Kayla_Ann wrote:
Trying to create a directory of photographers who have OnlyFans that will either do trade shoots for all RAW images, or who pay models for content. This directory is mainly for my purposes, but I know other women who occasionally enjoy modeling but do not have an MM account that I may be sharing this information with as well to help them out.

So if you're a photographer with an OF, give a shoutout.

(Note--I'm looking for photographers that shoot female presenting models specifically.)

Photographers that do not pay are not photographers.

Aaron Pawlak wrote:
Photographers that do not pay are not photographers.

Careful that you don't hit your head when you fall off your high horse.
Or maybe you already did.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

Dan Howell has professional credentials!

That does not mean his is right. TIFF is not raw format.
Maybe he is talking about DNG.

Kayla_Ann wrote:
Yes, I would never be interested in working with you. I'm glad we cleared that up.

best of luck to Ya!

Aaron Pawlak wrote:
Photographers that do not pay are not photographers.

seriously tho?

PHP-Photography wrote:
That does not mean his is right. TIFF is not raw format.
Maybe he is talking about DNG.

Unretouched TIFFs were referred to as a raw files in the publishing industry before Camera RAW was a common thing. You do realize that TIFF predates Camera RAW by more than a decade, right? No, you probably don't. So many photographers can't seem to wrap their head around the idea that not everything is about them and their limited experience.

The word raw is a generic term which applies to both TIFF in some contexts and the various proprietary camera formats. You are trying to imply that the word raw has only one meaning when it just doesn't. I was getting request for 'raw scans' before I ever had a digital camera that would deliver a 'raw' file. Again, before you state something so emphatically, you might be well served to look broader.

Dan Howell wrote:
So many photographers can't seem to wrap their head around the idea that not everything is about them

At least we agree on something.

seanie blue wrote:
I went to the OF site after reading this post, and became a "fan." For me to view any of the "free" content posted by OF members, I have to sign up with my credit card (no PayPal), and become a "subscriber." This is potentially problematic, because a member whose content is free can suddenly decide to charge and I'm not sure what sort of notice is given to the subscriber, who is now paying $5.99 or $12.95 or something similar on a monthly basis until he/she realises the free content is drawing from his/her account. Like Audible and the PPA, the OF site seems to depend on people signing up for a free service and then allowing paid content to be unnoticed for six months or a year. But that's the "fan" side.

To become a "creator" carries some interesting baggage: every image of a human being that you post on your creator page must be accounted for in one of two ways: by linking to that person's OF site, or by providing a copy of a government ID of that person. If you have a working relationship already established with models who have an OF site, then I think it would be beneficial to the photographer to have a site and show that work. I'm not sure how many of the models I've shot have an OF site, but I will look out for them from now on. I doubt anyone is paying photographers a monthly subscription fee to see their work, so the monetisation aspect of an OF account for photographers seems likely close to zero. For a model, it's another story, but only if she has some personality and something other than her nudity to display: some talent or ambition or emotional expression. Like Patreon, if you drill into the stats behind the members, you'll find few non-celebrities bringing in a livelihood.

I notice from this thread that there aren't many photographers responding with OF accounts. Are there any?

Free OF accounts cannot be turned into OF accounts that charge. The model selects the account type upfront. The credit card info is taken because even free accounts can advertise paid content and the site wants to make it easier for you to buy quickly.

Like I already said earlier in this thread, I do follow some photographers on social medias that have successful OF accounts. I don't know everything that goes into it, but if you are a photographer that regularly shoots erotic content, there very much can be a market for that. But yes, of course, you would have to clear that with all the models you work with and take the appropriate legal precautions.

Also--some photographers are choosing to directly message me instead of replying to this thread. There aren't many photographers with OF accounts though on here. There are definitely more Instagram-famous photographers with OF accounts.

Aaron Pawlak wrote:
Photographers that do not pay are not photographers.

You're hating on your own colleagues???

I am more than willing to do TFP work for the right negotiation. This is offensive AF and also insanely ignorant.

Aaron Pawlak wrote:
Photographers that do not pay are not photographers.

What???

Red Sky Photography wrote:
I have not shot specifically for OF but do pay models about half the time.

For a trade shoot, I am happy to share all the images if the model wants them, or just retouch the ones I like and share those with her. She is free to use all/any of those images in any way the wants to.

