Synergy Canada wrote:
I simply can not believe the different forms of discrimination
I have encountered in this industry.

Height has never been a requirement for me to photograph
anyone or work with or even recommend someone to a client.

Some of the most beautiful women in the World are under 5' 3".

I have worked sittings with gorgeous people who would be
considered too short and they have thrived and found success.

Why is the industry so adamant about height? I see no sense
in precluding any person who presents a compelling presence
or image.

Exceptional beauty is not height dependent.

IT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS

the same reason you have to be 7 lbs.

Mary wrote:
this industry is very discriminatory...

MEWanoDesigns wrote:
Really? Personally, I think there are very marketable short, fat, ugly, and over 40 quite present in the entertainment industry today. Diane Lane, Jack Nicholson, Kathy Bates, Elaine Stritch...?

"This industry" is about modeling.  Your examples are actors.  There is some overlap, but they are very different and require for different qualities.  That's why a lot of shorter models are sick of hearing, "Why not try acting?"

MEWanoDesigns wrote:

Really? Personally, I think there are very marketable short, fat, ugly, and over 40 quite present in the entertainment industry today. Diane Lane, Jack Nicholson, Kathy Bates, Elaine Stritch...?

Tommorow I'm shooting two women 35+, both under 5 ft 7. One's 5 ft tall, even... And I'm thrilled! Does that drop me to GWC status? In some of your eyes, it's likely. Hell, I'm still shooting with Torchiere lamps for lighting with cotton sheet diffusers because I haven't saved enough money yet to buy a basic kit yet. Sometime even I think I qualify for the not-so-endearing title of GWC. But in the back of my mind, I know that it's the outcome of the photo, the talent, and the creativity that counts.

My point is, my view of beauty, of worth, and marketability is vastly different from most people here, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Maybe if the people who set the standards and had power were more open to all forms of beauty, the industry in which we work wouldn't be viewed with such disdain.

She said discriminitory, not that they never get work.
Of course they get work, just not as much work as the "beautiful" people.

Mayanlee wrote:
My uneducated guess would be that you'd have to make the economic numbers change before you see the use of shorter models on a large scale basis. Go get your mom,

Leave it to my favorite alternative model to understand what this is about.  It is about money.  The people who have the money control the money and they want to make more.  And that is fine.  This is a business.

For those of you who say that there are print jobs a shorter model can do, you are absolutely right.  It goes beyond Playboy as one girl suggested (although the pretty girl market, posters, calendars, Playboy Style Nudes and Maxim Style shooting) have been much less centered on height.

Agents, on the other hand, sign models to get them work.  They sign the models that are statistically the most likely to get enough work the justify the effort.

Fashion/Runway is a no-brainer.  Tall models are what the clients demand and that is the bottom line, whether we like it or not.  There is also a geometry of photography, which makes the long lines of a taller model easier to photograph (although some of that has gone away with the better optics we've developed over the last thirty years).

However, proportions are important for a lot of things.  If you put a 5'9" model in a commercial image with a 5'2" model, she is dwarfed.  If all models are tall, you don;t have to worry about it.  A tall model looks better on a bicycle.  I can go on.

In the end, it is those that hire that control the market and clients typically want models 5'9" or taller for fashion and 5'7" taller for commercial.  They set the rules and we can bellyache about it as much as we want.  Agents will sign the girls they earn the commissions from.

All of that having been said, there are more niche opportunities today for shorter models than there were 20 years ago.  So if you look you will find more places to get booked.

Mary also hit it on the head.  The industry is not an equal opportunity employer.  It is about profit, which is what any business is about.

Good luck to you all.

UdoR wrote:

Steph;

Unlike Kate Moss... you are not an accident, but the exception to the rule, so, your example is inspiring to many short models, but your are an exception!.

BTW, is your latest movie with 50 Cents out yet?

Later

Udo

Awwww Udo, thanks for your kind words!!!!!!!!! 
Yes, the movie is out and can you believe I haven't had time to see it yet? I hope my part (scene) wasn't  cut. You know how that works ;( . Needless to say, I had a lot of fun!

Take care my friend.

steph

Kara S. Leung wrote:
Beauty is not common, otherwise it would just be plain... that's why there are your average folk, and your beautiful people, and then your tall and beautiful people.

All jobs are certain qualifications and modeling has its own set of requirements.

Exactly. yet you still get horrid 'tall' models because they are tall.
Sorry, the thread started to irk me. I think its stupid that you have to be tall (dont yell at me now, I know no one cares).
And I think the comment about something like huges noses and stuff was just plain stupid, theres a big difference in short yet beautiful and mishapened.

And I most agree on the starter of the theads veiws. Im not trying to be a fashion/ramp model, I know there isn't a chance, but I see no reason as to why short people shouldn't do photographic stuff.

pamela mars wrote:
there's a ton of playboy models who are very short and ridiculously gorgeous.
it's a shame that they wouldn't get work outside of "girly" modelling.

I think the breast size requirement is more important here than height LOL!

CHIAN wrote:
IT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS

the same reason you have to be 7 lbs.

