night86mare
Deregistered
"will you kiss the ground for me?"....
why not?... she answered.
:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:
she needs to learn how to kiss: instructions
Why so called "models" with little or less experience can demand paid shoots?
- Thread starter wakaowalao
- Start date
- Status
:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:
she needs to learn how to kiss: instructions
night86mare
Deregistered
Demand and supply - there you have it. It's really quite an easy way to earn money for pretty-ish girls, I've even told my gf to consider it
i think you will be getting a lot of pm soon :bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:
Sion
Senior Member
That depends on who is the ground. :bsmilie:
I hope I'm giving a very neutral view...
Supply and demand
With the prices of DSLRs getting cheaper and cheaper, more people are able to afford for a DSLR system and thus making them a "photographer". So, why can't a girl start going for some shoots and call herself a "model"? With so many "photographer" interested in shooting nice and beautiful portraitures (the demand), comes the talents and model wannabes (the supply). This is very natural...
No free lunch
In the "Service wanted/offered" section of the forum, there are newbie "photographers" looking to be part-time photographers and asking to be paid. So what's wrong with newbie models who want to get paid? When event organisers get"photographers" to shoot and tell them that they will not be paid saying that the "photographers" can keep the pictures as portfolio building. Do you think they will want to accept it? Of course, if the event is a high class and really worth shooting for free for the sake of portfolio display, maybe. Likewise, the talents/model wannabes want to get paid while building portfolio and "don't mind TFCD" at the same time so as to keep herself open to the real professionals that will really help boost her portfolio. It's the same...
Level of proficiency
"Photographers" paid the "models" and expect them to be some professional models they see on those magazine frontcovers. The "models" are not real professionals in the first place. Some of them just started and really knows nothing at all. And yes, inspired, or rather dreaming maybe a better word to describe. Granted, some are really new and inexperienced, but who are you, the "photographers" to teach them? Are you really a professional in the first place or are you just an amatuer afterall? Teaching the newbies how to pose? makeup? dressing? Help the wannabes to become a real models and be their teacher/coach? Stop dreaming, stop misleading young minds...
Professionalism
Some "models" in the shoots come in with the wrong attitude and mindset. Being a model, one has to be able to present the best to the cameras. Sleepy eyes, messy hair, bad makeup, poor dress sense (the bra strap case discussed before) etc are "taboos". However, some continued on with the shoots not knowing that how big the impacts the "taboos" have on the pictures. Photographers are not magicians, they cannot fix every single flaws in the pictures, otherwise they should be called DI artist. It is the responsiblity of the model to take care of her own skin, face, hair etc - they are her greatest assets as a model. Clubbing the night before a shoot which results in puffy eyebags, red eyes, hangovers shows how "professsional" the model is. Paying the "models", the "photographers" expect everything to be perfect without hiring a proper makeup artist to ensure the makeup and hair are nicely done up. Even after shooting the pictures, some of the pictures were posted and don't do the model any good - non-portfolio materal. Before criticising on the models on their own professionalism, "photographers" should also look at themselves too. No one is more superior...
Pictures?
Whether paid shoot or not, most of the models will wish to have a copy of the pictures so that she can blog about, post online, share with friends, or to use for portfolio building. It is very natural. Afterall, the pictures are not for commercial uses. However, if the pictures were to be used by a modeling agency, press, newpapers, magazines, other photographers, or any other medias, the whole ball game is different. In the similar context, when commissioned to cover an event or to do a portraiture shoot, you would also like to be able to use the pictures you took to be able to use for your own portfolio building. Ever encounter cases where your client forbids you to use the pictures because he/she commissioned you to do the shoot? We all want to build portfolio...
Attention seeking?
The thread names in the P&P section are getting more and more cheesy, likewise for the organisers of the shoots. What is the objective? Models also start to advertise in the "Service wanted/offered" section in a very cheesy manner. Admit it, we all want attention, viewership and not to forget, business...
