John Rayner wrote:

Personally, I am a newb. I want to perfect my craft and to do that I need someone to sit in front of my lens. I have a turn down rate of 95% for free lifestyle shots, that I have to beg to get. I am happy to even get a hobby model to pose without it costing me more than I can afford.

My turn down rate would be 100% if I charged minimum wage for the shoot time, and nothing for any pre or post work. that is why I shoot TF*. Before you can get paid, someone has to like your services enough to ask for em.

That is my two cents worth... Now I will go back to trying to learn how to get this durn lens cap off my camera. 

Those dagnabit lens caps can really chap a hide. 

I totally understand the newbie position. Been there, done that. I think this is more aimed at the people who are relatively established, at least, and are trying to run this on a business level. Granted there's a lot of other aspects to running a photography business, but on a site called "Model -" really isn't the right place to go into a lot of other things.

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

I have seen your post before on other sites, almost to the point of ad nauseam. I'll keep my reply brief and polite; if you or any other photographer were good enough at their craft, you or they wouldn't be worried about models paying for your or their services. Your argument is given from a position of weakness, and all the wishing in the world won't change that fact. When you get to the point that your pictures and your services are in great demand, you will forget all about this silly argument.

Why would I forget about it? Seriously? Spell it out, please.

John Rayner wrote:

Christian Aragon wrote:

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

I have seen your post before on other sites, almost to the point of ad nauseam. I'll keep my reply brief and polite; if you or any other photographer were good enough at their craft, you or they wouldn't be worried about models paying for your or their services. Your argument is given from a position of weakness, and all the wishing in the world won't change that fact. When you get to the point that your pictures and your services are in great demand, you will forget all about this silly argument.

Why would I forget about it? Seriously? Spell it out, please.

I am staying out of this one... I know better than to fluck with mother nature or thor. Much safer to call one self a newb. Hopefully there will be no brass knuckles, whips, chains or theater tactical nuclear weapons.

LOL! No there won't be any of that. I just don't like half-baked cryptic answers. If someone seems to know what I'm going to think at any given time, I'd like to know why I'm supposedly gonna think that way. 

Christian Aragon wrote:

LOL! No there won't be any of that. I just don't like half-baked cryptic answers. If someone seems to know what I'm going to think at any given time, I'd like to know why I'm supposedly gonna think that way. 

My response wasn't cryptic in the slightest, it was very direct and to the point. In my opinion you have indicted yourself as lacking talent and ability by complaining that you can't derive income from making photographs of on line models. While there are a select few successful commercial and fine art models spawned from the womb of the internet, the overwhelming majority of on line models won't get paid work anywhere. They too will complain about the dearth of paid jobs, and by their complaint they also indict themselves. You, and they, want money from a system that can't, and won't, sustain itself. Your rant is the direct result of your inability to understand where the money is and how to get some of it. And before you blast me for not knowing you, or what you do, I did take a look at your web site. You show a small selection of assorted weddings, the portrait section is all one session with what looks to be friends helping you build a portfolio, the business section is pretty much all small town local work usually done by the local newspaper guy, the models and intimate stuff is pretty much normal fare for on line modeling sites, the scapes are real nice, and the macro stuff in predictable but nicely done. Basically, I formed an opinion about you from your rant, investigated you to substantiate my opinion, and then posted my observation in an effort to get the thread to die. I guess that just shows how dumb I am, or how much time I had on my hands tonight.

There is still a purpose to sites like this, which I believe to be the promotion of art and capability. New photographers can find talent to place before the lens, and that talent can find an outlet for whatever motivates them to pose before the lens. In this manner, most are happy with the outcome.

In closing, it wasn't my intent to give you a critique, but it always seems that the guys crying the loudest about models not paying them, are the least qualified to demand payment. Now, if you would like to see the work of some of the guys that can demand payment from models, click a few of the links below. Hopefully you'll notice a few things about the list, the work is extraordinary, and I'm not listed.

http://www.erikalmas.com/

http://www.thomasbroening.com/#/work/portfolio/1

http://www.koendemuynck.com/

http://www.albertwatson.net/

http://www.jeffascough.com/

http://www.nadavkander.com/#

http://manarchy.com/web/

http://www.erwinolaf.com/

Slightly off topic but just wanted to thank you Kevlar for the list of links.

I'm still at the TF stage leveling my way up, minus a few gigs that happened by chance, therefore I'll keep my mouth shut...for now

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

Christian Aragon wrote:

LOL! No there won't be any of that. I just don't like half-baked cryptic answers. If someone seems to know what I'm going to think at any given time, I'd like to know why I'm supposedly gonna think that way. 

