PonyGurlCouture wrote:

I don't recognise what you are saying here compared with your articles in which you say short girls bigger girls etc can't work in fashion.

Consider that I work with individual designers, just like YOU; small sort of start-up companies (I work very closely in several aspects with the individual, my friend and one of small labels); that I have casted MM models over the years for small campaigns, paid and unpaid by the designers; to have been involved in fashionshow production (from fashion brunch to Couture Fashion Week)!

I don't see how my work experience and actions could imply some backpeddaling!

Just take a look at what I've written in "Modeling Success: Research"...

The "Haubbit" doesn't refer to short models or short fashion models, it's about the short model that wants to "change the industry" and insists to walk in Paris, Milan, New York or Tokyo for any of the top labels.

It is not about the short model that works at smaller shows; shoots campaigns for small labels and has a nice little income doing it.

Nothing wrong with that... it is only about the big INDUSTRY ONLY events and the fantasy world of that "other" model, thinking it's about her ego and not about selling garments to change that multi-billion world-wide industry, just because Tyra gives that impression.

udor wrote:
Consider that I work with individual designers, just like YOU; small sort of start-up companies (I work very closely in several aspects with the individual, my friend and one of small labels); that I have casted MM models over the years for small campaigns, paid and unpaid by the designers; to have been involved in fashionshow production (from fashion brunch to Couture Fashion Week)!

I don't see how my work experience and actions could imply some backpeddaling!

Just take a look at what I've written in "Modeling Success: Research"...

The "Haubbit" doesn't refer to short models or short fashion models, it's about the short model that wants to "change the industry" and insists to walk in Paris, Milan, New York or Tokyo for any of the top labels.

It is not about the short model that works at smaller shows; shoots campaigns for small labels and has a nice little income doing it.

Nothing wrong with that... it is only about the big INDUSTRY ONLY events and the fantasy world of that "other" model, thinking it's about her ego and not about selling garments to change that multi-billion world-wide industry, just because Tyra gives that impression.

ok that is fair. Now don't backpeddle.
As Eliza and I have said; the model who thinks it is the world of Tyra Banks is a dreamer agreed. But equally it seems to me that a few photographers here think that is what it's about too.
One thing for sure; you acknowledge you cast Mayhem models. That implies you don't think they are as the article states and whether it is small designers like your friends and I; or wholseale rag trade people; or even big fashion houses, the model is important and isn't generally top Agency stuff. That leaves us with the internet don't it? But we wouldn't be here if the average MM model was like that article would we

As for the odd girl who is going against the grain...I saw a good one who was outsize post somewhere here with lots of tears in her port today...then there is Jessa etc ...good luck to them. It isn't for you and I to say don't try when they are already doing it.

Right I am off...I doubt I'll be back but nice talking to you.
I have to webcam with Eliza shortly whose leg modelling career may have been tragically cut short by mosquitoes in Greenland. I shall give her your regards and explanation.


About 4pm, today GMT Eliza pic from near the Russell glacier Greenland.

Now incidentally; that image is inspiring to someone who works in tweed. Look at the subdued colours bantering with each other in an inhospitable climate! I shall isolate those colours and order a window pane weave tweed based on them. And probably use a reindeer fur trim with it in a garment direct from the Inuit. Stuff like that is the reason we became an item; and also why she is an appreciated model for any fashion designer or artist. I think there are many many models here it is possible to work with on such creative levels whereas the agency experience can be a bit sterile. Anyone else find that? I know a number of other designers and models here who bounce off each other; so wondered if it is the same for photographers or whether they are seen mainly as just a warm prop.

Eliza can see she has 6 messages apparently she can see on her hotmail some will be to do with this thread but she can't log in on her phone and won't access the site from a shared computer so any messages I can forward if you send to me. I know she appreciates the support she has had on this thread from models and photographers.

PonyGurlCouture wrote:
Sod off yourself and come back when you can actually make something that someone can wear and realise what you need models for.

So can I and I am not a designer and don't need models to do it.

PonyGurlCouture wrote:
I can't design anything without a fit model and from what I have seen they are the ones who are the backbone of fashion day in day out.

Props

If I were you I would stop trying to "big up" = it ain't working mate!

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
So can I and I am not a designer and don't need models to do it.


Props

If I were you I would stop trying to "big up" = it ain't working mate!