Supply and demand
With the prices of DSLRs getting cheaper and cheaper, more people are able to afford for a DSLR system and thus making them a "photographer". So, why can't a girl start going for some shoots and call herself a "model"? With so many "photographer" interested in shooting nice and beautiful portraitures (the demand), comes the talents and model wannabes (the supply). This is very natural...
No free lunch
In the "Service wanted/offered" section of the forum, there are newbie "photographers" looking to be part-time photographers and asking to be paid. So what's wrong with newbie models who want to get paid? When event organisers get"photographers" to shoot and tell them that they will not be paid saying that the "photographers" can keep the pictures as portfolio building. Do you think they will want to accept it? Of course, if the event is a high class and really worth shooting for free for the sake of portfolio display, maybe. Likewise, the talents/model wannabes want to get paid while building portfolio and "don't mind TFCD" at the same time so as to keep herself open to the real professionals that will really help boost her portfolio. It's the same...
Level of proficiency
"Photographers" paid the "models" and expect them to be some professional models they see on those magazine frontcovers. The "models" are not real professionals in the first place. Some of them just started and really knows nothing at all. And yes, inspired, or rather dreaming maybe a better word to describe. Granted, some are really new and inexperienced, but who are you, the "photographers" to teach them? Are you really a professional in the first place or are you just an amatuer afterall? Teaching the newbies how to pose? makeup? dressing? Help the wannabes to become a real models and be their teacher/coach? Stop dreaming, stop misleading young minds...
Professionalism
Some "models" in the shoots come in with the wrong attitude and mindset. Being a model, one has to be able to present the best to the cameras. Sleepy eyes, messy hair, bad makeup, poor dress sense (the bra strap case discussed before) etc are "taboos". However, some continued on with the shoots not knowing that how big the impacts the "taboos" have on the pictures. Photographers are not magicians, they cannot fix every single flaws in the pictures, otherwise they should be called DI artist. It is the responsiblity of the model to take care of her own skin, face, hair etc - they are her greatest assets as a model. Clubbing the night before a shoot which results in puffy eyebags, red eyes, hangovers shows how "professsional" the model is. Paying the "models", the "photographers" expect everything to be perfect without hiring a proper makeup artist to ensure the makeup and hair are nicely done up. Even after shooting the pictures, some of the pictures were posted and don't do the model any good - non-portfolio materal. Before criticising on the models on their own professionalism, "photographers" should also look at themselves too. No one is more superior...
Pictures?
Whether paid shoot or not, most of the models will wish to have a copy of the pictures so that she can blog about, post online, share with friends, or to use for portfolio building. It is very natural. Afterall, the pictures are not for commercial uses. However, if the pictures were to be used by a modeling agency, press, newpapers, magazines, other photographers, or any other medias, the whole ball game is different. In the similar context, when commissioned to cover an event or to do a portraiture shoot, you would also like to be able to use the pictures you took to be able to use for your own portfolio building. Ever encounter cases where your client forbids you to use the pictures because he/she commissioned you to do the shoot? We all want to build portfolio...
Attention seeking?
The thread names in the P&P section are getting more and more cheesy, likewise for the organisers of the shoots. What is the objective? Models also start to advertise in the "Service wanted/offered" section in a very cheesy manner. Admit it, we all want attention, viewership and not to forget, business...
V
vince123123
Guest
Ill just comment on this point which I find isn't a very balanced view.
If the model wishes to have a copy of the photos, then I think she should have to pay for it. Otherwise, it is an inequitable exchange for the photographer, who has to pay for the model's input (ie her time, her expertise in hair/makeup, her making sure her clothing is in order etc), and yet still having to give output to the model (ie money + photographs).
The model receives money, and receives photographs, which sounds like a raw deal for hte photographer. Lets reverse the tables - imagine a new model pays an established photography house to take photos of her to start her portfolio. She asks for a fashion-style portfolio to be done.
Do you think it is right for the photography house to ask the model to "Since you're here already for your portfolio, do you mind helping us model this classic cheongsam retro dress for our other paying project?", and bear in mind that the model totally does not want retro look for her portfolio. That is to me, the same as asking for the photographer to give photos on top of having to pay for the model's fees - in this reverse situation, the photographer is asking the model for free modelling since she is there already, even though he was already paid for the portfolio building by the model.
