Paying Models

[brad]

Ok.. we were starting to hijack another thread in the human form.. but I think its a discussion worth having.

I hear photographers say all the time "I would NEVER pay a model for pictures." I hate using that Never word.. so I got to thinking...

I agree that the end client pays a model for work (when there is a specific job, the client either pays the model directly or paying the model is part of my fee for managing the whole job).. and I think that paying a model to pose in a workshop makes perfect sense. But I can think of two other circumstances in which I would (and have) paid a model for pictures..

1. The images are being done on speculation for stock or art... in other words, I plan to try and resell the images myself to a third party without having that sale before the pictures are made.

2. Another special circumstance exists.. such as a model I plan to shoot a couple of times over the next few months. She is a professional model and is pregnant.. and I feel like I desperately need to fill out my maternity portfolio.

So... discuss (calmly, no name calling LOL)... when (if ever) would you pay a model to pose?

[ppcass]

I agree with Brad. I have paid a few (very few) when I needed a specific look for my portfolio and I felt i could accomplish it best with a professional model. That said, those times are few and far between. Most everything else can be accomplished via TFP, at least in my opinion.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Ok this is pretty much the line between Pro and Avid non-Pro.
Pro will pay a model if he is trying to create a look and the model will have the look he wants or if the Pro is shooting for a client the client will pic the model to be used but the model is paid. There should be no question about the model being compensated for their time.

As to workshops the model to me should be paid, just as if they went to an art class and posed for the students-usually a fixed fee or rate per hour for clothed and a higher rate for nude. (a lot of college students make some extra money working with their schools art department).

Maybe do a multi week workshop on nudes where you work with the same model each week, say one night for X hours and each time it is a class in lighting and effects and that should be a paid gig for the model but full releases given for the work to be used commercially.

Now TFP work has it's place in the market but sometimes you need the look of a pro model and when you do you pay for it.

[TJPhotoGuy]

Originally Posted by DEMDeepEllumMusic

Ok this is pretty much the line between Pro and Avid non-Pro..

Oh, I highly disagree with that. I know lots of pros who never pay a model; now, if they're part of a class, or working with an agency that's different but in that case the photographer isn't paying per se, it's the agency, students etc. I don't think it's accurate at all to say taht someone isn't a pro becuse they don't "pay" models. Often models with work for free for great photographers, and so will outanding MUA's.

I'm re-pasting frm the human form:

IMHO I spent thousands of dollars on equipment and countless hours, I woudl never "pay" someone to let me take photos of them - it should be the other way around! If it's a "trade for cd" that's one thing, and that's fine, because you're both giving and getting something, it's a trade for services. But i agree with you, there's no person I would actually pay to allow me to give them free photography.

[d2creative]

I agree with EVERYTHING posted so far. A couple of you bring up a good point where if I was looking for something specific for my portfolio that only this one model could give me, I'd pay for it. In that case, I'm hiring the model for her services in order to gain something of extra value to me, so she should be paid. Giving her prints or images is part of the payment that would have to be worked out.
But for the most part, I agree that our time is worth just as much as theirs. If you are both just shooting for your portfolio, then neither of you should be paid. If she specifically wants you for a certain reason or you her, then that's different. I guess it depends what the other half of the party feels they can gain. If someone contacts me and I don't believe they will add anything to my port for some reason then I might request payment. Models might feel the same way. They may look at your port and think you are not good enough to give them any usuable images, but for a fee they'll model all day long for you.

What sux is that as an aspiring but amatuer photographer, or even a pro photog with very limited fashion experience, it can be tough finding an experienced model to work for free. And by the same token, it can be just as tough to find an amateur model to shoot for you at all because they are scared you are just a gwc.

[TJPhotoGuy]

Originally Posted by d2creative

agree with EVERYTHING posted so far. A couple of you bring up a good point where if I was looking for something specific for my portfolio that only this one model could give me, I'd pay for it. In that case, I'm hiring the model for her services in order to gain something of extra value to me, so she should be paid. Giving her prints or images is part of the payment that would have to be worked out.

So, you'd pay her AND give her prints for free? I would never do that, but maybe that's just me. I look at it like, I've spent thousands of dollars as an investment, then someone wants me to pay them to let me give them free photography? To quote Home Alone, "I think not."

Originally Posted by d2creative

But for the most part, I agree that our time is worth just as much as theirs

I think that depends on the model and the photographer. There are models that wouldn't do a tfcd with a certain photographer, but they'd do it with another; there are photographers that would do tfcd's with certain models, but charge others. I think it depends on the experience level and desirabiilty of both parties. If they're about even, then they'll do a straight tfcd. I've also had models want to work with me now that wouldn't work with me before; those are the ones I charge extra ;)

When I say "model" here I'm talking in generic terms; I really mean "sitter." it could be a model, couple, whomever.

[d2creative]

Originally Posted by TJPhotoGuy

So, you'd pay her AND give her prints for free? I would never do that, but maybe that's just me. I look at it like, I've spent thousands of dollars as an investment, then someone wants me to pay them to let me give them free photography? To quote Home Alone, "I think not."

No, you misunderstood. I guess I wasn't clear enough. I said if the prints or cd were figured into their fee. In other words, lets say they were going to charge you $75/hr. Maybe the deal you work out is $25/hr plus prints. I'm just pulling that off the top of my head, but that's the kind of situation I was talking about.
But would I pay their full price AND give a cd? Haillllllll no.

[HotHolly]

Originally Posted by DEMDeepEllumMusic

As to workshops the model to me should be paid, just as if they went to an art class and posed for the students-usually a fixed fee or rate per hour for clothed and a higher rate for nude. (a lot of college students make some extra money working with their schools art department).

