Ivy Wild wrote:
More often than not, I find that photographers who refuse to give any images are doing it to be punitive.

I often give models a choice: charge your full rate and no images, or charge a reduced rate and receive some images.

In most cases, the models like my work enough to enthusiastically choose the latter option, but in a few cases they say “Thanks but I’ll take my full rate.”

If they choose the “full rate" option, how is it “punitive” to not provide images?

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
Perhaps that went over your head

Yes, that must be it.

Dan Howell wrote:
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.

To say “withholding (free) images is a manipulative statement.  Most people don’t just give away their services or products for free.   It’s like asking why a  restaurant would withhold a free desert and expect me to pay extra for this extra service. 

Compensation can come in the form of pay, providing images or any combination there of. Typically my compensation provides both, but sometimes it’s pay only.  This isn’t about wanting to withhold anything,  it’s about the usage agreement I have with a client which may not (rightfully) allow me to provide shoot images to anyone else, including the subject.   

There’s no right or wrong about  what kind or what amount of compensation is provided, all that matters is that both parties agree and stick to their agreement.

JQuest wrote:
...

At the end of the day, after reading this entire thread, what I've really learned is that I need to do what works for the model I'm collaborating with and myself and stop judging people who do things differently than me through my own narrow lens.

It feels like you're trying to introduce reasoned logic into a MM argument, and I'm not sure why.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
To say “withholding (free) images is a manipulative statement.  Most people don’t just give away their services or products for free.   It’s like asking why a  restaurant would withhold a free desert and expect me to pay extra for this extra service. 

Compensation can come in the form of pay, providing images or any combination there of. Typically my compensation provides both, but sometimes it’s pay only.  This isn’t about wanting to withhold anything,  it’s about the usage agreement I have with a client which may not (rightfully) allow me to provide shoot images to anyone else, including the subject.   

There’s no right or wrong about  what kind or what amount of compensation is provided, all that matters is that both parties agree and stick to their agreement.

Just stop. We are not talking about a restaurant. It is not in any way an apt analogy.

Hire a model. Don't hire a model. Whatever. A photographer makes that decision based on what a model brings to the shot. If you think that models are the market, you are aiming at the absolutely smallest slice of the pie. Good luck with that. Is that really the market you are going after with your photography?

Withholding images is not a manipulative characterization, especially if the images are released in any form. If you are a picture hoarder, i guess you could make a case for not releasing any photos--but that has fuck all to do with model fees. And even less to do with TFP.

Dan Howell wrote:

Just stop. We are not talking about a restaurant. It is not in any way an apt analogy.

Hire a model. Don't hire a model. Whatever. A photographer makes that decision based on what a model brings to the shot. If you think that models are the market, you are aiming at the absolutely smallest slice of the pie. Good luck with that. Is that really the market you are going after with your photography?

Withholding images is not a manipulative characterization, especially if the images are released in any form. If you are a picture hoarder, i guess you could make a case for not releasing any photos--but that has fuck all to do with model fees. And even less to do with TFP.

Again you misrepresent the issue with your use of “withholding images”.  If the agreed to compensation was pay and not images, then the photographer isn’t withholding anything by delivering the agreed to pay and no images. 

As I stated, sometimes client usage rights forbid sharing images with anyone else including the subject.   I have a different time believing you can’t comprehend this fact.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
As I stated, sometimes client usage rights forbid sharing images with anyone else including the subject.   I have a different time believing you can’t comprehend this fact.

I think I fully understand the concept of embargo and usage. I am sure that I understand it better than you, in a wider variety of situations than you have ever encountered.

Please site more than one specific example of your client who directed you to hire a model for a shoot and specifically forbid sharing images. Seriously. I just don't believe you have had that scenario. I have never encountered that. Never. I have had numerous clients who forbid models posting until original publication date. For editorial, for catalog, for advertising. In literally thousands of hired-model situations, I have NEVER had any request like you describe. I even have one client who established an email address for models to contact after publication to request image.

Dan Howell wrote:
I think I fully understand the concept of embargo and usage. I am sure that I understand it better than you, in a wider variety of situations than you have ever encountered.