A lot of people think that "since the photos are already there, why not just give it to me for free" - which is unfortunately, a mistaken view. Just becuase something is already there doesn't mean it has no value and should be given for free, or worst, demanded for free.
Whether the pictures are for commercial or non commercial use is beside the point. It can be further argued that using photos in a portfolio is commerical use, since it is a tool to market and promote yourself and bring in commercial jobs. Commercial use is not limited only to actual money being paid for the photos (ie stock photo sales).
When commissioned to cover an event or do a portraiture shoot, the photographer may want to use the photos he took for his portfolio. However, since he has already been compensated in the form of cash, he gives up that right and copyright belongs to the commissioner. If the photogrpaher wishes to use the photos for his portfolio, he can negotiate for a license from the commissioner to do so. Bear in mind the commissioner may counter-negotiate for lower fees in return for the license.
Just to also share, there are MANY commercial jobs out there where the client does not allow the photographer to use the photographs in their portfolio. Do a search in CS here where you can see various professionals saying they cannot show this and that photograph because it is a commercial commissioned job.
In short, photographs are not free, and if the person wishes to be paid in cash and in kind in the form of photos, then he must be prepared that the cash portion be reduced since payment is also made in kind. You can't have full cash payment, and then load on top of that, a freebie in the form of "in kind" photos. Everything has value.
If the model wishes to have a copy of the photos, then I think she should have to pay for it. Otherwise, it is an inequitable exchange for the photographer, who has to pay for the model's input (ie her time, her expertise in hair/makeup, her making sure her clothing is in order etc), and yet still having to give output to the model (ie money + photographs).
The model receives money, and receives photographs, which sounds like a raw deal for hte photographer. Lets reverse the tables - imagine a new model pays an established photography house to take photos of her to start her portfolio. She asks for a fashion-style portfolio to be done.
Do you think it is right for the photography house to ask the model to "Since you're here already for your portfolio, do you mind helping us model this classic cheongsam retro dress for our other paying project?", and bear in mind that the model totally does not want retro look for her portfolio. That is to me, the same as asking for the photographer to give photos on top of having to pay for the model's fees - in this reverse situation, the photographer is asking the model for free modelling since she is there already, even though he was already paid for the portfolio building by the model.
A lot of people think that "since the photos are already there, why not just give it to me for free" - which is unfortunately, a mistaken view. Just becuase something is already there doesn't mean it has no value and should be given for free, or worst, demanded for free.
Whether the pictures are for commercial or non commercial use is beside the point. It can be further argued that using photos in a portfolio is commerical use, since it is a tool to market and promote yourself and bring in commercial jobs. Commercial use is not limited only to actual money being paid for the photos (ie stock photo sales).
When commissioned to cover an event or do a portraiture shoot, the photographer may want to use the photos he took for his portfolio. However, since he has already been compensated in the form of cash, he gives up that right and copyright belongs to the commissioner. If the photogrpaher wishes to use the photos for his portfolio, he can negotiate for a license from the commissioner to do so. Bear in mind the commissioner may counter-negotiate for lower fees in return for the license.
Just to also share, there are MANY commercial jobs out there where the client does not allow the photographer to use the photographs in their portfolio. Do a search in CS here where you can see various professionals saying they cannot show this and that photograph because it is a commercial commissioned job.
In short, photographs are not free, and if the person wishes to be paid in cash and in kind in the form of photos, then he must be prepared that the cash portion be reduced since payment is also made in kind. You can't have full cash payment, and then load on top of that, a freebie in the form of "in kind" photos. Everything has value.
OT abit... but same same...
A few months ago... i shot one of the girls here for a job(no mention of names), before the job she was cool about it and even during casting she came across as a nice person.
On the actual job, she was difficult to work with. She thinks she is Singapore next top model? :bsmilie:
Even demanded payment before client paid(agreement was after client pays she gets hers).
