DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> First Model Mayhem shoot--NOT good... :o(
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 46 of 46, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/22/2006 11:49:13 PM · #26
My story: Three OMP models. Three no shows. The last one sounded just like you described. We communicated right up to the day of the shoot and all sounded well. I waited at the agreed upon location for an hour and a half for her to show. (I thought for sure we must have miscommunicated the time, that's why I stayed so long)

I have another OMP model scheduled for this week. Here's hoping she'll pull through. (at least I've worked with this one already!)

08/22/2006 11:52:25 PM · #27
Originally posted by Leok:
I hate to say it but I told you so... I suspect part of the problem was the concept of TFCD being not for commercial use. Form the model's perspective stock photos will earn you $$$ so the model doesn't see why they should not be paid.

I'm suprised to see this opinion coming from a photographer. TFP and TFCD are agreements where both parties get something out of it. As photographers we put time and material into a shoot, editing, printing, etc. Models get free images (which cost the photographer something). The photographer gets a model (which they'd otherwise have to pay for).

TFP and TFCD does not mean for non-commercial use, although some photographers treat it that way. If a photographer can't use the images as he sees fit, he gets nothing out of the deal. Why would anyone do this (portfolio building aside)?
 08/23/2006 12:47:45 AM · #28
Don,

I've shot my fair share of people who want to be called a model. Some would say I want to be called a photographer, too. ;)

No shows are just part of it 'til you can afford to pay. The more you do the easier it'll be to tell the flakes. I wish I could tell you what to look for but its the "tone" of their e-mail or the sound in their voice or the 16th time they call you beforehand to confirm what it is that you want to shoot. I've gotten enough work under my belt on OMP to not have to deal with the flakes. I tell 'em what I'm willing to shoot, what I want to shoot and either what they'll have to pay me or what I'll pay them depending on the situation and who wants what but I can remember what its like. If you really want to learn to shoot high quality work (and I'm not where I wanna be yet), you have to put up with some of the crap, don't take it personally and push forward. Pick out the next model, setup that meeting and shoot the hell outta those shots. If that one flakes or legitimately has a reason to miss (which happens sometimes and its difficult to remember what "feels" like an emergency to a 20-year old when you're 38 and have kids, a wife, a mortgage and a job), just setup for the next one. Without having a free-standing studio, equipment to beat the band, accessories to pull from and an assistant or three plus a hair stylist and makeup artist you have to remember that your expectations should be lower and that it'll take you longer because you're having to do everything from be the receptionist scheduling the appointment to the art director to the gaffer to the photographer and digital artist. Adding the family stuff is a whole other level and I promise I get it since our studio is attached to our home. If I still have anything from 3 or 4 years ago in my port feel free to see the difference it makes when you suck like I did compared with when you learn to suck less and you can afford to compensate people who likewise are dedicated to not sucking quite so much as models. :)

Hell, if you had a huge studio, a decent annual budget and 4 or 5 people helping you it wouldn't be this satisfying when you get a great shot.

My wife isn't always around for the shoots but she always meets the models and their chaperones. Sometimes I have a photog friend as my "chaperone". Don't forget to require some form of governmentally-issued picture ID just to protect yourself.

You're on the right track if this is what you want to do; there are just setbacks from time-to-time.

Kev
 08/23/2006 04:16:08 AM · #29
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by Leok:
I hate to say it but I told you so... I suspect part of the problem was the concept of TFCD being not for commercial use. Form the model's perspective stock photos will earn you $$$ so the model doesn't see why they should not be paid.

I'm suprised to see this opinion coming from a photographer. TFP and TFCD are agreements where both parties get something out of it. As photographers we put time and material into a shoot, editing, printing, etc. Models get free images (which cost the photographer something). The photographer gets a model (which they'd otherwise have to pay for).

TFP and TFCD does not mean for non-commercial use, although some photographers treat it that way. If a photographer can't use the images as he sees fit, he gets nothing out of the deal. Why would anyone do this (portfolio building aside)?


There have been many discussions on this topic on net-model, a site I used for a while. The general consensus was that TFCD should be non-commercial, at the very least if there was some prospect of income that there should be a profit sharing arrangement - the administration of which would be a PITA for (micro)stock images.