Studio36

I don't have to mate; so stick your sarcasm up your arse. Models already know what they do. Only there appears to be a lack of understanding of that by a minority of photographers. It doesn't matter if you don't believe that. The models in the thread have told you what they do. I have told you what they do.

I tell you what you try to sell your paper hat (is that what it is? I can't see the materials very well in the image) and see if you can get near my business. Obviously you have the model to sell it. If you'd used a real model and an understanding of hat size perhaps it would have fitted him. Perhaps if you had some undertsanding of fashion and style you may have made something a little more ambitious and beautiful.  Mind you; we live in a society of the gullible so you never know your luck. High street stores manage to sell products made from crap materials with no shape to people with the aid of smoke and mirrors. Selling dreams is often selling crap masquerading as dreams.

In a commercial job when a model may be just a warm prop and you want particular look size and know what you want the image to look like etc for you have a styling team etc then that is then fine. But most models work isn't about that apart from at commercial/editorial photography level. Which is a small part of the industry and employs specific model types. And specific photographers. And the good ones who get the demand are far more than just props.

I had a good model yesterday who gave me feedback; moved in the design I was creating on her etc. That took maybe 6 hours. I could have done it on the tailor's dummy but it isn't the same at all. They don't move. Can't tell you how it feels; and I have made some howlers like that which have cost more to alter subsequently. She'd just done a shoot before coming to me.

That is a fact; and it is why most designers making sophisticated garments need models. And thousands of models are employed in such work with thousands of designers and in design houses. There would be no question of not paying her. For £90 she was invaluable. She'll work for that because I will use her another six times maybe over the next two months. She got paid more for the shoot but it isn't regular. In the bigger fashion houses the model's understanding of drape and fabric and movement grows and she is then used to explain that to clients in showroom and trade show work. Such models will never want for work. A good fit model works because there is demand for her. Read Eliza's link about it. They are much more than props.

Artists too often need models creative input; especially when it is the Art insitutions and societies. Such models when good at that are often highly valued and celebrated; and in full time work; often on PAYE tax. As are fit models.

Many photographers are good technicians; some are brilliant artists; but for example wouldn't necessarily have much clue when it came to styling. They may know what they are after but won't have the ability to do it without the right model. Of course in an ideal world everyone would have the budget for a styling team; but for example you are either a latex dress designer or a photographer wanting to shoot an authentic look you could go for a model who specialises in that herself. Hence the whole alt model thing; models who specialise in particular fashion looks ect. And such models are valuable to both photographers and designers in that niche and can work closely with them on creative ideas. But those models work anyway - in burlesque, performance, or modelling at special events whether it is Torture Garden or a vintage car rally or blogging or journalist models or those who model as part of what they do whose public reach should not be understimated ( Eliza gave you the example of Millicent who is here on MM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millicent_Binks. I will give you one who isn't but probably would have been ten years ago if the site was around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ece_Sükan ) This is the kind of stuff many models do now; modelling in terms of photography is just part of their work. An important part; but nevertheless a part. Don't think for a moment these girls are 'props'.

That sort of thing is often the bulk of a model's work  not photography. They do that anyway; people photograph them anyway; so then they start seeing modelling as a viable extra source of income so they put up an internet port or it just comes to them through their public/internet presence; and eventually for the succesful ones; agents. 

You have then people like fitness models whose work is often done for exhibition or a sideline of a sporting activity. But they also will get a bit from photography so they have ports. They may be 'props' to you but I wouldn't recommend you suggesting that to them.


Then of course you have the promotional model work which again will account for many models regular income. Thye get picked again and again if they demonstrate aptitude for that kind of work and end up very well compensated. And there are many agencies who specialise in that kind of work too. Those kind of models will shoot stuff now and again. Even campaign models frequently only have that as the cream on the top. Only last week I attended an event and two models were greeting people as you came in. One of them is an agency model who has done big campaigns. I knew her as she did some work for me years ago. But that is her day to day modelling booking even by agency.

Likewise if you are an artist or sculptor and are wanting a model you would seek one that can do what you want. Wide and apt pose ability and a particular look and input. Photographers too if they are doing fine art nude or pin up or want to shoot an authentic burlesque or vintage look for example. Plenty of models making an income from Dr Sketchy type set ups. Or the typical fine art nude model will be working usually in an Art insitution.

