models – Walt-O-Matic

Skipping Out on TFP

Photographers make note that a good number of models don’t take TFP arrangement seriously, often ending in a no-show or abrupt cancellations. This can make a photographer hesitant about offering them in the first place. But, as a model, should you accept a TFP? Should accepting them as work be in your written profile? Will it get you paid gigs too? And does the ‘F’ in TFP stand for “free?” If so, what do TFP arrangement gain you? Well, here are the answers and some things you didn’t know.

A photographer’s unwritten rule is that if a model is a no-show without an advanced cancellation, never use her again, much less extend a TFP deal to her or her friends, and warn my fellow colleagues that there’s a high element of risk to consider if they think about using her.

Conversely, models that are amazing to work with and are professional, I personally cut steep discounts for, retouch more photos for, provide actual prints to, use as often as I can, bend my schedule for, extend projects to first, and share news of them with everyone I can find.

Obviously, many models are looking for paid work, and many also have a greater sense of their worth than their experience, looks, or willingness commands. Luckily, a model’s portfolio tells a great deal about her than just her looks. If she’s got a lot of photos from a number of different photographers, she’s most likely reliable. If she has a variety of poses, she’s most likely willing to try new things. If she looks great universally, she most likely has actual experience.

I suspect the starting out model doesn’t know her worth and sees it as just standing in front of the camera will turn on the cash spigot. But she also knows that if she can’t demonstrate experience, a photographer will pass her over during casting.

So, to combat this, she tries to cheat the system by indicating she’s willing to work for TFP, when in fact she’s not necessarily fully committed to the idea. An inexperienced model thinks that TFP means “free photos” and doesn’t realize that the photographer is paying her with his time, which often dollar-for-dollar can be very much in a new-model’s favor.

By assigning no “value” to the TFP, she feels it’s something she can walk out on without consequence because it must also be of no value to the photographer, too. Wrong. A number of photographers hold multiple jobs, and if he takes off a day to do a photo shoot and goes through the trouble of setting up the equipment or renting space, the photographer takes it in the shorts not once, but twice. No wonder he may become embittered.

As such the model thinks that she’ll get TFP deals and paid deals, and then elect to only accept the paid ones. Conversely, she might tell herself that she’ll do a TFP deal, but only if it’s a famous, rockin’ photographer. What she doesn’t get (we’re talking new, inexperienced models here still) is that she’s killing her chance to build a portfolio, by extension get a paid gig, or be sought by Mr. Super-Shutter.

Not having anything pan out quickly fuels that impression that there is something wrong with the industry, clearly not her or her attitude, and after one or two cycles of this, the model fades away — being very put off with photographers in an unfair over-generalization.

Photographers: one solution I’ve found that has worked well is to offer TFP deals to scouted new discoveries. Because they aren’t seeking to be models, they are very appreciative and are willing to follow directions. When the reward of fantastic photos pops out the other end of the workflow, they do more word-of-mouth advertising than I could ever afford to purchase for other outlets. The trade-off is that you have to be able to work with inexperienced models and be very, very patient with them. I personally find it rewarding to be there first-hand as someone learns a new, marketable skill. Many valuable friendships follow.

It turns out this kind gesture can open doors for people: other modeling offers, and in one case a small part in a movie that’s coming out soon.

TFP/CD deals are gold mines for models, which explains how some smart models always seem to have that really rich, diverse portfolio with a competitive edge.

Why no average models?

New models sometimes raise the point that there aren’t that many ‘average’ models that show up in media, catalogs, and pin-ups. Are average people skipped over? Is the genetic bias a wider gap than it ought to be? And why do there seem to be so few casting calls to the average person waiting to be discovered?

The very question itself, “Why no average models?” raises an interesting conflict that marketing has been struggling with for a long time. Because an “average” person does, indeed, show how a given product would look on an average person, giving a truer representation.

However, the problem is that often doesn’t look very flattering — and people, in large sample groups, tend to go for superficial looks rather than actual reality. As such, marketing tends to go for those images which convey, whether true or not, that purchasing their product will raise your self esteem in the direction of the presented ideal. That’s often good enough. It doesn’t have to actually deliver perfection.