Try looking at it the other way - what if the model was to sell the images from the shoot. Would you as the photographer be happy to have them do so and keep all the profit?

This is why most of the people I know involved in this reccommend a "no commercial use" clause in their TFCD agreements.

08/23/2006 07:57:30 AM · #30
Originally posted by Pixl Mastr WannaB:
I realize now I made several rookie mistakes here, but I am SO pissed off over this. It makes me want to only work with models that I know personally (which is all I have done so far, to good results).


You did NOT make any rookie mistakes.
08/23/2006 08:17:27 AM · #31
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by Leok:
I hate to say it but I told you so... I suspect part of the problem was the concept of TFCD being not for commercial use. Form the model's perspective stock photos will earn you $$$ so the model doesn't see why they should not be paid.

I'm suprised to see this opinion coming from a photographer. TFP and TFCD are agreements where both parties get something out of it. As photographers we put time and material into a shoot, editing, printing, etc. Models get free images (which cost the photographer something). The photographer gets a model (which they'd otherwise have to pay for).

TFP and TFCD does not mean for non-commercial use, although some photographers treat it that way. If a photographer can't use the images as he sees fit, he gets nothing out of the deal. Why would anyone do this (portfolio building aside)?


The thing is, this girl's portfolio on MM was horrible! I could tell she was reasonably good looking, and she lived close to me, but her portfolio was all cell phone (or similar) snapshots with every technical error imaginable (put it this way--none of her shots would have scored above a 4 here on DPC :o)). TFCD would have been doing her a serious favor, considering her bio stated she was an aspiring model / actress (yeah, right!). Not to say that I'm a great photographer by any stretch, but on my worst day I could have done better than what she had!

The thing that surprises me the most, is if a model is going to get scared and flake out, why do they join a site like MM in the first place? Is it a situation where the fantasy of being a model takes on a whole new light when the reality of a real shoot comes up? I guess that's what you have to deal with sometimes.

Aside from that, thanks so much to everyone for their advice and words of encouragement. Kevin, your post means a lot to me, as I am a HUGE fan of your work. And that's not to minimize anybody else's posts either, as I am a fan of the work of a lot of you too! Rest assured, I am going to keep plugging away. I talked to my wife about assisting me, and she is willing to give it a try. Our relationship is such that even if she hates it, she will never hate me for it (make sense?). She's the best! I am working on scheduling a couple more shoots with models I have already worked with, so I know those will go okay. And I'll keep emailing MM models in my area, and seeing what happens. I guess the upside is that if I get stiffed again, I won't be too surprised, and I won't take it personally.

Thanks again!

-Don
 08/23/2006 12:47:00 PM · #32
Originally posted by Leok:
Originally posted by _eug:
I'm suprised to see this opinion coming from a photographer. TFP and TFCD are agreements where both parties get something out of it. As photographers we put time and material into a shoot, editing, printing, etc. Models get free images (which cost the photographer something). The photographer gets a model (which they'd otherwise have to pay for).

TFP and TFCD does not mean for non-commercial use, although some photographers treat it that way. If a photographer can't use the images as he sees fit, he gets nothing out of the deal. Why would anyone do this (portfolio building aside)?

Try looking at it the other way - what if the model was to sell the images from the shoot. Would you as the photographer be happy to have them do so and keep all the profit?

Since the COPYRIGHTs lie with the photographer, unless the photographer gives her rights then she's broken the law.

There are 4 enclusive rights of copyright holders (edit: just noticed you're in Oz and this may differ than the US.):
- To reproduce the works.
- To display the work.
- To prepare derivative works based on the work.
- To distribute copies of the work too the public.

In TFP and TFCD, the photographer is trading her time for the right for her to DISPLAY the work. Not reproduce. Not distribute. No derivatives. Display. She does anything but display then it's a legal issue.

The photographer in most cases puts more value into the photoshoot (equipment, time, materials). To expect not to be able to recoup those costs is rediculous. This is a business, not some altruistic, feel good endeavour.

Sure the Model can say, "I don't want these going Stock". The photographer can also say, "Deals off."

Message edited by author 2006-08-23 12:53:46.
 08/23/2006 06:53:10 PM · #33
Originally posted by _eug:

There are 4 enclusive rights of copyright holders (edit: just noticed you're in Oz and this may differ than the US.):
- To reproduce the works.
- To display the work.
- To prepare derivative works based on the work.
- To distribute copies of the work too the public.