My response wasn't cryptic in the slightest, it was very direct and to the point. In my opinion you have indicted yourself as lacking talent and ability by complaining that you can't derive income from making photographs of on line models. While there are a select few successful commercial and fine art models spawned from the womb of the internet, the overwhelming majority of on line models won't get paid work anywhere. They too will complain about the dearth of paid jobs, and by their complaint they also indict themselves. You, and they, want money from a system that can't, and won't, sustain itself. Your rant is the direct result of your inability to understand where the money is and how to get some of it. And before you blast me for not knowing you, or what you do, I did take a look at your web site. You show a small selection of assorted weddings, the portrait section is all one session with what looks to be friends helping you build a portfolio, the business section is pretty much all small town local work usually done by the local newspaper guy, the models and intimate stuff is pretty much normal fare for on line modeling sites, the scapes are real nice, and the macro stuff in predictable but nicely done. Basically, I formed an opinion about you from your rant, investigated you to substantiate my opinion, and then posted my observation in an effort to get the thread to die. I guess that just shows how dumb I am, or how much time I had on my hands tonight.

There is still a purpose to sites like this, which I believe to be the promotion of art and capability. New photographers can find talent to place before the lens, and that talent can find an outlet for whatever motivates them to pose before the lens. In this manner, most are happy with the outcome.

In closing, it wasn't my intent to give you a critique, but it always seems that the guys crying the loudest about models not paying them, are the least qualified to demand payment. Now, if you would like to see the work of some of the guys that can demand payment from models, click a few of the links below. Hopefully you'll notice a few things about the list, the work is extraordinary, and I'm not listed.

http://www.erikalmas.com/

http://www.thomasbroening.com/#/work/portfolio/1

http://www.koendemuynck.com/

http://www.albertwatson.net/

http://www.jeffascough.com/

http://www.nadavkander.com/#

http://manarchy.com/web/

http://www.erwinolaf.com/

This was ... neat. But not to the point of the thread.

I am not a "White Knight", whatever that may be. Don't much care to know what that is either.

So, I'm the worst photographer of all time, anywhere (and, no, your presumptions were not terribly correct, but thanks just the same). I'm not here to analize your work or the work of anyone else in thread. I'm asking a question that goes something like this: Where does the mentality come from that work shouldn't be paid for? We charge for the portrait sessions, the business & marketing photos, the weddings, the friggin' pet portraits, funeral photography, class reunions, school portraits, senior portraits, scientific photography of various sorts, and so on, and so, and so on. But when it comes to models they get a free ride?

I could see it if I were in the bidding process for a major commission from Mr. Jones and suddenly found out that Mr. Jones's daughter was going to be in town and they were going to want some family portraits. I'd comp them if I believed it would help with gaining the greater commission. That would be worth the freebie.

So, what? Have some of you had models come back to you years later with a gratuity in hand and said "thank you for everything you've done to help me get to where I am today"? That seems like a risky dream to hope for. Or have successful models started publicizing all the photographers who shot them on their way to the top, and therefore those photographers are getting extra business out of it years after the fact? If "honing" is the only real reason then shouldn't wedding photographers be doing oodles of free weddings to hone themselves until such time as they've solidified a style? Maybe one or two per week, as someone here said they did? But then, how would they afford to upgrade their equipment as needed? Why shouldn't aspiring corporate photographers give freebies to the businesses they manage to get a foot in the door of?

Well, anyway. I can complain about that model flaking, as someone pointed out, because frankly I'm not a tuck my tail and run kind of person, which is what she wanted from me. But she, and many of the other things that were said about me here, weren't even on topic. Leading me to believe that those who have responded thus far are pretty well self-diluted to have not seen what I was actually asking. I suppose if I were over on FroggyPhotography.com I could be asking why the frogs aren't paying for their time in front of the camera as well, but we're not discussing making money from animal photography are we? And that answer would be far more obvious, wouldn't it?

So again, and simply put, why the split? Why, among established photographers, are there those who charge and those who don't? Why is there not a standard when standards are such a massive part of this industry?

Please don't turn this discussion into rocket science again. I'm sure that if I really wanted an analytical critique of my personality and my work that I could easily find some quack with far better credentials hanging on the wall to rob me of my money. Thanks.