When it comes to looking at people for the sake of looking at people, which is more attractive: Brad Pitt or the average beer-gut guy you find the barbershop who thinks styled hair is pointless? The eye clearly has a higher level of attraction to one over the other. Biologically, we can even measure it, even if psychologically we pretend to hide it. Playing to that hard-wired response sells products.

So, this might explain why the “average” look hasn’t been splashed all over the media; everything is about optimizing profits, not representing reality.

Now this is something surprising that one might find very comforting. The people I’ve selected to show in my online profiles are actually are not models and have no prior modeling experience. I do this deliberately because what my studio focuses on is taking average people, revealing their extra hidden beauty, and capturing that — I want to be able to show my clients that they too, no matter how average looking they think they are, can look that good. And, if you’re going to make a bold claim like that, one better have the portfolio to back it up. If I just simply showed all my experienced model/actress shots, people think “well, yea, she’s a professional and I’m not that pretty” and I’ve lost a potential client. Customers rarely seem to be looking for how technically competent one’s photography skills are, but rather how good you can make them look.

Here’s where things get slightly obscured. If an “average” person is photographed to look like an above-average person, are they no longer considered average?

An employee at Kinko’s shared this astounding observation to me: numerous women customers bring in portfolios to have various images re-produced en masse. He’d look at the jaw-dropping photos and ask, “Who’s this?” only to be more surprised when the answer was “That’s me!” He reports the his customers almost always, without the added magic of the camera, were not hot but actually less attractive than the average woman. Sans makeup and pushup, quite a number of models are plain ordinary.

In fact, we know this to be true; browse any celebrity-stalker web site where someone has caught a celebrity when their publicist hasn’t been able to filter the image from public consumption. Such images range from unflattering to just someone you’d pass by in a crowd.

You have to compare your average self with their average self, or your modeling headshot to their modeling headshot. If you compare apples to oranges, it’s not just an unfair disadvantage, but an unrealistic one. Many people are far more attractive than they give themselves credit for. Does the makeup really make you that much prettier, or is it that your belief that it does actually turn on your self-confidence?

That said, I’ll point out that an experienced model is a joy to work with; it requires far less work on part of the photographer and one typically get a high quality product in far less shoot time.

I suspect it’s assumed that an experienced model (or her agent) will know where to go find placement casting calls, and thereby save the casting director a lot of time by skipping inexperienced labor. Running a photo shoot is very expensive, and if you can cut this time down, you save money.

This is different from casting calls which try to discover someone new; those usually happen in areas of high density to increase the odds, such as major cities.

Escorts at Photo Shoots

There’s a common concern often expressed by models: they prefer female photographers to male ones. While personal safety is expressed as the rationalization, almost always the sentiment is coupled with a side note about photographers not wanting escorts present.

It may surprise you that photographers don’t care if you bring an escort. Just share this with the escort first…

Several observations about this line of thinking: One, if you’re uncomfortable with a photographer, you shouldn’t be doing a shoot — period. Two, you should really be bringing an escort to your female photographers anyhow, especially if you go on location; what makes you think she isn’t the ‘front’ and there isn’t a load of thugs hiding in the back room. Three, you should always do your homework, talk with with references, and make sure the photographer can be located. A photographer that hides their contact information isn’t one you should be dealing with.

Professional photographers usually don’t have a problem with bringing an escort or your pet elephant for that matter. What they do dislike is the photo session being disturbed. Here are the top annoying factors, even for female photographers:

Escorts at Photo Shoots

The escort getting curious and messing with or breaking the equipment, simply getting in the way, or asking questions of the photographer during the shoot.
The escort wanting to be photographed as well. This includes “just a few at the end.”
The model being distracted by the escort, whether by talking or looking to the escort for validation.

Explain these concerns to the escort up front and they usually evaporate. With the talking and non-verbal validation, I find that male escorts tend to behave much better than “female friends who decided to come along.”