Whole crew had to put up with her attitude, her unprofessionalism, as well as her sarcastic remarks as to why she has to sign a model release(already agreed beforehand!) I totally regretted using her, definately never again. And yes, she was quite popular before in CS.
Now she has graduated to being $80/hr sweet smiley face model for ONE PHOTOG, more u will have to pay extra... and if u want the pictures to be released... please pay excess of $120/hr excluding taxi fare. Guess what i will say if my client asks for her again... And she is shorter than 160cm, not that it matters for photographic models. But I have enough dealing with local XMM... No one ever gives the same headaches.... :bsmilie:
A few months ago... i shot one of the girls here for a job(no mention of names), before the job she was cool about it and even during casting she came across as a nice person.
On the actual job, she was difficult to work with. She thinks she is Singapore next top model? :bsmilie:
Even demanded payment before client paid(agreement was after client pays she gets hers).
Whole crew had to put up with her attitude, her unprofessionalism, as well as her sarcastic remarks as to why she has to sign a model release(already agreed beforehand!) I totally regretted using her, definately never again. And yes, she was quite popular before in CS.
Now she has graduated to being $80/hr sweet smiley face model for ONE PHOTOG, more u will have to pay extra... and if u want the pictures to be released... please pay excess of $120/hr excluding taxi fare. Guess what i will say if my client asks for her again... And she is shorter than 160cm, not that it matters for photographic models. But I have enough dealing with local XMM... No one ever gives the same headaches.... :bsmilie:
night86mare
Deregistered
if the model is asking for the soft copy, the marginal cost to the photographer is zero. one could easily argue that, similarly, software companies' marginal cost is insignificant, what they are charging for is the "right to own the software". however, whether the photographer gives the model the soft copy or not, is the photographer's decision, there are many more things in life than dollars and cents, like goodwill, satisfaction of giving others happiness, etc. just like if the software company in question is giving out sample copies to try to get people to spread around their product by word of mouth utterly free, it is after all, between the product user and the software company.
just like when a photographer decides to pass the model the photographs free of charge, that is his own prerogative. after all, the RIGHT TO OWNERSHIP is the photographer's to decide, not anyone else.
sometimes, we also forget the value of "word of mouth" and "exposure". here it is being spoken as if the photographers here have very high professional standards, and the photograph given is going to elevate the "model" (note inverted commas) to international fame. if the "model" thinks that way, then she can wait long long. if the photographer also thinks that way, then he can also wait long long, 95% of the time here. but what can happen? people can look at the photographer's shots and say hey, this is a nice model, how do i shoot her? people can also look at the model's shots (taken by the photographer) and say, hey, this guy's shots stands out from the rest, how do i hire him?
if life was all about balancing explicit values, then you are so wrong; there is no value in celebrating a child's birthday for him for a parent, it is a one way ticket, particularly when it is entirely possible that the reverse will not be done in the future.
there is no value in buying any gifts for anyone unless they have given you one, after all you seem to suggest that "equitable exchanges" are paramount to everybody's priorities.
the truth is, not everyone is so concerned about figures, and you should see that.
on addressing the main issue, i do not see why the point of discussing this:
1) can you change things by discussing this? trying to shame the models into not posting here? then wait long long again lor.
2) it's a free market; putting the blame on the model and the model alone is ridiculous, as many people have pointed out. if the model posts up her ad and no one entertains her, what will she do? bring knife out on the street and make people shoot her and pay her money? siao liao. have the models here professed to be inexperienced, etc? yes? then accurate information is communicated, what the model looks like is out for all to see.. unless she has deceived the public by posting up someone else's photos and turning out to look like something not human.. why are people complaining? 一厢情愿 people want to shoot her, let them pay their money, let her collect the money, all of them have fun lor. then the photos no good, people will give critique on the photograph, what to do?
3) what should be discussed should be the underlying trends that cause this shaping of the industry; people's values and standards that lead to such a scenario coming into place, instead of emotional ranting and "balance of equitable exchanges" that lead nowhere, because they are not realistic.
Heh lai lai, pretty and experienced, and unlike many others, taller than 1.6m!
