Walt-O-Matic

Went to submit a bug report today, but was denied for a very interesting reason; the system had no one to hand it to.

A few moments ago, I just had a very interesting and unique experience. I saw in black’n'white. I’d never had this happen before in my life. First I’ll describe the experience, then how I did it, which, curiously enough was repeatable.

With the totally unaided eye, my brain saw my surroundings, in broad daylight, in black and white. The only exception was that objects which were normally bright red had an ever slight red hue to them, but it was only brilliant red objects that did this.

The effect lasted about 7-10 seconds in duration before the color faded back in, almost as if the saturation was being brought up from near nothing to normal.

To convey the effect, this is much like the image I saw:

When I moved my eyes to look at other parts of the scene, the effect diminished, but if I kept focusing on one spot, like a child’s staring contest, the effect would hold longer. This was very much the inverse of the behavior of an after-image, where if you stay still it fades, but if you rapidly blink, it returns.

The black and white effect composed of the entire field of view. And as it gently faded back to normal, it affected more of the center of the field of view first:

It only took 2-3 seconds for normal color to return. There was no pain or any form of discomfort before, during, or after. I’m in very good health.

It was as if the signals from the cones were being ignored by the brain, but the signals from the rods were fine. I remember that the detail was astounding, and that the tone of the grass was very similar to the sky, though I’ve been unable to represent that as closely as I’d like in my photographic simulation.

I’m certain you’ve personally woken up in the morning and upon your eyes adjusting to the light have seen the image fade in, not focus, but as your brian assembles bits of the information into meaningful images, like it’s adapting to light after not being exposed to it for a long while.

Here’s how I did it.

I’m going to err on the side of giving too much information, some that might not be relevant, primarily because I don’t know what actually caused it. However, I was able to recreated it, on demand, several minutes later by experimentation; the effect lasted even longer. It was wondrous.

Being inside for the better part of the morning, I figured I’d go outside an lay in the sun for a few minutes. So, I lay down on my back on our driveway which has a slight incline. It was about thirty minutes past noon, and the sun was slightly overhead just off center to my right, enough that it was still bright enough that just closing my eyes was uncomfortable, so I criss-crossed my arms over them to put them in shadow, though I could still tell it was very bright out with my eyes closed. The weather was 89°F, I was in direct light, and there were few clouds in the sky.

I rested this way for about 10 minutes, and I did so just to the point where my eyes were fully relaxed and no longer concerned about the brightness of the light though my eyelids. Also, I wasn’t quite drifting off, but relaxed as you might be just taking in warmth of a nice day at the beach.

What led to the discovery was that I heard a car drive by and so I sat up quickly, opening my eyes. Two things stood out. One, this gave me a slight head-rush, though I’d describe it weak at best. Two, my eyes had not adjusted to the light fully. And, although while bright, it wasn’t uncomfortable, there was no blinding whitewash, no pain, and no caused for squinting required — I was looking away from direct light.

That’s when I noticed the scene seemed extremely washed out and monochromatic; it looked like a black and white photograph.

Thinking my mind or eyes were playing tricks on me, I moved my eyes, but the effect lasted longer than a second, though faded as I looked at more “new” material in my field of attention.

The reds came rushing back in first, with greens right after. It wasn’t one color than another, it was overlapped. I became visually more aware of reds, as that happened, greens started replacing the grey tones as well, and by the time greens were normal, the other colors like purples and blues from the nearby flowers in our garden were already present.

This part will be hard to describe because there’s no English equivalent for it, but it wasn’t like I was seeing in black and white, but rather the absence of color.

I know that sounds identical from a logic standpoint, but the perception was an absence of something, not the presence of something. Intellectually, I knew there had to be color, I just wasn’t seeing it.

It was a greyscale world that I physically saw, like a black and white movie, but a zillion times sharper, far more dynamic range, and in 3D.

It was clearly not imagination, nor dream, it was very real and perceptible.

