Todd Meredith wrote:
...the photographers are supposed to produce stunning images and do all the work for nothing and provide the model with every image possible as a reward for simply showing up, gracing everyone with their presence...

You have the most dismissive attitude towards models that I have ever seen on MM.  I take it that no pro models will work with you.

Fleming Design wrote:
You have the most dismissive attitude towards models that I have ever seen on MM.  I take it that no pro models will work with you.

Thank God MM has white knights like you to defend models who are clearly incapable of speaking for themselves. (I wish I was so courageous as you)  I'm sure pro-models and amateur models alike line up to do TF with you as a result of your valiant efforts on their behalf and you clearly deserve that for your heroic defense of models.  I'm sure however, you decline TF offers and pay amateur models a rate of 100+/hour since that's industry standard. 

Clearly TF benefits photographers not models.  The money spent on gear, hours editing images, to produce images for both parties is meaningless.  Clearly only photographers benefit from this arrangement.  Free, quality images don't benefit models, not even amateur models with horrific portfolios.   Let's face it, anyone can push a camera trigger and anyone can take selfies with their cell phone camera.   This site is called Model Mayhem for a reason.  Clearly, even professional photographers should be honored to offer their services for free to anyone who wears the label "model" and should expect to normally pay for this privilege.

Have a wonderful weekend and keep up your heroic efforts.

Alexandra Vincent wrote:
many models are starting to find that this can be circumvented by investing in buying some photography equipment and starting to shoot one's own content, rather than relying solely on trade arrangements for images. Were it not for self-created content, I'd never be able to keep up with the need for constant postings on social media.

Once again, you nail the issue dead-on at its invisible center. It's not just that the most prominent platforms (IG, YT, etc) require constant curation... it's also that such curation demands the development of identity; basically, brand-building and brand-maintenance. If TF work in general is reflective only of someone else's stalled antiquated "vision", that's just plain not useful to achieving that goal, neither from a purely-practical nor a personally-creative standpoint.

Some people here have now made themselves a perpetual joke in how predictably they take endless cheap potshots at MM, as if the platform was the problem. It's not the platform that's the problem... it's the utter lack of creativity in what is being churned out on the platform that's the problem. That's what's truly making MM look tired and sad. When most of what you have is technically-acceptable yet utterly boring, bland, unimaginative rote copying of the same generic imagery, models are quickly going to realize that they are finding themselves lost in the vast shuffle of contemporary expectations.

The reality is that people will not follow the mundane, the overdone, the cliched. There's just no time for that. People are looking for what pops, and models are eager to compete in this challenging new environment. But, if a large portion of MM portfolios are any indication, many photographers are far more interested in just blindly cranking out more of whatever they've become comfortable doing for years, if not decades, without adding a single iota of substance to what is cranked out. And while that might pass lazy muster on ye olde cranky Mayhem, that generic old-ass shit just won't cut it in the real world.

So, yeah... it makes total sense that models would much rather seize the means of production and run with the zeitgeist than merely accept being a passive cog in a creaky old redundancy machine, all in the interest of getting not much more than a flimsy imitation of a handful of obsolescent tropes. The cynical detachment that many photographers express in their posts is simply an unacknowledged symptom of their utter irrelevance. They realize they don't matter anymore, but they don't understand why, and their frustration is therefore clumsily misdirected at that which is effectively leaving them in the dust, to rot away: a new paradigm that is deeply invested in possibility rather than predictability.

Idyllic  wrote:
TFP: Neither are paid, ideas are mutual, and both have all access to images, selections, editing and distribution.

Please tell me your perspective, similarities or differences to mine on these terms.

My main concern is where can I have some choice over selections and editing? Thanks.

C

You need to specify everything you expect in a contract. Anything outside a contract defaults to the photographer.
Contracts are important don't shoot without them unless you trust the collaborator. Even then, if you have a falling out... contracts will save you.

Idyllic  wrote:
For me it's this:

I am paid (model): it is their project, they hire me and my skill. They can give some direction. I do not expect to get any photos. They have all access to selections, editing and distribution.

They are paid (photographer): It is my project, I hire them for their skill. I can give some direction. Again, they have all access to selections, editing and distribution, and I have access to their final products.

TFP: Neither are paid, ideas are mutual, and both have all access to images, selections, editing and distribution.

Please tell me your perspective, similarities or differences to mine on these terms.

My main concern is where can I have some choice over selections and editing? Thanks.

