Fotografica Gregor wrote:
But I don't play that.

Exactly! In fact it's almost insulting to have a model ask for the RAW/all files as part of the TF* shoot...it's like asking for the photographer's negatives and the freedom to trash them at will.
Nope. Sorry.

That is NOT part of a typical "trade", and it would cost good $$$ to "buy" the normal (all files) "total package" where you-buy-the-ownership of the images deal.

I know EVERYTHING is "negotiable" but I'm speaking in general guidelines of a "typical" TF* shoot, to help clarify WHY we are this way.

TF Photography wrote:
We photographers need to stick to our guns when it comes to protecting our property. Unfortunately, there are decent, well-intentioned photographers out there who provide too much to models and make us look like bad guys when we do the right thing.

Models need to stick to THEIR guns and NOT work with photographers who do not give them FAIR COMPENSATION for their time.

Photographer egos are way too big, and models put up with it.  Or some, do.  Some learn. 

The best way to avoid problems is to discuss BEFORE hand, and maybe get a CONTRACT in writing.  *NOT* a release, a CONTRACT.  After all, TF* is an agreement (CONTRACT) like any other.  THEFT of service applies to TF* just as it applies to a paid shoot.  In one, the "payment" is images, while in the other, it's cash, but it's *STILL* payment.

Photographers think one image is enough for a TF* shoot, but they are WRONG.  Dead wrong.  And, if that image is below par, has a watermark, etc, they are actually STEALING from the model, since the model has put in the *SAME* time as they have, and has not gotten anything she can use.  *THAT* is the key to a TF* agreement.

BOTH parties need to come away with something of value ot them.  If they don't, then there is NO REASON TO WORK TOGETHER TF*!!  NONE.

That "value" could be as little as good will, or networking, or it could be "testing" for another job/shoot, etc.   But it has to be of value to BOTH parties, EQUALLY. 

Photographers *think* that because they put a value of $100 on an image, the image is worth $100 of a _MODELS_ time.  It's *NOT*.   The models' time is worth as much as the photographers -- and if she is a working in-demand model, maybe more  THat whole "I've got $10,000 in equipment" is just bullshit.  It always was, and always will be.

The models' time is HERS.  If she wants to SPEND it doing a TF* shoot, that TF* shoot has to be worth that TIME. Maybe she could be cleaning her house.  Or reading a book.  Or sleeping in.  But it's HER TIME.  Not yours.  And if you want it, you need to PAY -- more than a few low res watermarked images.

The *REAL* problem is photographers are trying to use TF* as way of getting "FREE" models, *NOT* for what it was meant to be -- eg: a way to turn down-time into productive time.

TF* is *NOT* a means of "free" and many people have been surprised by what happened to them in court when a "FREE" shoot became commercialized --  especially if the model was "mis-informed" of the purposes, and intent.  That whole "release" thing where you claim commercial use, *ONLY* applies if the model was given FAIR compensation, and *IF* there was no intent to defraud.  Unfortunately, most TF* has become an intent to defraud.  Theft of services/time.  And more.

TF* is a way to shoot "STOCK" photos, to turn down-time into productive time (STOCK) or test out IDEAS, concepts, etc.  SOMETIMES it's a way of doing a "commercial" shoot on a shoestring budget, if EVERYONE agrees that it's a trade, and the goal is a published tearsheet.  But, even then, someone is paying more than others, or a makeup artist is consuming supplies, etc.  TF* OFTEN includes some compensation for materials and travel, it's TIME that is traded, *NOT* commercial goods.

There are a *LOT* of problems with TF* as practiced here, and  I've only a touched on a few that piss me off, time and again.  There are more.

But as for "RAW" images, if you consider the RAW to be a "NEGATIVE" then the models never got the negatives.  *BUT* since you can make high-res JPG files that are nearly as good, and more than adequate for most purposes, giving them the JPG files is *NOT* unreasonable.  I do.  I buy flash drives in bulk, or when I see them for $5.  And, 8 gig drives are now readily available "on sale" for $5-6.  I'm getting 16 gig drives for $9 locally in the big-box stores.  Sandisk, pony, HP, etc.  Not generic.

The thing is, you just have to get over the fact that *YOU* want to control everything.  Maybe as an old stock/news photographer, I'm used to turning photos in, and not having control over the final use.  But, I got my expenses paid, perks, and such.  I got to keep shooting. 

Decide what is most important to you.  Happy models and a full shoot schedule or tight control and an empty schedule.

Right now I'm at the point (I think because I do give so many images is part of it) where we have more models willing to work, than I can fit into the schedule, or find photographers for.   