None of these people are going to go to Agencies; and if the models are experienced and have plenty of work on with an already reasonable port there is no way they are going to work for free. These models are all on Model Mayhem. Each bringing to the table a broad range of verstaile experience for a variey of genres and types of modelling. In most cases; photography will just be a small part of their paying work. Even the agency models here; photography only makes up a part of their work. they may be doing fit; runway, or promotional modelling in addition. If you want commercial fashion models through an agency unless you are at the top of the tree you will be likely paying several thousand pounds and they don't just let you book them at the click of your fingers. Most photographers would have no chance. But often those models are here. And that is different. I can vouch for Eliza's testimony to the fact. She showed me some of the top girls she has worked runway with; have ports here.

So the idea that this site is just full of the types of models the article is about is rubbish. I am not trying to 'big them up' because only an utter bigot would not see that there are models here of all qualities; genres and abilities. Nobody is trying to say all the models here work in fashion or are agency standard. What is being said is there are as many as there are the article type ports. In between there are the bulk of models ranging from the website fetish or cam model; dedicated newcomers and enthusiastic amateurs commmitted to doing something creative; to hardcore journeymen models with good experience specialising in one genre or having very versatile skills. Some will do fine art nude; some glamour, some performance, but many will do some fashion whether that be fitting and showroom and boutique/hair etc  and a bit of editorial/fashion show because fashion houses and designers do use them . Then of course you do have a lot of models here with commercial fashion and editorial experience too. And that this article therefore attacks the bulk of models here without justification. It is a fallacious stereotype of the kind that fuels the appetite of bigots.

The idea of 'internet' model itself is a farce. I expect there are some ports which are just about wishful thinking. But most models here are either wanting to contribute for love of art or a particular genre they specialise in; or to actually work for financial compensation because they already do that in the 'real' world and simply host portfolios here. Many are agency of one type or another signed anyway; but they don't get enough work from them. They aren't after being rich and famous. Those that are you can see are a joke but they are not typical and easily avoided.

So I just think it is laughable when photographers think they are the models only hope. Looks like a minority of mouthy photographers bigging themselves up as far as I can see. As far as I can see they only see a bit of what models do. At least Udor has acknowledged that even in fashion thare is a lot of work that isn't about editorial etc and freelance models often do it.

You do not know the difference between a subject and a model. So why don't you get out of here mate if you have a negative view of models and think subjects will do? You don't have to pay them.

Model as Eliza always says is a verb; and modelling goes back a long way before the invention of the camera.

Now I am going to show you a picture now.
I wonder how many of you will know who it is without frantically searching on google. In fact don't bother because I purposefully chose a link to a site in Chinese. Everyone who knows anything about fashion modelling will know who it is straight away.



Those that don't should stop trying to pretend they know anything about fashion and models. You may know about commercial photography and be great at your craft. But that isn't just what fashion or modelling - or even photography - is exclusively about. So stop lording it. If you do know who it is; you will concede the points made by myself, Eliza and even Udor.
Now look at that btw. THAT is velvet. And it doesn't need modern photography to see it.

Paramour Productions wrote:
No one here is arguing with any of the points you (or Eliza) are making - yet you can't seem to see that past the chip on your shoulder...

There is no chip on my shoulder and there certainly isn't on Eliza's.

I think that Eliza and the other girls want some sort of acknowledgement that that article was a piece of crap. A stereotype of girls who are not models but want to be so put some pics up. That is NOT typical of any models here; by which I mean actual models - in the majority.
LOOK at some ports in a city like Eliza suggested. Nobody has. It is the belief in a stereotyope that causes problems; and becomes a prejudice based an unsupported belief. Start off by looking at the ports here. Including Jessa's who was singled out.
You will find a whole spectrum of every type you can think of.

The second point is that there is a snobbery among photographers who think agency models - specifically agency fashion models - are somehow representative of 'real world' models who work in fashion. That is rubbish; and a very new phenomenon in the whole history of fashion. What you are talking about is high level commercial and editorial photrography - which can include fashion but when I get 'Dove' soap is fashion and what fitting models do isn't it just shows me that certain people here don't know what they are talking about. And no professional fitting model or other who actually does a bit of editorial, catalogue etc  here would have delusions of grandeur. There are even some great models here who actually fill that grandeur level if you look. Try looking at an Agency - you'll find many of the girls here. Most of you won't get them and they aren't after you. They use their ports to go for model castings and even jobs unrelated eg for acting, shows, performing, and media host jobs etc. and also cold call; link to their business cards etc for when they are at big shows. If you are very very good those girls may shoot with you but otherwise you may not even get a reply. They aren't here for you to tap them up. Photographers no doubt do the same sometimes to models who ain't up to it. Don't have sour grapes; that is life. Move on don't slate the whole site off.

