How much for a Model?

[depso]

Hey folks,
for those of you who shoot models, for fashion and nudes,
Question to you, whats the most outrageously expensive OR cheapest rates
you've paid a model for before
I know the bulk are landscapers but I'm just curios- see alot of work being done with models but hardly any discussions about the rates.
cheers
Njelle

[ypres.bass]

It is a simple answer:
this is exactly what you are willing and able to give and a model accepted...

[depso]

the question i'm asking is what is the most outrageous price you've ever paid, not really what it cost, i was just hoping to hear some really wild stories and some of the stuff we don't usually get to read or hear about
cheers

[Frank Petronio]

I don't pay for models for portfolio or personal work anymore, they ask me to shoot and trade images for their time. But since most of the traveling amateur are living hand to mouth or saving for school, I am generous with helping with their travel expenses and giving them finished, retouched images. I'll usually pick up a hotel room and feed them, which allows them to book paying work from other photographers.

Some inexperienced models will tell me they charge rates and I won't shoot with them.

I've been doing this for four years now and people come to me, but when I started I would expect to pay $200 for an experienced, good model to spend the better part of an afternoon shooting. Usually they ask for $100 per hour, so they are looking to earn $2-300 for an easy day, or to book two shoots and earn $500-$600.

If you are really a beginner and awkward, don't expect them to cut you any favors, pay $100 per hour and be grateful, since a good model will educate you far faster and better than all the books and videos you could ever buy.

Work with someone on Tiana's level and it's worth every penny: http://www.modelmayhem.com/9675

[Frank Petronio]

Oh outrageous? I won't pay it, haha, I want free or for them to pay me.

[depso]

Lol! Frank your stuff is cool btw and you sir have my dream camera.
actually i'm not new to models at-all i was just in the mood for some funny stories...
well once i found a model i wanted to do some work with and she asked was a newbie asking for 400 euros an hour- ofcourse that didn't happened but we settled for 250 and she just sucked, i practically had to mold her poses with directions that plus an 8x10 and strobe and outdoors- it was a hard day of work but the three sheets i shot got published so yea!
crazy!

[Tom J McDonald]

I don't pay for models for portfolio or personal work anymore, they ask me to shoot and trade images for their time. But since most of the traveling amateur are living hand to mouth or saving for school, I am generous with helping with their travel expenses and giving them finished, retouched images. I'll usually pick up a hotel room and feed them, which allows them to book paying work from other photographers.

Some inexperienced models will tell me they charge rates and I won't shoot with them.

I've been doing this for four years now and people come to me, but when I started I would expect to pay $200 for an experienced, good model to spend the better part of an afternoon shooting. Usually they ask for $100 per hour, so they are looking to earn $2-300 for an easy day, or to book two shoots and earn $500-$600.

If you are really a beginner and awkward, don't expect them to cut you any favors, pay $100 per hour and be grateful, since a good model will educate you far faster and better than all the books and videos you could ever buy.

Work with someone on Tiana's level and it's worth every penny: http://www.modelmayhem.com/9675

Frank, have you found models to be sympathetic to newbie photographers?

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah they are totally sympathetic so long as you are nice, not creepy, and pay them. They aren't going to get anything for their portfolio from a newbie most of the time, so expect to pay them well.

Of course you can find free wannabee models as well. I am just saying that paying someone on the caliber of a Tiana (or any of a hundred other good ones) is well worth it based on the experience and education you'll get out of it.

Also, once you have a few better-than-ordinary photos -- which is likely to happen when you work with a real good model -- you'll find that more are willing to work with you for free or for a more reasonable rate.

I'm not advocating underpaying them whatsoever. But don't be silly enough to pay someone $100 per hour for eight hours when it isn't a professional job.

As for crazy expensive, I shot a 15-year old Eastern European girl from Toronto back in the 90s for a Ray-Ban piece and she cost $3000 for 90 minutes of photography and the stylist cost $1500. Of course those are corporate usage prices, not for portfolio work.

[DanK]

Frank,

Bit off the subject....but...