NONE of my colleges or art schools ever paid a model. They did it for extra credit. I got stuck doing it once b/c I smashed my hand during a drawing class...It was be the model or take the class again.

I've heard rumors that models are paid, but never came across any personally -ever. That weirdness was in NY as well as TX. The sentiment was that models are worth a dime a dozen. I dont personally think that, but have heard it muttered time and time again as an excuse not to pay them.

As for personally paying people... If it helps a model to say she was paid, I'd pay her to help her out. If she'd rather have food, then we feed them. I try to be thoughtful and give them whatever will help the most in the long run...and a little tip for the short run. Models are people too.

[srwatters]

This is always such a touchy subject on both sides of the fence and I can honestly see both positions. As for me, I have paid exactly one model (the first one I shot) for a personal portfolio shoot. Beyond that, I have paid for a MUA, food, fabrics, props, and even clothes, but not strictly an hourly or day rate. Of course I pay the models that pose at workshops, but that is another issue completely.

My big beef with TFP is that I spend far more time than just what I spend with the model. I usually arrive at the studio and spend 30+ minutes creating the first set. After the model leaves, I tear down and clean up. Then let's talk about post processing. I'm a perfectionist and spend an average of 90 minutes post processing images from a TFP shoot. I would say that I devote at least 2.5 hours over and above the time the model works with me. Forget the tens of thousands of dollars in camera, lenses, software, and computers. Now the model has wardrobe, hair, and other maintenance that isn't cheap either.

With that said, the equation doesn't always have to balance. Photographers need subjects. Models need photographers. Symbiotic or parasitic, you make up your own mind.

[Michelle Allmon]

I have had good luck finding pregnant models (TFP) online. In boards that pregnant women frequent.

[brad]

Originally Posted by TJPhotoGuy

So, you'd pay her AND give her prints for free? I would never do that, but maybe that's just me. I look at it like, I've spent thousands of dollars as an investment, then someone wants me to pay them to let me give them free photography? To quote Home Alone, "I think not."

I may work out such a deal as part of the payment... it all comes down to what you do in a situation where the model has more to offer the photographer that vice-versa... I feel like I cannot get this particular look (and experience) out of a free model, but she has plenty of photographers who can do at least as good of a job as I can (and probably pay her as well)... so its pay her or do without the shots altogether. I'm getting a value out of it, a value that I'm willing to pay for.

Sure, I could probably find a TFP pregnant model.. but I could shoot a dozen of those before coming up with two or three shots that I'd want for the portfolio.... I think I can get that from this model on the first try.

[Michelle Allmon]

Sure, I could probably find a TFP pregnant model.. but I could shoot a dozen of those before coming up with two or three shots that I'd want for the portfolio.... I think I can get that from this model on the first try.

That is true!

[Toad]

I've always thought of it like this.
Amature photographer + amature model = TFP
Amature photographer + pro model = photographer pays model or TFP if the model is willing
Pro photographer + amature model = model pays photographer of TFP if the photog is willing
Pro photographer + Pro model = any. If both are trying to flush out their portfolio, than TFP. If the model is wanting to work with that photographer because of his style, than the model pays. If the photographer is wanting to work with the model because of her look, the photog pays.
If the shoot is for an assignment, than the place requesting the photos would (IMHO) pay both the photog and the model. The photog for the style, and the model for the look.
Toad

[TJPhotoGuy]

Originally Posted by srwatters

This is always such a touchy subject on both sides of the fence and I can honestly see both positions. As for me, I have paid exactly one model (the first one I shot) for a personal portfolio shoot. Beyond that, I have paid for a MUA, food, fabrics, props, and even clothes, but not strictly an hourly or day rate. Of course I pay the models that pose at workshops, but that is another issue completely.

.

Agreed - I can see paying a mua, because they have "actual" physical costs. But still yet, many mua's will STILL work for tfcd if the photographer is right and they feel they can get good port-worthy images. So why wouldn't a model work for free if the mua will? I had a model a long time ago want to pay the mua but not me - I was like "uuuhhh, lol" If this were film, we as photographers would have physical costs too. Theoretically if you think about it from a depreciation perspective for our equipment, we do have physical costs. I don't want to sound like a "model" hater here though.

Originally Posted by Toad

I've always thought of it like this.
Amature photographer + amature model = TFP
Amature photographer + pro model = photographer pays model or TFP if the model is willing
Pro photographer + amature model = model pays photographer of TFP if the photog is willing
Pro photographer + Pro model = any. If both are trying to flush out their portfolio, than TFP. If the model is wanting to work with that photographer because of his style, than the model pays. If the photographer is wanting to work with the model because of her look, the photog pays.

Well-said - that's basically what I said up above when I was talking about tfcd and the "levels" of photographers. Your equation isn't an absolute though; sometimes pro models will work with amateur photographers. Nicole Opperman is obviously a pro model who's even been in a movie (Lol! I saw it for the first time the other night ("Stay alive"), to quote: "Close the door, ya perv!" heehee) and she still worked with me. Is she the "best" model i've worked with? No, but the one with the most experienced and the most well-known that's for sure. Did I pay her? Of course not, never have and never will. I wouldn't even pay a movie star for modeling. Well, ok, maybe I'd wash Elizabeth Shue's car or take out her trash for payment :)

[Toad]

Originally Posted by TJPhotoGuy

Your equation isn't an absolute though

No, not an absolute. There are exceptions to everything. But it is a pretty good rule of thumb to go by.
Toad