I always give paid models some edits too and used to ask them not to use them on paid sites. Since the plague arrived, I have edited additional images for some models and told them they could use these on OF, Bent Box ect. I changed because I know how difficult it is to lose your income stream with most models not traveling/shooting.

If the OP is ever in my area, I would be happy to discuss shooting

Thanks for the info. I should hopefully be in the DC area next year. I would love to do another working vacation there and check out more of the sights as well. And hit up some of my favorite DC restaurants.

Kayla_Ann wrote:
Thanks for the info. I should hopefully be in the DC area next year. I would love to do another working vacation there and check out more of the sights as well. And hit up some of my favorite DC restaurants. [/quote

If you are going to do Southwest Tour make sure and Let me know. We can work on content for your page. I can most likely muster up a nice Silk dress and a couple of custom bodysuits for you as well.

veypurr wrote:
If you are going to do Southwest Tour make sure and Let me know. We can work on content for your page. I can most likely muster up a nice Silk dress and a couple of custom bodysuits for you as well.

Oooo. That sounds fun. I'd have to find some more interest in that area first though, I have a lot of work offers on the West coast and the East coast so far and not much in between.

Chuckarelei wrote:

What???

I was trying to figure this statement out as well.   We are fundamentally in the business of being paid for work - Not paying out.

Of course for client work - we always hire/pay the models.  Conversely for creative/artistic projects we only collaborate in trade (both parties receive value with **no exchange of monetary compensation**).  This still might be considered pay, technically.  Our time investment is often a wildly disproportionate ratio (example - 1 hour model :vs: 8+ hours photographer) depending on the number of finished images/ level of retouching/transport/setups etc.

YMMV

Karen Engel Photography wrote:
I was trying to figure this statement out as well.   We are fundamentally in the business of being paid for work - Not paying out.

Of course for client work - we always hire/pay the models.  Conversely for creative/artistic projects we only collaborate in trade (both parties receive value with **no exchange of monetary compensation**).  This still might be considered pay, technically.  Our time investment is often a wildly disproportionate ratio (example - 1 hour model :vs: 8+ hours photographer) depending on the number of finished images/ level of retouching/transport/setups etc.

YMMV

This is actually also full of assumptions. I have worked with many photographers that are doing artistic work and are not being paid to do it (they are selling it later or are hoping to gain exposure/build a good reputation for future clients) and they pay me for the work.

Also, as I mainly do most of my own retouching and try to get as many useable photos out of each photoshoot as possible, the time I invest into a single shoot is MUCH, MUCH more than what most photographers I work with are going to put into our shoot.

We're all artists and we all approach our business and goals differently. ANY assumptions about ANYONE really just isn't necessary at all.

Kayla_Ann wrote:
This is actually also full of assumptions. I have worked with many photographers that are doing artistic work and are not being paid to do it (they are selling it later or are hoping to gain exposure/build a good reputation for future clients) and they pay me for the work.

Also, as I mainly do most of my own retouching and try to get as many useable photos out of each photoshoot as possible, the time I invest into a single shoot is MUCH, MUCH more than what most photographers I work with are going to put into our shoot.

We're all artists and we all approach our business and goals differently. ANY assumptions about ANYONE really just isn't necessary at all.

This is just a misunderstanding of what I wrote.  I wasn't saying "We" = all photographers - instead it's "We" = my business in particular.  No generalizations or blanket statements can possibly apply to all - which is why I cited personal experience only.

There is no doubt that some photographers will pay models for portfolio or art's sake. 

All approaches and experiences are different, but I find it's very rare where a model even asks about post production work.  And coming from the other side - the PP is an integral part of my style - releasing images without it isn't a good reflection on my product so I'd probably say no - unless the model has a killer portfolio of post work to ensure top notch quality.   Then I would be thrilled to save all those hours!  :-)

Aaron Pawlak wrote:
Photographers that do not pay are not photographers.

PHP-Photography wrote:
Careful that you don't hit your head when you fall off your high horse.
Or maybe you already did.

I don't know who you think YOU are.

Aaron Pawlak wrote:
Photographers that do not pay are not photographers.

Kayla_Ann wrote:
You're hating on your own colleagues???

I am more than willing to do TFP work for the right negotiation. This is offensive AF and also insanely ignorant.

Tells me what I'd need to know about you.

Ana Celeste wrote:
[snip]

I don't do TFP shoots but me & my rates are flexible 😜

I work with professional photographers to make beautiful images, both nude and lingerie.