That’s what made me want to try and repeat it.

Though this time around, if I could get it to work, I’d plan a more scientific excursion. So I selected an area of our yard with brilliant colors, our flower garden, which would be my baseline.

First, I waited about 5 minutes and looked at the area, taking in all the things I should be expecting to see. The area was already in normal color after the effect had faded long ago, but I wanted to be sure.

So, I laid back down with the intention of trying to get the head rush. I shielded my eyes in shadow, and waited for them to relax and get comfortable, and then waiting a moment, quickly sat up and stared at the area I knew had colorful flowers, a bright red car, and tons of green grass. I made sure I would focus only in one area, trying to stare out to infinity, much as you’d do for those 3D posters, though I was more trying to keep my eyes in a relaxed state because I wanted them in focus.

The preparation this time around took merely a minute or two. The head-rush was again weak from sitting up quickly. I turned in the direction I had planned and opened my eyes.

It’d worked.

The effect returned just as before, but lasted this time about 20 seconds and the effect was just as strong until I couldn’t help myself and look at the astounding detail in scene around me, which caused the effect to fade.

Since I had more time to study the scene, this is when I actually noticed the reds within the black’n'white image in my head. The B/W effect seemed more pronounced when I didn’t move my eyes, relaxing them.

When I turned to look at other things, color would seep in, and if I held my eyes relaxed in the same spot, the color would fade back out partly, much the same way as you can make objects in your blind spot vanish by holding your vision still long enough. That same kind of fading away was what I saw, but with color.

I suspect the effect is caused less by the head rush and more by the eyes being exposed and conditioned to bright light (even with the eyes closed, or maybe the red light through the eyelids saturates the cones like a red filter, though I did not see a green after image). When the eyes are opened, there’s a whole rush of visual information, and I suspect the brain is compensating for the overload by taking in shapes, detail, and tone and then overlaying color after the signal settles. I wasn’t aware that visual processing of color was an independent process.

This led me to two very interesting side thoughts.

One, I’ve always wondered if while under hypnosis people really saw things but said they didn’t, or whether their honestly perceived it. I now know it’s possible to perceive things differently than the visual input as actually providing.

Two, the black and white image was astonishingly detailed in greyscale, much like an Ansel Adams image. Being able to produce this effect on demand to view how a scene might be photographed in black and white is a fantastic tool to have in one’s photographic arsenal.

I hope science doesn’t declare this is bad for you, because I’m going to do it again!

[UPDATE: I can't get it to happen inside, seems bright sunlight is required.]

While working on a project, I stumbled into some of the weirdest Apache2 mod_rewrite problems that I’d ever seen.

The goal was to make a URL like http//www.nowhere.com/item/1234 turn into http://www.nowhere.com/item.php?id=1234. Trivial, and I’ve done it all the time.

RewriteEngine on
RewriteRule ^item/(.+)$ item.php?id=$1 [L]

This time it wasn’t working the way I expected. When I used the human-readable version, my page got delivered by I had no images, no css, no javascript. Yet, if I used the computer-friendly long form with parameters, it worked just fine.

A little examination with Safari’s activity window showed me that in the initial case the browsers were looking at all relative URLs as if they were prefixed with /item/. This make sense, because the URL redirect knows how to play rewrite games with the rules to get to my page, but the relative links on those pages, to css, graphics, and js, had no clue this was a fake base url.

Many thanks to richardk who pointed out multiple solutions back in 2005.

• Don’t use /, and there isn’t a problem.
• Use absolute paths, though you have to edit all the links on your page; if using PHP, consider a variable for the base path.
• Use a RewriteRule to hack off the offensive directory that doesn’t exist.
• Or, use the <BASE …> tag.

Well, that rendered the page prettier, but I realized my argument wasn’t being passed in. Yet, the re-write rule was correct.

So I tried http//www.nowhere.com/item, which should not have matched and should not have brought up a page. Yet it did.