Anybody got who the picture is above yet?

I thought not. It has been up several hours yet nobody has given an answer. I'll give you a clue she was a fashion model. Not the first by a long stretch; but the first famous one.

Then of course there are the models here who don't have anything to do with fashion as such; or just do a bit of it now and again or do none. They are still models; and certainly not wannabe supermodels.

So - those that stand by the article must be challenged and the first question to ask is if they have such a negative view of Models here why don't they just toodle off?

And that above all is what undermines anyone who supports the article. I certainly wouldn't waste my time if I thought models here weren't any good.

Paramour Productions wrote:
Worth.

Many of us come here for a variety of llamas.  But if you spend as much time as you say you do here, you know that the premise of the article is spot on for many, many, many girls who sign up to this site.  The fact that that is true (which it is) does not negate the fact that there are llamas like Eliza here.  It is not a zero sum game.

I don't spend any time here. I haven't logged in for a year or something.
Eliza likes it and she has met a lot of interesting people and got a lot of good jobs from it. It is less useful for designers. I go here don't even bother logging in when a llama has given me her card that is how I know how it works. I then ring her or email her after I looked at her port. I don't trawl - haven't had to since first joining. Designers don't need a forum in which to meet llamas. But internet ports are always on a llama's card these days even the top girls.

But I also did what Eliza said and did trawl - and if you actually looked you'd be surprised.
If you are having the negative expereinces it is because your judgement may be flawed or you are seeking something for nothing. So then you end up looking at more amateur ports I suppose.

Eliza says she is nothing special she is just typical of the average llama here. Naturally she is my muse so I wouldn't agree with her there but I know what she means. I have had some exceptional llamas and no flakes. And I just skip the crappy ports they aren't many. Generally Eliza finds me them the odd time I need them anyway she should perhaps be an Agent

PonyGurlCouture wrote:
I don't spend any time here. I haven't logged in for a year or something.
Eliza likes it and she has met a lot of interesting people and got a lot of good jobs from it. It is less useful for designers. I go here don't even bother logging in when a model has given me her card that is how I know how it works. I then ring her or email her after I looked at her port. I don't trawl - haven't had to since first joining. Designers don't need a forum in which to meet models. But internet ports are always on a model's card these days even the top girls.

But I also did what Eliza said and did trawl - and if you actually looked you'd be surprised.
If you are having the negative expereinces it is because your judgement may be flawed or you are seeking something for nothing. So then you end up looking at more amateur ports I suppose.

Eliza says she is nothing special she is just typical of the average model here. Naturally she is my muse so I wouldn't agree with her there but I know what she means. I have had some exceptional models and no flakes. And I just skip the crappy ports they aren't many. Generally Eliza finds me them anyway she should perhaps be an Agent

Yes, that must be it, none of us know what we're talking about....

Paramour Productions wrote:
Yes, that must be it, none of us know what we're talking about....

Well just look at the girls ports who have posted here in this thread. It doesn't stand up to the analysis of those who back the article. Does it?

I certainly haven't insulted anyone's work here. Some of you are great photographers - you know your stuff - but if you are having flakes and others aren't something is wrong. You or Tony for example should never get a flake. No pro or even good amateur model would let you down and there are many here. They are the majority.

And I do only think that many of you think they are only about photography. They aren't. Now I don't think I have an event before Eliza comes back but if I have one then I will get a model. I have cards from about twenty locally but if they wre all busy then I'd look here; and not worry about picking a flake because you can see who they are likely to be I think. Now if I have a reatil event then this is how it works. All my designs are made to measure; apart from some of the vintage furs I restore. In eithe rcase; I am not having some woman want to try it on. I am going to show here what it looks like on the model and then take her measurements. The same way it has worked since designers were making clothes. Off the peg stuff is a new phenomena apart from strictly utlitarian. You've seen 1950's movies in a fashion store? Well that is how it still works. It is called 'showroom'. Now that model should be under no illusions she is going to get pictures. She may if there is a photographer there. I am not employing one for her but I may take some snaps which she can use if she wants but I am not that good.