Please site more than one specific example of your client who directed you to hire a model for a shoot and specifically forbid sharing images. Seriously. I just don't believe you have had that scenario. I have never encountered that. Never. I have had numerous clients who forbid models posting until original publication date. For editorial, for catalog, for advertising. In literally thousands of hired-model situations, I have NEVER had any request like you describe. I even have one client who established an email address for models to contact after publication to request image.

Yes, I understand you are ignorant as to the usage rights I’ve had with clients, but they are not unusual.  Typically the usage rights have stated I may not share any images in any form until X time after publication.   They understandably don’t want anyone seeing images they will publish prior to publication.  To cite examples, this was standard of several assignments a shot for a college to use in their college magazine and other publications.  I’m very surprised you have never encountered of heard of this usage agreement.  Your experience and knowledge  is clearly more limited than I assumed it to be. 

As I said, when I’m able to provide a model with images I often do, even when it’s not specified in our terms of compensation, but again, I can’t believe you are so ignorant as to not understand why many photographers sometimes either can’t or understandably choose not to provide their services/product for free.  Actually, on second thought, I presume you are not that ignorant, but are simply playing white knight.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I’m very surprised you have never encountered of heard of this usage agreement.  Your experience and knowledge  is clearly more limited than I assumed it to be.

Hey, whatever fiction keeps you warm at night...

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Yes, I understand you are ignorant as to the usage rights I’ve had with clients, but they are not unusual.  Typically the usage rights have stated I may not share any images in any form until X time after publication.   They understandably don’t want anyone seeing images they will publish prior to publication.  To cite examples, this was standard of several assignments a shot for a college to use in their college magazine and other publications.  I’m very surprised you have never encountered of heard of this usage agreement.  Your experience and knowledge  is clearly more limited than I assumed it to be. 

As I said, when I’m able to provide a model with images I often do, even when it’s not specified in our terms of compensation, but again, I can’t believe you are so ignorant as to not understand why many photographers sometimes either can’t or understandably choose not to provide their services/product for free.  Actually, on second thought, I presume you are not that ignorant, but are simply playing white knight.

Dan is a published professional photographer from New York who has worked all over the US and internationally.
I would trust his comments more.

I've met him and he has always given less experienced photographers help.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Dan is a published professional photographer from New York who has worked all over the US and internationally.

Which is precisely why I don’t believe he is ignorant about exclusive usage rights and how they prohibit providing images to others, including the model.  Acknowledging that I and other photographers have regularly signed exclusive rights contracts that require "with holding images" from anyone other than the client simply doesn't fit his white knight agenda of always giving a model photos, even if they are not a part of the agreed to compensation.

Dan's notable experience does not make him privy to the usage rights agreements I've had.  He calls me a liar about having had such usage rights, not based on any knowledge he has, but again because of his agenda.  Clients who are paying for images they will publish often don't want those images given to others for free, especially prior to their publication.  This really isn't a difficult concept to understand and it's not uncommon.   

And that's all I'm going too say about why photographers often legitimately don't provide free images in addition to pay, since the original topic is about TF and not images in addition to pay.   Clearly, if a photographer has an exclusive usage rights agreement with a client, then TF can't work since the usage agreement prohibits such a trade.   If such an exclusive rights agreement exists, then obviously it makes sense to pay the model for their service and not provide them with images.  Models have no magical entitlement to images taken of them, that's a matter of usage and compensation which should be discussed prior to any shoot.  Even with TF, models shouldn't assume precisely what will and will not be provided, or whether it's okay for them to edit images.  They need to discuss this with the photographer or client and not assume TF includes things that are not inherently a part of a TF shoot.

JQuest wrote:
7)  Inevitably in every contentious discussion on MM someone will throw the "White Knight" card out. Sometimes it's relevant, sometimes it's just more added noise and it's easier to attack an individual's motives than attempt to rebut their words.

In the case of this thread, at least now everyone can see how the weak whimpering of the term "white knight" over and over and over goes hand in hand with the rampant spewing of total bullshit.

In fact, with so much bullshit now on display, Ivy's concern ---that the withholding of images is likely punitive--- may be considered entirely justified.