A little experimentation showed that any page that had a known extension was getting delivered.

What this meant was that the moment the browser saw /item it found the item.php page and delivered it without ever going through Apache’s rewrite module, and hence no parameters.

Luckily, I’ve encountered this symptom before in a different context. The offender: MultiViews. This is the bugger that deals with multiple language support; you know, where you have a zillion internationalized instances based on filename extensions….

Turning that off instantly solved the problem of delivering a file without an extension:
# Options Indexes FollowSymLinks MultiViews
Options Indexes FollowSymLinks

That also meant that the mod-rewrite rules worked. And that meant the parameters were passed correctly. And that meant I was was happy, because the code was working.

The new iPhone 3GS has a compass in it, and most certainly it’s going to be used for precision game play at some point.

Then it dawned on me, one of the number one applications of the iPhone is to act as babysitter. You fire up a game and hand it to the kids in the back seat as you’re driving somewhere.

I’m wondering how this is gonna work as people try to play compass-enabled games while moving, say a car, bus, or train.

My first gut instinct is that initial QAing of games will happen seated, but their real use will be in an environment where there’s motion, and at that point this potential problem may start to get noticed. It may surface as bugs, where ‘the game’ did something unexpected.

As for me, I can’t wait to see how a few malicious sharp terms and exit ramps will affect future game play.

Ever wonder how a well-intentioned policy turns into a horrible nightmare for the very people it was designed to serve? I found the perfect example.

Let’s take the case of Apple’s technical WWDC ‘09 conference in San Francisco. Brilliant talks. Amazing speakers. Fantastic audio and video. It’s good stuff.

Now Apple is a company that is on the forefront of user experience, they pioneer usability and design, and their big presentation this year is on efficient resource and queue management. You’d think this innovative thinking would hold over into how they actual manage crowd control, but you’d be wrong. Apple has totally missed the mark. I know, it seems impossible.

There’s an absolutely stupid policy that’s being enforced, and while the best of intentions are there, the policy isn’t helping anyone. It actually makes things worse. Follow this.

You’ve figured out your course tracks for the day, bunkered down to do some work on your laptop, and are watching a series of presentations being held in that room with your development buddy. It finishes, and so you tell him “Can you watch my stuff, I’m going to hit the restroom before the next presentation.” He says ’sure’ and you leave. After all, being a convention center, the restrooms leave little to be desired in terms of personal space.

On the way out, you’d tell the Apple guy at the door “be right back” and empty handed you walk across the hall to the restroom, return in minute, and reclaim your equipment-occupied seat. At least that was how it was at the start of the conference. All was fine. Things ran like clockwork.

Mid-conference someone revised the policy. Instead, if you leave, you now have to go wait in line to return.

Why did Apple do this? I asked. Two reasons.

First, by only letting people out and not back in, this is supposed to make things easier for the presenters to set up.

Second, it’s supposed to establish an order of fairness for those people coming into line.

On the surface it appears to make sense, but what this policy really does is prevent grown adults from being able to go to the restroom. Instead, you’re standing there with a full bladder and Apple’s staff is literally telling you that you’ve got three options:
a) Hold it until the session starts.
b) Abandon your equipment (as you might not have a buddy to watch it), and then wait in line to see if it’s there when you get back.
c) Go get your equipment and hold it while you do your business, and potentially miss the session (although you already had a seat).

Let’s examine this.

1) Does the policy improve seating fairness?
No. There’s equipment, and most likely a person, reserving the seat until you return. No one standing in line is going to benefit whether you reclaim it now or later. And, realistically, every talk that has been “filled to capacity and people were turned away” had plenty of chairs mid-row, plus people are willing to stand.

2) Does this improve the line?
No. It actually makes them longer, meaning Apple has more to manage. And, as the lines wrap all over the halls, it makes them more cramped, confusing, and uncomfortable.

