know if it is going to be a miss, it will be the worst kind. But I still do tend to agree with you. Even if I have had models post proofs, despite telling them to not do so.

It is not just that the model may not look anything like their profile (which is not that much of a problem for me, I just tell them to go home. Shoot ended at the front door), but that I may be tired and brain-dead, model may not know how to move, we may not click. There are any number of reasons why the shoot may crap out. And why is the model more deserving of getting something for their time and trouble than the photographer? Again it smacks of denigrating any effort put in by the photographer. And the model knows what the photographers style is like, that is why they booked the trade.

Tell you what, I will allow models to post images that make my photography look crappy, when models are ok with me posting images that make them look like ugly cows. Again fair is fair.

" Unless the model shows up looking nothing like her pictures or poses terribley I think she's owed at least one photo for her portfolio and they can choose to use it or not." 

And although this does seem fair, it goes back to what I said above. Why is the model the only one "owed" for their time and effort?

And you do have a point that a good photographer should be able to get a least a few decent images of ANY model.
However the flip is also true, that a good model should manage to give any photographer some good images. (this is why newbs should *hire* *pay* good models).

See what I am doing?
I am talking about fairness, not privilege on either side.
However the world is not fair, it just is.

Ike Lace Photography wrote:
At $5 a pop, he can afford to give you some untouched ones. I'm sure they're not in major need of retouching.

This makes little sense.

salvatori. wrote:
This makes little sense.

He appears to be trying to build his post count.

Ike Lace Photography wrote:
TF means trade for money. 

At $5 a pop, he can afford to give you some untouched ones. I'm sure they're not in major need of retouching.

Trade For...whatever.

TF...

pictures
a sofa to sleep on
corsets
shoes
food
tequila

...etc.

If it's TF for money, then it's paid.  Though I suppose you can call that TF.  However, TF does NOT mean trade for money.

BeatnikDiva wrote:

Trade For...whatever.

TF...

pictures
a sofa to sleep on
corsets
shoes
food
tequila

...etc.

If it's TF for money, then it's paid.  Though I suppose you can call that TF.  However, TF does NOT mean trade for money.

Lets have a Trade for Tequila shoot.  It will be a fun shoot!   

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

Lets have a Trade for Tequila shoot.  It will be a fun shoot!   

Let's!  But I get to pick the tequila...

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Sure smells like an unsolicited critique to me.  Worse are the folks who followed up on this, quoting her bio.  IMHO.

Agreed.

salvatori. wrote:

So report me, for fuck's sake.

I see nothing wrong with a constructively critical reaction to something in a newbie's profile that has a direct connection to her rant.

Of course, I'm sure you don't see my original reply as constructive, so carry on.

O_o

No need, I spotted it.

Actually, there is something wrong with it, it's an unsolicited critique of something that IMO has nothing to do with her original question.