Ok I hope she doesn't read this otherwise I die :sweat:
harrynkl
Senior Member
Someone complaint that the models here are usually not obedient enough to justify much payment ....
i tested on this model and IMO she passed with flying colors!
"will you kiss the ground for me?"....
why not?... she answered.
"will you jump into the river for me?" .....
why not? .... she answered. :bigeyes:
before she jumped, i asked ...:"can you swim?"
NO... she answered.
I asked her to pack up and we went for a drink instead ..... :sweat:
1st pic she faint cant tahan the posing u want her to pose
2nd pic she cant take it anymore modelling so touch better jump the river
harrynkl
Senior Member
wrong choice should go to those model agencies. Didn't u tell her to buckle up:nono:, should name the girl at least she be banned from other commercial ad with clients. This girls dun know how to work with photog, MUA, styling or even with the clients. Dun put a air in in front us, we can either make u or break u. And not those Da Xiao Jie type
Octane69 pm me her name, if you do not wish to reveal more, I have black list with me:think: so not sure if she one of them;(
after the heavy lim chwee session, i asked whether she still can give me some extra poses without charging me extra since her booking time was already over, and she kindly obliged with a special pose .....
Moral of the story: not all "CS models" are disobedience. Treat them nicely and you will be surprised how pro and creative they can get ....:thumbsup:
I am looking forward to book her again for another shoot ;p
Moral of the story: not all "CS models" are disobedience. Treat them nicely and you will be surprised how pro and creative they can get ....:thumbsup:
I am looking forward to book her again for another shoot ;p
V
vince123123
Guest
1. The cost may be zero, but that doesn't make the value of the photograph zero. I tis up to you how much value you choose to put to your work. If you think that you want to give it free, sure go ahead - I never said that you cannot unlike how you have alleged.
2. You're using an example of samplers to justify your stand? Why not go further and ask the software company to allow us to share software and CD keys freely? The marginal cost to them is zero going by your example.
Software companies do not charge for the "right to own the software", they charge you a fee for granting you a license to use the software. Again I'm finding it difficult how your examples fit in with your points.
3. As for your stand on more things in life than dollars and cents, or exposure or goodwill, that are all of course valid points. Benefit can be measured both in tangible terms (dollars) or intangible terms. However, if someone expects to get it for free, there is no benefit, tangible or intangible. If you are happy with any intangible benefits, sure that is your call. I never once said you are FORCED to charge for it.
4. You are right, the right to ownership is decided by each individual photographer I never said otherwise and am not sure why you are making this point in reference to a quote from me.
If anyone decides to pass free of charge, that is his prerogative - again I have never said anything otherwise.
5. As for professional standards, again things vary, but I don't see how that point is relevant - sure if you think your photos are lousy or crappy, you can give them away for free, or if they are world class standard, you can charge for them. I only said the photographs have value, but made no assessment on how much value one should place - that is for each individual to decide on his own.
6. Back again to your intangibles at paragraphs 4-6 - again I don't see how it is relevant to my points, other than bringing in other moral issues. Everyone can do what makes one happy. Some are happy with $$, some are happy with seeing others happy. To each his own, and I don't see how that affects valuing one's work.
Before you start on the whole intangible discussion, take a look at the reverse scenarios that I have quoted - it is clear (at least to me) that whilst people expect free photos, the same people are somehow, unwilling to give free services. One way street?
To answer your specific numbered points:
1) If one only discusses things with guaranteed hopes of changing things, then a lot of the discussions in this forum would be moot. There is no shaming involved here unlike your allegations - not sure where this came from.
A discussion is well, just that, a discussion.
2) Of course it is a free market - anyone knows that. I do not know how to answer the remaining points as they do not respond to the main thrust of my earlier post. You need to present your points in a more focussed manner. And where did I say we must blame the model?
3) Nothing really much to respond since it is a point of view issue.
2. You're using an example of samplers to justify your stand? Why not go further and ask the software company to allow us to share software and CD keys freely? The marginal cost to them is zero going by your example.