3) Does it make conference attendees happier?
No. It’s annoying, bordering on rude, telling someone they have to return to their seat and wait for the presentation to start in order to relieve themselves. It’s a frequent conversation topic to overhear, Apple is putting a lot of people off.

4) Does it make Apple look corporately smart?
No. In fact, even its own employees are mocking the policy behind Apple’s back, all the while blindly enforcing it (most of the time), at the door. Even their own realize how ludicrous it is. This makes Apple look bad in a very self-aware Dilbert way. Of course there’s an insulting double set of standards, as the guy managing the gate preventing people from using the restroom calls on his buddy to take his place while he goes to take a piss.

5) Does it make the presentations go smoother for the presenters?
No. In fact, worse. Now one has to wait for the presentation to start, interrupting the speaker, and by going in and out letting more light in the room. It causes distractions. Plus I’ve seen one attendee fall over a chair during a presentation, and two people trip during a presentation, all trying to temporarily exit.

6) Does it make viewing the presentation go smoother for the attendees?
No. Being seated in the middle, one now has to navigate over other people who are trying to watch the presentation. I’ve had my equipment kicked as well as my foot stepped on by someone telling me “whew, now I can go.”

7) Is it safer?
No. There is now less room to get out, where before the row was empty. Plus, there are power cords, laptops, cases, drinks and other obstacles to navigate, crush, and trip on.

8) Does it provide accurate metrics for seating?
No. In re-entering you get counted a second time. This messes up Apple’s counts and artificially makes room seem more full, turning away people who could be viewing.

9) Does it make it easier for the presenters to set up?
No. The presenters are up on stage, a good distance from the audience. No one is trying to interact with the presenters before the talk.

So, what starts as a “good idea” ends up impacting far more people than it should. Compare this to a simple first-come first-serve policy, which would allow everyone to get settled before a talk begins. If seats are full, stand; if you don’t want to stand, sit; if you don’t want to sit, find another session; if you don’t want that to happen, get there on time or before, just like everyone else does. It’s acceptable to leave a session during Q&A in order to find a good seat at the next session.

Unfortunately, as with most failed policies, the solution usually is to add more policies (rather than correcting the root problem). Kudos to Apple for not going this extra step. The slippery slope would be to kick everyone out in order to have them stand in line again; that however would be truly idiotic, especially given the equipment people carry and set up to attend these things.

Photographers make note that a good number of models don’t take TFP arrangement seriously, often ending in a no-show or abrupt cancellations. This can make a photographer hesitant about offering them in the first place. But, as a model, should you accept a TFP? Should accepting them as work be in your written profile? Will it get you paid gigs too? And does the ‘F’ in TFP stand for “free?” If so, what do TFP arrangement gain you? Well, here are the answers and some things you didn’t know.

A photographer’s unwritten rule is that if a model is a no-show without an advanced cancellation, never use her again, much less extend a TFP deal to her or her friends, and warn my fellow colleagues that there’s a high element of risk to consider if they think about using her.

Conversely, models that are amazing to work with and are professional, I personally cut steep discounts for, retouch more photos for, provide actual prints to, use as often as I can, bend my schedule for, extend projects to first, and share news of them with everyone I can find.

Obviously, many models are looking for paid work, and many also have a greater sense of their worth than their experience, looks, or willingness commands. Luckily, a model’s portfolio tells a great deal about her than just her looks. If she’s got a lot of photos from a number of different photographers, she’s most likely reliable. If she has a variety of poses, she’s most likely willing to try new things. If she looks great universally, she most likely has actual experience.

I suspect the starting out model doesn’t know her worth and sees it as just standing in front of the camera will turn on the cash spigot. But she also knows that if she can’t demonstrate experience, a photographer will pass her over during casting.

So, to combat this, she tries to cheat the system by indicating she’s willing to work for TFP, when in fact she’s not necessarily fully committed to the idea. An inexperienced model thinks that TFP means “free photos” and doesn’t realize that the photographer is paying her with his time, which often dollar-for-dollar can be very much in a new-model’s favor.