C

There's a lot of anger and misunderstanding in some responses, so let me preface my response...

Being here on MM we all understand that we are working a little outside the industry with the intent to enter/re-enter/refresh/change our involvement with an industry. So, here, we can negotiate our interactions as we like.

For models wanting to break in to an industry, this is the industry standard as you explained it.

However, in regards to TFP (and even if hiring a photographer) I would just say that ideally everyone is coming to a project to do what they do best. The job of a photographer (especially when there is no "client") is generally like that of a producer and director on a film. You expect them to lead the direction of a project and have a solid amount of ultimate artistic control. Especially editing and selection of final images from which all those involved can choose from.

Technically, and indisputably, the photographer owns the resulting images. If working with professionals, a model release form is totally normal and should be expected. It should not be insulting. It merely clarifies the limitations and freedoms of usage of the images for all involved so there is no confusion.

Having and sharing ideas is fantastic, but if you are wanting or needing to take control of a project then you may be working with the wrong photographer or you may want to consider being an art director or photographer. No seriously.

If you don't already have all the images you need for a portfolio, TFP is a great thing. The benefits and advantages of TFP are not to have complete control or copyright ownership. It's the resulting image and how aligned it is with your goals. If you work with the right people you get the right result.

Many models here on MM are in control of forming their career, making all the decisions that an agency might make on their behalf. The greatest control and power that a model has ( as ceo/agent) is defining your image, defining the kind of jobs you want to get, and by deciding who you work with to get you there.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
.. Even as a photographer with descent equipment who's been shooting for decades,  I can't do self portraits nearly a well as I can shoot someone else.
.... 
Selfies can serve a purpose and by all means use them when they meet your needs, but I think often people fail to realize the impact better quality images can have.   
...
I could cut my own hair for free with scissors and shavers I already own, it doesn’t mean I should.

Just so you are aware, you actually recently listed one of my self-shot nudes in a list called "Images that Inspire Me."

This indicates to me that you see value in models shooting their own content for social media and portfolios, in so much as you are acknowledging and listing these "selfies" among your MM listed images.

Perhaps you wouldn't have listed my image if you'd known it was self-shot with my own equipment and a timer? I intentionally don't make it obvious when images are self-shot, versus when they are not.

Fleming Design wrote:

You have the most dismissive attitude towards models that I have ever seen on MM.  I take it that no pro models will work with you.

No Flemng, I'm not dismissive of good people who contribute to the creative process but I am dismissive of the attitude of many who permeate sites like this.  I've worked with many wonderful people, some from this site, who have brought a lot to the equation but I've truly never met a group like can be found here who place very little value on what photographers bring to the table.  I'm sorry you're unable to grasp the dismissive attitude towards photographers in general on here.

I'm not sure where you get that I'm dismissive of models.  You know absolutely nothing about me.  If one comment gives you that much insight into my personality, you are missing your true calling in profiling.  I'm sure the FBI or CIA can use your talents more than the world of photography.

Wishing you NOTHING but the best.

Camera Buff wrote:

Isn’t the OP asking us what TFP collaborations mean? Isn’t TFP about collaboration and mutual benefit? Don’t the photographer, model, makeup artist, hair stylist, etc., all agree to provide their 'specialised expertise' and ‘time’ in exchange for prints?

I would hope that photographers who collaborate for TFP aren’t so hung up on what they bring to a TFP shoot that they would be dismissive of the contributions made by their fellow collaborators. TFP photographers who expect to collaborate with quality artists need to leave their egos at the door.

Knowing how you want to work has little to do with ego. It's not unusually for the other creatives to not have a lot of input to a shoot of they like what the lead is doing.

Just find the right people that agree with the way you work.

Mod 7 (Cust. Svc.) wrote:
There's lots of great input in the this thread, let's not ruin it with personal attacks and insults.

Thanks!

Hear! Hear!

Ivy Wild wrote:
This is what I think TF should be:

In a four hour shoot, two hours are used getting the images that the photographer wants for his portfolio and two hours are used getting the shots that the model wants for her portfolio.

The model retains the copy right and all creative control over the images gained in "her" time. She can sell the images, alter them however she likes, and use them however she likes. She should, of course, credit the photographer where he wants to be credited.

Generally, I find TF shoots to be: the photographer sets the concepts and then hands the model 10 images of his choosing to use in her portfolio.

Essentially why I almost never do TF.

