|
Forums >
General Industry >
Hypothetically, if TF did not exist, would you?
Shooting TF is by far the most common type of transaction that happens here on MM. However, what if TF did not exist? What if ALL shoots involved the exchange of cash, would you still, model/photograph? Assume the following to be the rule of the industry, "Whoever asks, pays.". If a photographer contacts a model, it's assumed he will be paying her, and should models want a photographer to shoot them, they would need to shell out some dough. So, the question is, what would your port be like? Will the quality improve/stay the same/go down? Improve because you'll be more selective of the people you contact? Stay the same because you would shoot with the same people regardless of cost? Go down because you'll always go for the cheaper solution? (In the voice of Don LaFontaine): In a world where TF did not exist, and only cash was accepted for photoshoots, would you still be here? Feb 20 16 08:34 am Link (shrug) I've always payed, just like i pay other people who work for me. It seems appropriate since the models are working under my direction, to my specifications and satisfaction. Something in the range of $15-$25 per hour. I'll most likely continue, although, as with all of us I'm subject to conditions beyond my control. Feb 20 16 08:41 am Link Interesting to think about! Assuming to start from scratch in world where there is no TF just cash. I would certainly be more selective with whom I'd shoot. And I would probably have made more work of contacting agencies.. Prices of photographers would obviously range from relatively 'cheap' to 'expensive'. But I would save money just a while longer to pay a good photographer to get some real quality shots in my portfolio from the start (though, doing that is also in this world with tfp not a bad idea). Now, I am more or less trying to 'shoot my way up' the ladder. And as my port improves, I am more selective and can also ask better photographers to shoot with. Feb 20 16 08:49 am Link for the hobbyists i think it gets down to how much they can justify spending on their hobby. and i think some photographers go nuts buying gear and then have nothing left and if they can't get models TF start threads complaining about it. i think there's also a competitive "i can get models without paying them" vibe here as well. i did pay models at first and if i were wealthy would have no problem paying them. i've never had a flake when paying and i appreciate the effort that goes into these shoots. but right now if i had to pay it would come out of my golf budget which isn't going to work or there would have to be a client footing the bill or some other way to generate revenue from the shoots. which may be one reason i tend to shoot more for zivity these days. Feb 20 16 09:33 am Link Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote: Perhaps you've actually *paid?* Feb 20 16 09:33 am Link If I couldn't do TF, then the TF I currently do, I wouldn't do. It's TF because either party wants to pay. I would still hire models the way I do, and still do the paid work I do. I disagree with your "standard of the industry" Who approaches and who is approached doesn't define who is a paying client and who is a paid provider. Both photographers and models can approach people about a service they have to offer. If I was looking for a model to hire, I'd hire a compatible model regardless who makes the initial contact. Feb 20 16 09:34 am Link A world without TF sounds rather scary. A lot of hobbyists and experienced would not be around if it was not for TFs that they did at various points of their learning curve. I have personally done a couple of TFs, and a couple of paid shoots (I paid the model). TF actually give you a bit more freedom, i.e., you don't really have to worry about getting paid, or paying, and get a bunch of really bad pictures. TF is normally associated with learning (I do not know the page/section of the TF Manual which says this  ), so the interaction between the photographer and the model is pretty much relaxed. Having said that, I have another little question: Do models gain experience faster than photographers? Feb 20 16 10:13 am Link It would be nice if TF actually existed but it really doesn't anymore. I am a hobbyist and can't justify paying a couple hundred dollars to a model so I can get a photograph good enough to enter into a show. Ontherocks states that any money paid to models comes out of his golf budget. For me, any money I pay comes out of a meager allowance I give my self out of the household budget. It took me a year to justify buying a new camera body because I have never made any money at this hobby nor do I plan to. It would be nice to be able to shoot TF but even new, inexperienced models expect to be paid for images to boost their portfolios. My next birthday has a zero in it. I haven't flown as pilot-in-command for a number of years and I would like to get current again and do a little flying. That's money spent that will definitely cause not to shoot paid models. I've been here on the Mayhem for 10+ years and at one time I was very active shooting TF because so many models wanted images for portfolios. Not so anymore. Mind you, I'm not complaining, I'm just living with the current reality. Being able to place a value on your work is important as well and that your work is valued by others. Feb 20 16 10:29 am Link Francisco Castro wrote: in the hobbyist world - don't know. Feb 20 16 10:46 am Link Frank Lewis Photography wrote: That's exactly in line with my question: Every model these days, with whatever experience they have, suggests getting paid for their shoot. I recently contacted