(And before anyone starts up, *I* need to charge for use use of my studio space, lighting, overhead, equipment breakage, prop loss, insurance, etc.  So, while the models are willing to work TF* the photographers have to pay a little for what they get.  *I* don't get anything out of letting people use my stuff for free -- remember, "trade" has to be of value to BOTH parties.  "trade" doesn't replace that broken light or blown unit. Around here, photographers want stuff for free... not just models.  They want events, workshops, use of YOUR studio, even free food.  Pisses me the hell off.  I set up another group for the more serious photographers, willing to PAY for their hobby, art, etc.  It's much, much smaller, but we have a much,. much better time!)

TF* is *NOT* free.  It's a form of BARTER.  and Barter has rules going back millennia, to earliest man, which people here, in the last decade, seem to want to redefine.

Scott

BodyartBabes wrote:

Models need to stick to THEIR guns and NOT work with photographers who do not give them FAIR COMPENSATION for their time.

Photographer egos are way too big, and models put up with it.  Or some, do.  Some learn. 

The best way to avoid problems is to discuss BEFORE hand, and maybe get a CONTRACT in writing.  *NOT* a release, a CONTRACT.  After all, TF* is an agreement (CONTRACT) like any other.  THEFT of service applies to TF* just as it applies to a paid shoot.  In one, the "payment" is images, while in the other, it's cash, but it's *STILL* payment.

Photographers think one image is enough for a TF* shoot, but they are WRONG.  Dead wrong.  And, if that image is below par, has a watermark, etc, they are actually STEALING from the model, since the model has put in the *SAME* time as they have, and has not gotten anything she can use.  *THAT* is the key to a TF* agreement.

BOTH parties need to come away with something of value ot them.  If they don't, then there is NO REASON TO WORK TOGETHER TF*!!  NONE.

That "value" could be as little as good will, or networking, or it could be "testing" for another job/shoot, etc.   But it has to be of value to BOTH parties, EQUALLY. 

Photographers *think* that because they put a value of $100 on an image, the image is worth $100 of a _MODELS_ time.  It's *NOT*.   The models' time is worth as much as the photographers -- and if she is a working in-demand model, maybe more  THat whole "I've got $10,000 in equipment" is just bullshit.  It always was, and always will be.

The models' time is HERS.  If she wants to SPEND it doing a TF* shoot, that TF* shoot has to be worth that TIME. Maybe she could be cleaning her house.  Or reading a book.  Or sleeping in.  But it's HER TIME.  Not yours.  And if you want it, you need to PAY -- more than a few low res watermarked images.

The *REAL* problem is photographers are trying to use TF* as way of getting "FREE" models, *NOT* for what it was meant to be -- eg: a way to turn down-time into productive time.

TF* is *NOT* a means of "free" and many people have been surprised by what happened to them in court when a "FREE" shoot became commercialized --  especially if the model was "mis-informed" of the purposes, and intent.  That whole "release" thing where you claim commercial use, *ONLY* applies if the model was given FAIR compensation, and *IF* there was no intent to defraud.  Unfortunately, most TF* has become an intent to defraud.  Theft of services/time.  And more.

TF* is a way to shoot "STOCK" photos, to turn down-time into productive time (STOCK) or test out IDEAS, concepts, etc.  SOMETIMES it's a way of doing a "commercial" shoot on a shoestring budget, if EVERYONE agrees that it's a trade, and the goal is a published tearsheet.  But, even then, someone is paying more than others, or a makeup artist is consuming supplies, etc.  TF* OFTEN includes some compensation for materials and travel, it's TIME that is traded, *NOT* commercial goods.

There are a *LOT* of problems with TF* as practiced here, and  I've only a touched on a few that piss me off, time and again.  There are more.

But as for "RAW" images, if you consider the RAW to be a "NEGATIVE" then the models never got the negatives.  *BUT* since you can make high-res JPG files that are nearly as good, and more than adequate for most purposes, giving them the JPG files is *NOT* unreasonable.  I do.  I buy flash drives in bulk, or when I see them for $5.  And, 8 gig drives are now readily available "on sale" for $5-6.  I'm getting 16 gig drives for $9 locally in the big-box stores.  Sandisk, pony, HP, etc.  Not generic.

The thing is, you just have to get over the fact that *YOU* want to control everything.  Maybe as an old stock/news photographer, I'm used to turning photos in, and not having control over the final use.  But, I got my expenses paid, perks, and such.  I got to keep shooting. 

Decide what is most important to you.  Happy models and a full shoot schedule or tight control and an empty schedule.

Right now I'm at the point (I think because I do give so many images is part of it) where we have more models willing to work, than I can fit into the schedule, or find photographers for.   

(And before anyone starts up, *I* need to charge for use use of my studio space, lighting, overhead, equipment breakage, prop loss, insurance, etc.  So, while the models are willing to work TF* the photographers have to pay a little for what they get.  *I* don't get anything out of letting people use my stuff for free -- remember, "trade" has to be of value to BOTH parties.  "trade" doesn't replace that broken light or blown unit. Around here, photographers want stuff for free... not just models.  They want events, workshops, use of YOUR studio, even free food.  Pisses me the hell off.  I set up another group for the more serious photographers, willing to PAY for their hobby, art, etc.  It's much, much smaller, but we have a much,. much better time!)