Christian Aragon wrote:

Our point is that established photographers/aspiring photographers should adopt practices that benefit as many other photographers as possible,

I didn't catch this one before now, so I apologize for being tardy in responding to it. My first thought was to tell you to go fuck yourself, but I decided to err on the side of caution and simply tell you why I think you're wrong. I don't work for you, I work for me and my family; I don't care about you and your family. I owe you nothing, and everything I have came to me because of hard work and mental acuity. The notion that I should help create yet another cog for the nanny state in this country by adjusting my business practices to help you achieve success makes me bristle with anger. That I should just hand over 35 years of sweat so you can sit back and relax is pure bullshit. If you need help figuring out how to use a mask in PS, I'm more than happy to help, and that's the community aspect of this site, and others like it, that I love so much, but don't tell me I owe you a damn thing. The only thing established photographers should do is reap the rewards of their hard work, and keep knuckle heads like you from ever being able to compete with them.

Sorry, you touched a nerve.

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

God knows my massive ego needs an outlet as well.

Do you realize how much less typing you could have done had you started out with this very honest admission? Two wrongs don't make a right, and a rant for a rant doesn't make an emotionally intelligent conversation. Hence my incorrect use of "diluted".

Buried in your narcissism is some valid information. I'm not going to attempt the separation of these points from the obvious ego letting as I simply don't possess the surgical precesion necassary to create those quotes.

The feelings are mutual between your family and mine, I'm sure even more so at this point, which is a sorry thing to say. However, my aim wasn't at your family, or mine for that matter, but more so at the industry as a whole. At every level of every industry there is room for improvement. I don't care one little bit about your achievements so much as I care about what I can learn. Isn't that the goal of every photographer? Or at least, shouldn't it be? So while you, and obvioulsy others here are busy twisting your knickers and mislabeling my OP as a "rant", the truth is that I'm looking for information. You managed, somehow, to extrude at least a little of that. I'm sorry you had to type so much to say so little of actual importance, but at least you've given me a place to start. I'd almost be willing to bet that if you honed the skill of conversation people could respect you for what you have to say as well as what you produce from a camera. 

Fortunately I'm very well prepared for flaming narcissists as my father has been one my entire life.

I'm off to the back woods of Idaho. Catch y'all next week. Have a great weekend. 

Christian Aragon wrote:

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

God knows my massive ego needs an outlet as well.

Do you realize how much less typing you could have done had you started out with this very honest admission? Two wrongs don't make a right, and a rant for a rant doesn't make an emotionally intelligent conversation. Hence my incorrect use of "diluted".

Buried in your narcissism is some valid information. I'm not going to attempt the separation of these points from the obvious ego letting as I simply don't possess the surgical precesion necassary to create those quotes.

The feelings are mutual between your family and mine, I'm sure even more so at this point, which is a sorry thing to say. However, my aim wasn't at your family, or mine for that matter, but more so at the industry as a whole. At every level of every industry there is room for improvement. I don't care one little bit about your achievements so much as I care about what I can learn. Isn't that the goal of every photographer? Or at least, shouldn't it be? So while you, and obvioulsy others here are busy twisting your knickers and mislabeling my OP as a "rant", the truth is that I'm looking for information. You managed, somehow, to extrude at least a little of that. I'm sorry you had to type so much to say so little of actual importance, but at least you've given me a place to start. I'd almost be willing to bet that if you honed the skill of conversation people could respect you for what you have to say as well as what you produce from a camera. 

Fortunately I'm very well prepared for flaming narcissists as my father has been one my entire life.

I'm off to the back woods of Idaho. Catch y'all next week. Have a great weekend. 

You do realize you have just acknowledged that your initial post was a rant, and not the supposed quest for knowledge you've been spewing?

And now, I'm going to test the resolve of the site administrators by cutting to the chase and stating the obvious, which I was so diplomatically attempting to avoid. People, with or without tits, are not going to pay you to shoot them because it's all too apparent they won't get anything of value in return. Your very best efforts are just plain normal and boring, and in a world filled with mystical, wonderful imagery, yours just doesn't cut it.

Enjoy the woods!

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

While this has been a fun exercise, it is still one of the primary reasons I left MM. I love the exchange of information with folks like SRB in the retouch section over there, but guys like Aragon, who aren't willing to accept their limitations and still keep yammering, are reason enough not to participate. He reminds me too much of that Peano asshole.

But it was fun to metaphorically crack my knuckles once again.

Indirectly it's why I'm not there either, Bob.  I'm hopeful that the relaxed rules here will allow us to do a better job of suppressing such things, all the while knowing that won't work nearly as well as I would like.

And hey, you didn't even work up a sweat.

Christian Aragon wrote:

the truth is that I'm looking for information.

I doubt that.  Your rant (and you admitted that is what it is) is just that.  That you have seen this conversation on other forums and can still come here with that one-sided rant suggests that you are not "seeking information" at all, but attempting to propagate your own views, which have thus far proved impervious to actual learning.

But, I have a free day today, so let me educate you a little.