a model with "some experience", who wanted to be paid approx. $200 for a 2 hours shoot. I didn't have that kind of money on me at the end of the month, and even if I did, I would think twice before doling out that much moolah! I texted her back saying that I would contact her if I can get sufficient funds (doesn't seem to be feasible, given I earn $10,000 pa, before taxes) Feb 20 16 10:54 am Link Models used to pay photographers for their portfolio photos . . . Lets not forget that ! In the 1990's models portfolios used to run in the range 1 - 5,000 dollars for a few photos Without good photos, most aspiring models won't get work or proper representation Shooting models promos was a profitable addition to what my studio offered beyond our commercial work. Feb 20 16 11:02 am Link If there were "no TFP" then I would continue to pay models as often as I do now, and seek more paying jobs so that I could keep the number of shoots up. In all honesty, I like to keep busy shooting, or teaching photography, so I would put effort into those shoots I'm currently doing "TFP" become paid shoots for the models. However, I do have something to say about the meaning of "TFP." In the context of "time = money" AND the fact that camera gear on the photographer's end, as well as models needing clothing, makeup and hair among other things so both sides put out for something. I have always thought if "TFP" as being a very flexible term. Regardless if one is paying the other or if it's a "TFP" shoot, there will be some negotiation as both parties have expectations as to what they shall get out of the shoot. Before digital, there was a time when photographers like myself would advertise a casting call for models, and offer a test shoot for a small "film fee." What helped ever more was when I would pick up jobs at retail 1-hour photo labs where I could get a discount on film, and process my own film during off time. It was a way to recoup the cost of film & processing and put a few dollars in my pocket as well. Shooting models and concerts was more for fun, as I made more money doing weddings & portraits. It's nice to be able to do what one loves and get paid, but I have a feeling that I would be doing photography regardless if I paid, was paid, or shot in trade, so it wouldn't matter much to me. Feb 20 16 11:22 am Link Ken Marcus Studios wrote: Absolutely! Back in the day, I was in a part of the State of California where the nearest legit model agency was 2 hours North of me in San Francisco. As a freelancer, I picked up jobs shooting zed cards for some of the models who were signed. On the Monterey peninsula where I grew up, there are beautiful "potential" models, but if they are serious, they have to move to a larger metropolitan area to find legit agencies and work. Understandably a photographer such as yourself would keep business in the LA area shooting models for the many agencies local to you. Location helps, and models will seek you out to pay you. On top of that, it helps that you are a damn good photographer! Feb 20 16 11:34 am Link In a world, ( thanks for the freaking voice of Don LaFontaine in my head voicing EVERYTHING now) with no TFP, I would be painting nothing but landscapes these days. Feb 20 16 11:48 am Link LeonardG Photography wrote: Not to mention "giving back" (even when it's providing images at a reduced testing rate). Feb 20 16 11:58 am Link I've never been a fan of TF* situations -- look how much confusion arises from them: who owns the pics, who can edit it, why can't I (the model) get RAW images, whose watermark gets put on the edited pictures, who can use the pictures, etc.? Yes, I understand the "legal" answers to these questions -- I'm just betting that it would not be difficult to find a thread that has some TF* confusion at the center. I've always paid... ... At the beginning, it was like any other hobby -- most worthwhile hobbies have expenses. ... Eventually, my web site started bringing in revenue, so if I'm getting paid, everyone gets paid. I've often done photographic "favors" for friends -- those images wouldn't appear online anyway. For all the others, the ownership is clear, the model release is signed, and there is no confusion. So, for me, if there were no TF* -- I probably wouldn't notice. Feb 20 16 12:15 pm Link My dawgs would be doin' a lot more modelin' . . .  SOS Feb 20 16 01:53 pm Link If tf did not exist than I wouldn't be broke all the time or need to work retail/customer service anymore. Feb 20 16 02:33 pm Link As usual, instead of answering the question, any number of people are arguing something else. This is a difficult question, however since few can afford to pay for everything till they become good enough to be paid. But I will play. For me, if tomorrow TF in any way ended, and any shoots required an exchange of MONEY. Then I would be screwed. My portfolio would likely stay the same due to the talent I am working with anyway. However the frequency of shoots would drop drastically, and any improvement would thus slow down immensely. The only way to get better is to actually shoot. (BTW: I would love to be able to afford to only pay. Then I would be under no obligation to deliver anything...except money.) I would end up shooting a lot more nature. I would have to be less of a gearhead, since money to pay models would have to come from somewhere. I would likely get paid a few times, but certainly not enough to turn it around and pay as often as I would like. The quality of the talent, in certain areas would go up, as I would likely save for better talent. But since I would shoot a lot less, the quality of my product would stay the same or go down. Lack of practice means loss