TF* is *NOT* free.  It's a form of BARTER.  and Barter has rules going back millennia, to earliest man, which people here, in the last decade, seem to want to redefine.

Scott

So what are you trying to say ?

BodyartBabes wrote:

Models need to stick to THEIR guns and NOT work with photographers who do not give them FAIR COMPENSATION for their time.

Photographer egos are way too big, and models put up with it.  Or some, do.  Some learn. 

The best way to avoid problems is to discuss BEFORE hand, and maybe get a CONTRACT in writing.  *NOT* a release, a CONTRACT.  After all, TF* is an agreement (CONTRACT) like any other.  THEFT of service applies to TF* just as it applies to a paid shoot.  In one, the "payment" is images, while in the other, it's cash, but it's *STILL* payment.

Photographers think one image is enough for a TF* shoot, but they are WRONG.  Dead wrong.  And, if that image is below par, has a watermark, etc, they are actually STEALING from the model, since the model has put in the *SAME* time as they have, and has not gotten anything she can use.  *THAT* is the key to a TF* agreement.

BOTH parties need to come away with something of value ot them.  If they don't, then there is NO REASON TO WORK TOGETHER TF*!!  NONE.

That "value" could be as little as good will, or networking, or it could be "testing" for another job/shoot, etc.   But it has to be of value to BOTH parties, EQUALLY. 

Photographers *think* that because they put a value of $100 on an image, the image is worth $100 of a _MODELS_ time.  It's *NOT*.   The models' time is worth as much as the photographers -- and if she is a working in-demand model, maybe more  THat whole "I've got $10,000 in equipment" is just bullshit.  It always was, and always will be.

The models' time is HERS.  If she wants to SPEND it doing a TF* shoot, that TF* shoot has to be worth that TIME. Maybe she could be cleaning her house.  Or reading a book.  Or sleeping in.  But it's HER TIME.  Not yours.  And if you want it, you need to PAY -- more than a few low res watermarked images.

The *REAL* problem is photographers are trying to use TF* as way of getting "FREE" models, *NOT* for what it was meant to be -- eg: a way to turn down-time into productive time.

TF* is *NOT* a means of "free" and many people have been surprised by what happened to them in court when a "FREE" shoot became commercialized --  especially if the model was "mis-informed" of the purposes, and intent.  That whole "release" thing where you claim commercial use, *ONLY* applies if the model was given FAIR compensation, and *IF* there was no intent to defraud.  Unfortunately, most TF* has become an intent to defraud.  Theft of services/time.  And more.

TF* is a way to shoot "STOCK" photos, to turn down-time into productive time (STOCK) or test out IDEAS, concepts, etc.  SOMETIMES it's a way of doing a "commercial" shoot on a shoestring budget, if EVERYONE agrees that it's a trade, and the goal is a published tearsheet.  But, even then, someone is paying more than others, or a makeup artist is consuming supplies, etc.  TF* OFTEN includes some compensation for materials and travel, it's TIME that is traded, *NOT* commercial goods.

There are a *LOT* of problems with TF* as practiced here, and  I've only a touched on a few that piss me off, time and again.  There are more.

But as for "RAW" images, if you consider the RAW to be a "NEGATIVE" then the models never got the negatives.  *BUT* since you can make high-res JPG files that are nearly as good, and more than adequate for most purposes, giving them the JPG files is *NOT* unreasonable.  I do.  I buy flash drives in bulk, or when I see them for $5.  And, 8 gig drives are now readily available "on sale" for $5-6.  I'm getting 16 gig drives for $9 locally in the big-box stores.  Sandisk, pony, HP, etc.  Not generic.

The thing is, you just have to get over the fact that *YOU* want to control everything.  Maybe as an old stock/news photographer, I'm used to turning photos in, and not having control over the final use.  But, I got my expenses paid, perks, and such.  I got to keep shooting. 

Decide what is most important to you.  Happy models and a full shoot schedule or tight control and an empty schedule.

Right now I'm at the point (I think because I do give so many images is part of it) where we have more models willing to work, than I can fit into the schedule, or find photographers for.   

(And before anyone starts up, *I* need to charge for use use of my studio space, lighting, overhead, equipment breakage, prop loss, insurance, etc.  So, while the models are willing to work TF* the photographers have to pay a little for what they get.  *I* don't get anything out of letting people use my stuff for free -- remember, "trade" has to be of value to BOTH parties.  "trade" doesn't replace that broken light or blown unit. Around here, photographers want stuff for free... not just models.  They want events, workshops, use of YOUR studio, even free food.  Pisses me the hell off.  I set up another group for the more serious photographers, willing to PAY for their hobby, art, etc.  It's much, much smaller, but we have a much,. much better time!)

