So.. this is a rant about a model who didn't pay for a shoot and expects un-watermarked images.

[Designer]

Sounds expensive for a shoot that no one made any money from.

Huh? Expensive how?

There is such a thing known as "trade for photographs" wherein it is expected that NO MONEY will change hands.

 

[Overread]

Sounds expensive for a shoot that no one made any money from.

Huh? Expensive how?

There is such a thing known as "trade for photographs" wherein it is expected that NO MONEY will change hands.

I believe this quotation was in relation to the proposal that the photographer hires a lawyer. However it was a somewhat exaggerated situation since the recommendation wasn't to hire one for a single shoot; but to help produce a single (or likely series) of contracts and legal documents suitable for use over multiple such deals in the future.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

"The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "

So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge? ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs.

I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.

Models need free photographers as much as photographers need free models. If you have the money to pay for all your models, well done you. Buy yourself a cake.

Why would I need a model? I am not a casting agent or an art director.

Here is the thing, if you wanna go out to the park and play "Model, Photographer" then go for it. When I do any type of commercial work, the models are picked, dressed and on set when I show up. Other than that, if they need shots done right according to agency standards... they are welcome to come to the studio and purchase a shoot.

Reading through this thread, I think I've found the line between pros and amateurs.

If the difference is really what I think it is, never again will I ever consider making a business out of photography when I get better.

Though I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this "difference" I do hope you wouldn't abandon the idea of making photography a business solely because of the opinions of some people you've never met on an internet forum.

If the morality of peoples business decisions is what is bothering you then you should know that in running a business You, as a human being, can make your own decisions based on your own business standards and ethics and that the decisions of a few others within that field should not be considered an end all be all of what it is to be a professional. For example, I know of some professionals that find it both profitable and wise to keep the rights to each and every image they take; on the flip-side I know of some who make a profitable business of selling away all the rights to most of their images. There are pro's and con's to both methods of doing business and most people find that one method or a mix of the two works better for different shoots.

I just want to make sure a discussion of how to treat clients isn't something that destroys any semblance of a desire to do something profitable with what you love and may very well have a lot of skill with.

 

[gsgary]

I would love to see some of the shoots to see if they are worth paying for

 

[SquarePeg]

Buried somewhere in this thread is a link to the OPs website.

 

[DavidVote]

I would love to see some of the shoots to see if they are worth paying for

It's not that bad. His work looks like every other commercial portrait photographer. Bright, cheery, senior portrait style pictures.

Nothing wrong with it, having that style is desirable and most popular in the market right now.

 

[DavidVote]

"The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "

So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge? ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs.

I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.

Models need free photographers as much as photographers need free models. If you have the money to pay for all your models, well done you. Buy yourself a cake.

Why would I need a model? I am not a casting agent or an art director.

Here is the thing, if you wanna go out to the park and play "Model, Photographer" then go for it. When I do any type of commercial work, the models are picked, dressed and on set when I show up. Other than that, if they need shots done right according to agency standards... they are welcome to come to the studio and purchase a shoot.

Reading through this thread, I think I've found the line between pros and amateurs.

If the difference is really what I think it is, never again will I ever consider making a business out of photography when I get better.

Though I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this "difference" I do hope you wouldn't abandon the idea of making photography a business solely because of the opinions of some people you've never met on an internet forum.

If the morality of peoples business decisions is what is bothering you then you should know that in running a business You, as a human being, can make your own decisions based on your own business standards and ethics and that the decisions of a few others within that field should not be considered an end all be all of what it is to be a professional. For example, I know of some professionals that find it both profitable and wise to keep the rights to each and every image they take; on the flip-side I know of some who make a profitable business of selling away all the rights to most of their images. There are pro's and con's to both methods of doing business and most people find that one method or a mix of the two works better for different shoots.

I just want to make sure a discussion of how to treat clients isn't something that destroys any semblance of a desire to do something profitable with what you love and may very well have a lot of skill with.

I'm not very good with words, I've never been, but hopefully this will make sense.

The difference is, that once you start seeing photography as an income source, as money, its very easy to lose your original sights and views on photography. Suddenly, its not something you do for fun, not something you do for the sake of it, but it is something you need to slave to. You no longer take photos to express yourself, you take them to cater to your client/employer/general audience.

I was asked by a few classmates to shoot their senior portraits a few months back. The photos that came out of the sessions where fantastic; awesome lighting, sharp, nice sun in the background, nice flares, basically everything that makes an awesome senior portrait. But, no way am I ever going to share them with people other than the client, and definitely no way am I proud to say, "Yeah, I'm the one who took that". They have no special meaning to me.