By assigning no “value” to the TFP, she feels it’s something she can walk out on without consequence because it must also be of no value to the photographer, too. Wrong. A number of photographers hold multiple jobs, and if he takes off a day to do a photo shoot and goes through the trouble of setting up the equipment or renting space, the photographer takes it in the shorts not once, but twice. No wonder he may become embittered.

As such the model thinks that she’ll get TFP deals and paid deals, and then elect to only accept the paid ones. Conversely, she might tell herself that she’ll do a TFP deal, but only if it’s a famous, rockin’ photographer. What she doesn’t get (we’re talking new, inexperienced models here still) is that she’s killing her chance to build a portfolio, by extension get a paid gig, or be sought by Mr. Super-Shutter.

Not having anything pan out quickly fuels that impression that there is something wrong with the industry, clearly not her or her attitude, and after one or two cycles of this, the model fades away — being very put off with photographers in an unfair over-generalization.

Photographers: one solution I’ve found that has worked well is to offer TFP deals to scouted new discoveries. Because they aren’t seeking to be models, they are very appreciative and are willing to follow directions. When the reward of fantastic photos pops out the other end of the workflow, they do more word-of-mouth advertising than I could ever afford to purchase for other outlets. The trade-off is that you have to be able to work with inexperienced models and be very, very patient with them. I personally find it rewarding to be there first-hand as someone learns a new, marketable skill. Many valuable friendships follow.

It turns out this kind gesture can open doors for people: other modeling offers, and in one case a small part in a movie that’s coming out soon.

TFP/CD deals are gold mines for models, which explains how some smart models always seem to have that really rich, diverse portfolio with a competitive edge.

If you scan through many modeling websites, you’ll see there’s a common question asked by new comers who want to be models: “What do I need to do to become a model?”

Usually members skip that question. I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s that the answer is a little more complex than a quick answer. Perhaps it’s that a good portion has to deal with genetics. It could even be experienced models don’t want the new competition entering the field.

I decided to take a shot, however, at answering the question.

Q: What can I do to become a model?

A: To a writer, the advice is read as much as you can. To a model, I’d say look at as much as you can — in particular other photos of models.

Analytically, try to figure out what it is about the models you like. Is it their pose, is it their facial expression, do they look into the camera? Try to emulate that pose in the mirror.

Study books on posing. And if you’re really clever, study books on photographic composition. If you can deliver what the photographer is trying to capture, you’ll make life so easy he’ll be raving about you.

Another thought is to find pictures of models that look like you. There are some web sites where you can beam up a picture of yourself and it will give you celebrity matches. Perhaps hair styles, makeup, and clothes that work for them will also work for your looks and body type.

Take care of your body; keep your skin clean and healthy. Apart from good diet, steer clear of all the things you know you should. Modeling is based upon looks, and you have it in your control to keep them.

Know your body, be comfortable with it, and find make up that works for you. Photographers often go for the natural look, so keep that in mind the next time you want a sprawling tattoo or obvious body piercing. These won’t necessary stop you from being a model, but it can raise unnecessary barriers to entry. Imagine a bank looking to fill a teller position, which candidate has the higher probability of landing the job: someone dressed in punk with a lip ring and colored spiked hair, or, the candidate in an pressed shirt, tie, and jacket. Both might be equally capable and friendly, but one will have a harder time than the other.

Work on building a decent portfolio. The best way to do this is to find local photographers you trust and negotiate a Time for Prints/CD shoot. It costs you nothing but some time, and in return you get some great pictures.

Ideally, you want more photos that you know what to do with. Cull them down to the best of the best, you don’t need to show every photo you have. Make sure you get a variety of looks. You want to show you’re versatile. Demonstrate that you’re adaptable.

Post your portfolio where photographers can see you, and let them know about your availability, interest, and boundaries. You may get more TFP offers, you may get fixed rate sessions, you may get a set hourly rate. Take only the jobs you feel comfortable with.