When someone brings an escort, I usually hand them a reflector which keeps them busy, fills their hands, and makes them have a vested interest in getting the job done. Babysitting an escort in this manner reduces risk of the top three issues, but the model is now getting far less attention and most likely, less photos. A good escort will stay out of the way and quietly monitor that no funny business is going on — which, after a short time, will get very boring.

One other interesting point is worth mentioning, some models get self-conscious (even professional ones) when someone they know is watching them; this can ruin a shoot, which ends up wasting everyone’s time. If the escort sits in a waiting room only a shout away, often you can get around this problem.

The best solution I’ve seen is to bring the escort, let them sit on the sidelines until both they and you feel comfortable with the arrangement, at that point let them leave with the photographer’s business card, the address they dropped the model off at, and a known pre-arranged check-in time for the model to call via her cell phone. Having the escort call to check in is even the worse than being there, it totally breaks the pace to stop and locate a purse.

If you do bring an escort, let the photographer know in advance — especially for location shoots — as if an extra person is riding in the vehicle, sometimes alternate travel arrangements are necessary (e.g., taking the van instead of the two-seater car).

Follow this simple advice and you should have no problem bringing an escort, thereby doubling the number of photographers and broadening your portfolio photo contents.

Model Compensation

This blog addresses solutions that are fair, as well as touching on factors that go into deciding amounts, why that’s the case, and what models can do to their profiles to avoid being skipped over aside from not making common photographic mistakes.

It’s understandable that models would prefer paid shoots, but it’s also important to recognize that the photographer does as well.

For a model, the photo session ends with the last shutter click, but for the photographer that’s when the real work begins. This reveals why photographers can be so expensive. Add risk, like missing an important wedding moment, at the pricing tier jumps again to astronomical levels.

In all cases, I believe a model should be fairly compensated. The debate will boil down to what that compensation is and that expectation should always be spelled out up front before anything progresses.

There are many factors that go into what value compensation should be set at. There are three big ones.

Expertise, in particular, plays a large part because an experienced model arrives on time (and sober), knows how to interact with the camera and the photographer with minimal direction, assumes appropriate poses naturally that fit the context of the scene, pauses at the right times as to minimize the number of discards, and she can make facial expressions look genuine. The higher compensation comes from making the photographer’s job easier and producing higher quality product in a shorter timeframe.

The model’s looks also play into the equation, primarily because that sets the demand for the model and in turn that affects availability. Basic economic models of supply and demand clearly state the higher the demand, the more things cost. Hence a model that isn’t in as much demand will likely be unable to command rates that one is. This is why models should to TFP deals to build their portfolios in order to raise their demand, even if just from gaining additional experience.

And the other primary factor which affects cost is how much skin the model is willing to show and what she’s willing to do in front of the camera. Unlike looks, this is one area where all models have total control. It can also be one of the bigger money makers.

The photographer has to determine a rate that factors these accordingly, and many other things (availability, short-term notice, …) as well into the compensation rate.

Just because both models are willing to stand in front of the camera for equal time does not mean they are providing equal value to the photographer. [It is also true that multiple photographers do not provide equal representation value to a model, which is why one looks at a photographer’s portfolio before accepting a trade-based assignment. Skill, equipment, and post-processing abilities are the parameters the photographer has to measure up to.]

Here’s a reasonable compensation paradigm that is actually fair to both parties equally:

If a model is hired by the photographer, the compensation is cash. (Pose for me.)
If there is a trade of services, her compensation is the photos and his the model’s time.
If the photographer is hired by the model, the compensation is cash. (Make me a portfolio.)

This makes sense from other business methodologies: if you were hired to do a task, such as frame a painting, you get paid, you don’t get a copy of the painting, free frames, or free framing services. An expert framer, incidentally, would be paid more too, and the resulting craftsmanship would be obvious. Quality, not time, is what’s sought.

The task a photographer is hiring for is to have someone take specific direction so they can produce a precise product. To get cash and photos would be double compensation and thereby a double hit on the photographer; most likely that would be the last time the photographer ever cast or recommended the model.