Sliver-Sliver wrote:
It feels like you're trying to introduce reasoned logic into a MM argument, and I'm not sure why.

I've often been accused of tilting at windmills and/or trying to push a rope uphill. Perhaps I should change my MM nom de plume to Sisyphus?

JQuest wrote:
I've often been accused of tilting at windmills and/or trying to push a rope uphill. Perhaps I should change my MM nom de plume to Sisyphus?

Donkey Hotey!

JQuest wrote:
It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood!

The Cervantes puns could have gone on forever. A horse puppet named Rosie Nanty! A squire puppet named Sam Joe Panzer!

kickfight wrote:
The Cervantes puns could have gone on forever. A horse puppet named Rosie Nanty! A squire puppet named Sam Joe Panzer!

Dude, you've completely ruined this topic for me! I've totally forgotten what I'm supposed to be angry and indignant about now...

JQuest wrote:
Dude, you've completely ruined this topic for me! I've totally forgotten what I'm supposed to be angry and indignant about now...

Whoops! Sorry about that. I'll make it up to you. I'll pretend to be angry and indignant about your opinion, and then you can pretend to be angry and indignant at that. Problem solved. I have to go run a few errands first.

Dan Howell wrote:
What do you GAIN by withholding images? I never understood that.

Let me help with that.

My first mentor in photography was the chief photographer at a daily newspaper where I did a paid internship at age 15, the summer before I started high school. This was back in the day when many metro areas had at least two daily newspapers (morning and evening) and sometimes more.

Although it was the fourth largest newspaper in the state, every year it ran away with the Associated Press and state press association awards in two categories – photography and editorials.

The editor-in-chief (who was also a nationally syndicated columnist) was very visually oriented, and the newspaper was years ahead of its time.

Editors were not allowed to select photos or determine how they were cropped. The editor could specify the width in columns for a photo. The photographer selected and printed a photo or photos to fill the specified hole(s).

The publisher’s concern was that, rather than select the best photo, editors would select photos that were less deep (in inches) vertically and take up less space, or crop photos to take up less space, so that the editor didn’t have to spend as much time and effort editing copy, i.e., cutting stories to fit.

Two prints were made of each photo for the newspaper. Photos were rubber-cemented to 4x4-foot “flats” (sheets of art board) and periodically sent to Engraving throughout the morning (this was an afternoon newspaper), so the engravers could shoot a dozen or so photos at one time, saving time and money.

The other print went to the editor who had assigned the photo. By the time the editor saw the photo, most likely it was already in the process of being engraved, i.e., the amount of space each photo would fill in the newspaper had already been determined (by the photographer).

Today, this is usually determined by a photo editor, who probably started out as a photographer, who is responsible for seeing that the best photos are displayed in the best possible way, so these decisions are made by someone with a photographer’s perspective.

An editor could ask to see the negatives of other photos shot for the assignment, and he/she could ask that the photo be cropped from the top or bottom (by sawing off part of the zinc engraving). The photographer was under no obligation to agree to cropping. Rarely were we asked.

Photographers were instructed, if an editor asked to see all the negatives, that the photographer was to show only those photos he wouldn’t mind seeing his name on.

One of the chief photographer’s favorite sayings was, “If you lose control of your images, you lose control of YOUR image.”

I understand that some photographers shoot JPEGs and do no post-processing, and I can understand why they wouldn’t mind putting all of the JPEGS on CDs or a DVD and giving them to a model.

However, I shoot in RAW, and it’s not uncommon to spend three hours or so (per photo) on post-processing. Let’s see… If I shoot 500 photos in a shoot, that’s up to 1,500 hours of post-processing after a four-hour shoot. (Is 1,504 hours for four hours really an equal trade?)

I don’t give out RAW files, I don’t give out unretouched images, and I don’t give out photos that I that I don’t want to see my name on. For a given shoot, I give out my very best work.

If a model likes the photos in my portfolio, most likely the model trusts me to select and provide the best photos. If not, he/she would probably be happier with a photographer who will provide 500 JPEGs on CDs.

If the model wants to come to the studio and go through the images, one by one, tell me which ones he/she likes, and listen to my reasons why I might not want my name on a particular image, that’s fine. Of the last hundred models, only 2-3 have asked.