TFP is basically whatever the two parties agree on.  With that said:

TFP is "Time For Print". You provide time and I provide prints.  In this digital age, files are more often transferred than prints.  In many cases, the work is used for trying and learning new techniques, portfolio building, or just good old fashioned fun.

If you and your photographer work it out, then sure they can transfer the copyright to you.  That would, however, be insane.  Shared copyright is a nightmare and the transfer of copyright is simply foolish.  In our Constitution, Congress was ordered to protect the rights of creatives before the Senate or even the Presidency was established.  Why on earth, even though they have thre right to do so, would anyone in their right mind give away their Constitutional right simply because someone else feels that they are entitled to it? 

In short whitch one of your Constitutional rights would you be willing to give me in return for my copyright?  The trade must be a fair one and our Constitutional rights are among the most precious things we have.  I would need somethng similar in return.

Even when working with my best clients I never transfer copyright and they only see the best images that I choose to send them.  I don't even bother sending proofs.  I simply choose which images are good and that's what they get. When working that way with my best clients and they are happy with the agreement there is no reason that I should send out less than adequate images under any other circumstance.

If someone chooses not to TFP with me becouse of this I'm OK with it.  We aren't all well suited or well mached.  That's just life.  Doesn't hurt my feelings at all.  As it is I only TFP 3 or 4 times a year at the most.  Not becouse I'm too good.  I'd do so much more often but I rarely seem to have the time or often seem unwilling to make the time. (That means I'm too lazy for it on my time off.)

Alexandra Vincent wrote:
Just so you are aware, you actually recently listed one of my self-shot nudes in a list called "Images that Inspire Me."

This indicates to me that you see value in models shooting their own content for social media and portfolios, in so much as you are acknowledging and listing these "selfies" among your MM listed images.

Perhaps you wouldn't have listed my image if you'd known it was self-shot with my own equipment and a timer? I intentionally don't make it obvious when images are self-shot, versus when they are not.

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
In short whitch one of your Constitutional rights would you be willing to give me in return for my copyright?  The trade must be a fair one and our Constitutional rights are among the most precious things we have.  I would need somethng similar in return.

Maybe I'm missing something - but you seem to be saying that because intellectual property rights are a constitutional right, you should only sell your copyright to someone in exchange for them giving up one of their constitutional rights? What does that even mean?

You sell your intellectual property the same way you sell any other property that belongs to you - for the right amount of money.

markEdwardPhoto wrote:
As on who used to do "Trade for Prints" (TFP). Historically the compensation the Model received were "The Prints".

Historically, the Photographer usually only had about four or five rolls of film, tops of 6cm x 6cm (10 shots per roll) film which equated to about fifty photos. Then when 35mm came about you got about 144 images (36 exposure x 4 rolls) to choose from.

However, out of those it was the Photographer who chose which image to "Give" to the Model as payment. The photos were the Models compensation for working with the Photographer.  There usually was no real discussion about the theme of the shoot or which images were selected.

However, this seems to have evolved over the past decade to where it's a collaboration and the Model gets to make some choices from hundreds of images.

Just some perspective from the past.

M

As is often the case with perspectives, yours does not match mine at all.
So often we see photographers ranting about the size of their investment in photography gear.
My mentor back in the film days was a pro wedding photographer who made a living with his cameras.
He had $15,000 in Hasselblad gear, including spares. He had a complete darkroom, including an automated C-41 film processor. He had a studio downtown with an abundance of quality lighting gear.

He also was a good photographer and that was the only thing that mattered.

A couple of times he told me that I could find a model and we would go in his studio and learn some lighting setups.
These were TFP shoots. We were working on getting a result, not on rackng up clicks. The model was always allowed to choose a couple of favorites from the session.

TFP in my world was much the same back then as it is now, a negotiation between individuals for mutual benefit.
Shooting a large number of clicks because digital makes that easier has nothing to do with it, nothing at all.
You don't have to negotiate to give the model images of their choice but you can if you want to.

Alexandra Vincent wrote:

Just so you are aware, you actually recently listed one of my self-shot nudes in a list called "Images that Inspire Me."

This indicates to me that you see value in models shooting their own content for social media and portfolios, in so much as you are acknowledging and listing these "selfies" among your MM listed images.

Perhaps you wouldn't have listed my image if you'd known it was self-shot with my own equipment and a timer? I intentionally don't make it obvious when images are self-shot, versus when they are not.