That said, there is nothing wrong with the model requesting some pictures in leu of some portion of the cash. Sometimes the photographer can do this, but quite often if the photographer has been hired on behalf of client, it’s stipulated in the contract that he can not. Hence the cash, which usually comes from a budget that the photographer may, or may not, have control over.

If a model wants photos and tear sheets, that should be negotiated up front, not after the shoot. Again, the photographer may have contractual bindings.

Some models will be fortunate enough to find photographers who will give away photos in addition to cash. Models, if you get cash, don’t expect this, but be grateful if it happens to you — the photographer has figured out a win-win situation that you both can benefit from. Don’t be mistaken, this action is somewhat self serving to the photographer, as he’s looking for extra visibility and word of mouth advertising from you to widen his client base.

Paying gigs are more likely for models when the client needs a specific look. If there’s just a generic need, photographers are going to draw more from TFP/CD deals. Knowing this, the more variety a model can pull off in her portfolio, the easier she just made it for the photographer to just to cut a check than to keep searching.

There does seem to be a subset of models that have a higher impression of their own market value than the market will actually tolerate. New models don’t seem to have this problem much, experienced models have a very good sense of worth (and a portfolio to prove it), but it’s most common among the narrow my-portfolio-is-cell-phone-pictures / I-want-a-job-pay-me modeling-wannabes. These models are usually difficult to work with and are problematic after the shoot, having shifting expectations of the deliverable. Photographers will actively try to avoid them and anyone that fits that stereotype.

Models: if your portfolio reeks of indicators that you fall into this pile (whether you really do or not), be aware that you’re hurting your chances to get a casting call, profile comments, TFP/CD deals, and valuable experience. If you want higher compensation, simply do what those did who are earning it. Their profiles are right there in the open on many modeling sites. Your chances of getting directed casting calls will increase.

Models: Getting more from a TFP/CD shoot

TFP/CD is an arrangement whereby a model and a photographer exchange professional services instead of one hiring the other. Surprisingly, though, many new models don’t know it exists, and those that do have some serious misunderstandings about it. Here are two secrets models might like to know.

Getting more from a TFP shoot TFP/CD means “Time for Print” / “Time for CD,” and it’s an arrangement whereby a model and a photographer exchange professional services instead of one hiring the other.

Surprisingly, though, many new models don’t know it exists, and those that do have some serious misunderstandings about it.

I happened to be reading a discussion forum where some photographers were discussing photo shoots and the models were wanting quick turn around times on CDs. Reasonable. But then it dawned on me, perhaps it wasn’t clear too all what caused the delay. By the time I was done, I derived two secrets models might like to know.

For photographers, setting expectations up front is really important. Failure to do lets misconceptions propagate.

For instance, an inexperienced model may do a 2 hour shoot and roughly estimate the photographer took 500 pictures based on shots-per-minute during a scene and how long the total session was. When a CD doesn’t arrive within the next few days, anxiety replaces anticipation, and when it does arrive there may be only a handful of images leaving a model to wonder why it took so long. But what’s really happening? Did the model get screwed? Was the photographer lazy?

Is there anything that could have been done to get even more images, get some them sooner, or even get even higher quality images? Actually, yes.

The photographer in a TFP/CD deal is just as concerned about his or her reputation as a model is and doesn’t want anything substandard floating in the wild. As such images rarely go from camera to CD to model without review and processing.

Here’s the same scenario from the other side of the camera:

In reality, the photographer may have taken only 200 pictures. Photos are often taken in bursts and during makeup and wardrobe changes the camera isn’t firing; this counts for a lot of down time.

Of the photos, there will always be some that didn’t turn out: eye blinks, unwanted motion blur, lens flare, a horrible facial expression, hair obstructing the face, an unflattering fold of skin, an oil shine, a harsh shadow, undesirable lint, fly away hair, hot spots, exposure alterations, etc. The bursting allows for lots of micro differences to choose from, so that the best of a given set can be selected. To the untrained eye it can simply look like a lot of the same picture. This narrows down the usable images considerably.