Christian Aragon wrote:

Point #1: Models are photographer-dependant, NOT the other way around. As photographers, if for some extreme reason modeling was to be made illegal tomorrow, we'd still have subject matter to photograph.

Has it occurred to you that many photographers have specialties that they enjoy, and they really don’t want to shoot other things?

I despise shooting weddings.  I suck at landscapes, and have no interest in shooting them.  Product photography bores me.  If there were no models to shoot, I would simply stop shooting.  I am completely model-dependent, as is anyone else who desires to specialize in model photography.

Christian Aragon wrote:

The photographers who had based their entire careers around shooting models would probably have a hard time at first, but ultimately photography would still be alive and well pretty much everywhere.

“Photography” might be, but the individuals “who had based their entire careers around shooting models” would largely leave the field and do something else.  It’s hard to see how the field would be enriched by that.

Those of us who shoot models, need models.  Get over it.

Christian Aragon wrote:

Point #2: Aspiring Models who invest in their portfolios are at very least aspiring professional models in the making.

“Invest” does not imply spending money on photographers.  Many excellent models, and most of the best models, don’t need to pay to get excellent portfolio pictures.

And whether or not they are “in the making” is a matter for debate.  Frequently they are not.  Lots of girls want “portfolios” with no real intent of ever becoming a professional model.  Some girls are quite content to be amateur or hobby models – and yet they want “a portfolio” also.  Go figure.

Christian Aragon wrote:

Meaning that, like a photographer MUST invest in the business of being a photographer, the models who wish to make a career of modeling MUST invest in the business of being a model.

This is true, but not in the way you mean, and not necessarily involving paying photographers for pictures.

Christian Aragon wrote:

The simple truth here is that for every model who is miraculously discovered walking down the sidewalk or bagging groceries, there are thousands of "models" out there, if not more, who will never experience that thrill of success and must work for it.

Assuming they want a professional career, they all have to “work for it”, regardless of how they were “discovered”.  But I submit that you don’t have any idea what that means, or what the requirements are.  And you go on to prove it:

Christian Aragon wrote:

In investing in one's portfolio the model has decided to take his/her future into his/her own hands because making that investment means that they are taking control of what goes into the portfolio.

Wrong on several levels.  Among them:

1.  Models often do not need to “invest” (pay money) for pictures that will be of professional value.  That is particularly true for the better models.
2.   A model who controls what goes into her portfolio is a damned fool.  That’s what her agency is for.

Christian Aragon wrote:

Point #3: "Models" who act as if their look is what every photographer needs, wants, and desires in front of his or her camera, and therefore charge the photographers, shouldn't get copies of the photos.

I see.  So what models “should get” in a business transaction is defined by the fact that she acts as though her look is in demand.  Really?

What if she’s right?  Some are, you know.  Are the very models who correctly see their looks as in great demand the ones who “should” not get copies of pictures?  Where does that come from?

“Should” it be true that only models who do NOT feel they are in demand should get pictures?  Really?  Does it matter if they are right in their assessment?

Christian Aragon wrote:

If the model looks that good and insists on being paid then he/she is more interested in the money than anything else anyway.

I’m curious . . . if a photographer insists on being paid, then is “he/she is more interested in the money than anything else anyway”?  Do you recommend selecting photographers based on how money-hungry they are?  Or might there be some other relevant factor?

Does the fact that a model want to be paid mean that she is totally uninterested in the photos?  (It might, and sometimes does, but very often does not.  To ignore that, or define it into insignificance because a model recognizes her market value seems to me to be exceedingly short sighted.)

Christian Aragon wrote:

We don't pay the grocery store for a can of beans, and then share the beans with the grocery store employees, correct?

That is an utterly silly analogy.

However, if someone were to say to a grocery store owner that he wanted to buy a case of beans, but would give back half of them for a discounted price on the case, the owner might well agree to it.  Why not?

Beans are of value.  So are pictures.  How much value they have depends on the persons involved.

Christian Aragon wrote:

Point #4: If the model who charged the photographer for modeling wants the photos for port then that model can purchase rights to the photos from the photographer.

Well, that is one way to get them.  Or she can trade something of value for them.  Maybe a case of beans.

Or, if her services have value, maybe those.  What a concept.

Christian Aragon wrote:

Point #5: "Models" who request TF* should be at the mercy of the photographer in terms of what the photo session concept will be.

Why?

Why can a model not suggest a concept to a photographer? 

Each of them is “at the mercy” of the other in terms of concept.  Each can choose to take part in the shoot or not, and should do so based on their interest in the concept (and the ability of the other to pull it off.)  Life in model photography is not nearly as one-sided as you make it out to be.