So I have maybe employed forty girls to do work that unglamorous never had a moan never had a flake. Most from here. So how come they'll do that stuff for me? I don't pay really well. I can only assume it is because I am going for girls who look like they know what that work is about rather than being dreamers. I just look for a good solid 'journeyman' , as Eliza likes to put it, portfolio. I've even had girls blow their wages on the clothes which is cool

PonyGurlCouture wrote:

Well just look at the girls ports who have posted here in this thread. It doesn't stand up to the analysis of those who back the article. Does it?

I certainly haven't insulted anyone's work here. Some of you are great photographers - you know your stuff - but if you are having flakes and others aren't something is wrong. You or Tony for example should never get a flake. No pro or even good amateur model would let you down and there are many here. They are the majority.

I haven't had a flake because I am careful in choosing models.  Sometimes they choose me.   

PonyGurlCouture wrote:
Well just look at the girls ports who have posted here in this thread. It doesn't stand up to the analysis of those who back the article. Does it?

I certainly haven't insulted anyone's work here. Some of you are great photographers - you know your stuff - but if you are having flakes and others aren't something is wrong. You or Tony for example should never get a flake. No pro or even good amateur model would let you down and there are many here. They are the majority.

I can only comment on how things work in the NYC area, I have no idea about your market or others. 

If you are building a book of fashion images to show designers, art directors or agencies, you need to use "agency standard" models - and again, I'm talking about the full look, not just the numbers.  If you don't, anyone reviewing your book will just toss it aside - no matter how great the photography is, and no matter what designs the model is wearing. It is somewhat unfortunate, but it is the truth.  The further you get from what they are used to seeing, the less likely they will take you (a photographer) seriously.

As far as the cost of agency models goes for small designers or testing photographers, you can get many new faces for free if the agency likes your work.  Also, there are many agency represented models, who aren't getting many bookings through the agency that are able to book side gigs - and they do.  This is often the case for agency models who are doing fit modeling.  Again, I have no idea how things work on your end, but the fit models I have known were all agency standard.

Most legitimate, small designers here that are putting together a look book for a line will still use agency girls when shooting it, often the same models they used to fit the line.

Anywho, none of that is really germain to what the crux of this thread is about (and the breakdown of communication that is occurring).  You say you don't spend much time here on the forums, I believe you.  If you do, you'll find post after post after post of young girls, who want to be models - and not just any kind of model, but an agency represented fashion model in a major market - and simply do not have what it takes to get the gig.  Not even close.  Yet anyone who tells them that is castigated like they are evil jerks who just want to piss in their cornflakes.  Then you get a plethora of others who come and post the same "just go for it grrl, don't listen to the h8ers, you need to work hard for your dream!" bs.  Hell, a girl just started a thread in here for her "friend" who wanted to have her legs surgically broken in hopes that she could grow taller!  WTF!?!  And even if she was taller, it probably wouldn't make a hairs bit of difference. Someone, at some point, has to be honest with them, and I was in my opening post.

Yes, if I do a search in NYC for models, with the criteria I am looking for, I can find a number of girls who will fit the bill quite nicely.  But if I just do a blanket radius search, it's astounding what you find.  Hell, do a radius search for photographers - are you going to tell me that most of them are of a caliber that you would hire?  I don't think so.  Hell, even if they offered to shoot your work for free (which many of us would depending on the circumstances) you would probably turn them down.  If that's true for photographers on this site, doesn't it make sense that it's also true for models?

Do I have models from this site flake on me?  Not anymore, as I've been on here for a while, and most of the models I would be interested in shooting are either friends of mine, or we have mutual friends in common.  But if contacting a new model, I'm always leery.  And, btw, it's not that agency models never flake - although that's rare - but if they do, you simply make one call to the agency and you'll have another one there quickly.

I tried to cast here once for a commercial gig - I needed a model who looked like a model but still looked "girl next door" as well as a male for a national ad for a BBQ grill.  The work paid very, very well for about 6 hours of work.  It was a nightmare.  Never again, unless I've already worked with/tested the model.  Even for my fine art work, I'm leery as I put a lot of resources into a shoot.

Paramour Productions wrote:
I can only comment on how things work in the NYC area, I have no idea about your market or others. 

If you are building a book of fashion images to show designers, art directors or agencies, you need to use "agency standard" models - and again, I'm talking about the full look, not just the numbers.  If you don't, anyone reviewing your book will just toss it aside - no matter how great the photography is, and no matter what designs the model is wearing. It is somewhat unfortunate, but it is the truth.  The further you get from what they are used to seeing, the less likely they will take you (a photographer) seriously.