TF* is *NOT* free.  It's a form of BARTER.  and Barter has rules going back millennia, to earliest man, which people here, in the last decade, seem to want to redefine.

Scott

You've written this before.   Pro shooters and serious amateurs should not take your advice.   Giving out work at the end of a shoot is generally a bad ideal.   If you were a writer or song writer or performer wouldn't you want people to see your best work?   I also think that fair is fair.   Doing hundreds of images and only providing very few seems a bit unfair but... it depends on who's shooting.   If its Phillipe or Julian Wilde then those few will be winners.   However I don't think either provides images unedited images at the end of the session.   

As for controlling everything.   A photographer is the director, producer and often the client.   He/she must control every aspect of a shoot from make-up, hair to styling and after processing.   It is their work and their careers can be hurt by sloppiness in any area.   Don't give out unedited work.   Don't give out hundreds of images thinking you are being a 'nice' guy.   Pros MUST control everything that goes on in their studio and the finished product.

Alixx Rose wrote:
some models might not understand the "offensive" bit of their request.
I like seeing all of the raw images, so I can see what poses I did that didn't work so I can improve on them, or not do them again.
If you, the photographer, didn't use a third of the photos because, for example, the model kept leaning one shoulder forwards and all of those photos looked bad/awkward, the model should be able to see those pictures and correct herself in future shoots.

I do not give out all images after a shoot...I typically only give 1-2 per look

..... but....
I do know that models like to view all photos and for this reason I do put up all images from the shoot up on a private online smugmug gallery so that the model can look through them and see how she did..(minus the eyes closed, lights didn't fire, etc. type of shots)


So maybe that can be an option for other photographers...

Alixx Rose wrote:
some models might not understand the "offensive" bit of their request.
I like seeing all of the raw images, so I can see what poses I did that didn't work so I can improve on them, or not do them again.
If you, the photographer, didn't use a third of the photos because, for example, the model kept leaning one shoulder forwards and all of those photos looked bad/awkward, the model should be able to see those pictures and correct herself in future shoots.

Make it part of your pre-shoot agreement that they provide you with a contact sheet of all images if TF.  If they shoot JPEG+RAW it's too easy.  They just go into PS or LR and make some PDF contact sheets.  Takes less than 10 minutes.  Any photographer could give you the contact sheets on a CD to take home at the end of the shoot. 

You then get to see what your shoot looks like and pick which shots YOU want.  Way too often what the model thought was good is different from what the photographer thought was good for different reasons. 

Try having a glam model shoot with an art photographer and I guarantee the two will disagree about what was port worthy.

BodyartBabes wrote:

Models need to stick to THEIR guns and NOT work with photographers who do not give them FAIR COMPENSATION for their time.

Photographer egos are way too big, and models put up with it.  Or some, do.  Some learn. 

The best way to avoid problems is to discuss BEFORE hand, and maybe get a CONTRACT in writing.  *NOT* a release, a CONTRACT.  After all, TF* is an agreement (CONTRACT) like any other.  THEFT of service applies to TF* just as it applies to a paid shoot.  In one, the "payment" is images, while in the other, it's cash, but it's *STILL* payment.

Photographers think one image is enough for a TF* shoot, but they are WRONG.  Dead wrong.  And, if that image is below par, has a watermark, etc, they are actually STEALING from the model, since the model has put in the *SAME* time as they have, and has not gotten anything she can use.  *THAT* is the key to a TF* agreement.

BOTH parties need to come away with something of value ot them.  If they don't, then there is NO REASON TO WORK TOGETHER TF*!!  NONE.

That "value" could be as little as good will, or networking, or it could be "testing" for another job/shoot, etc.   But it has to be of value to BOTH parties, EQUALLY. 

Photographers *think* that because they put a value of $100 on an image, the image is worth $100 of a _MODELS_ time.  It's *NOT*.   The models' time is worth as much as the photographers -- and if she is a working in-demand model, maybe more  THat whole "I've got $10,000 in equipment" is just bullshit.  It always was, and always will be.

The models' time is HERS.  If she wants to SPEND it doing a TF* shoot, that TF* shoot has to be worth that TIME. Maybe she could be cleaning her house.  Or reading a book.  Or sleeping in.  But it's HER TIME.  Not yours.  And if you want it, you need to PAY -- more than a few low res watermarked images.

The *REAL* problem is photographers are trying to use TF* as way of getting "FREE" models, *NOT* for what it was meant to be -- eg: a way to turn down-time into productive time.

TF* is *NOT* a means of "free" and many people have been surprised by what happened to them in court when a "FREE" shoot became commercialized --  especially if the model was "mis-informed" of the purposes, and intent.  That whole "release" thing where you claim commercial use, *ONLY* applies if the model was given FAIR compensation, and *IF* there was no intent to defraud.  Unfortunately, most TF* has become an intent to defraud.  Theft of services/time.  And more.