Because of that responsibility to cater to the general audiences in order to be successful, I've noticed that a lot of professional photographer's work look really....now this is where I get stuck at..can't think of the word or phrase...perhaps..., similar? There are exceptions of course.

This thread was just the deciding factor. It's beyond the opinion of a couple of people in this thread.

Who knows though, maybe I'm completely wrong in my analysis.

 

[photoguy99]

Actually, there's an echelon of commercial photographer that does largely follow their muse. The market is a lot tougher.

What you're not wanting to do is this: hang out a shingle and start selling $200 Senior Sessions next week.

What you'll be shooting is commodity, interchangeable with any other photographer. You sell it as a creative artistic thing where we really get to know you, but that's not what you actually do. Ultimately an 18 year old girl definitely Does Not Want some stupid artist's ideas. She wants some pictures that look quite a bit like her friends pictures, pictures where she looks hot. There's nothing wrong with shooting commodity, that's where the market is. But it's not what everyone wants to do.

At the other end of the spectrum, you're following a muse. You're not selling commodity portraits, or whatever. You're selling yourself and your distinctive vision. This means that in the first place you gotta have a distinctive vision, and in the second place you gotta find people that want to buy that, and in the third place you better find people who want to pay quite a lot of money for it since you have to work SO MUCH HARDER to find the clients.

But these people are out there. Kirk Tuck jumps to mind as a currently working guy who's doing it. He's not crazy artsy, but he's definitely doing something that's not commodity. He's got a vision, not a crazy vision at all, a pretty appealing, likeable vision, but it's his. I can probably name lots of dead guys who did much the same, I'm more of a history than "who's popular now" kind of guy.

You might like the other end of the spectrum better. But there's stuff you gotta do to get there. Like, develop a distinctive vision, just as step one.

 

[DavidVote]

Actually, there's an echelon of commercial photographer that does largely follow their muse. The market is a lot tougher.

What you're not wanting to do is this: hang out a shingle and start selling $200 Senior Sessions next week.

What you'll be shooting is commodity, interchangeable with any other photographer. You sell it as a creative artistic thing where we really get to know you, but that's not what you actually do. Ultimately an 18 year old girl definitely Does Not Want some stupid artist's ideas. She wants some pictures that look quite a bit like her friends pictures, pictures where she looks hot. There's nothing wrong with shooting commodity, that's where the market is. But it's not what everyone wants to do.

At the other end of the spectrum, you're following a muse. You're not selling commodity portraits, or whatever. You're selling yourself and your distinctive vision. This means that in the first place you gotta have a distinctive vision, and in the second place you gotta find people that want to buy that, and in the third place you better find people who want to pay quite a lot of money for it since you have to work SO MUCH HARDER to find the clients.

But these people are out there. Kirk Tuck jumps to mind as a currently working guy who's doing it. He's not crazy artsy, but he's definitely doing something that's not commodity. He's got a vision, not a crazy vision at all, a pretty appealing, likeable vision, but it's his. I can probably name lots of dead guys who did much the same, I'm more of a history than "who's popular now" kind of guy.

You might like the other end of the spectrum better. But there's stuff you gotta do to get there. Like, develop a distinctive vision, just as step one.

You're good. Maybe I should start asking you for advice on how to write expressively xD. But pretty much this.

Because it's much harder to find work in the spectrum of photography I'm interested in, I'll prefer to remain amateur.

 

[Vtec44]

Because of that responsibility to cater to the general audiences in order to be successful, I've noticed that a lot of professional photographer's work look really....now this is where I get stuck at..can't think of the word or phrase...perhaps..., similar? There are exceptions of course.

Similar to other photographers? That's because it's a trend. Similar throughout the photographer's portfolio? That's because of brand consistency.

Yeah when photography becomes your profession, it's a whole different challenge. The challenge of being creative when you have shot the same thing many times before. The challenge of being consistent because clients come to you and expect you to produce what they've seen in your portfolio previously. The challenge of doing something you hate but the clients love. The challenge of declining work because it would cheapen your brand. You think differently when accepting money because there are expectations and you have to meet them, regardless of what may happen.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

"The whole business of models paying the photographer always feels off to me. "

So... we are a charity in place to make sure every single person we come into contact with as wonderful photos free of charge? ok ok ok... that is just me being a wise guy.... but the reality is this.... It is not for us to make the call on weather or not this person will succeed as a model. It is our job to take and deliver great photographs.