During a shoot, I show models the photos on the LCD screen on the back of the camera. Sometimes models like to go through the photos at the end of the shoot. Unless you want to zoom in and look at several parts of the photo (which would take longer than the shoot itself), you can’t tell much about the details from the LCD.

Three models I’ve worked with (one of them 20x, one 14x and the other once) are very good at selecting photos from the back of the camera, subject to closer scrutiny. The first two rarely take the time. When they do, we almost always agree.

I’ve also had models who asked for a photo that might not be perfectly sharp, or where a couple of fingers or toes might be cut off, or where hair might cast a deep shadow over an eye, just because, for example, of the way the face appears in that photo.

The model has veto power. If the model doesn’t like a photo, I don’t use it. I only recall one model who asked me not to use a photo. If the model has veto power, I should have it as well.

My problem isn’t finding a good photo. Most of the time, it’s eliminating all of the good photos (as well as the ones with flawed poses and the ones where fixing stray hairs would be a nightmare) from a set and deciding which is the best photo from that set. After a shoot, I may spend an hour just narrowing down which photos to retouch.

Before a shoot takes place, the model knows what sets will be shot, what wardrobe will be used, and that the model will receive at least one photo – the best one – from each set. (We might do 1-6 sets in a shoot.) If that’s not good enough, there are plenty of other photographers.

JQuest wrote:
1)  Communicate your TF/P expectations concisely and clearly.
2)  TF/P Expectations can and do vary widely between collaborators
3)  When someone's vision for TF/P doesn't align with yours, if you can't figure out a way to get past the hurdles after a good faith attempt walk away with no hurt feelings or chapped ass.
4)  Models are not evil or entitled because they have a different TF/P view than I do.
5)  Other photographers are not evil or entitled because they have a different TF/P view than I do
6)  I am not evil or entitled because my ideas on TF/P differ from a models or photographers.
7)  Inevitably in every contentious discussion on MM someone will throw the "White Knight" card out. Sometimes it's relevant, sometimes it's just more added noise and it's easier to attack an individual's motives than attempt to rebut their words.

Could we carve this in stone and hang it up in the internet, please?

JQuest wrote:
1)  Communicate your TF/P expectations concisely and clearly.
2)  TF/P Expectations can and do vary widely between collaborators
3)  When someone's vision for TF/P doesn't align with yours, if you can't figure out a way to get past the hurdles after a good faith attempt walk away with no hurt feelings or chapped ass.
4)  Models are not evil or entitled because they have a different TF/P view than I do.
5)  Other photographers are not evil or entitled because they have a different TF/P view than I do
6)  I am not evil or entitled because my ideas on TF/P differ from a models or photographers.
7)  Inevitably in every contentious discussion on MM someone will throw the "White Knight" card out. Sometimes it's relevant, sometimes it's just more added noise and it's easier to attack an individual's motives than attempt to rebut their words.

TomFRohwer wrote:
Could we carve this in stone and hang it up in the internet, please?

If you're going to put it in stone, you have to come up with three more. Those are the rules; ask anyone.

Idyllic  wrote:
For me it's this:

(snipped for brevity)

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

C

I would suggest putting the following as part of your terms in doing TFP, TFCD work, "Contact sheet". It's more practical and doable for the photographer to create a digital contact sheet of all the images which will result in 3 to 5 standard letter size resolution images and email it to you after a TF shoot. This is opposed to what was a standard practice for some photographers where they'd use a workflow to create low-res 3x5 images and upload them to a secure website where you have to logon to preview and select your faves. Communications is vital in this mode because digital image contact sheets may or may not have a filename as a caption which you can refer back to the photographer in an email listing which images you want for your hand-carry or online portfolio.

Contact sheet works best in my opinion. When discussing terms, take some time to also discuss what you can do with your contact samples as some models probably want to snip a portion of a strip on the contact sheet and upload it to their profiles as advertising teasers.

HTH

AgX wrote:
If you're going to put it in stone, you have to come up with three more. Those are the rules; ask anyone.

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

I've done TFP shoots which were like that, sure.