In your experience, how many exposures would one usually make in a half day modeling session? Large format alone.

(I've always used digital as a crutch, and only supplemented with film - never tried only LF for a session)

Thanks,
Dan

[Frank Petronio]

I don't know... Depends...

I might spend the first hour just talking and exploring for the best photos, shoot some small format to warm up and figure out the best spots, etc. then what, 5 minutes to set up, time to test lighting if you use it, etc. but then the actually shooting is fast, what 20 seconds to a few minutes per sheet? 1 to 10 sheets per situation... But f I were with someone in a rich location maybe do 2-3 set-ups in an hour, 7-8 in an afternoon? I really wouldn't worry too much about it, just bring as much film to use as you can carry/afford/rationalize.\

Sometimes a shot will look stupid once you get it all set, in which case just shoot one for the Hell of it.

[Tom J McDonald]

Yeah they are totally sympathetic so long as you are nice, not creepy, and pay them. They aren't going to get anything for their portfolio from a newbie most of the time, so expect to pay them well.

Of course you can find free wannabee models as well. I am just saying that paying someone on the caliber of a Tiana (or any of a hundred other good ones) is well worth it based on the experience and education you'll get out of it.

Also, once you have a few better-than-ordinary photos -- which is likely to happen when you work with a real good model -- you'll find that more are willing to work with you for free or for a more reasonable rate.

I'm not advocating underpaying them whatsoever. But don't be silly enough to pay someone $100 per hour for eight hours when it isn't a professional job.

As for crazy expensive, I shot a 15-year old Eastern European girl from Toronto back in the 90s for a Ray-Ban piece and she cost $3000 for 90 minutes of photography and the stylist cost $1500. Of course those are corporate usage prices, not for portfolio work.

Sounds interesting.
I'm sick of having the same faces in all my photographs and would like to expand.

Cheers for that.

[DanK]

I don't know... Depends...

I might spend the first hour just talking and exploring for the best photos, shoot some small format to warm up and figure out the best spots, etc. then what, 5 minutes to set up, time to test lighting if you use it, etc. but then the actually shooting is fast, what 20 seconds to a few minutes per sheet? 1 to 10 sheets per situation... But f I were with someone in a rich location maybe do 2-3 set-ups in an hour, 7-8 in an afternoon? I really wouldn't worry too much about it, just bring as much film to use as you can carry/afford/rationalize.\

Sometimes a shot will look stupid once you get it all set, in which case just shoot one for the Hell of it.

Thanks Frank...Really Appreciate the Information...

[Jim Jones]

. . . Sometimes a shot will look stupid once you get it all set, in which case just shoot one for the Hell of it.

Yes, indeed. Another sheet of film is a small fraction of the investment in a good shoot. Then the model won't get discouraged, and she will never miss seeing the the bad photos.

The most I've ever paid here in rural Missouri is $30 an hour, with prints and perhaps a good meal in a restaurant. Most of my models are friends I've done favors for, sometimes big favors. They usually don't expect pay for modeling, but might let me know if they need more help. Creative activity between friends is more conducive to good results than mere business.

[cdholden]

I'll usually pick up a hotel room and feed them, which allows them to book paying work from other photographers.

This would be a great way to burn up some of those more-than-I-can-use hotel points. The only problem would be with me leaving, knowing that my name is on the hook for any damage.

[Frank Petronio]

Well you don't pick assholes, lol. FWIW the networking sites provide a mechanism for feedback and someone with a bad rep gets outed. Also don't leave bottles of Tequila for them.

[George Kara]

Oh outrageous? I won't pay it, haha, I want free or for them to pay me.

Paying in trade would not be so bad for some of your models Frank.

[Emil Schildt]

Sometimes a shot will look stupid once you get it all set, in which case just shoot one for the Hell of it.

I try never to do that... If I know or think a pose/setting will look stupid, then I will not waist my time or the models time for making an image of it...

I tell the model that it is my mistake, and move on..

But we're all different.

I have used models for more than 30 years, and I have never paied any anything in cash.
They get prints, and sometimes they pay me for my time.