Seek opportunities where the photography is going to get exposure, even if you have to do it at a reduced rate. The more exposure you get, the more you’ll be able to command later.

It’s important not to let things get to your head. When a model without serious experience wants to be compensated as someone who’s done it as a career, opportunities can start to dry up. Photographers just want to take the picture, not deal with a diva. Think of it much like a job interview; you wouldn’t hire someone to be your doctor if they simply wanted to be a doctor all their life and took a class in first aid. Experience is important. And you can get all you want with TFP/CD.

Be professional, be on time, and know when to say no. Consider setting up a website, something which doesn’t say “I got a MySpace account.” Show your styles and answer the who/what/when/where/why about yourself; let people know how to contact you, and get back with them promptly. Sometimes photographers are working under horrific deadlines, and reaching a viable model is all that’s needed. A quick response can give you the edge.

You might want to forge a relationship with a makeup artist and/or a favorite photographer. If you have a solid relationship with good communication and trust, the photo sessions will go seamlessly and productively. They in turn will become part of a mini-network and potentially bring opportunities to your door that you’d otherwise not have known about.

Eventually, demand may increase, and if it does you may want to get an agent. Usually it’s a while before one gets that far. You might not even need one.

Modeling is a competitive field, with new and younger models entering all the time. Switch your mental role about how you’d market yourself and you’ll see what you need to do to become that. You’re selling an image: yours.

New models sometimes raise the point that there aren’t that many ‘average’ models that show up in media, catalogs, and pin-ups. Are average people skipped over? Is the genetic bias a wider gap than it ought to be? And why do there seem to be so few casting calls to the average person waiting to be discovered?

The very question itself, “Why no average models?” raises an interesting conflict that marketing has been struggling with for a long time. Because an “average” person does, indeed, show how a given product would look on an average person, giving a truer representation.

However, the problem is that often doesn’t look very flattering — and people, in large sample groups, tend to go for superficial looks rather than actual reality. As such, marketing tends to go for those images which convey, whether true or not, that purchasing their product will raise your self esteem in the direction of the presented ideal. That’s often good enough. It doesn’t have to actually deliver perfection.

When it comes to looking at people for the sake of looking at people, which is more attractive: Brad Pitt or the average beer-gut guy you find the barbershop who thinks styled hair is pointless? The eye clearly has a higher level of attraction to one over the other. Biologically, we can even measure it, even if psychologically we pretend to hide it. Playing to that hard-wired response sells products.

So, this might explain why the “average” look hasn’t been splashed all over the media; everything is about optimizing profits, not representing reality.

Now this is something surprising that one might find very comforting. The people I’ve selected to show in my online profiles are actually are not models and have no prior modeling experience. I do this deliberately because what my studio focuses on is taking average people, revealing their extra hidden beauty, and capturing that — I want to be able to show my clients that they too, no matter how average looking they think they are, can look that good. And, if you’re going to make a bold claim like that, one better have the portfolio to back it up. If I just simply showed all my experienced model/actress shots, people think “well, yea, she’s a professional and I’m not that pretty” and I’ve lost a potential client. Customers rarely seem to be looking for how technically competent one’s photography skills are, but rather how good you can make them look.

Here’s where things get slightly obscured. If an “average” person is photographed to look like an above-average person, are they no longer considered average?

An employee at Kinko’s shared this astounding observation to me: numerous women customers bring in portfolios to have various images re-produced en masse. He’d look at the jaw-dropping photos and ask, “Who’s this?” only to be more surprised when the answer was “That’s me!” He reports the his customers almost always, without the added magic of the camera, were not hot but actually less attractive than the average woman. Sans makeup and pushup, quite a number of models are plain ordinary.

In fact, we know this to be true; browse any celebrity-stalker web site where someone has caught a celebrity when their publicist hasn’t been able to filter the image from public consumption. Such images range from unflattering to just someone you’d pass by in a crowd.