The average healthy American female is supposed to weigh 5 pound's for every inch over 5 feet. I am 5'4" so to be healthy I am supposed to be 120 lbs. or I am considered underweight. Now that mean's a 5'10" model should weigh 150 pound's to be healthy, yeah right!!!!!!!

I do not take it personaly if I can not get a job because of height.I look at it as
just a casting call and the specification's for the job. If someone is casting for a 17 year old teen for the job and I am 31 then I won't call this age discrimination, that is just the job spec's. If they want a 36 double D      I don't take it personal, that is just what the job call's for and it usually is boob descrimination LOL.........

Kisses,
MEL

I just saw this posted for Fashion Model's!!!!!!!!!!

Requirements:
This isnt personal its business, if you dont meet this criteria for fashion modeling you should try other venues or make modeling a hobby. period.
5'9-6'0 (5'7/5'8 is close, would depend on amazing face/structure but probably wont do runway)
34-24-35 (standard, but varies. chest no bigger than 36c)
toned body, no over-done tan or none (keep it natural to your original skin), healthy skin/hair and prefferebly no tattoes or scars. Of cource in addition you have to have overall beauty, conventional or unique..

Mayae wrote:
I completely understand why you have to be tall and thin to do runway work. However I cant see why you have to be tall for print work. I know that it is the way it has always been, but I dont really get it. I think that shorter models can be just as marketable as taller models.

If you were an agency, would you want to invest your time and money on one model for runway work and one for print work, or would you rather have one model who could do both?

Yes, shorter models are suitable for print work, but they are less versatile than taller models.

(This, of course, depends on the agency and what kind of work it books.)

Mayae wrote:
I completely understand why you have to be tall and thin to do runway work. However I cant see why you have to be tall for print work. I know that it is the way it has always been, but I dont really get it. I think that shorter models can be just as marketable as taller models.

Print work has the same limitations as any other type of modeling work.

1) Clothing - the reason why a lot of short models end up in swim, glamour (ie playboy), or acting is because the clothing either doesn't matter or is so minimal it can go on any sized model

2) Planning - If you're picking out clothes, other models, set pieces, etc... for a shoot it all has to come together nicely, and some of it needs to come together before you know who you're shooting.  Knowing how shape/look wise a model will fit in with those things is key, so you're going to pick based on a set of criteria.  If you're an AD and you are looking at 90 models who are 5'10" and 10 that are 5'6" and below, you'll pick one who is 5'10" so that they are interchangeable should something happen and they need to be replaced.

3) Aesthetics - personal opinions aside, the 'look' is based on what sells to the prime demographic...

I'm sure there's others.  And I'm sure there are other reasons, but the bottom line is: you want to be a mainstream model, you need to match the size/weight requirements.  Sorry, but you must be this high to ride this ride.

raveneyes wrote:

Print work has the same limitations as any other type of modeling work.

1) Clothing - the reason why a lot of short models end up in swim, glamour (ie playboy), or acting is because the clothing either doesn't matter or is so minimal it can go on any sized model

2) Planning - If you're picking out clothes, other models, set pieces, etc... for a shoot it all has to come together nicely, and some of it needs to come together before you know who you're shooting.  Knowing how shape/look wise a model will fit in with those things is key, so you're going to pick based on a set of criteria.  If you're an AD and you are looking at 90 models who are 5'10" and 10 that are 5'6" and below, you'll pick one who is 5'10" so that they are interchangeable should something happen and they need to be replaced.

3) Aesthetics - personal opinions aside, the 'look' is based on what sells to the prime demographic...

I'm sure there's others.  And I'm sure there are other reasons, but the bottom line is: you want to be a mainstream model, you need to match the size/weight requirements.  Sorry, but you must be this high to ride this ride.

Sorry, but you must be this high to ride this ride.

That was soooooooo funny!
Kisses,
MEL

Brian Diaz wrote:
Beauty is not the sole requirement of modeling.

And there are lots of types of modeling that do not require women to be 5' 10".

Thank you!

Synergy Canada wrote:
Exceptional beauty is not height dependent.

What he said.  Besides, nowadays you see more celebrities on magazine covers and features than you see models... and most celebrities aren't tall, although some can be very beautiful.  Sometimes celebrities rock the runway as a guest model as well. 

I think when a model is JUST a model, height is so crucial.  But when a model has a bigger plan in life and might be interested in singing/acting, and markets herself properly, height is not so much of an issue...

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
This topic gets beaten to death way too often.  Models and photographers can complain all we want to, but we are not the ones that set the rules.  It is the fashion designers, agents, casting directors and producers.

Well said! As a new designer coming onto the scene of things I will choose a tall girl over a short girl indefinitely to model my designs. Reasoning?

Number one, the clothes hang better, as we all know. It elongates the design, uses more fabric, better flow.

Number two, I'm finding that patterns actually come with the standard length on most dresses/skirts being made for a person who is 5'8" and above. Of course you can alter/shorten the hems and whatnot, but that's a lot of work when you can just make it as is and have a tall girl wear it.

Another advantage for the tall models over the short is their presence. People tend to take you more seriously being tall rather than being short. At least that's been my experience.