[Maris Rusis]

I pay in photographs plus a nominal sum of cash, say $50 or $100 for a day. The reason for money is to make the model release a solid contract with conditions that can be defended.

Most of my models are savvy art-aware people and it is essential to establish who is the artist. Is it the photographer? Or is it the model in her capacity as a "performance artist" with the photographer, the camera, the film, and all the other appurtenances merely being a means whereby she culminates her art.

[DanK]

I pay in photographs plus a nominal sum of cash, say $50 or $100 for a day. The reason for money is to make the model release a solid contract with conditions that can be defended.

Most of my models are savvy art-aware people and it is essential to establish who is the artist. Is it the photographer? Or is it the model in her capacity as a "performance artist" with the photographer, the camera, the film, and all the other appurtenances merely being a means whereby she culminates her art.

I completely agree, and actually remember reading something along these lines while looking into contracts...

Dan

[cyrus]

My mantra: Do not use "wannabe" models. Use pros that have experience, pay them cash, in an arm's length deal, wave bye bye and don't make any other promises re: copies of photos as compensation. The less complicated the relationship, the better.

You don't want to deal with drama and the issues down the road that arise with nonpro models. ie: jealous boyfriend demands that all photos be returned, tearful model calls up and begs for negs etc etc Not happened to me but I've heard about it.

Also, remember that you can't just sell photos of people who you've photographed without a release even if they're your bff or gf or even fiance etc. Most publishers won't publish your fotos either without a release.

Then there's the whole issue of Section 2257 record-keeping, which applies not just to porn but also "lascivious displays" (whatever that means) and also bdsm (which can also mean whatever your jury decides it means.) Considering the risk of jail, this can be pretty onerous. Doesn't matter if your model is 79 years old, you're still supposed to have the records.

law school made me paranoid.

Also, if they come to your studio, you do have insurance, right?

Yes this gets very complicated quickly

[depso]

sounds crazy,
the part with the record-keeping i didn't quite understand...
haha the part about begging for negatives has actually happened to me- crazy shite really!

[Brian C. Miller]

Depso, I think Cyrus is referring to this Title 18, 2257 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html).

[cyrus]

Depso, I think Cyrus is referring to this Title 18, 2257 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html).

And 2257A

All of this also applies to "simulated" (not just "actual") "sexual conduct" which has its own definition, which is just as vague.

So make sure your model doesn't have a vague, dreamy grin on her face.

[Emil Schildt]

My mantra: Do not use "wannabe" models. Use pros that have experience, pay them cash, in an arm's length deal, wave bye bye and don't make any other promises re: copies of photos as compensation. The less complicated the relationship, the better.

You don't want to deal with drama and the issues down the road that arise with nonpro models. ie: jealous boyfriend demands that all photos be returned, tearful model calls up and begs for negs etc etc Not happened to me but I've heard about it.

Also, remember that you can't just sell photos of people who you've photographed without a release even if they're your bff or gf or even fiance etc. Most publishers won't publish your fotos either without a release.

Then there's the whole issue of Section 2257 record-keeping, which applies not just to porn but also "lascivious displays" (whatever that means) and also bdsm (which can also mean whatever your jury decides it means.) Considering the risk of jail, this can be pretty onerous. Doesn't matter if your model is 79 years old, you're still supposed to have the records.

law school made me paranoid.

Also, if they come to your studio, you do have insurance, right?

Yes this gets very complicated quickly

:rolleyes:

wow - I am glad I am from Denmark.... (legal wise)

But my mantra is somewhat opposite yours:

"Never use professional models"..
They think they know, but they dont.... (biased, I know).

I love using amateur ("wannabe") models! Have made model photography for 30 years and have tried to use these amateurs! So easy to work with - and great friendships has come of it!

[Dan Dozer]

For working with fine art nude models in Southern California, I pay nothing (I'll do time for print) if they haven't done fine art nude work before (glamour or Playboy type work doesn't qualify), $50 per hour if they have done a decent amount of fine art nude work before, and $75 per hour if they are a full time experienced fine art nude model. Their "posted" rates are just about always higher, but I've never had one turn down an offer at these rates.

