Its quite hard work spending money on models

Huw 100%

Spartacusimages you seem to miss the point that your wife (or "Partner" as worded on your portfolio) isn't known to the model & regardless of her qualifications or association with the police (which isn't mentioned on your profile) isn't a guarantee that she'll be safe - you only have took at the list of police officers convicted of sexual crimes to see how trustworthy a person in a position of authority can be...

If a model wants a chaperone and I don't deal with chaperones I just move on to the next model who works for me, not had a problem.

I wonder if it has to do with the rural location for OP. This is a village rather than a busy city , so in a sense you might have to go the whole way to tick the models boxes.

Also as stated above a female partner is not their personal chaperone. It's like thinking women can't be a threat to other women.

When I select models I go for the most confident model, if the models incredibly nervous on messaging I don't bother too much, as a photographer I'm not there to go beyond the norm and instill a new confidence. At least that has worked for me. I am rejecting the non confident model , makes it easier for both of us.

You can say the nervous model is rejecting the photographer but as a photographer you also have that choice of selecting who to shoot that works for you.

Edited by Lenswonder

Probably letting the model set the levels is confusing.
My impression is that maybe (might be wrong) you don't
lay out what you want to shoot, location, props, intended look....

You can be a fortune cookie, or a foul apple.

Asking a carpenter or a plumber, you usually have a clearly outlined task to do.

Outline your shoot endeavour with the same attention to detail
and maybe that will raise your reply rate.

Thinking about the issue further is that an important aspect of what's been discussed and the boundaries that a photographer may have is the way in which that is communicated. Wording can be very important - what may appear to some as simply being "blunt" may give others the impression of the author being of a dominant type of personality - regardless as to whetherthey are or not. Would a model be wise to place themselves in a potentially vulnerable situation where the other party appears to be dominant and demanding?

Huw said

Jennie Blythe said

I have just had a look at your profile. As a female (photographer in my case) there are two things which sound the alarm bells for me.

1) your studio is at your house. This represents additional risk for me from a personal safety point of view

2) you don't accept chaperones unless they are yours. I'm sure you are a perfectly bona fide person but I wouldn't be taking that risk, especially in conjunction with point 1. Bluntly put, sexual violence is life-changing and there's no way I'd prioritise your hurt feelings over my safety.

I don't use casting calls often on here but usually the model response rate to messages is pretty good. So hopefully the above will help.

Studio at the house?
Less safe than one on some industrial estate in the middle of nowhere?

There's an assumption that a studio comes with someone who can be summoned if the photographer does something untoward. 

The last studio I was in I've visited twice without seeing anyone who wasn't modelling - the owner lets models in an leaves them to lock up. And many of us will know at least one studio-owner horror story. 

Knowing where a photographer lives probably reduces risk compared with having them visit the model's home (with no-one else in the building) or shooting alone in a hotel room with just his PP contact details and a promise of a cash payment. 

Full-time models are not paid enough to employ a full time chaperone. So the chaperone requirement says amateur with trust issues, dragging a partner or family member along to get in the photographer's way.  Since I only pay models - and my bank balance will tell the observer that I find it very easy to do so - the question of chaperones never arises.
Shooting at a model's home at the weekend when their partner is somewhere else in the house, fine. The boyfriend who drives them to shoots and sits in the car, fine. Doing a first shoot at a trusted studio, fine. The C word is never used, but someone is carrying out that function. But sorry Jennie the worried amateur who spouts "sexual violence is life-changing and there's no way I'd prioritise your hurt feelings over my safety." needs to look at how full timers - who work with many more photographers - manage the risk to be able to do their job without stressing themselves to a breakdown: 3 models who had never met me have done a first shoot in a hotel room with nothing but my PP profile to go on - I hope they did some background checks on me first, I want to work with the prudent not the paranoid. 

Chaperones are a good filter.

Requiring a chaperone cuts out a few models I would probably not get on with.

Being unwilling to have a chaperone cuts out a few photographers (including me) that some models would not get on with.