Also neglected is that many photographers now also do their own photo editing. And that’s where the really time-consuming part starts. A single photo might take an hour just to get right. The higher the resolution photo and the sharper it is, the more time it takes. Often a photographer inspects every pore of skin. So, even if 20% of the photos are usable, this can represents a full-time week’s worth of editing.

Think about it; that’s 40hrs of follow-up work from a mere 2hr shoot. The misconception is that pictures are ready once taken, usually they aren’t. And, in a TFP/CD shoot, there’s no cash income from this job, so it’s very likely that this post-processing time has to come from in-between other paying gigs, which pushes out the delivery further depending on other commitments and schedules.

A studio uses TFP/CD to put their best foot forward, and that’s why the model greatly benefits from this. It’s unspoken, but often TFP/CD shoots get a little more time, care, and attention; one isn’t producing product, but art.

Sometimes whole segments that looked like a good idea during the shoot just don’t have the magic when everything is seen in context. As such, the photographer will often cull down from the usable photos to just the absolute best of the best and then spend a lot of time and detail on just those.

Believe it or not, the photographer also wants the model to have the images as soon as possible, because if they’re ready for the model’s portfolio, they’re also ready for the photographer’s.

I think the best advice to a photographer in this case is to under commit and over deliver. Don’t say it will take a week if it will take two. Explain that the goal is to get some small number of high quality photos, regardless of how many are taken.

And as for information to the model, the shoot isn’t over for the photographer when the last picture has been taken; that’s when the laborious and time consuming meticulous editing begins.

But here’s some secret advice that will get a model better product, sooner, and more of it:

1) If you are patient and have the extra time, offer during the TFP/CD shoot to allow the photographer to experiment with the lighting. Almost always there are a number of experimental configurations a photographer is secretly wanting to try, but he knows it’s high risk because it might not work perfectly and he doesn’t want to send you home with nothing. Conversely, it could really work out special and you’d have something new, amazing, and highly creative for your portfolio. By allowing for creative freedom, which might not work out, you actually increase your chances of getting super-spectacular shots. Photographers kill for models who let them tinker with experimental lighting.

2) If you are a tech-savvy model and are willing to accept electronic delivery instead of a CD, many photographers will happily send you email attachments or URLs where you can get your photos as they become ready. Because there is no bulk collection with a looming deadline, the photographer will often end up giving you more photos over the course of time, but you also benefit from getting those already done sooner. Plus, since you’ve set up a venue for delivery, a photographer revisiting prior shoots experimenting with new editing techniques has the means of sending you future updates for your portfolio as well.

Connecting Models and Photographers… why so hard?

There are numerous sites that proclaim to connect models and photographers, however based on the design and business models I’ve seen, I don’t think it can work in present form. Here’s why.

As a photographer that photographs models, there’s two primary goals that any website that tries to connect models and photographers should aim for:

1. Assisting a photographer in finding the right model.

2. Assisting the client in finding the right photographer.

All else is peripheral.

The idea is that if you’re a model looking for work, you post your portfolio online and photographers approach you with gigs. Conversely, if you’re a photographer, you post your portfolio and jobs start coming out of the wood work. The reality is that few sites can deliver on the promise adequately, not to a fault of the site’s objective, but due to design, business model complexities, or subtleties pertaining to the problem of brokering.

Naturally, for any such site to work you’re going to need a critical mass of both kinds of users just to have a wide enough selection to make this happen. As such, it’s important not to alienate users — something that is very easy to do with bad design or practice. It’s not enough that a site be free.

The closest site that I’ve come across that seems to have the right idea is www.ModelMayhem.com. It’s search capability is right on target. You tell it that you are looking for models in your local area that are some number of miles from your zipcode, that are between the ages of 18-24, female, 5’2″ – 5’7″, olive skin, with shoulder length black hair, green eyes, and poof — out pops a number of candidates.

This is the way it should work. You tell the criteria about what you need, and it finds people with those attributes.