TF* is a way to shoot "STOCK" photos, to turn down-time into productive time (STOCK) or test out IDEAS, concepts, etc.  SOMETIMES it's a way of doing a "commercial" shoot on a shoestring budget, if EVERYONE agrees that it's a trade, and the goal is a published tearsheet.  But, even then, someone is paying more than others, or a makeup artist is consuming supplies, etc.  TF* OFTEN includes some compensation for materials and travel, it's TIME that is traded, *NOT* commercial goods.

There are a *LOT* of problems with TF* as practiced here, and  I've only a touched on a few that piss me off, time and again.  There are more.

But as for "RAW" images, if you consider the RAW to be a "NEGATIVE" then the models never got the negatives.  *BUT* since you can make high-res JPG files that are nearly as good, and more than adequate for most purposes, giving them the JPG files is *NOT* unreasonable.  I do.  I buy flash drives in bulk, or when I see them for $5.  And, 8 gig drives are now readily available "on sale" for $5-6.  I'm getting 16 gig drives for $9 locally in the big-box stores.  Sandisk, pony, HP, etc.  Not generic.

The thing is, you just have to get over the fact that *YOU* want to control everything.  Maybe as an old stock/news photographer, I'm used to turning photos in, and not having control over the final use.  But, I got my expenses paid, perks, and such.  I got to keep shooting. 

Decide what is most important to you.  Happy models and a full shoot schedule or tight control and an empty schedule.

Right now I'm at the point (I think because I do give so many images is part of it) where we have more models willing to work, than I can fit into the schedule, or find photographers for.   

(And before anyone starts up, *I* need to charge for use use of my studio space, lighting, overhead, equipment breakage, prop loss, insurance, etc.  So, while the models are willing to work TF* the photographers have to pay a little for what they get.  *I* don't get anything out of letting people use my stuff for free -- remember, "trade" has to be of value to BOTH parties.  "trade" doesn't replace that broken light or blown unit. Around here, photographers want stuff for free... not just models.  They want events, workshops, use of YOUR studio, even free food.  Pisses me the hell off.  I set up another group for the more serious photographers, willing to PAY for their hobby, art, etc.  It's much, much smaller, but we have a much,. much better time!)

TF* is *NOT* free.  It's a form of BARTER.  and Barter has rules going back millennia, to earliest man, which people here, in the last decade, seem to want to redefine.

Scott

You obviously assign very little value to your images

My images help market models and make them real money in bookings.

BodyartBabes wrote:
Models need to stick to THEIR guns and NOT work with photographers who do not give them FAIR COMPENSATION for their time.

And you feel that 10-15 good quality edited shots is not fair compensation for a couple hours time?

Are you one of these photographers that's somehow been convinced that you OWE the model a week of work, and your RAW files, because of all the time she spends "in the gym". LOL!

Photographer egos are way too big, and models put up with it.

Wow, I'd say you have "issues" to categorize all of us that way because we actually value our time and skills as much as a model's time and skills, and want control over the "product" that gets out with our name. You may want to review the default "ownership" of an image. Normally that is an expensive item, and not just transferred for a couple hours of posing in a TF* shoot.

The models' time is HERS.  If she wants to SPEND it doing a TF* shoot, that TF* shoot has to be worth that TIME. Maybe she could be cleaning her house.  Or reading a book.  Or sleeping in.  But it's HER TIME.  Not yours.  And if you want it, you need to PAY -- more than a few low res watermarked images.

I buy flash drives in bulk, or when I see them for $5.  And, 8 gig drives are now readily available "on sale" for $5-6.  I'm getting 16 gig drives for $9 locally in the big-box stores.  Sandisk, pony, HP, etc.  Not generic.

That is just SAD!

You undervalue your work, and cast a poor reputation on the rest of us.

In a typical photoshoot...the additional 2hrs of my editing time and 10-15 good copies for her "book" (portfolio) is more than worth the same (maybe) 2hrs she spent getting "ready" for the shoot.

If you think I owe her more than that...because of the cost of her gym membership...or that she could have been "sleeping in" or "vacuuming her house" ...you're sadly undervaluing your own work, and my work!

Alixx Rose wrote:
some models might not understand the "offensive" bit of their request.
I like seeing all of the raw images, so I can see what poses I did that didn't work so I can improve on them, or not do them again.

If you, the photographer, didn't use a third of the photos because, for example, the model kept leaning one shoulder forwards and all of those photos looked bad/awkward, the model should be able to see those pictures and correct herself in future shoots.

What I do is control and direct the model AS WE SHOOT to prevent that type of issue. That's part of MY job. And if it is continuing to happen then the model is called around to look at the image on the back of the camera, to "fix" the issue right THEN.

I am NOT going to allow 100 crappy images to occur because a model had her shoulder out of place. And even if I did, I sure wouldn't allow those images to float around the internet with my name on them. Sorry. We do that at the shoot!~on camera.