I am against TFP all together because all of these guys doing free work makes it harder for professionals to get paid. You should have charged her, shot her, delivered the product and moved on.

Models need free photographers as much as photographers need free models. If you have the money to pay for all your models, well done you. Buy yourself a cake.

Why would I need a model? I am not a casting agent or an art director.

Here is the thing, if you wanna go out to the park and play "Model, Photographer" then go for it. When I do any type of commercial work, the models are picked, dressed and on set when I show up. Other than that, if they need shots done right according to agency standards... they are welcome to come to the studio and purchase a shoot.

Reading through this thread, I think I've found the line between pros and amateurs.

If the difference is really what I think it is, never again will I ever consider making a business out of photography when I get better.

Though I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this "difference" I do hope you wouldn't abandon the idea of making photography a business solely because of the opinions of some people you've never met on an internet forum.

If the morality of peoples business decisions is what is bothering you then you should know that in running a business You, as a human being, can make your own decisions based on your own business standards and ethics and that the decisions of a few others within that field should not be considered an end all be all of what it is to be a professional. For example, I know of some professionals that find it both profitable and wise to keep the rights to each and every image they take; on the flip-side I know of some who make a profitable business of selling away all the rights to most of their images. There are pro's and con's to both methods of doing business and most people find that one method or a mix of the two works better for different shoots.

I just want to make sure a discussion of how to treat clients isn't something that destroys any semblance of a desire to do something profitable with what you love and may very well have a lot of skill with.

I'm not very good with words, I've never been, but hopefully this will make sense.

The difference is, that once you start seeing photography as an income source, as money, its very easy to lose your original sights and views on photography. Suddenly, its not something you do for fun, not something you do for the sake of it, but it is something you need to slave to. You no longer take photos to express yourself, you take them to cater to your client/employer/general audience.

I was asked by a few classmates to shoot their senior portraits a few months back. The photos that came out of the sessions where fantastic; awesome lighting, sharp, nice sun in the background, nice flares, basically everything that makes an awesome senior portrait. But, no way am I ever going to share them with people other than the client, and definitely no way am I proud to say, "Yeah, I'm the one who took that". They have no special meaning to me.

Because of that responsibility to cater to the general audiences in order to be successful, I've noticed that a lot of professional photographer's work look really....now this is where I get stuck at..can't think of the word or phrase...perhaps..., similar? There are exceptions of course.

This thread was just the deciding factor. It's beyond the opinion of a couple of people in this thread.

Who knows though, maybe I'm completely wrong in my analysis.

This does happen.. I find it a very poor response to a markets needs to be honest. Why use your creativity to be the opposite of creative?

In a business sense, sure there is more risk in not popping out generic photograph after generic photograph, but there is much more reward to be gained by giving your clients truly unique work rather than something predictable that anyone else could have done.

I defiantly understand your position now. This is the reason I keep the mentalitys of my personal and commercial work compartmentalized so as not to allow my personal work to be tainted by the almighty dollar.

 

[DGMPhotography]

TLDR.. at least the pages between 2 and 11, but here's my thoughts:

When I do TFP, I watermark the images for use on social media so that the model is promoting me, whether she forgets to link my page or not. I make sure to credit the model on my page. And if the model wants the picture files, I will give her the full res files, still with watermark.

However, I believe that building your business reputation is very important, so if the model asks for un-watermarked images, I give them to her. When I give them the un-watermarked images I ask that they still credit me somehow, if they are able to and it is appropriate. That way they get the image they want, I still get the exposure, and everyone is happy.

I also usually work with people who aren't professional models, and aren't as worried about these type of things, or models who are just really chill. I'm assuming that will change eventually, and I assume then I might run into more problems, but for now this is what has worked for me!

 

[Designer]

Oh, hi, Daryl. This problem had nothing to do with the fact that the model was at the "professional" level, but rather is apparently the result of a lack of communication and understanding between the photographer and the model.

They each had made different assumptions about the process, and with nothing specific in writing regarding the session, they were left with just arguing after the fact.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

I love when threads like this turn into good productive discussions.

 

[pgriz]

Oh, hi, Daryl. This problem had nothing to do with the fact that the model was at the "professional" level, but rather is apparently the result of a lack of communication and understanding between the photographer and the model.

They each had made different assumptions about the process, and with nothing specific in writing regarding the session, they were left with just arguing after the fact.

Very nice condensation. Reader's Digest wants to talk to you.