You have to compare your average self with their average self, or your modeling headshot to their modeling headshot. If you compare apples to oranges, it’s not just an unfair disadvantage, but an unrealistic one. Many people are far more attractive than they give themselves credit for. Does the makeup really make you that much prettier, or is it that your belief that it does actually turn on your self-confidence?

That said, I’ll point out that an experienced model is a joy to work with; it requires far less work on part of the photographer and one typically get a high quality product in far less shoot time.

I suspect it’s assumed that an experienced model (or her agent) will know where to go find placement casting calls, and thereby save the casting director a lot of time by skipping inexperienced labor. Running a photo shoot is very expensive, and if you can cut this time down, you save money.

This is different from casting calls which try to discover someone new; those usually happen in areas of high density to increase the odds, such as major cities.

There’s a common concern often expressed by models: they prefer female photographers to male ones. While personal safety is expressed as the rationalization, almost always the sentiment is coupled with a side note about photographers not wanting escorts present.

Several observations about this line of thinking: One, if you’re uncomfortable with a photographer, you shouldn’t be doing a shoot — period. Two, you should really be bringing an escort to your female photographers anyhow, especially if you go on location; what makes you think she isn’t the ‘front’ and there isn’t a load of thugs hiding in the back room. Three, you should always do your homework, talk with with references, and make sure the photographer can be located. A photographer that hides their contact information isn’t one you should be dealing with.

Professional photographers usually don’t have a problem with bringing an escort or your pet elephant for that matter. What they do dislike is the photo session being disturbed. Here are the top annoying factors, even for female photographers:

1. The escort getting curious and messing with or breaking the equipment, simply getting in the way, or asking questions of the photographer during the shoot.
2. The escort wanting to be photographed as well. This includes “just a few at the end.”
3. The model being distracted by the escort, whether by talking or looking to the escort for validation.

Explain these concerns to the escort up front and they usually evaporate. With the talking and non-verbal validation, I find that male escorts tend to behave much better than “female friends who decided to come along.”

When someone brings an escort, I usually hand them a reflector which keeps them busy, fills their hands, and makes them have a vested interest in getting the job done. Babysitting an escort in this manner reduces risk of the top three issues, but the model is now getting far less attention and most likely, less photos. A good escort will stay out of the way and quietly monitor that no funny business is going on — which, after a short time, will get very boring.

One other interesting point is worth mentioning, some models get self-conscious (even professional ones) when someone they know is watching them; this can ruin a shoot, which ends up wasting everyone’s time. If the escort sits in a waiting room only a shout away, often you can get around this problem.

The best solution I’ve seen is to bring the escort, let them sit on the sidelines until both they and you feel comfortable with the arrangement, at that point let them leave with the photographer’s business card, the address they dropped the model off at, and a known pre-arranged check-in time for the model to call via her cell phone. Having the escort call to check in is even the worse than being there, it totally breaks the pace to stop and locate a purse.

If you do bring an escort, let the photographer know in advance — especially for location shoots — as if an extra person is riding in the vehicle, sometimes alternate travel arrangements are necessary (e.g., taking the van instead of the two-seater car).

Follow this simple advice and you should have no problem bringing an escort, thereby doubling the number of photographers and broadening your portfolio photo contents.

This blog addresses solutions that are fair, as well as touching on factors that go into deciding amounts, why that’s the case, and what models can do to their profiles to avoid being skipped over aside from not making common photographic mistakes.

It’s understandable that models would prefer paid shoots, but it’s also important to recognize that the photographer does as well.

For a model, the photo session ends with the last shutter click, but for the photographer that’s when the real work begins. This reveals why photographers can be so expensive. Add risk, like missing an important wedding moment, at the pricing tier jumps again to astronomical levels.

In all cases, I believe a model should be fairly compensated. The debate will boil down to what that compensation is and that expectation should always be spelled out up front before anything progresses.

There are many factors that go into what value compensation should be set at. There are three big ones.