15-20 edited "quality" shots as FINAL product. Sometimes MORE if the model has good "chemistry" and we get more good stuff.

The thing is, you just have to get over the fact that *YOU* want to control everything.  Maybe as an old stock/news photographer, I'm used to turning photos in, and not having control over the final use.  But, I got my expenses paid, perks, and such.  I got to keep shooting.

Bingo. I think you nailed YOUR issue.

Decide what is most important to you.  Happy models and a full shoot schedule or tight control and an empty schedule.

How about:

tight control = good quality final images
good quality final images = full schedule/happy models.

BodyartBabes wrote:

Models need to stick to THEIR guns and NOT work with photographers who do not give them FAIR COMPENSATION for their time.

Photographer egos are way too big, and models put up with it.  Or some, do.  Some learn. 

The best way to avoid problems is to discuss BEFORE hand, and maybe get a CONTRACT in writing.  *NOT* a release, a CONTRACT.  After all, TF* is an agreement (CONTRACT) like any other.  THEFT of service applies to TF* just as it applies to a paid shoot.  In one, the "payment" is images, while in the other, it's cash, but it's *STILL* payment.

Photographers think one image is enough for a TF* shoot, but they are WRONG.  Dead wrong.  And, if that image is below par, has a watermark, etc, they are actually STEALING from the model, since the model has put in the *SAME* time as they have, and has not gotten anything she can use.  *THAT* is the key to a TF* agreement.

BOTH parties need to come away with something of value ot them.  If they don't, then there is NO REASON TO WORK TOGETHER TF*!!  NONE.

That "value" could be as little as good will, or networking, or it could be "testing" for another job/shoot, etc.   But it has to be of value to BOTH parties, EQUALLY. 

Photographers *think* that because they put a value of $100 on an image, the image is worth $100 of a _MODELS_ time.  It's *NOT*.   The models' time is worth as much as the photographers -- and if she is a working in-demand model, maybe more  THat whole "I've got $10,000 in equipment" is just bullshit.  It always was, and always will be.

The models' time is HERS.  If she wants to SPEND it doing a TF* shoot, that TF* shoot has to be worth that TIME. Maybe she could be cleaning her house.  Or reading a book.  Or sleeping in.  But it's HER TIME.  Not yours.  And if you want it, you need to PAY -- more than a few low res watermarked images.

The *REAL* problem is photographers are trying to use TF* as way of getting "FREE" models, *NOT* for what it was meant to be -- eg: a way to turn down-time into productive time.

TF* is *NOT* a means of "free" and many people have been surprised by what happened to them in court when a "FREE" shoot became commercialized --  especially if the model was "mis-informed" of the purposes, and intent.  That whole "release" thing where you claim commercial use, *ONLY* applies if the model was given FAIR compensation, and *IF* there was no intent to defraud.  Unfortunately, most TF* has become an intent to defraud.  Theft of services/time.  And more.

TF* is a way to shoot "STOCK" photos, to turn down-time into productive time (STOCK) or test out IDEAS, concepts, etc.  SOMETIMES it's a way of doing a "commercial" shoot on a shoestring budget, if EVERYONE agrees that it's a trade, and the goal is a published tearsheet.  But, even then, someone is paying more than others, or a makeup artist is consuming supplies, etc.  TF* OFTEN includes some compensation for materials and travel, it's TIME that is traded, *NOT* commercial goods.

There are a *LOT* of problems with TF* as practiced here, and  I've only a touched on a few that piss me off, time and again.  There are more.

But as for "RAW" images, if you consider the RAW to be a "NEGATIVE" then the models never got the negatives.  *BUT* since you can make high-res JPG files that are nearly as good, and more than adequate for most purposes, giving them the JPG files is *NOT* unreasonable.  I do.  I buy flash drives in bulk, or when I see them for $5.  And, 8 gig drives are now readily available "on sale" for $5-6.  I'm getting 16 gig drives for $9 locally in the big-box stores.  Sandisk, pony, HP, etc.  Not generic.

The thing is, you just have to get over the fact that *YOU* want to control everything.  Maybe as an old stock/news photographer, I'm used to turning photos in, and not having control over the final use.  But, I got my expenses paid, perks, and such.  I got to keep shooting. 

Decide what is most important to you.  Happy models and a full shoot schedule or tight control and an empty schedule.

Right now I'm at the point (I think because I do give so many images is part of it) where we have more models willing to work, than I can fit into the schedule, or find photographers for.   

(And before anyone starts up, *I* need to charge for use use of my studio space, lighting, overhead, equipment breakage, prop loss, insurance, etc.  So, while the models are willing to work TF* the photographers have to pay a little for what they get.  *I* don't get anything out of letting people use my stuff for free -- remember, "trade" has to be of value to BOTH parties.  "trade" doesn't replace that broken light or blown unit. Around here, photographers want stuff for free... not just models.  They want events, workshops, use of YOUR studio, even free food.  Pisses me the hell off.  I set up another group for the more serious photographers, willing to PAY for their hobby, art, etc.  It's much, much smaller, but we have a much,. much better time!)