I have also done TFP shoots where the idea was solely mine, I knew exactly what I wanted from it and nothing else, and selected models to help me execute that idea.  Sometimes the result was no more than one image, solely chosen and created by me.

I have also done TFP shoots where I am executing the idea of someone else:  the model, the makeup artist, the hair stylist . . . .  Generally the other person (the "client") chooses which picture(s) are made final and used, although I generally get a veto.

TFPs are what they need to be for a project under consideration.  General rules that constrain how they work are a mistake.  As always, communicating up front what is intended is a very good idea.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

If You are paying a Photographer then You should have control of the images (the right to pick and choose).

TF, which addresses the title of Your thread, is a collaboration, a trade of service.  Therefore You should also have control over which images from the set You receive.

If a Photographer is paying You then the Photographer retains control over the images and You may, or may not receive any.

All of this should be spelled out in any written agreement (release)


As far as image editing goes most Photographers have their own style,  choose a Photographer whose style You like.

I agree with all of the above here.

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

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

Abbitt Photography wrote:
You can have any view you wish about what is implied in a TF shoot, but legally the photographer still owns copyright of images he/she produces and the model still has rights to his/her likeness.  A photographer isn't obligated to give unedited images.  An exchange of services instead of pay, doesn't change these laws. As with paid shoots, you should discuss issues of release, usage rights and other shoot terms prior to the shoot.   There is a saying about making assumptions......

I'm not sure interjecting what's legal and actually just common sense into an MM forum discussion is going to help.  As in another discussion about quality gear at give away prices, the millenial mindset that everything should be free or by the terms someone demands is what's killing this market and many others.  People demanding change simply because something doesn't suit their personal agenda or desires is childish, to say the least.  If people want to work in a grown up job, they should learn and abide by the rules instead of insisting the rules be changed to suit them.

Todd Meredith wrote:

I'm not sure interjecting what's legal and actually just common sense into an MM forum discussion is going to help.  As in another discussion about quality gear at give away prices, the millenial mindset that everything should be free or by the terms someone demands is what's killing this market and many others.  People demanding change simply because something doesn't suit their personal agenda or desires is childish, to say the least.  If people want to work in a grown up job, they should learn and abide by the rules instead of insisting the rules be changed to suit them.

But Todd:   People continuing to make incorrect assumptions about shoot terms as we see here rather than actually communicating with the other party about shoot terms is what creates all the disappointment and rants that keep these forums alive.  If people actually discussed shoot terms with the other party rather than make incorrect assumptions, these forums would be deader than they already are.

Todd Meredith wrote:
I'm not sure interjecting what's legal and actually just common sense into an MM forum discussion is going to help.  As in another discussion about quality gear at give away prices, the millenial mindset that everything should be free or by the terms someone demands is what's killing this market and many others.  People demanding change simply because something doesn't suit their personal agenda or desires is childish, to say the least.  If people want to work in a grown up job, they should learn and abide by the rules instead of insisting the rules be changed to suit them.

Rules? There are no rules. As others have said, there are assumptions.

Communication is always required. Define your terms, whether you think the person has so much experience they should know or not. Their experience differs from yours.

Would you confirm a booking if the only thing mentioned was "standard industry rates"? Or would you want that spelled out? Why should a "trade shoot" be any different? Spell out the terms.

With any negotiation, one side makes an offer they deem beneficial to them. A counter offer is not an insult. it is part of the negotiation process. Sometimes, my first offer is my limit. Sometimes, I might be talked into something more. My counter-counter offer will make that clear. This has nothing to do with age. It has everything to do with negotiations.

Just because you've always done things a certain way does not mean the next person has to accept those terms. Remember, they might be telling you the way it always has been for them, and they see you as the one trying to demand changing the rules to suit you.

Todd Meredith wrote:
I'm not sure interjecting what's legal and actually just common sense into an MM forum discussion is going to help... People demanding change simply because something doesn't suit their personal agenda or desires is childish, to say the least.  If people want to work in a grown up job, they should learn and abide by the rules instead of insisting the rules be changed to suit them.

Would you mind sharing the rules of working in this grown up job with us?  A list would be very helpful.

I know that I should not even ask, but we all know some millennials and we could help pass the rules along.