The problem is the interface is klunky, the portfolio space limited, the navigation is horribly disorganized, and pretty much anything other than models is left wanting. Yet it’s still usable.

I wish it had a way to describe the kinds of services photographers offered and made them in a searchable fashion as well. Oh well, at least finding models isn’t problematic.

Such locator services are not a social network, nor are they a dating service. They’re supposed to be resources that connect professional with professional, with the added bonus of having a reasonable idea of what you’re getting. It frustrates me when a site is designed around chit-chat and messaging. Simply put let one professional find another, preview their work, and then get in contact with them by email; don’t obscure things. A site that works gets traffic, it doesn’t need fudging to get visitors.

Conversely, I just deleted my account over at www.aMuseBook.com, a web site that professes to do the same thing: connect models and photographers. I’d argue not only that it doesn’t, but that it physically can’t in my personal opinion — it’s a business model problem gone awry.

While better organized, and certainly much prettier, it’s search capabilities are downright awful. The best geographical resolution is state-level. So, if you’re looking for a model in Texas, that’s all of Texas. Additionally, providing search criteria for attributes just isn’t possible, which means locating a specific model by looks isn’t doable. And if you can’t find candidates, you aren’t going to be hiring.

Here’s another bad design choice that just seems obvious. If you want to find a model, you typically are looking for an age bracket, yes? Well, the site doesn’t let you search by age, instead you have to search by a specific birthday, which is stupid. Oh, and that’s a Day – Month – Year birthday at that. Even searching by year alone isn’t helpful, because simply year subtraction doesn’t give age.

Now while aMuseBook does give you more space to store your photos, it unlocks features using a point system. You gain points by commenting on people’s pictures and telling your friends to join. What becomes transparent very quickly is that the site is not structured to make contacts, but to get you to churn through pages so that Google Ads get thrown in your face generating an alternate revenue stream. I quickly got tired of being told in every email I have to “use” the site and it will ‘work’ for me.

Hogwash. If I can’t locate a model or post a comprehensive portfolio, then neither I, nor the models, are getting any serious value out of the site.

Adding insult to injury, the site gives you the ability to provide URLs to your own site; this sounds good at first, until you realize that many models and photographers keep their photos on Flickr. Why? Because Flickr is great for managing photos. But what does aMuseBook do for those sites? It blocks them out, showing up as www.*****.com, and when I questioned the site admin about it, I got back a response stating they didn’t want their site for depositing competitor URLs and not another portfolio site.

Wait a second. The service is there to help me find people by showing them my portfolio but they don’t want me to show them my portfolio if it’s elsewhere? Plus I can’t post my portfolio unless I leave comments that I wouldn’t have otherwise. That’s stacking the deck and gives unrealistic feedback. And when points are rewarded for clicking on ads, I’m pretty sure that’s against Google’s terms of service for AdSense.

If people are churning pages leaving “Nice smile” comments, how is one to know which comments are real (and therefore useful) versus people just trying to collect points? The information itself becomes devalued. Thus the business structure and the design alienates users in the short term, while the lack of utility alienates them in the long term. It can’t be viable.

And that’s why I deleted my account over there: It wasn’t usable or productive.

No wonder it’s so hard for models and photographers to get connected. I wish there were a simple directory that focused on doing one thing and one thing well, connecting professionals. It’s a hard problem, but the person that cracks that nut can steal a whole lot of business from all these other sites without trying too hard.

Fundamentally, the problem is that a brokering agent has to provide and organize information. Limiting it, not being able to search it, or failing to have a positive user experience drives away the very assets that are needed to make the site work. This appears to be a case where a well simple organized directory could be a winner-take-all.

UPDATE: I have found an awesome site for models, photographers, and makeup artists. It’s call Miss Online and it allows unlimited photo uploads with no point limitation schemes. It also includes discussions, groups, blogs, and email. The site is very active and quite attractive to use; advertising is at a minimum, and you aren’t coerced into clicking through tons of pages. Plus, and here’s the real proof: as a photographer I’ve had more exchanges with models with this one site than all the other sites combined. It does get you connected.