Oh good, this has become a conversation about chaperones. It's about time we finally had one of those.

Mitch Morgan it's alright... a couple more pages and I'm sure the thread will get locked... maybe even sin binned if people try hard enough!

FarmerSteve or, even worse, will start on some political angle and get consigned to the pit that is General Politics :d

Update I decided to update my refusal of a chaperone to now the following. I doubt it changes my thoughts on the matter but I like to be thought of as reasonable.

" If you want to bring a chaperone something of which I do not generally agree with, then please state why? If we we don't agree on the reasoning we of course will then not be able to shoot. Of course if you are under 18 or disabled then chaperones very welcome."

CalmNudes said

Huw said

Jennie Blythe said

I have just had a look at your profile. As a female (photographer in my case) there are two things which sound the alarm bells for me.

1) your studio is at your house. This represents additional risk for me from a personal safety point of view

2) you don't accept chaperones unless they are yours. I'm sure you are a perfectly bona fide person but I wouldn't be taking that risk, especially in conjunction with point 1. Bluntly put, sexual violence is life-changing and there's no way I'd prioritise your hurt feelings over my safety.

I don't use casting calls often on here but usually the model response rate to messages is pretty good. So hopefully the above will help.

Studio at the house?
Less safe than one on some industrial estate in the middle of nowhere?

There's an assumption that a studio comes with someone who can be summoned if the photographer does something untoward. 

The last studio I was in I've visited twice without seeing anyone who wasn't modelling - the owner lets models in an leaves them to lock up. And many of us will know at least one studio-owner horror story. 

Knowing where a photographer lives probably reduces risk compared with having them visit the model's home (with no-one else in the building) or shooting alone in a hotel room with just his PP contact details and a promise of a cash payment. 

Full-time models are not paid enough to employ a full time chaperone. So the chaperone requirement says amateur with trust issues, dragging a partner or family member along to get in the photographer's way.  Since I only pay models - and my bank balance will tell the observer that I find it very easy to do so - the question of chaperones never arises.
Shooting at a model's home at the weekend when their partner is somewhere else in the house, fine. The boyfriend who drives them to shoots and sits in the car, fine. Doing a first shoot at a trusted studio, fine. The C word is never used, but someone is carrying out that function. But sorry Jennie the worried amateur who spouts "sexual violence is life-changing and there's no way I'd prioritise your hurt feelings over my safety." needs to look at how full timers - who work with many more photographers - manage the risk to be able to do their job without stressing themselves to a breakdown: 3 models who had never met me have done a first shoot in a hotel room with nothing but my PP profile to go on - I hope they did some background checks on me first, I want to work with the prudent not the paranoid. 

Let's not get into personal character assessments here. Suffice to say I travel the world solo, meet people I have met via Instagram, live in a big city etc. I'm not "paranoid" but I am careful. 

I’d certainly prefer to remove DNA evidence from a commercial studio than from my own home….

;)

Jennie Blythe said

I have just had a look at your profile. As a female (photographer in my case) there are two things which sound the alarm bells for me.

1) your studio is at your house. This represents additional risk for me from a personal safety point of view

2) you don't accept chaperones unless they are yours. I'm sure you are a perfectly bona fide person but I wouldn't be taking that risk, especially in conjunction with point 1. Bluntly put, sexual violence is life-changing and there's no way I'd prioritise your hurt feelings over my safety.

I don't use casting calls often on here but usually the model response rate to messages is pretty good. So hopefully the above will help.

Hi Jennie, 

I appreciate your risk assessment and of course your safety. There's a lot of photographers that shoot from home or have a 'home studio'. If a photographer wanted to photograph you at his home studio how would he hire you or you wouldn't consider it. 

I've had a home studio for over 20 years, and have done hundreds if not thousands  of shoots , whether it's a model on here, or a lady requiring a head shot for her CV, never had an issue. 

I don't have an issue with chaperones, though I have had some that have been a complete pain and a real distraction to a shoot and some can be a real help .