[Brian K]

I've never paid for a model directly. In my advertising days I'd book the model often, or in consultation with the client, or the client had a model under contract. The most I ever paid, on behalf of a client, was about $7500 for a 2 hour booking for a soft drink company. The model had just been the love interest in a movie and was getting a lot of interest. Usually the models were more in the $500 or 600 an hour range.

The cheapest were free as models would always be willing to shoot with me for their portfolios. I never had to pay for a model for that and in fact they were usually very aggressive in getting you to shoot them. Well established models didn't do test shooting because they already had well represented portfolios and were working regularly.

[John NYC]

And 2257A

All of this also applies to "simulated" (not just "actual") "sexual conduct" which has its own definition, which is just as vague.

So make sure your model doesn't have a vague, dreamy grin on her face.

It doesn't say anything like that. If you read the whole thing, including the definitions, then it is easy to understand that these laws are really meant to protect people from exploiting minors and other susceptible people... and that is a good thing.

If it were more about reducing your freedoms and scaring people into not producing provocative images as you are implying, the judicial system would currently be using these laws to throw people in jail left and right, and that clearly is not happening.

[cyrus]

It doesn't say anything like that. If you read the whole thing, including the definitions, then it is easy to understand that these laws are really meant to protect people from exploiting minors and other susceptible people... and that is a good thing.

If it were more about reducing your freedoms and scaring people into not producing provocative images as you are implying, the judicial system would currently be using these laws to throw people in jail left and right, and that clearly is not happening.

I don't think anyone said anything about "reducing freedoms" etc (I'm not some sort of paranoid "black helicopter" conspiracy nut) and in fact it is well-known that there have been no 2257 enforcement actions lately by the government, but the fact is that while the law may be 'intended' to protect minors, it is applicable to photos of any model - even ones who are quite obviously adults (and even grown swingers who post their own photos in swinger magazine ads) and the vagueness in the defintions, combined with the severe punishments for non-compliance, mean that in effect you have to worry about 2257 laws for every type of erotic photo you take. And its not just me who thinks this, this is also standard advice provided by lawyers who specialize in this field (http://www.firstamendment.com/site-articles/foreign-webmasters/).


"Assume that all erotic images require Section 2257 compliance: While the law only applies to actual 'sexually explicit activity,' it is ill-advised for the content producer or the webmaster to attempt to guess which images require compliance, and which can be safely distributed without compliance."


These laws are very complex too and can potentially apply to people who didn't even take the photos. For example, consider the images that have been posted in the latest "nudes" thread on this very forum. Suppose one of them portrayed genitals in a "lascivious" manner (whatever that means) or of "simulated sexual conduct" or of BDSM. The operator of this website is potentially then liable as a 'secondary producer/distributor' unless he too obtains and stores the records as required by 2257. So in other words he could be the one going to jail for someone else's photos posted here. The law provides certain exemptions for operators of websites with "user generated content" such as this forum (but the website operators are required to abide by certain rules such as appointing and identifying a DMCA agent) but the applicability of those exemptions to the requirements of 2257 are not quite clear (http://www.firstamendment.com/site-articles/tube-sites/). (the discussion on the page linked to is out of date. The Connections case was ultimately decided in favor of the law)

So take for example this (http://www.saudek.com/en/jan/fotografie.html?r=2001-2005&typ=f&l=0&f=433) photo created by the well-known photographer Jan Saudek. It is arguably showing genitals in a "lascivious manner" as well as depicting BDSM. So if someone created / distributed something equivalent in the US, they can be potentially prosecuted unless they have met the meticulous record keeping requirements. If someone posted an equivalent photo on this site, the owner of this site may be a "distributor" and also prosecuted unless he has met the recordkeeping/labeling requirements. (note that I'm just using Saudek as an example because he's one of my favorite photographers - not meaning to pick on him - but you can find similar photos in the works of many other well-known photographers.) The argument that the law was "intended to protect minors" and that the model is obviously not a minor, would not save you.