In TFP and TFCD, the photographer is trading her time for the right for her to DISPLAY the work. Not reproduce. Not distribute. No derivatives. Display. She does anything but display then it's a legal issue.

The photographer in most cases puts more value into the photoshoot (equipment, time, materials). To expect not to be able to recoup those costs is rediculous. This is a business, not some altruistic, feel good endeavour.

Sure the Model can say, "I don't want these going Stock". The photographer can also say, "Deals off."


The law is pretty much the same here, and of course you can put anything you like in the TFCD agreement that increase or decreases either parties rights over the images. I am talking about what many models feel is morally correct - they want to be paid if the photographer plans to sell the images.

Some especially don't like the idea of microstock - they don't want their face sold for 20c... they like to think they are more exclusive than that especially if they have aspirations to become a famous model. A professional model can earn as much as a professional photographer. They invest time and money into clothes, makeup and training, their costs are similar to the photographers. Modelling can be just as serious a business as photography.

Imagine you sold an image on Getty and made $1000 - would it be right not to pay the model? I don't think so. The thing is that that quality of photographer should eventually make that sort of money from the collection of shots they put on microstock sites... and they should therefore pay the model.

Back to the original question:
Unfortunately if this model has no professional shots as yet this also tells you she is very new to modelling and is probably the most likely model to cancel. She is probably still unsure if this is something that she wants to do. Things like being approached for nude and xxx shoots despite their profile clearly saying they won't do this doesn't help - but there are always a few creeps on any of these sites. This is why chaperones are a good idea for young inexperienced models - they don't know you or your motivation.

One guy I chatted to had a theory - some of these girls are not really interested in modelling. Some are insecure, and just want to know that they are pretty enough that they could be a model IF they wanted to... so having you set up a session is enough. They don't actually need the shoot, just the reassurance that they are pretty. They may even be worried that if they did show up you wouldn't want to shoot them after all - insecurity is pretty common amongst young ladies, even the pretty ones.

I think you will find you have best luck with models that have done a couple of TFCD shoots already, as they have decided they like modelling. Unfortuantely many of the really experienced models won't do TFCD - they already have a good range of shots in their portfolio and want to be paid which is fair enough from their point of view. An experienced model is generally worth paying, you will get alot more good shots.

By all means organsise shoots with new models. Be as firm as possible about the seriousness of the shoot, get their phone number, insist that they must give you resonable notice if they need to change anything etc... just understand that you will get a few cancellations no matter what you do.

edit - expanded microstock bit

Message edited by author 2006-08-23 19:08:31.
 08/23/2006 06:57:08 PM · #34
Simple fix, only use "models" that know nothing about modeling :-)
 08/23/2006 06:57:53 PM · #35
***Stupid Question Alert***

TFP and TFCP mean???

***End Stupid Question Alert***

Resume conversation.
 08/23/2006 07:02:20 PM · #36
Originally posted by sea2c:
TFP and TFCP mean???

Time for Print and Time for CD. The model agrees that for their time their 'payment' is prints or CD or both.
 08/23/2006 07:06:46 PM · #37
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Simple fix, only use "models" that know nothing about modeling :-)


Yup I understand this often works best !
 08/23/2006 07:07:01 PM · #38
What eug said. :o)
 08/23/2006 07:47:31 PM · #39
Thanks eug. I can sleep tonite.
 08/23/2006 07:52:21 PM · #40
Originally posted by sea2c:
Thanks eug. I can sleep tonite.

You're welcome, but I didn't now that sleeping was going to be a concern.
 08/23/2006 08:06:22 PM · #41
One more piece of advice - double check the age of your model/s and if they are not old enough to sign a legal document make sure they know they MUST bring a parent/guardian with them who will chaperone them for the whole shoot and sign a model release.
 08/23/2006 08:37:53 PM · #42
Originally posted by Leok:
The law is pretty much the same here, and of course you can put anything you like in the TFCD agreement that increase or decreases either parties rights over the images. I am talking about what many models feel is morally correct - they want to be paid if the photographer plans to sell the images.