As far as the cost of agency models goes for small designers or testing photographers, you can get many new faces for free if the agency likes your work.  Also, there are many agency represented models, who aren't getting many bookings through the agency that are able to book side gigs - and they do.  This is often the case for agency models who are doing fit modeling.  Again, I have no idea how things work on your end, but the fit models I have known were all agency standard.

Most legitimate, small designers here that are putting together a look book for a line will still use agency girls when shooting it, often the same models they used to fit the line.

Anywho, none of that is really germain to what the crux of this thread is about (and the breakdown of communication that is occurring).  You say you don't spend much time here on the forums, I believe you.  If you do, you'll find post after post after post of young girls, who want to be models - and not just any kind of model, but an agency represented fashion model in a major market - and simply do not have what it takes to get the gig.  Not even close.  Yet anyone who tells them that is castigated like they are evil jerks who just want to piss in their cornflakes.  Then you get a plethora of others who come and post the same "just go for it grrl, don't listen to the h8ers, you need to work hard for your dream!" bs.  Hell, a girl just started a thread in here for her "friend" who wanted to have her legs surgically broken in hopes that she could grow taller!  WTF!?!  And even if she was taller, it probably wouldn't make a hairs bit of difference. Someone, at some point, has to be honest with them, and I was in my opening post.

Yes, if I do a search in NYC for models, with the criteria I am looking for, I can find a number of girls who will fit the bill quite nicely.  But if I just do a blanket radius search, it's astounding what you find.  Hell, do a radius search for photographers - are you going to tell me that most of them are of a caliber that you would hire?  I don't think so.  Hell, even if they offered to shoot your work for free (which many of us would depending on the circumstances) you would probably turn them down.  If that's true for photographers on this site, doesn't it make sense that it's also true for models?

Do I have models from this site flake on me?  Not anymore, as I've been on here for a while, and most of the models I would be interested in shooting are either friends of mine, or we have mutual friends in common.  But if contacting a new model, I'm always leery.  And, btw, it's not that agency models never flake - although that's rare - but if they do, you simply make one call to the agency and you'll have another one there quickly.

I tried to cast here once for a commercial gig - I needed a model who looked like a model but still looked "girl next door" as well as a male for a national ad for a BBQ grill.  The work paid very, very well for about 6 hours of work.  It was a nightmare.  Never again, unless I've already worked with/tested the model.  Even for my fine art work, I'm leery as I put a lot of resources into a shoot.

That completely evades why you are therefore still here.

Your description of the small designer is accurate except for one thing. Yes; the fit models shoot the lookbook, trade cataliogue etc. Yes some of those models are with an agency. No the designer most certainly does not book them through the Agency they book them by casting. Then the models apply agency or non and get it or don't. Eliza was up against lots of agency models for the AP job why didn't they get it? I don't know the answer to that but I think it may have been a simple connection factor with the design team. And the Agencies remove that relationship which if you are a designer or artist - which you are - you must know there are advantages to that connection.

Generally the system works by making that connection with a model you have met at a show or something and they give you their card or it is word of mouth. But you still have to see their port and they don't lug them around these days they are hosted on the net. I don't think Eliza ever had to open hers; the MM port worked a treat.

The other thing to remember is that what you are looking for someone else may not be. So for example a burlesque performer or an 'alt' model will suit me sometimes rather than a fashion model for various projects; be it fashion or my artwork. But may be appropriate for a commercial photographer. That is no reason for you to dismiss them as not being worthy of shooting for your particular project; nor is it any reflection on their genre professionalism so it is very wrong for you to speak like that. Same with photographers. If I was looking for a photographer to shoot my stuff I am likely to go with one I have already used or who has shot Eliza in my stuff after booking her and done some great images. But if I was searching I wouldn't dismiss what they are doing as rubbish or unprofessional just because they mainly do sports or entertainment or even wedding photography even though it would not be what I am looking for. So it is horses for courses. And yes there is some rubbish stuff. But then I see some of the rubbish you guys photograph as commercial fashion and again I would say there is far better going on here as far as designers are concerned. Doesn't matter how well you style it I know crap material when I see it. So let's not forget you aren't always in the business of quality. Smoke and mirrors maybe.