Hi!

Do You pay the Photographers who create Your content or how does that work?

Dan Howell wrote:
Unretouched TIFFs were referred to as a raw files in the publishing industry before Camera RAW was a common thing. You do realize that TIFF predates Camera RAW by more than a decade, right? No, you probably don't. So many photographers can't seem to wrap their head around the idea that not everything is about them and their limited experience.

The word raw is a generic term which applies to both TIFF in some contexts and the various proprietary camera formats. You are trying to imply that the word raw has only one meaning when it just doesn't. I was getting request for 'raw scans' before I ever had a digital camera that would deliver a 'raw' file. Again, before you state something so emphatically, you might be well served to look broader.

My first digital camera (Olympus E10) shot either TIFF or JPG. I don't remember if there was a RAW option. But what I do remember is that the 4 frame buffer would fill up quickly when shooting in TIFF and it would take up to a minute to clear.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Hi!

Do You pay the Photographers who create Your content or how does that work?

Come on. You and I both know there are plenty of hornytographers out there who pay models for the privilege of giving them content.

ROUA IMAGES wrote:
Interesting.  I see why models with OnlyFan accounts want images of themselves for their own profit (not that they should be paid and ALSO provided images to do so - that wasn't the OP's stated situation, anyway - ) but - photographers with OnlyFan accounts? Of models who are okay with being paid and then releasing all rights to their images for use for photographer's content?

For photographers who have these kinds of accounts:  Lucrative?  Are there consistent patrons who continually want to pay to see images you took of a model?  Enough to make it worthwhile?

This isn't sarcasm, it's a genuine question.

It's much much much easier for a model to get paying subscribers to her fan site (OnlyFans, Patreon, etc) than it is for a content creator. I'm not saying it's impossible for content creators since I'm currently doing it. But mine grows at more of a slow and steady pace. Whereas I know several models who get hundreds of subscribers the first day they launch.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
The way I read the OP the Model is seeking to shoot trade and wants all of the RAW files, that's not going to happen.

If I were to shoot trade with a model in this situation, I'd probably want different content than I was providing for her. It seems kinda pointless for us both to have the same content on our respective fan sites. The arrangement I'd be likely to work out would look more like, "This content for me, that content for you." In that case, if she wants the RAW files or video footage of what's hers to do with what she wants, I'd probably oblige.

Karen Engel Photography wrote:

This is just a misunderstanding of what I wrote.  I wasn't saying "We" = all photographers - instead it's "We" = my business in particular.  No generalizations or blanket statements can possibly apply to all - which is why I cited personal experience only.

There is no doubt that some photographers will pay models for portfolio or art's sake. 

All approaches and experiences are different, but I find it's very rare where a model even asks about post production work.  And coming from the other side - the PP is an integral part of my style - releasing images without it isn't a good reflection on my product so I'd probably say no - unless the model has a killer portfolio of post work to ensure top notch quality.   Then I would be thrilled to save all those hours!  :-)

I obviously credit myself for my own work. I'm not going to do post-production work and not credit myself for the work. If there is attribution given to a photo, I point out who did what with the image--so I really don't understand photographers who say things like "other people doing post production on my images is going to reflect back poorly on me."

That said, if a photographer is better at PP than me, I usually will let them do the PP--unless there is a reason that I still like my style of editing a lot better than theirs due to my OWN brand that I am trying to maintain and where I am wanting to use the photos OR the photographer is willing to give me more photos if I do my own PP than they would give me with their PP.

John Jebbia  wrote:

It's much much much easier for a model to get paying subscribers to her fan site (OnlyFans, Patreon, etc) than it is for a content creator. I'm not saying it's impossible for content creators since I'm currently doing it. But mine grows at more of a slow and steady pace. Whereas I know several models who get hundreds of subscribers the first day they launch.

The difference is obviously that, for models with accounts, the fans are getting lustful for the model and they actually have the opportunity to connect with the models they are getting lustful over.

For photographers with OF accounts, the fans are signing up to see a variety of models, but they don't get a personal connection with those models.

Both models can work, and I would argue that is actually MUCH easier for a PHOTOGRAPHER to maintain a steady OF sub base... Models have to put in a LOT more work to deal with really crap subscribers and unwanted sexualization or dehumanization.

There's more money there for models... But it's not necessarily easier money... There's more mental health issues to deal with for models than photographers.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
I do not have have OnlyFans nor Patreon, but I do allow models to use our images for any commercial purposes.