Does anybody with the least amount of brains care if an image was self shot? I only care about the quality of the image.

OK, to be fair I do care from a technical point of view, how it was shot, but this should never determine my appreciation of the image.

crx studios wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something - but you seem to be saying that because intellectual property rights are a constitutional right, you should only sell your copyright to someone in exchange for them giving up one of their constitutional rights? What does that even mean?

You sell your intellectual property the same way you sell any other property that belongs to you - for the right amount of money.

Yes.  You did miss something.

She "basicly" said that if she were pose TFP that she deserved to be given full copyright of 1/2 of the images. She said nothing about paying for that copyright.  Her posing for the images was payment enough. So, in efect she wasn't really talking about TFP.  I guess she was talking about TFC?

My coment wasn't serious.  I was just making a point.  Perhaps that went over your head but it seems that perhaps I should point it out just incase.

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
Even when working with my best clients I never transfer copyright and they only see the best images that I choose to send them.  I don't even bother sending proofs.  I simply choose which images are good and that's what they get. When working that way with my best clients and they are happy with the agreement there is no reason that I should send out less than adequate images under any other circumstance.

I also hate this.

When I first started out, I got spoiled by photographers who would immediately transfer over every image from the shoot. All of them, even the blurry out of focus ones. I got into a habit of going through the shoots in detailed and studying them. Which poses worked, and which didn't? Did I give the same face for 50 frames?  What could I have done better?

I learned a lot from doing this. Seeing the bad photos is educational.

I learn nothing if you only send me the five best ones. I don't care if they are high quality. They can be tiny and watermarked to all hell. I'm just trying to make every shoot an opportunity to get better.

All of the photographers who gave me every image paid me, btw. I have literally never had a photographer pay me and refuse to let me see at least the best images from the shoot. I wouldn't expect a photographer to spend extra time editing the images I want, but they always send me their favorites or the images that they processed because they planned to use. More often than not, I find that photographers who refuse to give any images are doing it to be punitive.

Ivy Wild wrote:
I also hate this.

When I first started out, I got spoiled by photographers who would immediately transfer over every image from the shoot. All of them, even the blurry out of focus ones. I got into a habit of going through the shoots in detailed and studying them. Which poses worked, and which didn't? Did I give the same face for 50 frames?  What could I have done better?

I learned a lot from doing this. Seeing the bad photos is educational.

I learn nothing if you only send me the five best ones. I don't care if they are high quality. They can be tiny and watermarked to all hell. I'm just trying to make every shoot an opportunity to get better.

All of the photographers who gave me every image paid me, btw. I have literally never had a photographer pay me and refuse to let me see at least the best images from the shoot. I wouldn't expect a photographer to spend extra time editing the images I want, but they always send me their favorites or the images that they processed because they planned to use. More often than not, I find that photographers who refuse to give any images are doing it to be punitive.

No ma'am.  It has nothing to do with punishment.  It's about quality of work.  A work ethic and not putting out junk. 

If you went to McDonald's and they dropped your burger on the floor and remade it, but then turned around and gave you both would you thank them?  Would you expect it?

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
No ma'am.  It has nothing to do with punishment.  It's about quality of work.  A work ethic and not putting out junk. 

If you went to McDonald's and they dropped your burger on the floor and remade it, but then turned around and gave you both would you thank them?  Would you expect it?

I jumped topics a little bit - in this instance I was talking about photographers who specifically say that they will not give you any images if they pay you. If honestly no good images came out of that shoot, fine. But withholding images just on principle is punitive.

Ivy Wild wrote:
I jumped topics a little bit - in this instance I was talking about photographers who specifically say that they will not give you any images if they pay you. If honestly no good images came out of that shoot, fine. But withholding images just on principle is punitive.

I do not pay models for my own images or my own pleasure.  Most of my work, not play mind you but work,  is directly for the client and no model is needed.   Often there are extras or the client's employees in the shots but models, real models?  That almost never happens for the bulk of my work.  On the rare occasion that there is one, it's not my place to give the model images.  It's for the client to provide the model with tear sheets of the finished product if they so choose.  Not me.

If I were, however, to hire a model for my own use I would be more than willing to pass along any image that I would display myself for their own portfolio.  I realize that there is no requirement to do so but I'd have no issue with it.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Her technique for selfie photos, back in the day, was to use a stick that was her height, stuck in the sand at the beach, and a 10 second timer on her camera. She'd focus on the stick, push the shutter release, run out to the stick, throw it away and stand in where it was, assume a pose with her natural smile, and capture it on film.

