The great TFP debate, part 2
A link to my previous TFP post caused all sorts of interesting musings at the Glamour1 forums and some interesting feedback in the post comments. So reading these replies I have decided to post a follow up.
A few approaches to TFP were suggested in the forums:
1) Everyone is responsible for themselves and their own equipment/clothing/makeup/hair. Images provided.
This is true TFP and I don’t have any problem with this. However, my experience and the experiences I’ve read about lead me to believe that this rarely happens.
2) Portfolio sessions that go indoors to studio situations or require a MUA will be "Expenses Covered by Model"...ie. Studio rental, MUA kit costs, any other expenses that come up. Photographers time will still be freely given. Images provided.
So the model covers the cost of the studio, the MUA and all other sundries while the photographer brings his camera, probably shoots digital and supplies a CD. I doubt if any established model would go for this unless the photographer’s port was full of killer images, in which case they would pay be prepared to pay anyway. If a photographer gets away with this on a newbie model then shame on him as it is IMO exploitation.
TFP should mean just that. Each person picks up their own costs. When this is not true and one half of the team has something to offer that is of greater value than the other, there should be payment of some kind.
Targeting newbie models with camera phone photos and offering them better shots to improve their port, but offering to let them pick up all the expenses is just not TFP.
As I see it there should be one of several things happening twixt model and photographer:
1. Both cover their costs (and MUA if applicable). Neither pays the other. Both pay half for any hired resources such as a studio.
2. Model pays photographer
3. Photographer pays model
4. Part pay. One pays the other with added portfolio rights.
5. The client pays all. This is the winning scheme.
The problem with TFP is that there is little of it about. Often both parties think that they are the ones whose time is of most value. The models doesn’t see the costs of equipment or post processing as being as valuable as their tuning up because you couldn’t shoot without them. And the photographers see their experience and equipment as being of the most value. So usually, one or the other starts harping on about the other covering expenses. As soon as money changes hands it‘s not TFP, its part paid.
If its part paid then call it that and negotiate the price, be it model paying for an MUA and studio, or the photographer paying the models expenses.
Now Melvyn commented:
“By the same token, a good art photographer deserves to be paid too, but that doesn’t seem to happen very often either. I'd love to pay everybody I work with bucketloads of money, but I haven't got any money,”
Melvyn, you don’t exploit the models. You are a respected art photographer, don’t pay the models, don’t expect pay from the models, and often travel long distances at your own expense to take the shots. This is true TFP.
But there exists a whole group of photographers who target models who are new to the scene and are not going to be able to offer the models images that will really boost their portfolio. There are some very good photographers doing TFP and that makes those models they shoot with lucky. But there are bucket loads of bad ones whose images barely rate better than the cellphone images they are eager to replace. These guys have taken TFP and made a mockery of it. Thus we end up with newbie models who want $100 an hour in payment for their zero experience and photographers who want the models to hire them studios in return for their CD.
I would guess at this stage people are probably thinking “I bet this guy is bitter because he can’t get anyone to shoot TFP!” I shot 3 models TFP before I realized the sham of it all. The images I took are in their ports still.
The reason I decided to pay, or do part paid is that I believe that TFP simply devalues those concerned as soon as money is discussed, and it always is. If my shots are not good enough for someone to pay their own rail fair to get to me so they can use my studio and images, then that’s fine, but lets not call it TFP because its not. Similarly there are those who pay expenses so far over the actual expenses that it’s not even remotely TFP, but by saying that those costs were actually expenses they can call it TFP and keep the myth alive.
Get real people. If it’s TFP then there is NO MONEY exchanged, not even expenses. If you exchange money its part paid.
This is a photo of Jenvy shot TPF from back in May.
A few approaches to TFP were suggested in the forums:
1) Everyone is responsible for themselves and their own equipment/clothing/makeup/hair. Images provided.
This is true TFP and I don’t have any problem with this. However, my experience and the experiences I’ve read about lead me to believe that this rarely happens.
2) Portfolio sessions that go indoors to studio situations or require a MUA will be "Expenses Covered by Model"...ie. Studio rental, MUA kit costs, any other expenses that come up. Photographers time will still be freely given. Images provided.