DISCLAIMER: None of the above constitutes legal advice. If you need legal advice consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

[John NYC]

while the law may be 'intended' to protect minors, it is applicable to photos of any model - even ones who are quite obviously adults.

That's because you can't make the law about letting people interpret who they think an adult is without requiring proof.

[John NYC]

So take for example this (http://www.saudek.com/en/jan/fotografie.html?r=2001-2005&typ=f&l=0&f=433) photo created by the well-known photographer Jan Saudek. It is arguably showing genitals in a "lascivious manner" as well as depicting BDSM. So if someone created / distributed something equivalent in the US, they can be potentially prosecuted. If someone posted an equivalent photo on this site, the owner of this site may be a "distributor" and also prosecuted unless he has met the recordkeeping/labeling requirements. (note that I'm just using Saudek as an example because he's one of my favorite photographers - not meaning to pick on him - but you can find similar photos in the works of many other well-known photographers.)

DISCLAIMER: None of the above constitutes legal advice. If you need legal advice consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.


Explain to us how in your view this example you give is related to 2257?

[John Koehrer]

"I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it"
I don't believe the quote is verbatim but it was made by a jurist not all that long ago.
All you need is to be tried in front of this type person and you'll discover whether or not you needed the 2257(a)

[John NYC]

"I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it"
I don't believe the quote is verbatim but it was made by a jurist not all that long ago.
All you need is to be tried in front of this type person and you'll discover whether or not you needed the 2257(a)

What's really ironic and completely misinformed about your comment is the statement you are trying to quote was used by a judge who OVERTURNED the obscenity judgement of a lower court. The judge was, in fact, saying what he saw was not obscene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

[cyrus]

Explain to us how in your view this example you give is related to 2257?

You mean how a photograph of a nude woman on all fours, arse in the air, naughty bits showing, getting spanked, may come under 2257 or 2257A?

The law applies to actual or simulated "sexually explicit conduct" which is defined to include (among other things) sadomasochism and 'lascivious displays of genitals or pubic area.'

[cyrus]

What's really ironic and completely misinformed about your comment is the statement you are trying to quote was used by a judge who OVERTURNED the obscenity judgement of a lower court. The judge was, in fact, saying what he saw was not obscene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

I think the broader point is that whether something qualifies as obscene depends not on objective factors but on the opinion of the viewer. While THAT judge may not have thought THAT image to be obscene, there was (and is) no clear definition of obscenity. And since 'community standards' come into play, what is deemed quite normal in one place can be judged obscene in another place (resulting in criminal prosecutions in far-flung counties.)

[John NYC]

You mean how a photograph of a nude woman on all fours, arse in the air, naughty bits showing, getting spanked, may come under 2257 or 2257A?

The law applies to actual or simulated "sexually explicit conduct" which is defined to include (among other things) sadomasochism and 'lascivious displays of genitals or pubic area.'

Why don't you cite the exact sections of the law that lead you to your opinions?

[John NYC]

I think the broader point is that whether something qualifies as obscene depends not on objective factors but on the opinion of the viewer. While THAT judge may not have thought THAT image to be obscene, there was (and is) no clear definition of obscenity. And since 'community standards' come into play, what is deemed quite normal in one place can be judged obscene in another place (resulting in criminal prosecutions in far-flung counties.)

What non-subjective measure do you have in mind people use to make better decisions about this in court?

[cyrus]

"I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it"
I don't believe the quote is verbatim but it was made by a jurist not all that long ago.
All you need is to be tried in front of this type person and you'll discover whether or not you needed the 2257(a)

I should point out -- again, not legal advice -- that 2257 is entirely separate from the issue of obscenity. 2257 applies to even non-obscene material. Obscenity is per se illegal. Visual depictions that fall under 2257 are not necessarily obscene but you as the "producer" and "distributor" of the photos had better have your t's crossed and i's dotted by recording and maintaining the necessary records on the model, or else you can go to prison.