KM

pretty cool trick back in the day.
These days its obsolete, given that you can tell a good camera to track specific faces and autofocus them.
HOWEVER...while that is great for random fluff cheesecake shots.. it wont work as well as a meticulously composed shot by a super-picky photographer.
It can be 90%, sure. So its fine for instagram, blahblahblah.

But you cant get the fine tuning of, "hold it.. now turn your chin just a TINY bit upwards.. little more... okay NOW you have it..."

Ivy Wild wrote:
I jumped topics a little bit - in this instance I was talking about photographers who specifically say that they will not give you any images if they pay you. If honestly no good images came out of that shoot, fine. But withholding images just on principle is punitive.

no, its quid pro quo.
its perfectly reasonable for them to say, "if you want some of my effort back FOR FREE.. then you give me YOUR effort, FOR FREE".
Contrariwise, if they're paying you.. you arent giving them anything back, so why should they give you?
You are getting paid for your effort... but you arent willing to pay for their effort?

Philip Brown wrote:
no, its quid pro quo.
its perfectly reasonable for them to say, "if you want some of my effort back FOR FREE.. then you give me YOUR effort, FOR FREE".
Contrariwise, if they're paying you.. you arent giving them anything back, so why should they give you?
You are getting paid for your effort... but you arent willing to pay for their effort?

Though I have disagreed with her a great deal, on this point I can see my way to agreeing with her.  As stated above I realize that I am not required to give them but have no issue with it.  Take for example the tare sheets mentioned above.  Nothing requires a business to provide tare sheets to either myself or the subject but they often will.  For a few jobs, where there would be no actual tare, I have even been provided with a copy of the finished PDF that goes to print.  No corporation has ever been required to provide me with this and I certainly would never ask but more than once I have been given a PDF by a client. 

Just one example is when one of my images was used on the label for a beer bottle.  It'd be kind of hard to stuff a bottle on my port so they sent me a copy of the PFD that was used for the label as well as some of the merch that has been produced for the product.  The brewery paid handsomely for that image.  It was a 10-year license that is used extensively across their brand.  It was, in fact, the single highest paying license for a single image I have ever granted.  There was no need for them to give me anything more than the money they paid but they did. 

I would see myself providing the model with images in the same light.  I'm not required too do so but it can show good will.

If on the other hand, a model demanded that I give them images I simply wouldn't work with them.  If they demanded them after the fact I wouldn't give them.  If it's something that I did on my own because it just seemed the right thing to do?  Hell yeah, there would be no reason for "me" not to.

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
Though I have disagreed with her a great deal, on this point I can see my way to agreeing with her.  As stated above I realize that I am not required to give them but have no issue with it.

Sure. As a photographer, nothing wrong with you choosing to "be nice" and share a few shots.
At the same time, there's technically nothing wrong with you choosing not to, either, if you are paying for the shoot.

It's the height of disrespect to photographers, for a model to claim that their time is intrinsically worth more than a photographers time. Which is what she is doing, by presuming she is somehow entitled to the photographers time and efforts for free, ON TOP OF her getting paid for her time.

A model should be appreciative of free shots, not demanding.

Ivy Wild wrote:
I jumped topics a little bit - in this instance I was talking about photographers who specifically say that they will not give you any images if they pay you. If honestly no good images came out of that shoot, fine. But withholding images just on principle is punitive.

Wow! Think you're being punished, do you?
I enjoy hiring when able and am very seriously leaning that way more and more -  for several reasons - one of them being that after years of shooting tfp and scrambling around with bad knees, bad back, fallen arches and transporting heavy bags of props and wardrobe on foot and on transit to ensure that the hard working model was getting what she needed  - and not just me - then landing in bed for 2 days afterwards with a brutal migraine....
I can pay cash and shoot precisely for the image(s) I am seeking and without the image delivery deadline looming over my head.
I can work on the images as long as need be - or not at all.
It once took me 1 full year to get an image precisely how I wanted it.
I can consider releasing some images or none at all.

The hired models that I have had the pleasure of shooting with know that they are professionals in their trade who have been compensated for their time and expertise with cold hard cash. They have also acknowledged to me that they have been compensated and that any images forwarded to them is an unexpected bonus that is appreciated by them.

I cannot think of any other service or product that I have purchased over the decades where I have then been expected to give that service or product - or a portion thereof - back to the person I have purchased it from.