TF* is *NOT* free.  It's a form of BARTER.  and Barter has rules going back millennia, to earliest man, which people here, in the last decade, seem to want to redefine.

Scott

Sorry Scott, just because you assign no value to your work doesn't mean the rest of us don't either...
I charge upwards of £250 per image for news, sports-action and sports-feature images.
I charge at least double that for 'artistic' images such as portraits, corporate heads and other 'people' stuff...

Leaving aside the fact that I shoot models for the fun of it, are you seriously saying I should cheerfully 'give up' a minimum of £250,000 worth of images in a TF-exchange?

Dream-on...

BodyartBabes wrote:
[...]The thing is, you just have to get over the fact that *YOU* want to control everything. [...]

Of course I want to control EVERYTHING, I am the photographer, I am the artist, it's my idea! I spent hours and hours getting the photograph I want! From the idea in my head to the retouched & edited final image! I spend way more time on 'my babies' than a model ever will!
I decide what I release.

Jolly Rauncher wrote:
Seeing as there are only photographers replying to this thread, shouldn't this be in THEIR forum?

It belongs here because it's important for many models who have the (same) question to understand WHY we photographers don't want to give out all of our unretouched photos and RAW files.

It's not a gripe...it's a clarification because so many models  don't seem to understand WHY. It seems to be a common question/complaint from NEW models...and apparently it's a common question that's not being clarified in the "new" model community here. So, I hoped to allow some clarification for newer models.

Kelleth wrote:
Why in the world anybody want want all the raw images is beyond my understanding.

Why anybody would have use for more than 1 or 2 edited photos per look is also beyond me.

God bless you...your experience, and your understanding!

You would be a joy to collaborate and work with. And that "good chemistry" always results in MORE good photos per shoot!

GNapp Studios wrote:
The RAW image is proof that you are the owner of the photograph.

Don't give that away without a price.

Although that is true, holding it is also proof, it doesn't always need to have a price.

A raw frame of a subject(s) is obviously going to be taken by a photographer (+ lighting designers & set designers, let's not forget them).

Everyone holding a copy means proof they all took part in it.

If one holds it and falsely claims it was theirs alone, the others holding a copy can disprove that. Though a model could claim they were using an auto timer and "did all the work".

The problem is that there will always be bad people who want to lie and take credit, I have come across people like that. But having a price to give it a way or not will not eliminate the problem.

Sandra Vixen wrote:
But personally, my policy for TF work is that I require all the raw images immediately after the shoot, unless it's a genre outside of my training. (*)

The reason being that I'm both a professional classical/technical dancer and a CG artist, I am respectful of copyright and clearly indicate who the photographer and post production people are in the credits.

I'm confused...are you keeping the photographer's "watermark" intact, or are you getting the rights to retouch their RAW files as part of your TF* agreement? That's very generous on the photographer's part!

The typical professional classical/technical dancer works for $1000-$5000 per day ($100,000-$500,000 for world-class classical dancers), so for (free) trade work is beyond a generous donation on my part.

I'm confused...are you doing "trade" work..or "free" work? You are implying that the photographer's time is not worth as much as yours?

Please provide a link to "typical professional classical/technical dancer" national wage averages...this I gotta see. Because I know a few well respected classical/technical dancers (New York), and there are very few who are making that kind of money for any amount of time. Most are working between gigs at their own studios doing ballet instruction (etc) for 12-16hr days. Here's what I found was typical:

PayScale wrote:
The PayScale website lists the annual salary of dancers according to the years of experience. In October 2010, dancers with one to four years experience earned $17,687 to $32,556 . Dancers with five to nine years of experience earned $35,375 to $71,216.

Performing arts companies employed the largest number of dancers with an average hourly rate of $19.59, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in May 2009.

Alixx Rose wrote:
some models might not understand the "offensive" bit of their request.
I like seeing all of the raw images, so I can see what poses I did that didn't work so I can improve on them, or not do them again.
If you, the photographer, didn't use a third of the photos because, for example, the model kept leaning one shoulder forwards and all of those photos looked bad/awkward, the model should be able to see those pictures and correct herself in future shoots.

That is part of what testing is all about, a new model should see what works and what does not.  Nobody needs those image in their book, it's a good reason to shoot linked to a screen or PC; the new model can see them on a look change or what not and not do what doesn't work again.  After the fact is OK but it's better to minimize the wasted shots and get the new model Jo to speed faster.

Sandra Vixen wrote:
Although that is true, holding it  is also proof, it doesn't always need to have a price.

A raw frame of a subject(s) is obviously going to be taken by a photographer (+ lighting designers & set designers, let's not forget them).