[cyrus]

What non-subjective measure do you have in mind people use to make better decisions about this in court?

I personally don't buy the notion of obscenity but don't presume to apply my personal views on judges and the courts. In any case this issue has gone well past the subject matter of this thread so I'm dropping it.

[cyrus]

Why don't you cite the exact sections of the law that lead you to your opinions?

Is this a law school exam? Because already done that.

First of all, this isn't my "opinion" -- this is fact.
Second, in other words you want to see the specific portion of the law that defines "sexual conduct" as including sadomasochism and displays of the genitals or pubic area?
See 18 USC 2257 paragraph (2) subparagraph (a) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html)

Do I pass?

[John NYC]

Is this a law school exam? Because already done that.

First of all, this isn't my "opinion" -- this is fact.
Second, in other words you want to see the specific portion of the law that defines "sexual conduct" as including sadomasochism and displays of the genitals or pubic area?
See 18 USC 2257 paragraph (2) subparagraph (a) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html)

Do I pass?

It's not a test. It's called trying to understand the reasoning behind your views.

So the relevant text to your argument is...

"(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;"

Is open-handed spanking "sadistic or masochistic abuse"? Is that a "lascivious" display of the privates in the Saudek photo?

[cyrus]

It's not a test. It's called trying to understand the reasoning behind your views.

So the relevant text to your argument is...

"(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;"

Is open-handed spanking "sadistic or masochistic abuse"? Is that a "lascivious" display of the privates in the Saudek photo?

That would be up for the jury to decide. If you decide to take the risk and assume that it doesn't fit under the definition, and lose, you go to prison. Question is, do you as a photographer want to take that risk.

Now you're getting my point about the vagueness. That's why the lawyers I linked to say that erotic photographers should just assume that 2257 applies to their work.

[Tom J McDonald]

Wow. great photo. Look at the expression on the spankee's face!

[John NYC]

That would be up for the jury to decide. If you decide to take the risk and assume that it doesn't fit under the definition, and lose, you go to prison. Question is, do you as a photographer want to take that risk.

Now you're getting my point about the vagueness. That's why the lawyers I linked to say that erotic photographers should just assume that 2257 applies to their work.

Since I am personally not interested in ever taking nude photos or any other photos that would remotely fall into those categories, I don't have to worry about it.

But as I am the kind of person who has kept every single tax return I have ever filed, you can bet I'd keep records if I did do that stuff.

[cyrus]

Since I am personally not interested in ever taking nude photos or any other photos that would remotely fall into those categories, I don't have to worry about it.

But as I am the kind of person who has kept every single tax return I have ever filed, you can bet I'd keep records if I did do that stuff.

You may not be interested in such photography but some of us are, so the bigger point is whether this law -- which was supposedly intended to protect minors from exploitation but which effectively imposes very onerous duties on photographers who even use very obviously adult models -- has had the effect of "chilling" expression. Note that under this law, you don't go to jail for using a model who turned out to be underage; no, you go to jail for failing to keep records in the way specified regardless of how old the model was. Ten years in prison for a failure to do paperwork, not for child porn.

How many perfectly legitimate photographers are now prevented/scared-off from taking perfectly legitimate photographs not because their model may be underage, but because they don't want to do things such as keeping detailed, cross-indexed files of model names, stage-names, photos taken, URLS where the photos were displayed, etc. -- all of which has to be made available by a publicly-identified person who has to be present at a public-identified location for at least 20 hours a week to allow the un-announced access by the FBI to the records (who don't need a warrant or even a legitimate reason for suspicion of any sort to come to your studio and demand to see these records.)

Is this really about protecting minors or a de facto stigmatization of certain types of photography which was intended to circumvent constitutional protections?

[Robert Hughes]

How many perfectly legitimate photographers are now prevented/scared-off from taking perfectly legitimate photographs...
The Minneapolis Police Dept once bashed in my front door ($2000) and tore my house apart looking for child porn, after a local lab turned me in for taking "bear rug" shots of my infant daughter. I've certainly been scared off.