Models required

[hunny1]

maybe i could help you there, www.little-miss-hunny.piczo.com,

[RoyR]

brerbear wrote:

> I understand your reasoning behind TFP, although I've never
> heard it before. But surely those that do content swap can be
> deemed the same, because TFP is identical in it's intent.
>
> A lot of TFP work is just so the girls can sell it to punters
> who join their websites.
>
>

I'm sure others will disagree with me, but I think there is a big difference between a content swap and doing TFP. A content swap appears to be fair to everyone with the model or models getting content for their own paysites from which they hope to profit, whereas if you look at laugh-a-minute sites like NM and OMP then TFP is generally idiots with a hobby they don't want to pay for bull shitting models into thinking that they "need" to do TFP to get a portfolio suitable for acquiring paid work, and they generally provide the model with a handful of totally unsuitable pics for promotional use only, thus the benefit of TFP is only to the photographer.

If you look at models like say Rose Wood who make a point of stating in their online portfolios that they are only interested in paid work and don't want to be insulted with TFP offers, you never see or hear them complaining about a lack of paid work, but if you look at the models that do TFP many of them are always having a moan about how there isn't much paid work around. This to me says one of two things, either the models doing TFP aren't considered to be good enough in the looks department to get paid work, or that a lot of other photographers agree with my thinking on booking TFP models but are afraid of speaking up.

Roy

[Loz]

have sent you an email hun.
im willing to travel without a chaperone and i have not done tfp.
So i fit into those requirements.
Loz xxx

[img]http://www.kazb.co.uk/forum/files/laura ... nt_698.jpg[/img]

[RoyR]

You are probably right, but my thoughts are that although catering for everyone is ideally best, those who prefer hairy strongly dislike bald, and those who prefer bald or neat strongly dislike hairy, therefore I think it is best to keep hairy content seperate.

Roy

[RoyR]

Tequila_Woods wrote:

> Having worked with Roy on two seperate occasions i can say he
> is a great, laid back photographer to work with! Whats wrong
> with saying exactly what is required for a shoot with him? They
> are all valid points.
>
>


!blush! You tell em girl!

Thanks for the kind words Tequila. You also were great to work with and a very reliable model, it's a pity I worked with you in my earlier days when I wasn't technically good enough to do you justice.

Roy

[RoyR]

Loz

Thanks for the email you sent yesterday. I've just discovered it, it was in my spam folder due to being from hotmail.

You look great in the pics, and it's great to see you have a professional approach, so I'll definitely keep you in consideration for a shoot. However, I've had a fair amount of feedback telling me that members aren't particularly impressed by models with tattoos, so I am ideally hoping to find some models without tattoos and obviously prepared to give preference to those at this moment in time. Please don't be offended by that, I appreciate your interest and do think you look good in the pics you showed me and would hope to work with you at some point, but I'm just trying to be honest and hope you can understand and be patient with me.

Roy

[Loz]

yeah thats fine hun just let me know.

Loz xxxxx

[Joe A]

To all..

I've known Roy from the model forums for some time...

He's an exacting, miserable, moaning bastard but he's a great guy. I'm 100% sure that any girls who work with him will have a good shoot...

As for his description of the models he's looking for... He's paying so surely he can pick and choose whether a model has tattoo's etc... LOL

Good on ya buddy

[Peter]

Give her a try Roy, you and me have similar outlook on most things, and I managed to shoot her without tattoo intrusion.

Crackng model who's well worth it.