Richard, much of what you said in your blog in rel...

2006-12-23T09:54:00.000Z

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)

Comments on Fluffytek Art Blog: The great TFP debate, part 2

Richard, much of what you said in your blog in rel...