For every stupid post by a model there is a stupid one by a photographer. And plenty of photographers who think they are not only high flying commercial editorial photographers but also experts on lots of other subjects. Which is an equal joke - here look I saw this one because she was in hysterical laughter about it:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=839949
Not that she or I are getting at the photographer - just showing how everyone thinks they are an expert on everything around here. But sometimes people actually are. It isn't a problem. If a model posts somethuing daft or a photographer posts something daft it isn't a refection of the quality of their work; though yes it can be. There are girls who have delusions of grandeur yes. That is not the typical real model here andy more than when you get a wedding photographer explaining what models should do.


So again; I can see why people would stay out of forums; but what I don't understand is why anyone would stay in them if they have a negative view of the models. Just leave. Slagging the standard off here because you have had a couple of bad experiences reflects on you not them . Eliza says its like backing a horse and blaming the bookie if your horse is tailed off. She makes money gambling btw.
She says your responsibility is to study them in the paddock and check on their previous form and their suitability on the coutrse; and don't be persuaded just because they are pretty. They have to be able to do the job and for that you need to see they have done it before. But one can win a 5f race and the other a 4 mile steeplechase; horses for courses. If you want a dour chaser with lots of experience then they may be worth the bet. They may not be flashy but you'll get a good run out of them and they'll clear any obstacle.  If you are going for a two year old whose never run before you take a big risk. It is a good metaphor I think. And every kind of horse is here. Some may not be fit to pull carts but what we have here is an article saying all racehorses are like that unless they are with the champion trainer. Not to mention actually some of that yards horses are actually here. Now you do know that deep down don't you if you are using agency models. You may not book them like that but I bet they tell you if you have them as friends. Ssssh!

So. Why are you here if you don't need to be? Are you just here to slate all models because you had a bad experience with the bbq shoot or what?

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I haven't had a flake because I am careful in choosing models.  Sometimes they choose me.   

So how come these other guys can't do it Jerry? There is nothing wrong with their work so I can only assume they are giving off attitude or diva comms or something or they are just bad judges. Maybe you and I have good judgement and don't slag models off all the time.

PonyGurlCouture wrote:
So. Why are you here if you don't need to be? Are you just here to slate all models because you had a bad experience with the bbq shoot or what?

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??  I have to think at this point you're just yanking my chain, because no one could be this dense.   

I'm here because I have made many friends here over the years, and I cast for here for certain fine art projects.

Paramour Productions wrote:
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??  I have to think at this point you're just yanking my chain, because no one could be this dense.   

I'm here because I have made many friends here over the years, and I cast for here for certain fine art projects.

No what the fuck is wrong with you?
If you are casting models for art projects but the standard of models is shit then there is something wrong with you ; not me.
Why make 17000 posts in a forum of wannabe models?

Yes I am yanking your chain and calling you out because if a shop doesn't have what you want and you stand there complaining about the general standard of the products on dsplay people will question what you are doing there.

So you are either going to concede the article is rubbish because you still think the site has a lot of worthy models; or you are just being a here.

Here is the way to keep in touch with friends:
http://en-gb.facebook.com/

This site is for people looking for modelling work mate; and photographers who think they are worth casting. If that includes you you are wrong in backing the article. Unless of course you seek professional standards from models who you expect to work for free.

Unwise to call me dense mate. Especially when I have made a point you have given a very silly answer to.

PonyGurlCouture wrote:
So. Why are you here if you don't need to be? Are you just here to slate all models because you had a bad experience with the bbq shoot or what?

...slate all Internet models because...

There, fixed that for you.

Paramour Productions wrote:
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??  I have to think at this point you're just yanking my chain, because no one could be this dense.

Ya' think?

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
...slate all Internet models because...

There, fixed that for you.


Ya' think?

Studio36

Someone should have told you sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. You don't seem to have anything else to offer.
Internet models are just models with their ports on the internet. That is most of them these days. If you are looking at the ones who are not models you are simply - well not looking at models. You are looking at girls who want to be models. I find it relatively easy to tell the difference. I see you do have difficulty.

Paramour Productions wrote:
Worth.
Many of us come here for a variety of models.  But if you spend as much time as you say you do here, you know that the premise of the article is spot on for many, many, many girls who sign up to this site.  The fact that that is true (which it is) does not negate the fact that there are models like Eliza here.  It is not a zero sum game.