I provide 800x1200 px proofs of everything and selected edited high res JPEG image files, as RAW tend to take a lot of time for me to upload. If the model wants all the RAW files, she will need to bring a CF card reader and device to transfer at the of the shoot.

If someone else edits the image, I ask they be credited, and if that is the model, I recommend they add, “with permission of the photographer”

I've never thought of adding "with permission of the photographer" because I think it should be obvious that I am not going to edit another person's work without their permission... And I obviously credit the photographer, and either tag them directly if they are also on the site where I am positing the image--or I direct people to where they can easily find the photographer to see more of their work if they are not on that site where I am posting the image.

We all sign releases or make verbal agreements at the very least... The assumption should be that everything was done in good faith, NOT that anyone is editing photos without permission.

Aaron Pawlak wrote:

Tells me what I'd need to know about you.

We mutually do not like each other. Glad we're on the same page.

John Jebbia  wrote:

Come on. You and I both know there are plenty of hornytographers out there who pay models for the privilege of giving them content.

This post seems a bit pointlessly hateful...

As long as a photographer respects models, I see no reason why the level of their libido should be a point of discussion.

Aaron Pawlak wrote:
Tells me what I'd need to know about you.

Kayla_Ann wrote:
We mutually do not like each other. Glad we're on the same page.

I never personally insulted you, so I don't know what your problem is with me.

Kayla_Ann wrote:

I've never thought of adding "with permission of the photographer" because I think it should be obvious that I am not going to edit another person's work without their permission... And I obviously credit the photographer, and either tag them directly if they are also on the site where I am positing the image--or I direct people to where they can easily find the photographer to see more of their work if they are not on that site where I am posting the image.

We all sign releases or make verbal agreements at the very least... The assumption should be that everything was done in good faith, NOT that anyone is editing photos without permission.

what is obvious to you and I is sometimes not so to others. Hence the note stating permission was granted.  This avoids some photographers getting bent out of shape seeing the model edit the images.

Kayla_Ann wrote:
I half regret every time I open this thread...

Don't, it's educational.

John Jebbia  wrote:
Come on. You and I both know there are plenty of hornytographers out there who pay models for the privilege of giving them content.

Simps may be the PC word You're looking for John.

Kayla_Ann wrote:
For the record... Sugaring is a form of sex work. Sex workers consider sugaring sex work whether or not there is actual sex involved (there almost always is some sexual component involved), though in RARE cases you may find a client that does in fact only want companionship--but that's a controversial issue in which many still argue it should be called sex work.

Also, photographers who shoot nudes aren't called sex workers, but girls who post nudes on OnlyFans are called sex workers. That isn't misogyny... It's just the actual facts of the matter. If you're a photographer with an OnlyFans and you aren't in the photos, you aren't a sex worker.

If anyone wants to debate sex work. Come at me. I know many people in various aspects of the sex work industry.

I'm not here for anyone who doesn't respect people who make money in ways that don't hurt other people.

If you don't respect sex workers, you are not invited to be on my list or work with me or anyone I know.

As a photographer of nude women, I never considered myself a sex worker, especially  since while shooting I am so consumed with, in no particular order, fear of failure, technical issues, photographic issues, aesthetic issues, models' mood issues, that arousal is not remotely possible. However, the pictures I take are most definitely likely to appeal to someone's prurient interest, which is inescapable - photographs of nude humans will arouse other humans, and that applies to so-called "artistic" and "fine art" nudes all the way to outright pornography. If enabling that arousal makes me a sex worker, I am ok with it. I think.

And for the record, I pay all my models as I am not good enough to be paid to shoot nude models. And when I have edited the best shots from a shoot, I let the model do whatever they want with them, except re-edit them, and s long as I am credited. Sell them, post them, put them on model merch like tee-shirts or coffee cups, (as has happened), I don't mind and don't expect any payment in return.

Kayla_Ann wrote:
Honestly... Can all the pointless hating and finger pointing stop here?

I half regret every time I open this thread...

It's 2020 and we're all having a tough year, why can't we play nice yet???

Spot on. There is nothing that can only be done one way and as long as the parties agree and are happy it's good.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

Don't, it's educational.


Simps may be the PC word You're looking for John.

"Simps" is actually insanely insulting and not PC at all. Can you stop? I'm embarrassed FOR you at this point. Is professionalism DEAD??