of ability or at the very least diminished improvement. It is an interesting speculative question. Feb 20 16 02:39 pm Link Patrick Walberg wrote: Once I got paid. Feb 20 16 02:44 pm Link Im like totally rich so it would be the same (⌐■_■) Feb 20 16 02:53 pm Link That is like asking "Would we have discovered gravitational waves 10 centuries earlier if the price of education was 100 times higher?" The answer is - beauty and truth are not a commodity and not a result of a reward. Sadly people are so brainwashed by consumerism that they try to fit every aspect of their life into the mold of trade (including TF, Trade For...) Feb 20 16 03:28 pm Link Whether it's weddings, headshots, or private intimate work for clients, I'm getting paid....but once in a while, I still look forward to an occasional TF shoot with the right person. Without it, I'd still go on, but I'd just pay the model then, as I sometimes do anyhow if they are beneficial to my portfolio. Feb 20 16 03:46 pm Link I haven't and probably will never pay for a shoot. Feb 20 16 05:02 pm Link I doubt that it would make much difference (here on MM anyway). As far as models paying me, that ain't likely to happen because models tend to not have a hell of a lot of money, at least at the stage of their careers where they might have to pay anyone to shoot them. And the ones that might be willing to pay (those shooting for material for their websites/portfolios, etc. are much more likely to be looking for more commercial stuff than I tend to shoot. And far as me paying models, that ain't likely to happen either since, while I enjoy shooting models I don't have an overwhelming compulsion to do so. And like most models, I simply can't afford to feed my hobby all that well. When the opportunity to shoot a model presents itself, whether I've created it with a casting call or a tourist hands me her camera and says "would you take my picture please?" I'm happy to take advantage of the opportunity. But if not, I live sometimes in New Orleans and sometimes in New York and if between the two I can't find something interesting to shoot, I'd better hang up my camera. So all in all, I don't think it would significantly affect my portfolio one way or another, other than possibly in the choice of subject matter. All IMHO as always, of course. Feb 20 16 05:50 pm Link George Anchev wrote: Exactly. Feb 20 16 06:20 pm Link In had my hopes, but of course once again, panties get all bunched and the "I never pay" egos get in the way. Pretend! This is a question about your port's quality when you PRETEND there is no TF. For a bunch of creatives you guys can't even seem to PRETEND for a second. PRETEND. It's F____ING HYPOTHETICAL. Geeze!! Do you guys all go through life with guns drawn all the time??? Feb 20 16 09:49 pm Link Francisco Castro wrote: OK... Feb 20 16 09:56 pm Link [quote/] (In the voice of Don LaFontaine): In a world where TF did not exist, and only cash was accepted for photoshoots, would you still be here? In the voice of Vizzini: not even remotely. Feb 20 16 10:46 pm Link Francisco Castro wrote: By the way some time ago I opened a similar discussion Imagine you have all the money you'd ever need... where the question was "Would you shoot TF* if you were so rich that you never need to work for money?" That is again an imaginary scenario but the question is not about guaranteed result in portfolio but rather about intent. As you can see it was met with quite a lot of cynicism which is also a clear indication of intent. Feb 21 16 02:00 am Link There would be fewer 'photographers' and fewer 'models'. And the portfolio mills would be doing even better business. Feb 21 16 02:19 am Link There's a relatively small number of models here I'd be willing to pay for a shoot. There are a lot of good looking models here with pretty faces and/or nice bodies; but if I'm going to pay for a shoot, then I want top notch. So in that respect; I'd say yes, I'd still be here. I also think my work is worth getting paid for. I have a full time job, so I don't market myself as much as I should, but I believe it would be worth my while to stay on, even if it was only a small number of shoots per months. Feb 21 16 02:20 am Link I trade therefore I P. Feb 21 16 02:30 am Link LeonardG Photography wrote: "Testing" in the agency world is not TF*; and TF* in the non-agency world is not "testing" Ken Marcus Studios wrote: Yup. TF* is a creature of the Internet. It is not now and never was a real world proposition for agency models or professional photographers. Feb 21 16 06:32 am Link LeonardG Photography wrote: "Testing" in the agency world is not TF*; and TF* in the non-agency world is not "testing" It is the case, still, as it was then, that for true testing purposes with an agency model the model and the photographer were also expected not to be using the images at all outside of a very very narrow kind of usage. Agency agreements with photographers to supply a model, or models, for "testing" still contain those kinds of restrictions. Feb 21 16 06:43 am Link studio36uk wrote: I tripple checked the dictionaries after reading this. Feb 21 16 07:04 am Link I wouldn't have a problem. Feb 21 16 07:06 am Link Yes. I think back to my community college days, and I still see it now when I go back to view the student art show. Students helping Students. We didn't have a name for it, we just did it. So Yes if TF didn't exist I still be here. Feb 21 16 08:32 am Link Yes, there are a lot of people on both sides of the camera who love to create. If it's my concept or some one else's that would be fun to shoot, I'd still do TF Feb 21 16 11:14 am Link Francisco Castro wrote: Well I did try. Feb 21 16 12:21 pm Link |