Ivy Wild, you are seeking paid 'trade' shoots and angry that there are people who won't get in step with you. You want to straitjacket paying clients into the terms of a tfp shoot when more often than not they are paying to remove the very demands of a tfp shoot. Good grief!

Philip Brown wrote:

no, its quid pro quo.
its perfectly reasonable for them to say, "if you want some of my effort back FOR FREE.. then you give me YOUR effort, FOR FREE".
Contrariwise, if they're paying you.. you arent giving them anything back, so why should they give you?
You are getting paid for your effort... but you arent willing to pay for their effort?

Morning Phil,

You bring up an interesting point that is very prevalent here on MM.  When photographers place no value on the images they create and give them freely along with monetary compensation, they are essentially paying the model twice.  I can see a select number of images being provided along with some pay, but sending all the images captured (especially those that are out of focus) is going way past the mark. 

It all comes down to what is agreed upon whe the terms of a shoot are negotiated.  If images are desired by the model, the amount of pay offered can and should be reduced.  No one withholds images to be petty or punitive.  Photographers withhold them from models they're paying because the images do have value, just as the cash given to the model does.  I know someone will bring up the paying bills with images bit so I'll go ahead and throw it out there now.  It's the same for photographers.  Photographers can't pay the rent, buy food, pay for gas, etc with the TFP that is offered by models every day but they're still expected to pay thousands for equipment, obtain the education to utilize it and provide images for free.  This isn't being dismissive of anyone's contributions, it's being realistic.  Every day the castings are filled with people asking photographers to work TFP, stating the model/MUA/whomever will help the photographer build portfolio or whatever else seems to flow but in reality, when was the last time someone offered a photographer here $100/hour to shoot?

Wishing you all the best.

sweet gamine wrote:

Wow! Think you're being punished, do you?
I enjoy hiring when able and am very seriously leaning that way more and more -  for several reasons - one of them being that after years of shooting tfp and scrambling around with bad knees, bad back, fallen arches and transporting heavy bags of props and wardrobe on foot and on transit to ensure that the hard working model was getting what she needed  - and not just me - then landing in bed for 2 days afterwards with a brutal migraine....
I can pay cash and shoot precisely for the image(s) I am seeking and without the image delivery deadline looming over my head.
I can work on the images as long as need be - or not at all.
It once took me 1 full year to get an image precisely how I wanted it.
I can consider releasing some images or none at all.

The hired models that I have had the pleasure of shooting with know that they are professionals in their trade who have been compensated for their time and expertise with cold hard cash. They have also acknowledged to me that they have been compensated and that any images forwarded to them is an unexpected bonus that is appreciated by them.

I cannot think of any other service or product that I have purchased over the decades where I have then been expected to give that service or product - or a portion thereof - back to the person I have purchased it from.

Ivy Wild, you are seeking paid 'trade' shoots and angry that there are people who won't get in step with you. You want to straitjacket paying clients into the terms of a tfp shoot when more often than not they are paying to remove the very demands of a tfp shoot. Good grief!

Great points but watch out.  Standing up for yourself or your place as a photographer can get you branded as dismissive.  Right before it happens you'll ironically hear the clip, crop of hoof beats, too.

Philip Brown wrote:
no, its quid pro quo.
its perfectly reasonable for them to say, "if you want some of my effort back FOR FREE.. then you give me YOUR effort, FOR FREE".
Contrariwise, if they're paying you.. you arent giving them anything back, so why should they give you?
You are getting paid for your effort... but you arent willing to pay for their effort?

This is punitive.

I have worked with dozens of photographers over the years.

For each session, an enormous amount of effort is spent on both of our parts pushing ourselves to try to get the best possible images of the the concepts we are trying for. We have usually ended up talking and working for hours, and flying on a creative high. I've stood out in the cold, continuously got water up my nose, covered my body with all kinds of interesting things, scouted beautiful places...it's the job. After all of the sweat and blood, the photographer has always been excited to share with me the art we made together.

When I get the images, I always ask them if they are for my eyes only or if I can use them on social media/model mayhem, and if so, how would they like to be credited?

I have literally never demanded. I'm usually just say that I'm incredibly excited to see the images, and I am. When I get the email that pictures are available I usually can't wait to skip home and see them.

