TFP and Paying Amateur Models
January 6th, 2010
Published in
Business, Photography
8 Comments
Tags: microstock, modelmayhem, models, planning, TFP
Do you know what TFP and TFCD is? If you’re a seasoned photographer or model, the answer is probably yes. However, even among those who do know what it is, opinions on it differ. Some photographers say it’s a great way to save money on your production, others claim it’s a waste of time.
I am talking about compensation for models. TFP is short for Time-for-Print, which means that instead of paying your model hard cash, you give them some photos to use in their portfolio. TFCD is the same deal, except it refers to handing over the photos digitally (cd is short for, well, a cd) instead of on paper.
The argument against TFP/CD is that you will end up with amateur models, whose lack of experience will show in your pictures. That is, if your model shows up at all. And yes, sometimes bad results do happen. If you recruit beginners through websites like ModelMayhem, the models’ skill level is a crap shoot. Some are naturals who take direction well and know how to hold a pose, others are daydreaming wannabes with no idea of how a photo shoot works. That is the playing field when you’re recruiting amateurs.
Last year, I had a series of TFP/CD shoots lined up that all fell through, yet I still am not going to tell you to avoid these shoots altogether.
If you shoot microstock or art photos, keeping production cost down is a must and paying for professional models is often out of the question. So, how do you balance it out?
I don’t do a lot of TFP/CD shoots anymore, mostly because I’m into a kind of photography that does not require models in the traditional sense these days, but I used to do it regularly. When working with an amateur model for the first time, my offer has always been the same: 10 shots, fully processed in full res for print as well as for-web versions. I pick.
If I end up using the same model many times, and we work well together, I will start paying them. Typically, I start fairly low but still high enough that it’s worth the model’s time (actual rates will depend on where you are in the world). I also cover any shoot related expenses, such as parking, gas, a cup of coffee while we go over the model release and so on. But first time shoots with amateur models are always on a TFP/CD basis, unless the model is paying me.
While it’s true that you will get better results working with a professional (duh), you can get pretty far working with amateurs as well, without breaking the bank in the meantime. It allows you to practice your direction skills and build up confidence, before splurging on hiring a pro. Working with models who are outside your social circle is intimidating if you haven’t done it before, but having a plan for both the shoot itself and things like compensation, will help you relax and focus on the most important thing of all: Getting a fantastic shot!
The photo used for this post is available on iStockphoto.
Related Posts
January 6th, 2010at 4:34 pm(#)
I’m all for working with new/amateur models. For me, I get more authentic people, portraying authentic emotions. It is more work than using “professionals” but I end up with images that I am happy with. Images that I might not get with a seasoned pro. The spontaneity of the amateur model is fun.
January 6th, 2010at 7:47 pm(#)
I like working with non-professionals as well. I think though, that the more conceptualized the shoot, the bigger benefit you will get from working with experienced models. Especially if it’s a big enough shoot to involve make-up and/or assistants, which is pretty intimidating if you’re not used to it.
January 6th, 2010at 9:23 pm(#)
I think it’s also helpful to note that the prints or CD can fulfill the “consideration” (compensation) requirement of model releases when models aren’t paid cash. Something of value must pass from the photographer to the model. It says so right on the release, though in the legal language most releases use it’s not always clear.
So you could have an ulterior motive for buying them that cup of coffee! ;)
January 6th, 2010at 10:32 pm(#)
That’s a great point, that I completely neglected in the post. Thanks for mentioning that, Lee.
January 7th, 2010at 5:55 am(#)
I always pay all my models, first time or not. It ensures that they act professionally (ie, show up on time, etc.) and that I don’t have to worry about meeting their TFP needs. If you want to shoot stock, you can’t be sitting around for an hour trying to give them the headshot they want. I do give them a cd of images as well, as part of their compensation.
January 7th, 2010at 9:42 am(#)
Sean, I must say that I have never had to spend more than 10 minutes getting whatever headshot the model needs out of the way. If a headshot takes you an hour to do, I understand why you have problems with TFP. And yes, involving money can raise the level of professionality, but if your model is inexperienced paying her is not going to magically give her modeling technique or the ability to take direction well. Of course, at your level, you should be using pros all the time anyway.
January 7th, 2010at 11:30 am(#)
I like to have my shooting area set up for the shoot, lights, props, everything. It would take too much time to be moving things about to give them what they want, and then what I want. The money doesn’t have to do with their performance; I can normally coach them to get to where I need to be. I also feel it’s a fair trade – I think I will make income from the session, so they should make some as well.
“Pros” come from agencies, and agencies around here charge prohibitively large fees for stock modeling. I use part time models and people I feel would do a good job I find in various places.
January 7th, 2010at 11:49 am(#)
You’re absolutely right that many agencies charge hefty fees for stock work. Working with part time models is probably the best way to go for microstock shooting, where keeping cost down is key. Great advice. :)