Everyone holding a copy means proof they all took part in it.

ONLY the photographer holds the legal copyright/ownership to the image (artwork), unless he sells/signs(contracts) that to a client (example: work for hire...see links below).

NOT the model, not the lighting tech, not the set designer, not the retoucher, not the hairstylist, not the escort...ONLY the photographer.

And the photographer doesn't (usually) give away that ownership for free! Well, some do..I guess.

Alixx Rose wrote:
some models might not understand the "offensive" bit of their request.
I like seeing all of the raw images, so I can see what poses I did that didn't work so I can improve on them, or not do them again.
If you, the photographer, didn't use a third of the photos because, for example, the model kept leaning one shoulder forwards and all of those photos looked bad/awkward, the model should be able to see those pictures and correct herself in future shoots.

A reasonable request that can be easily accomodated by the photographer deleting the real bad shots (blinking, exposure problems, light tests, etc) and then making a proof sheet, online proof gallery, a zip file of tiny versions of the image, etc.

Obviously, as a part of providing the proofs, the photographer can clearly state their expectations about not posting, retouching, etc the proofs.  The small size also makes the images pretty useless.

Also don't get confused between raw as often used by models (meaning unedited) and raw as used by photographers (meaning cr2 files).

BodyartBabes wrote:
--- LONG POST ---

Shhht. The adults are talking now, Scott. It's positions of White Knights like yourself that causes real photographers like moi strife and headache. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when a post is written like a fucking novel each and every time that opinion is voiced, it becomes tiresome and nothing short of sounding like annoying drivel

First-off, Tee Eff is an online-term so convoluted from when it first entered the Fashion Industry it *is indeed associated with most of those new to the industry - or aspiring to become involved in it. When I was modelling prior to shooting, my first agency explained to me when I asked them "what is TF?" that it meant "free". My second agency concurred with that notion. When I first began shooting a couple years ago, I still used the term myself for a number of months. Then, when my photographer-friends realized photography for me was more than a passing-phase and I was sticking with it for a while, being working and/or very experienced shooters themselves they clued me in on things. The photographer is the author and/or creator. When you give-away all images you are hurting every working photographer there is out there in North America. When you make the majority of your income from photography and have employees and family to support, you may feel quite differently about devaluing photographic services

IMNot-So-HO alone;

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. Anyone who questions the weight of my opinion(s) is free to validate my words based upon their review of my work – which may/may not be supportive.

Sandra Vixen wrote:
But personally, my policy for TF work is that I require all the raw images immediately after the shoot, unless it's a genre outside of my training. (*)

The reason being that I'm both a professional classical/technical dancer and a CG artist, I am respectful of copyright and clearly indicate who the photographer and post production people are in the credits.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
I'm confused...

Look at her body of work on here. On here since 2010, 2 shoots? Possibly 3? Very indicative as to how successful & well-received her approach is. To argue her side, let's say she only flies the stuff that's best/newest. In response to that, my stated observation remains.

Sandra Vixen wrote:
Although that is true, holding it  is also proof, it doesn't always need to have a price.

A raw frame of a subject(s) is obviously going to be taken by a photographer (+ lighting designers & set designers, let's not forget them).

Everyone holding a copy means proof they all took part in it.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
ONLY the photographer holds the legal copyright/ownership to the image (artwork), unless he sells/signs(contracts) that to a client (example: work for hire...see links below).

NOT the model, not the lighting tech, not the set designer, not the retoucher, not the hairstylist, not the escort...ONLY the photographer.

And the photographer doesn't (usually) give away that ownership for free! Well, some do..I guess.

While the photographer *MAY* hold copyright on the physical/virtual image that was created when he pressed the shutter, he may have NO RIGHTS at all to use that image, because what he photographed/captured was COPYRIGHTED by other people, the IDEA belonged to other people, or other restrictions apply.

Your photographing someone elses idea, and passing it off as your own, just because you pressed a shutter, may be very actionable.

So, feel free to be an A** about things, but realize, you may have just shot a whole day with not a single image you can show anyone without legal repercussions.

Scott

TEW Photography wrote:
I think the vast majority of models asking for RAW files simply don't understand what a RAW file is.

+1000 "what we have here is a failure to communicate"

Christopher Burghardt wrote:
Of course I want to control EVERYTHING, I am the photographer, I am the artist, it's my idea! I spent hours and hours getting the photograph I want! From the idea in my head to the retouched & edited final image! I spend way more time on 'my babies' than a model ever will!
I decide what I release.

Then PAY for it.  Simple.

Trading only for what YOU want to give away, is not a valid form of barter (unless the person trading with you agrees to it).

You can OFFER that, but most people when they understand the issue will not opt to work with you.   Their time.  Their effort.  Their investment.  And *YOU* make all the decisions?  That is not what TF* is about.

Scott