|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Book sizes
I know this has been debated over and over but... I was out last night and met a signed model to Elite while I was at a hotel bar. She let me see her book (she was there for dinner with her parents). Her book was 8x10 and she's signed with ELITE!!! Now I know all of these agencies say get 9X12 book blah, blah, blah, but, I have met so many fashion models in the last months that have smaller. I think in the digital age and with all of the testing going on, sometimes the files are not 9x12 to print. I have an 81/2 x 11 that does fine with getting me work but my agency bitches... Just wanted to hear other model's NOT PHOTOGRAPEHRS or AGENTS ' experiences/thoughts. Oct 15 05 03:43 pm Link Naomi Jay wrote: Elite is Elite. They have long been known to have the 8x10 book and the little 6x8 book while the rest of the industry (and I'm talking like 98% of it) goes with 9x12. Oct 15 05 06:57 pm Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: I have never had anything to do with fashion but I also understand that 9x12 is a standard size. I have never understood it. I have been printing for over 30 years and have never seen, even heard of, 9x12 paper. I have never seen a photo, even an old one, printed on 9x12. The best you could do is print to 11x14 and crop. It does seem bizarre. Does anyone have any idea where this "standard" came from? And do the PHOTOS have to be 9x12? It would make some sense if the photos are the size of normal paper, 8 1/2 x 11 and then they would be slipped into 9x12 binders. I have always wondered about this. Any historians out there that can explain 9x12 to a long curious soul? Oct 15 05 09:19 pm Link I'm not an agency model and I don't do commercial or fashion, so I can show whatever the hell I want. Oct 15 05 09:28 pm Link Yes, the photos themselves are supposed to be 9x12. As to why that first came about, the 9x12 format, honestly nobody knows, it's just been around forever. I have heard some theories, some of which make a lot of sense, and one of which I'm almost 100% sure is actually true. The cutest theory I've heard is that it was the closest English system equivalent to a French paper size (in metric) that was popular in the 1950s (and Paris very definitely carried the fashion flag in those days, so you'd THINK it might have some credence). But I doubt it. Photo paper sizes have generally followed along the lines of negative format sizes. 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and 11x14 are not only paper sizes, they are/were large format negative sizes, and the paper sizes were made to contact print those negatives, formats like 16x20 would be enlarged versions of 4x5 or 8x10 without cropping. And remember, enlarging didn't get to be the preferred method of printing until the rise of popularity of medium format in the 1950s. Since I've never ever heard of a 9x12 camera format in Europe or the US, I'll assume that's rubbish. The one theory that I'm 99% sure is actually true is the one which makes the most practical sense. 9x12 is just barely larger than the A4 printer format (which is in metric and measures very roughly about 8.75" x 11.5"), which is the most common format for magazines to be printed in. In other words, a model can stick their tear sheets straight into their 9x12 book and they'll be almost exactly the same size as their portfolio images. Oct 15 05 09:35 pm Link theda wrote: Ain't it cool? ;-) Oct 15 05 09:36 pm Link Enough already....the reason why portfolios are 9 x 12 is because they fit in a small fed ex box. End of story. Oct 15 05 09:53 pm Link double post Oct 15 05 10:04 pm Link 9x12 format goes back before Fed Ex... I've never met anybody who "knew" the real reason it became the standard, though I've heard a ton of reasons. But it is the standard, and there aren't enough compelling reasons to change it, and a lot of compelling reasons to keep it. Oct 15 05 10:06 pm Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: Correct. Basically it is because European magazines tend to be slightly larger than the American standard of 8.5" by 11" so a book that is 9 by 12 will fit both American and European tears. Oct 15 05 11:07 pm Link It's not the size of your book, but how you USE IT! *wink* Oct 16 05 12:19 am Link I use the 8.5 by 11, it's never slowed me down. If you have the look and the agency wants you things can always be adjusted later. It's quality, not quantity. Oct 16 05 01:10 am Link they say size doesnt matter.....lol Oct 16 05 04:11 am Link The size of the book is of no concern, but the quality of the contents are. That is what is important. JMC Oct 16 05 05:15 am Link I am Ok with Photog replies... But, I must agree...9x12, 81/2x11, come on...it's just so annoying but, I understand that is the standard. It's funny too cuz I have tears that are 81/2 x 11 so if I get 9x12 book... I agree it's quality over quantity but, I guess that's how it goes. I will keep showing my 81/2x11 and if an agency gets me a big job, then I'll switch over lol :-P Oct 16 05 10:46 am Link I generally agree that the presentation is by far better than the actual book size, but size can also go to how to make the presentation more effective. I use 11x14's as standard tabloid publication tear sheets fit quite easily. But I also have a 4x6 book that when I open it, hold it in a certain way and flip through very fast (as in shuffling a deck) it can create a "movie" effect. This idea came from a product marketed years ago for baseball, a "flip-book" that would show a player making a great catch or swinging and hitting a home run. To break the ice I might use this first, saying, "ok, here's my work!" It takes a lot of tension away initially for the presentation... Effectiveness, not size is most important. What is it that Dan Hood always says? Edit ruthlessly... Oct 16 05 11:06 am Link My book has all 8*10's in it too. I was not told that we needed larger prints in the book. Oct 16 05 01:21 pm Link |