So the model covers the cost of the studio, the MUA and all other sundries while the photographer brings his camera, probably shoots digital and supplies a CD. I doubt if any established model would go for this unless the photographer’s port was full of killer images, in which case they would pay be prepared to pay anyway. If a photographer gets away with this on a newbie model then shame on him as it is IMO exploitation.
TFP should mean just that. Each person picks up their own costs. When this is not true and one half of the team has something to offer that is of greater value than the other, there should be payment of some kind.
Targeting newbie models with camera phone photos and offering them better shots to improve their port, but offering to let them pick up all the expenses is just not TFP.
As I see it there should be one of several things happening twixt model and photographer:
1. Both cover their costs (and MUA if applicable). Neither pays the other. Both pay half for any hired resources such as a studio.
2. Model pays photographer
3. Photographer pays model
4. Part pay. One pays the other with added portfolio rights.
5. The client pays all. This is the winning scheme.
The problem with TFP is that there is little of it about. Often both parties think that they are the ones whose time is of most value. The models doesn’t see the costs of equipment or post processing as being as valuable as their tuning up because you couldn’t shoot without them. And the photographers see their experience and equipment as being of the most value. So usually, one or the other starts harping on about the other covering expenses. As soon as money changes hands it‘s not TFP, its part paid.
If its part paid then call it that and negotiate the price, be it model paying for an MUA and studio, or the photographer paying the models expenses.
Now Melvyn commented:
“By the same token, a good art photographer deserves to be paid too, but that doesn’t seem to happen very often either. I'd love to pay everybody I work with bucketloads of money, but I haven't got any money,”
Melvyn, you don’t exploit the models. You are a respected art photographer, don’t pay the models, don’t expect pay from the models, and often travel long distances at your own expense to take the shots. This is true TFP.
But there exists a whole group of photographers who target models who are new to the scene and are not going to be able to offer the models images that will really boost their portfolio. There are some very good photographers doing TFP and that makes those models they shoot with lucky. But there are bucket loads of bad ones whose images barely rate better than the cellphone images they are eager to replace. These guys have taken TFP and made a mockery of it. Thus we end up with newbie models who want $100 an hour in payment for their zero experience and photographers who want the models to hire them studios in return for their CD.
I would guess at this stage people are probably thinking “I bet this guy is bitter because he can’t get anyone to shoot TFP!” I shot 3 models TFP before I realized the sham of it all. The images I took are in their ports still.
The reason I decided to pay, or do part paid is that I believe that TFP simply devalues those concerned as soon as money is discussed, and it always is. If my shots are not good enough for someone to pay their own rail fair to get to me so they can use my studio and images, then that’s fine, but lets not call it TFP because its not. Similarly there are those who pay expenses so far over the actual expenses that it’s not even remotely TFP, but by saying that those costs were actually expenses they can call it TFP and keep the myth alive.
Get real people. If it’s TFP then there is NO MONEY exchanged, not even expenses. If you exchange money its part paid.
This is a photo of Jenvy shot TPF from back in May.
posted by Richard at 4:05 PM
1 Comments:
Richard, much of what you said in your blog in relation to what I had posted in G1 has relevance. I can't disagree with most of it. There were a few points that perhaps I should have clarified. I was mostly talking about Portfolio shots...not Fashion or Product or Concept. Straight forward "This is me" kind of shots. The requirement for the model to pay the expenses is because I don't make one red cent from these shoots. Portfolio images really have little marketability and are specific for the Models' use to show other photographers and paying clients. So typically such a shoot with Studio, MUA and such can run into the hundreds of dollars. Well, I like what I'm doing but not to the extent of covering that cost...especially in this case. What the Model comes away from this are images that are bankable to her (indirectly unless she sells copies) but are basically worthless to me...other than as examples of what I have done. So, yes, there is some money that is exchanged (for Studio rental and MUA work/kit) but it's still TFP from me as I don't expect payment.
Anyway, I would have liked to have seen your response on G1. But at least you responded and it's viewable on your blog.
Richard W. (TrueBeauty.ca)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home