Software companies do not charge for the "right to own the software", they charge you a fee for granting you a license to use the software. Again I'm finding it difficult how your examples fit in with your points.
3. As for your stand on more things in life than dollars and cents, or exposure or goodwill, that are all of course valid points. Benefit can be measured both in tangible terms (dollars) or intangible terms. However, if someone expects to get it for free, there is no benefit, tangible or intangible. If you are happy with any intangible benefits, sure that is your call. I never once said you are FORCED to charge for it.
4. You are right, the right to ownership is decided by each individual photographer I never said otherwise and am not sure why you are making this point in reference to a quote from me.
If anyone decides to pass free of charge, that is his prerogative - again I have never said anything otherwise.
5. As for professional standards, again things vary, but I don't see how that point is relevant - sure if you think your photos are lousy or crappy, you can give them away for free, or if they are world class standard, you can charge for them. I only said the photographs have value, but made no assessment on how much value one should place - that is for each individual to decide on his own.
6. Back again to your intangibles at paragraphs 4-6 - again I don't see how it is relevant to my points, other than bringing in other moral issues. Everyone can do what makes one happy. Some are happy with $$, some are happy with seeing others happy. To each his own, and I don't see how that affects valuing one's work.
Before you start on the whole intangible discussion, take a look at the reverse scenarios that I have quoted - it is clear (at least to me) that whilst people expect free photos, the same people are somehow, unwilling to give free services. One way street?
To answer your specific numbered points:
1) If one only discusses things with guaranteed hopes of changing things, then a lot of the discussions in this forum would be moot. There is no shaming involved here unlike your allegations - not sure where this came from.
A discussion is well, just that, a discussion.
2) Of course it is a free market - anyone knows that. I do not know how to answer the remaining points as they do not respond to the main thrust of my earlier post. You need to present your points in a more focussed manner. And where did I say we must blame the model?
3) Nothing really much to respond since it is a point of view issue.
night86mare
Deregistered
you always take things so personally
if i quote something, could i not be adding on?
proof yet again that you take everything as an argument, whether it is intended or not; this is amusing to me, i must say. unfortunately just like the way you expect everybody to see things your way, as always; you also expect the usual people who disagree with your life viewpoint to disagree wholly.
life is not black and white, this is an area where it is grey, and if adding on to what you have written is firstly, misread and misconstrued by you; and secondly, argued against like i was totally opposing your viewpoint.. then perhaps you need to reread posts twice before you reply.
btw, software companies actually let people use the software when it is testing period.. and besides, you should be able to see that software and photographs, while being common in that they have zero marginal cost; the upfront cost required to make a software, the hours and research and labour, is much much more than what a photographer needs to produce photographs, even if he uses a d3, and a super studio setup.. which is more than what many people here have.
i will pre-empt your reply that in that case i should not actually use it as an example, then die already, all metaphors must be 100% match? :bsmilie: Welcome, brother~
It is totally a supply and demand thing. If any run of the mill xmm believes she is god's gift to modeling and therefore should be paid a king's ransom, and if some idiot photographer is willing to pay, so be it.
I problem is not with the model, but with the photographers. The photographers spoiled the xmms. If said these photographers admit to be merely a gwc, then again so be it.
I rarely pay for a shoot, but if I do, model must deliver to my expectations, and they are very high. If model wants copies of the images from the shoot, I generally do not mind giving web copies. After all, she can download them from my website. However, I have and will caution them, they do not own the copyrights nor usage rights. Any paid shoot, model better prepare to sign full release.
I agree with Octane, the xmms are just spoiled. They think way too highly of themselves. But I blame not the xmms, but the photographers that made these xmms behave as they do.
I also agree with vince. It is not the marginal cost of giving a copy of the soft copies, it's intellectual property and there is a value to it.
I problem is not with the model, but with the photographers. The photographers spoiled the xmms. If said these photographers admit to be merely a gwc, then again so be it.
I rarely pay for a shoot, but if I do, model must deliver to my expectations, and they are very high. If model wants copies of the images from the shoot, I generally do not mind giving web copies. After all, she can download them from my website. However, I have and will caution them, they do not own the copyrights nor usage rights. Any paid shoot, model better prepare to sign full release.
