Dan Howell wrote:

Another irrelevant analogy.

It is not. The fact that you cannot comprehend it is your issue. The analogy is 100% accurate.

What I have seen is photographers, apparently like you,

Now you're putting words into my mouth. I always share photos with models if they are being paid provided the CLIENT is comfortable with it. Considering I don't pay models unless I have a client who is paying for them, it is the agreement I have with them is what matters. Usually I ask my client if the model is able to use photos from the shoot within 90 days of first publication. If it's an ad campaign, they can share it all they like once it's published.

Nobody is forcing you to give raw images, retouch whole shoots, resale license or whatever is stoking your fears, but you haven't answered the question what are you losing by allowing a model (non commercial usage) to show photos here or in their portfolios of photos they are actually in? Why would you complain about a model showing work they actually appear in as examples of their past work?

Now you're changing the topic. As per the OP, he is referencing the trend of models requesting to have access to, and I'm going to print this in all capital letters so you can hopefully understand it, ---------ALL--------- the photos from the shoot. If my expectation is to get one or two photos from a shoot and the model wants ---------ALL--------- of them, then the answer is simply no. This is where the analogy for the restaurant is so accurate. It's also why most videographers don't deliver the raw footage from a shoot. You are paying for the deliverable, not the raw materials. And a model, who is NOT the client, gets the finished result, not the raw materials, which is what the actual conversation here is about. I don't want a bad photo from a shoot going into the hands of a model who will botch the processing and put it out there if it doesn't accurately represent my work. It's literally that simple.

When I see photographer's taking an absolute stance against sharing a photo with a paid model, I have to wonder if they hired the model to actually create a photo or because they wanted to control them.

AGAIN, this is not about sharing "a photo" this is about sharing ---------ALL--------- of the photos. That is the topic of this conversation.

Shot By Adam wrote:
AGAIN, this is not about sharing "a photo" this is about sharing ---------ALL--------- of the photos. That is the topic of this conversation.

look again. "I'm starting to see models that not only want the payment but require some, most, or all of the images." apparently you missed that.

still no answer as to what you are losing. rules against unsolicited critique prevent me to from commenting on the rest of your message.

oh...and the chef/steak dinner analogy? seriously, you are talking about a consumable you payed for and ate and then YOU are asking for more from the person you hired versus hiring a model for a project that their participation completes and sharing images with neither enhances nor diminishes. maybe look up the definition of analogy.

Dan Howell wrote:
look again. "I'm starting to see models that not only want the payment but require some, most, or all of the images." apparently you missed that.

You LITERALLY just proved my point for me. I guess "Reading Comprehension" was something you flunked in elementary school.

rules against unsolicited critique prevent me to from commenting on the rest of your message.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here unless you're trying to be childish and think this is an insult in some way. I'll be sure to remind all my Fortune 500 clients that some guy named Dan on the Internet doesn't like my work though. LOL

MadMann Imagery wrote:
I'm starting to see models that not only want the payment but require some, most, or all of the images.

Your restaurant equation is weird but that's neither here nor there.

I hear that a lot of the younger 'models' out there do not know how to pose. I hear this repeatedly.
When coaching, I recommend a small mirror next to your photographing person, so that the model can see and learn their better angles.

Sometimes it is helpful to see the photos from the shoot. All 1487 frames. Not because I want to take your hard work and pass it off as my own, or get 'famous', baby. But because I can only see that awkward lazy eye from those three angles, the ones on frame 167, 466 and 1243. Not anytime else. Heck, I didn't even know I had a damn lazy eye, until someone shared the whole, entire, entirely unnecessary (or so I thought at that time!) shoot with me.
Until I sat down and looked. And looked. And winced. And looked some more.

The camera can see things the mirror can't.
You'd only be helping them get better, just like I still tell a hobbyist where to put the lights sometimes, although he's not paying me to be production assistant. If I can help someone to get better and thus get more enjoyment out of their hobby or profession, then by Jove, I shall open my yap! Nothing nefarious behind it.

Some models are young persons who have not yet learned sufficient corporate soft skills to give enough reason or pertaining info as to why they wanna see all the things you shot.

Some models may be afraid that they bent over and you took a photo that they would not be comfortable sharing with their gyno. Horror stories are out there because at some  point they did happen to some of us. Just like you have reasons why you won't allow escorts, or animals, or infants on set. There are reasons. Not all of them deserve exposition.

Anyway, as long as you have a good release form you're covered, nay?
What good are a bunch of RAW files to a model? Do they sit down with the shop programs and do hours of post work?
Never met one who does...

In summary, it's not always "I deserve money and images because I am awesome", sometimes it's "dude, I am still new and awkward as fuck, fake it till you make it style, and I need to learn my ugly side so I can learn to never show it to a lens again, but I don't know what that looks like until I see myself from 1400 angles in 1400 different ways of lighting/outfit/background.."

Tony Lawrence wrote:
For many here poorly shot imagery won't hurt you but I remember a Chicago photographer who shot a fashion  hopeful.  The images were HORRIBLE.  My guess is he may have thought she wouldn't go anywhere with that garbage.  She took then to Elite and David & Lee.  These agencies are now closed in Chicago.  You simply have no ideal how or where your work may be used.  Maybe you weren't credited and YOU think it won't matter but I think it does.  Try and only share your best.  That includes whether you pay or not.

Wow, that photographer must have been really terrible to have caused two Agencies to close. That's some power.

I shot Models for about 20 years and gave them whatever images they asked for. Most only wanted the ones I had retouched, although one model was much better than I at retouching. She shared her edits with me and we both used them. To my knowledge, none of them ever posted an image that I thought was terrible.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
Compensation can cover a wide range of things: money, images, usage rights, clothing, props, lodging, meals. It can be a mix of those things as well.

A model wanting $100/hr plus images might settle for $200 and no images. You might have valued your work as being worth $100/hr, so that is an even swap, right?

You run your business model your way, and don't worry how someone is running theirs. Negotiate the total compensation package. You either negotiate to a mutually agreed level of compensation and shoot, or you do not reach an agreement and don't shoot. It really is that simple.

I consider the amount of compensation I provide based on a model's looks and experience. Since I am not out actively trying to monetize the images I take, more power to the model if she can find a way to make more money from the images.

That sounds like good sense and pre-planning for sure.  No surprises for anyone is best.   I never thought about if both the model and the photographer meet here at MM, if they automatically figure that both will have access to some or all images.   The model certainly wants to show off her style  of poses in her portfolio to get started here.  And the photographer wants to show off what he does and some of the best models he has worked with, to attract other great models.  Both benefit from showing.  But seriously, when someone has 400-500 pics uploaded, I'm never going to try and check them as it takes too long on this site to see a pic and back space and wait,,wait,, for the whole main page to reload.   I just check the front page credits for exapmples.   
    And the 'credits'?  Hey, I'm just an outdoor pics kind of rookie.  I 'd guess the 'credit' goes to both, and who posts it up as a 'credit' is decided upon by them too.  Some models have different 'credits' listed in the 'credit' slot over their normal portfolio. Others have different ones as the 'credits' from the front page  link, Some have none at all listed at one spot, and many at the other spot.