Some especially don't like the idea of microstock - they don't want their face sold for 20c... they like to think they are more exclusive than that especially if they have aspirations to become a famous model. A professional model can earn as much as a professional photographer. They invest time and money into clothes, makeup and training, their costs are similar to the photographers. Modelling can be just as serious a business as photography.

Imagine you sold an image on Getty and made $1000 - would it be right not to pay the model? I don't think so. The thing is that that quality of photographer should eventually make that sort of money from the collection of shots they put on microstock sites... and they should therefore pay the model.


This has been one of my moral struggle with TFP shoots. I guess I've come down to this decision and that's that I won't use any photos from my shoots for stock, even though my release gives me the right to, unless it was specifically mentioned to the model and the model was fine with it.

To me, and this is just my view on it, is that it just doesn't seem fair that I should profit off shots and the model shouldn't when the shoot was a partnership to begin with. I'd feel much better paying them. Even if I never made a dime from the stock shots, my mind would be at ease that I wasn't sneaky about it. And I understand that it's not "using" them. I understand all the work that a photographer puts into the photographs after the shoot when it comes to editing, keywording, preparing and uploading to stock. It just still rubs me the wrong way for some reason. I'm just happy if I come out of shoot with some fantastic photos to use in my portfolio and website.

I've actually been debating how many more TFP/CD shoots I'd be willing to do (exceptions of course for those faces that you can't help but want to have in your portfolio). I just can't seem to let my images go out onto proof cd's without at least a little bit of editing so I always end up spending way too much time on "Free" cd's. :-) When's the time to decide that you should start being paid for shoots??
 08/23/2006 09:18:49 PM · #43
Jen,

That totally depends on you, how you want to market yourself, how you value your time and what it is that you're getting. There are some people that I will shoot with TFP for certain reasons (its fun, I get to hang out and do something I like, a break from the monotony of other crap I do, etc) and then there are some that if they want to shoot with me its on their dime. Call it sad but that's just the way it is.

On the topic of using images from a TFP session for stock I have done this before but it was with the understanding of the model that such was the case before the shoot. I have a limited stock portfolio just 'cause I pay models for the stock work that I use them in most often. The "compensation" lines on my model release can be used to enter "proof CD" or "CD with 5 finished images" or "$50/hour" and any quantity for those lines. I may not make money back on some stock shoots but I know that I've not ripped anyone off due to the contract we have and the fact that I paid them. If someone wants to argue the poor morals of me catching some unholy awesome shot and selling it for $40,000 (like dude did with the shot of the dolphin in the wave underneath the surfboarder - it was posted over on FredMiranda forever) I'd argue the hundreds and hundreds of dollars I've spent on models for stock photographs only to turn around and make a relatively small fraction of that amount back. Now I still totally get not using the TFP images for such work without the express, written understanding and consent of either the model or his/her guardian but that's just been my policy and so far people seem very happy with that agreement.



Kev
 08/23/2006 09:21:11 PM · #44
Originally posted by Leok:
One more piece of advice - double check the age of your model/s and if they are not old enough to sign a legal document make sure they know they MUST bring a parent/guardian with them who will chaperone them for the whole shoot and sign a model release.


If you have ANY question about thier age, make them produce ID. ESPECIALLY, if the shot is going to be anything that could be considered provocative.
 08/23/2006 09:23:19 PM · #45
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Leok:
One more piece of advice - double check the age of your model/s and if they are not old enough to sign a legal document make sure they know they MUST bring a parent/guardian with them who will chaperone them for the whole shoot and sign a model release.


If you have ANY question about thier age, make them produce ID. ESPECIALLY, if the shot is going to be anything that could be considered provocative.


AND I would make a photo of the ID and include in the series of photos.
 08/23/2006 10:01:52 PM · #46
Originally posted by kawesttex:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Leok:
One more piece of advice - double check the age of your model/s and if they are not old enough to sign a legal document make sure they know they MUST bring a parent/guardian with them who will chaperone them for the whole shoot and sign a model release.


If you have ANY question about thier age, make them produce ID. ESPECIALLY, if the shot is going to be anything that could be considered provocative.


AND I would make a photo of the ID and include in the series of photos.


Excellent suggestion - I would do it regardless of the content of the shots.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/07/2025 05:20:21 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/07/2025 05:20:21 PM EDT.