I agree with Octane, the xmms are just spoiled. They think way too highly of themselves. But I blame not the xmms, but the photographers that made these xmms behave as they do.
I also agree with vince. It is not the marginal cost of giving a copy of the soft copies, it's intellectual property and there is a value to it.
V
vince123123
Guest
In your view, if you quote something, you are adding on.
In my view, if you quote something, you are responding directly to the person; otherwise you would preface it with "To add on" or simply not quote altogether if the subject matter is not directly related to.
Aren't you not guilty of the same allegation you are making when you expect me to see that a quote is a "add-on" rather than a response?
In any event, since you have now clarified that you were not making a response to the portions quoted, and you were merely "adding on" as you said, then that particular discussion is now at an end.
Letting people use the software when it is testing period, is merely voluntary beta testing - I doubt anyone will pay to be a beta tester, so I'm not sure why this is an added qualifier - unless of course it is another "add on".
To add on a different point of view, you liken software cost's upfront cost as research and labour - a photographer's upfront cost is a you say, his camera and studio. Not forgetting the fact of his years of experience and skills that he brings to the table, being intangible costs often missed out. Also, even if the upfront costs are different, what is the point you're trying to make?
I am not saying that metaphors must 100% match, but yours doesn't even match 50%. If you want to pick on my statements to mean 100%, aren't you now not taking things as argumentatively as you make me out to be?
In my view, if you quote something, you are responding directly to the person; otherwise you would preface it with "To add on" or simply not quote altogether if the subject matter is not directly related to.
Aren't you not guilty of the same allegation you are making when you expect me to see that a quote is a "add-on" rather than a response?
In any event, since you have now clarified that you were not making a response to the portions quoted, and you were merely "adding on" as you said, then that particular discussion is now at an end.
Letting people use the software when it is testing period, is merely voluntary beta testing - I doubt anyone will pay to be a beta tester, so I'm not sure why this is an added qualifier - unless of course it is another "add on".
To add on a different point of view, you liken software cost's upfront cost as research and labour - a photographer's upfront cost is a you say, his camera and studio. Not forgetting the fact of his years of experience and skills that he brings to the table, being intangible costs often missed out. Also, even if the upfront costs are different, what is the point you're trying to make?
I am not saying that metaphors must 100% match, but yours doesn't even match 50%. If you want to pick on my statements to mean 100%, aren't you now not taking things as argumentatively as you make me out to be?
you always take things so personally
if i quote something, could i not be adding on?
proof yet again that you take everything as an argument, whether it is intended or not; this is amusing to me, i must say. unfortunately just like the way you expect everybody to see things your way, as always; you also expect the usual people who disagree with your life viewpoint to disagree wholly.
life is not black and white, this is an area where it is grey, and if adding on to what you have written is firstly, misread and misconstrued by you; and secondly, argued against like i was totally opposing your viewpoint.. then perhaps you need to reread posts twice before you reply.
btw, software companies actually let people use the software when it is testing period.. and besides, you should be able to see that software and photographs, while being common in that they have zero marginal cost; the upfront cost required to make a software, the hours and research and labour, is much much more than what a photographer needs to produce photographs, even if he uses a d3, and a super studio setup.. which is more than what many people here have.
Sion
Senior Member
V
vince123123
Guest
I concur, it probably took two hands to clap. First model asks, photographer gives, then more models thot they can ask, more photograhers give, end up cyclic.
Or, photographers be nice, then give, model thot all photographers are like that, so ask and over time, expect not only photos, but some even ask for ALL photos.
Or, photographers be nice, then give, model thot all photographers are like that, so ask and over time, expect not only photos, but some even ask for ALL photos.
Sion
Senior Member
I can give you a hint:
"She is not the type to kiss the ground for you.
She wants you to kiss the ground she walks on."
night86mare
Deregistered
you are talking about clubsnap;
suddenly now we have a lot of experienced and skilful photographers
last i checked, the general consensus was that this was not so
- Status