I have never once had a photographer refuse to give me images on principle, so I have never had to have this discussion with someone I worked with. I don't think it's the norm. But I was honestly shocked when I first read on someone's profile that a hired model would never get to see the images. It just blows me away that after all of the creative effort, you wouldn't want to show the person who did it with you! I don't even care if I get to use them, really - that's a bonus. They can be small sized, watermarked, etc.

Over the years, photographers have complimented various images in my portfolio. I always text to pass on the compliments as well.

I understand that it's not reasonable to ask the photographer to do extra work - ie, edit an image that he wouldn't have chosen anyway. I guess I could maybe understand if the model had been super difficult to work with or rude or something, that you wouldn't want anything to do with her. But beyond that, I really can't imagine why you wouldn't want to show the model the product of all the work the two of you put hours into creating. Most photographers are excited and proud to show me the fruits of our labor.

Richard Manville wrote:
There's a lot of anger and misunderstanding in some responses, so let me preface my response...

Being here on MM we all understand that we are working a little outside the industry with the intent to enter/re-enter/refresh/change our involvement with an industry. So, here, we can negotiate our interactions as we like.


Technically, and indisputably, the photographer owns the resulting images. If working with professionals, a model release form is totally normal and should be expected. It should not be insulting. It merely clarifies the limitations and freedoms of usage of the images for all involved so there is no confusion.

I never use a Model Release for a TF shoot. It clarifies the limitations and freedom of usage for the Photographer only. It does nothing for the model or any other member of the team.

When I set up a shoot and pay the other members, with the intent of submitting images, I use a model release to secure control of how I am going to use images. I share those images after publication, and credit others when appropriate.

Everyone makes their own rules, and as long as they are clear before shooting starts, no one should complain.

Ivy Wild wrote:

I jumped topics a little bit - in this instance I was talking about photographers who specifically say that they will not give you any images if they pay you. If honestly no good images came out of that shoot, fine. But withholding images just on principle is punitive.

Hey you wanted to get paid.  You see the photographer as the client.  The client is not obligated to give you anything but money (unless you have a different arrangement in writing).  Since when does doing what is right with regard to the arrangement you wanted considered punitive.  Me thinks you want your cake and eat it too.

If the traveling model is nice and there is a good shoot I sometimes share 4 or 5 of the best images with them.  If they give me a lack luster performance because they have piled up the "clients" and are worn out while they are in town. They don't get any images.

When I shoot trade with a model I give her as many of the images that I feel work. That can be anywhere from 15 to 40.

If a model pays me they get all the images from the shoot to review and they can pick 15 images for me to edit.

Philip Brown wrote:
no, its quid pro quo.
its perfectly reasonable for them to say, "if you want some of my effort back FOR FREE.. then you give me YOUR effort, FOR FREE".
Contrariwise, if they're paying you.. you arent giving them anything back, so why should they give you?
You are getting paid for your effort... but you arent willing to pay for their effort?

What do you GAIN by withholding images? I never understood that.

I've always been of the mind that photographers hire models because they fit in the concept of a shoot or they specifically desire to work with that look or model. If you are affronted by a model's rate, why the hell did you book her for the shoot?

How is the image or concept advanced by denying the model access to images, especially when a photographer releases them here or on a website. It petty in my opinion.  Do I release all raws or a hundred retouched, no, but damn, if I've done the work to retouch some images for my website or social media (or on a job with certain time restraints) I don't have a problem with access for a model.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Her technique for selfie photos, back in the day, was to use a stick that was her height, stuck in the sand at the beach, and a 10 second timer on her camera. She'd focus on the stick, push the shutter release, run out to the stick, throw it away and stand in where it was, assume a pose with her natural smile, and capture it on film.

KM

Philip Brown wrote:
pretty cool trick back in the day.
These days its obsolete, given that you can tell a good camera to track specific faces and autofocus them.
HOWEVER...while that is great for random fluff cheesecake shots.. it wont work as well as a meticulously composed shot by a super-picky photographer.
It can be 90%, sure. So its fine for instagram, blahblahblah.

But you cant get the fine tuning of, "hold it.. now turn your chin just a TINY bit upwards.. little more... okay NOW you have it..."

The MOMA doesn't seem to agree, Philip, as they have an exhibit of self-portraiture artist, Cindy Sherman. She has been producing work since the 1970s and continues to be a respected arts photographer, known for photographing herself.

https://www.moma.org/artists/5392

Perhaps there are some creatives who wouldn't consider a MOMA installation to define achievement in photography, but I'd wager that's few and far between.