Do people honestly still do test shoots?

[videokim]

I had a really nice e-mail from a guy saying he wanted to do a test shoot of me, i thought it was sweet but i explained to him test shoots went out with the ark. Do girls still fall victim to this practice or are they few & far between?, i don't mean paid auditions just people expecting to film/take photo's of girls for nothing.

Kim x

[Charbbw]

Yea I call it TFP. I have done a few in the past where I was promised the photos will be sent to me via post/email only for the photographer(s) to come up with every excuse known not to send them to me.

CharDonnay

[videokim]

Well CharDonnay if you ever fancy doing any content share with me John will do you a cd in high res pics to take away with you & send you an edited miniDV tape, a show reel, usable film media clips for AW & a DVD with film & photo menu. Your pics are lovely wow xx, did Phil do some of the pics on GF?

Kim xx

[Daz Savage]

A test-shoot is a perfectly reasonable practice provided the 'model' is new to the business and has never ever had any work done before. I regularly work with new girls who have no experience whatsoever and always do a test first.
The reason is simple - what's the good of hiring a studio or arranging a location and then paying a girl for a crap day's work? I have shot plenty of girls who just couldn't do anything no matter how directed. Others required so much detailed direction that only a handful of shots were of any value whatsoever... and I would feel rather put-out if I had to pay the going rate for little or no result.
What I do is approach the test as I would a portfolio shoot and then give the girl her pictures for free and that way she is getting something that has a definite value and which she can use to further her career if she wishes.

Nevertheless, a test-shoot is pointless for a seasoned model who has already proved her worth and who has decent (or indecent) pictures for prospective 'toggers to view.

[videokim]

i can understand some of the logic in that but if its a test shoot why do Photographers/videographers insist on a model release signed when that work can't be used without paying the girl first. We shoot new amateur couples all the time but we still have to pay the girls even if they are crap as its the done thing to do, we film real amateurs & thats what the people love good or bad. I thought the bloke today was having me on & i'm shocked to see its still used on girls that are wet behind the ears.

Kim x

[peter@video-xtra.com]

I agree completely. If you meet a girl who has never modelled and want to persuade her to give it a try, it's actually better for the girl to get used to the idea without the pressure of being expected to do more than she is comfortable with. If she is being paid, she will feel under obligation to deliver.

On the other hand, it's not good to take advantage of "test shots". If all goes well and you don't offer paid work, you're likely to put off the girl for life.

Peter

[one eyed jack]

Not sure what is being said here but I assume you mean the pov gonzo thing where the cameraman is also shagging the girl at the same time.

In this case the girl should get paid otherwise people will just exploit this to get a free leg over...For better or worse it is still a product.

If its just a bunch of pics of the girl by herself then yeah thats ok as long as the girl is ok with it or there is some mutual exchange agreed by both parties.

Al in all its down to the girl but any girl doing this for free on th ebasis of it being a test and not getting remuneration for it needs to get hwer head tested....or give me her number. Ha ha!

I assume these girls are tested before such activity occurs or condoms are in use.

Hmmm?

[Daz Savage]

Quote VIDEOKIM:
"i can understand some of the logic in that but if its a test shoot why do Photographers/videographers insist on a model release signed when that work can't be used without paying the girl first. We shoot new amateur couples all the time but we still have to pay the girls even if they are crap as its the done thing to do, we film real amateurs & thats what the people love good or bad. I thought the bloke today was having me on & i'm shocked to see its still used on girls that are wet behind the ears. "

There may be several reasons why a person will need a release.
For example I shot a girl recently, gave her her pictures for free (worth a couple of hundred pounds when you consider what my rate would be). The pix were awful really but she wanted me to post them about in order to get her some work. I would not publish pictures at all without being legally release of liability first.
So let's look at what happened...
1. girl wants me to help her get into modeling.
2. girl gets a test-shoot + pix with a definite value.
3. I don't like her but I promote her.
4. now she's working regularly.
I think I did her a favour.

The thing is that you are mistaken on 2 counts.
1, pictures can be used without cash payment. Any payment counts as 'valuable consideration' so a disk/prints will suffice to seal the contract.
2, You say you are shocked that this practice is still used on girls who are "wet-behind-the-ears." The problem with that is that if test-shoots are to be done at all then that is exactly the group that it must (by definition) apply to. You can't 'test' a seasoned model can you?

I think it boils down to whether the 'test' is a con to get free pictures of someone or if it is a genuine method of doing sensible business. I feel it's unfair to assume the worst of anyone who adds safeguards their business by 'testing' new models.

Lastly, you say that paying crap models is the done thing but you add that your customers like it good or bad... so either way you are getting valuable content for your money. If I have misunderstood your comment about your customers likes and this is not the case then I would suggest that you do indeed start 'testing' you models otherwise you are just throwing your money away and frankly that is a silly thing to do and NEVER the done thing in a successful business plan. Why would you continue paying for 'pot-luck' when you can do something about it? as long as you are legitimate and professional a test will not offend as it will lead to work for the good models and a 'foot in the arse' for the crap ones.

imho.

[Daz Savage]

I have done a test on girls where I was so impressed with the results I have paid them for the shoot.
As I say - a test can be used as a con but as long as it's not then what's the problem? I think that Kim is annoyed because she was asked to do a test herself. She say's that "test shoots went out with the ark" but that's because she doesn't need to use them in her particular area of the business. I mean just because many people have made successes from shoots without a pro make-up job is it fair to say to all make-up artists touting for work are conning people? Did professional-slap go out with the ark too? Also I wonder what rates Kim pays her amateurs? Is it the pro rate? I mean they are doing a pro-job in the sense that there is an exchange of cash for a day's work so shouldn't her amateurs earn the same as Emma Butt, Cate Harrington or Lolly Badcock? Is it a con by Kim if they get paid less than the going rate for other models?
Look closely enough at anyone's practices and you'll always find something to moan about... and it'll usually be all bollocks anyway.

I'm not meaning to have a go Kim (If you're reading this) but I work damn hard at my reputation and don't con anyone - in fact I often do myself out of business to help other people and when I hear that my reasonable work practices are being paraded as a con or dismissed as dodgy with the phrase "out with the ark" then I stand up and fight my corner.

[Dylan Devere]

QUOTE: UglyDaz

3. I don't like her but I promote her.

I'm sorry if I come across as a bit green here, but why would you do that- she's got her pics so she can promote herself. And if other people then think she's awful too it's no reflection on you.