Christian Aragon wrote:

The simple truth is that models who want control over their modeling careers have actually invested in modeling school,

AAAAAAACK!  That you could say such a thing shows you to be utterly clueless about how this industry works.  You are immediately disqualified from any further comment about “professional modeling” or “modeling careers” until you learn why this is such a stupid thing to say.

Christian Aragon wrote:

or something similar like workshops,

Can you name me a single model agency – a real one, that makes its money by getting work for models – that recommends workshops as a credible “investment” for models?  Again, you display an utter ignorance of how the professional modeling community works.

Christian Aragon wrote:

Models who are in a rhythm of TF* shoots and who aren't actively trying to improve on their skills or isn't actively seeking agency sponsorships should only be referred to as "hobby models".

I’m rather fond of “hobby models”.  We need more of them.

But passing over that, you manage to completely misunderstand the utility of “TF*” (or test) shoots to a model’s career, and seem not to have any idea what is involved in “seeking agency sponsorship”.  You also seem to conflate the idea of “professional” and “career” with “agency”, which ignores a vast number of models who have done quite nicely for themselves, and had substantial careers, without being with an agency.

Christian Aragon wrote:

Point #6: We've all heard, "Models have to invest in makeup, hair care/styling products, gym memberships (of which I have yet to see even one gym membership card), clothing, nail care products ... I'm sure there was something else ... We've also heard from models that they honestly don't care how much we've spent, in comparison, on the craft that we work in.

Well, yes, we do hear that.  We hear it not only from the more knowledgeable models, but also from lots of photographers, and especially from art directors, editors and other clients.

I don’t know that it is still true, but for a long time Steven Meisel did not have a studio, did not own a camera . . . and was shooting Vogue editorials and covers.  Do you think it was because of his massive investment in equipment (which might have been . . . oh . . . $50 or so) that he got those jobs?  Or could it have been because he was capable of producing exquisite results?

Terry Richardson is widely known (and widely used as a fashion photographer by the best magazines in the world) for using a point-and-shoot camera.  Do you suppose the $350 in investment he put out is what qualifies him for all those assignments?

Or could it, just possibly, be something else?

Editors, art directors, clients and models do not give a damn about your equipment.  That’s your problem.  They care about what you can do.  ONLY what you can do.  If your work sucks, it really doesn’t matter how many tens of thousands of dollars you have invested in equipment.  Your work sucks.  That’s all that models care about.  It’s all they should care about.  All the complaining in the world about “investment” doesn’t matter.  At all.

Christian Aragon wrote:

So, they're perfectly happy being photographed with 3mpxl point-and-shoot cameras and their built-in flash?

It’s hard to find a 3mpxl point-and-shoot cameras with a built-in flash these days.  But I guarantee you if I had one I could take pictures with it that many models could use to advance their careers.  If you can’t, well . . . so much the worse for you.

One of my pictures that won the Model Insider Picture of the Day contest was taken with a point and shoot.  Many of the other contest winners could have been.

It’s not about the equipment, and if you think it is, you misunderstand what the industry is about.

Christian Aragon wrote:

Our bet is that the model who actually wants to succeed as a model is DAMNED concerned with the equipment we've invested in.

Hey, this is Nevada, you get to make any bet you like.  But you’d lose, as bettors often do here.

Christian Aragon wrote:

Point #7: The serious models will seek out the serious photographers.

Yes, if they are smart, they will.  But the serious photographers will seek them out, too.  Trades often result.  Go figure.

Emeritus wrote:

Now perhaps you can educate me.

Christian Aragon wrote:

In a way this subject has been beat to death on other forums (I know that's not a good statement to start a thread with ...), but I think a point keeps getting missed.

I've been seeing rants like yours, and conversations about them, for years on the various forums.  I could find nothing new in anything you said, nothing that has not been refuted repeatedly in other conversations.  So what, exactly, "keeps getting missed"?  Your post seems to me to be simply a regurgitation of the same tired arguments we have seen so many times before.

Gawd, I just love how Roger and Bob think, as well as shoot! What keeps getting missed is that the OP refuses to take the answers posted answering his rant as industry reality and fact. So he keeps reposting this crap in Forum after Forum looking for anyone to agree with him. Ain't happening in the real world, dude, sorry!

He would rather the industry change how it functions to comply with his idea of how it should be, rather than to adjust his thinking to comply with the way the industry itself functions. Just because you want things to be a certain way does NOT make it so, though Bella Petite might argue that point with Roger!(Don't have a clue what I'm talking about? Do a Forum search as your mindset is amazingly similar to theirs, and equally erroneous!) LOL

Regards, and enjoy the woods!