Expertise, in particular, plays a large part because an experienced model arrives on time (and sober), knows how to interact with the camera and the photographer with minimal direction, assumes appropriate poses naturally that fit the context of the scene, pauses at the right times as to minimize the number of discards, and she can make facial expressions look genuine. The higher compensation comes from making the photographer’s job easier and producing higher quality product in a shorter timeframe.

The model’s looks also play into the equation, primarily because that sets the demand for the model and in turn that affects availability. Basic economic models of supply and demand clearly state the higher the demand, the more things cost. Hence a model that isn’t in as much demand will likely be unable to command rates that one is. This is why models should to TFP deals to build their portfolios in order to raise their demand, even if just from gaining additional experience.

And the other primary factor which affects cost is how much skin the model is willing to show and what she’s willing to do in front of the camera. Unlike looks, this is one area where all models have total control. It can also be one of the bigger money makers.

The photographer has to determine a rate that factors these accordingly, and many other things (availability, short-term notice, …) as well into the compensation rate.

Just because both models are willing to stand in front of the camera for equal time does not mean they are providing equal value to the photographer. [It is also true that multiple photographers do not provide equal representation value to a model, which is why one looks at a photographer's portfolio before accepting a trade-based assignment. Skill, equipment, and post-processing abilities are the parameters the photographer has to measure up to.]

Here’s a reasonable compensation paradigm that is actually fair to both parties equally:

• If a model is hired by the photographer, the compensation is cash. (Pose for me.)
• If there is a trade of services, her compensation is the photos and his the model’s time.
• If the photographer is hired by the model, the compensation is cash. (Make me a portfolio.)

This makes sense from other business methodologies: if you were hired to do a task, such as frame a painting, you get paid, you don’t get a copy of the painting, free frames, or free framing services. An expert framer, incidentally, would be paid more too, and the resulting craftsmanship would be obvious. Quality, not time, is what’s sought.

The task a photographer is hiring for is to have someone take specific direction so they can produce a precise product. To get cash and photos would be double compensation and thereby a double hit on the photographer; most likely that would be the last time the photographer ever cast or recommended the model.

That said, there is nothing wrong with the model requesting some pictures in leu of some portion of the cash. Sometimes the photographer can do this, but quite often if the photographer has been hired on behalf of client, it’s stipulated in the contract that he can not. Hence the cash, which usually comes from a budget that the photographer may, or may not, have control over.

If a model wants photos and tear sheets, that should be negotiated up front, not after the shoot. Again, the photographer may have contractual bindings.

Some models will be fortunate enough to find photographers who will give away photos in addition to cash. Models, if you get cash, don’t expect this, but be grateful if it happens to you — the photographer has figured out a win-win situation that you both can benefit from. Don’t be mistaken, this action is somewhat self serving to the photographer, as he’s looking for extra visibility and word of mouth advertising from you to widen his client base.

Paying gigs are more likely for models when the client needs a specific look. If there’s just a generic need, photographers are going to draw more from TFP/CD deals. Knowing this, the more variety a model can pull off in her portfolio, the easier she just made it for the photographer to just to cut a check than to keep searching.

There does seem to be a subset of models that have a higher impression of their own market value than the market will actually tolerate. New models don’t seem to have this problem much, experienced models have a very good sense of worth (and a portfolio to prove it), but it’s most common among the narrow my-portfolio-is-cell-phone-pictures / I-want-a-job-pay-me modeling-wannabes. These models are usually difficult to work with and are problematic after the shoot, having shifting expectations of the deliverable. Photographers will actively try to avoid them and anyone that fits that stereotype.

Models: if your portfolio reeks of indicators that you fall into this pile (whether you really do or not), be aware that you’re hurting your chances to get a casting call, profile comments, TFP/CD deals, and valuable experience. If you want higher compensation, simply do what those did who are earning it. Their profiles are right there in the open on many modeling sites. Your chances of getting directed casting calls will increase.