The premise of the article is "We have come upon yet another week here at Elite Daily, so it is time for yet another Obituary concerning society’s most infamous and uncalled-for cultural aesthetics: this week, we are putting the Internet Model to rest". Can you see why some internet models (yours truly included) would take offense to this? To my understanding, if a model does not work for an agency and their portfolio is on the internet, they are an "internet model". Nowhere in this article does the author recognize any use for the internet model or any distinction between working internet models and non-working internet models. Instead of doing fine-art projects or other works the author suggests that all internet models "Drop the Nikon Coolpix and do everyone else a favor: go to school, maybe get a job, but please, stop trying to become a model".

Do you really think that this premise is spot on?

DinoUnchained wrote:
The premise of the article is "We have come upon yet another week here at Elite Daily, so it is time for yet another Obituary concerning society’s most infamous and uncalled-for cultural aesthetics: this week, we are putting the Internet Model to rest". Can you see why some internet models (yours truly included) would take offense to this? To my understanding, if a model does not work for an agency and their portfolio is on the internet, they are an "internet model". Nowhere in this article does the author recognize any use for the internet model or any distinction between working internet models and non-working internet models. Instead of doing fine-art projects or other works the author suggests that all internet models "Drop the Nikon Coolpix and do everyone else a favor: go to school, maybe get a job, but please, stop trying to become a model".

Do you really think that this premise is spot on?

Answer the girl. And all the others emailing Eliza saying we have had enough of this but fear posting.
The article is excusable as it is written by a person who either has an axe to grind or knows fuck all or is just trying to harvest hits from a bigger site. If the latter it is clever; but that doesn't make it right.
And saying it didn't mean them when Jessa's profile is at the top is BULLSHIT.

Still note too Dino that none of these big shot 'fashion' people know who the model is I posted a picture of. Almost anybody in fashion would know. Even in fucking Newport.

DinoUnchained wrote:

The premise of the article is "We have come upon yet another week here at Elite Daily, so it is time for yet another Obituary concerning society’s most infamous and uncalled-for cultural aesthetics: this week, we are putting the Internet Model to rest". Can you see why some internet models (yours truly included) would take offense to this? To my understanding, if a model does not work for an agency and their portfolio is on the internet, they are an "internet model". Nowhere in this article does the author recognize any use for the internet model or any distinction between working internet models and non-working internet models. Instead of doing fine-art projects or other works the author suggests that all internet models "Drop the Nikon Coolpix and do everyone else a favor: go to school, maybe get a job, but please, stop trying to become a model".

Do you really think that this premise is spot on?

I'm not quite understanding your offense when the writer of the silly article over and over talks about those models who at 5'2" think they will be in Vogue.   Those models who dream of being Supermodels as they audition for real fashion work.   He's not criticizing all web based models even with that title.   He talks about going to a fictional NYC club where fashion models roam.   He makes fun of how many of the web models tell us about every detail of their life I know many who talk about their nails and toes being done to when they 'did' it with their boyfriend to how they hate some bitc% at work.   All on Facebook.   

However the second paragraph clearly says how they are trying to cheat their way onto the fashion scene.   Does that sound like you or Jessa or Eliza or the serious models you know?   Are you a self obsessed insecure person?   Do you race to Facebook every hour to update your fans about your life?   Nope.  Do you have those goofy self taken photos where you are making the infamous Duckface?   I got the impression you may think I'm downing web models.   Not so.   Most of those I shoot are not agency represented and many are like you, professional and serious.

However they sadly are not the norm.   I have the time and patience to deal with silliness.   Those running a business or a designer who needs his/her work shown does not.   Hence my agency comments.   Every other day a photographer posts about model flakes and other issues.   Even if we accept that half the stories are bullshi7 that means that far too many models who join MM are not going to follow through and again busy people can't afford to work with women who are playing models.   The last three weeks models have tagged and emailed about shoots yet gone silent for shoots they have asked me to do.

MM is a fun place to network and meet nice models like you and make friends.   It is not a reliable place to find serious models for real world clients who have decent budgets.   It is not a place to search for fashion level models.   It is not a place in general to find dependable models.   Present company excluded.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I'm not quite understanding your offense when the writer of the silly article over and over talks about those models who at 5'2" think they will be in Vogue.   Those models who dream of being Supermodels as they audition for real fashion work.   He's not criticizing all web based models even with that title.   He talks about going to a fictional NYC club where fashion models roam.   He makes fun of how many of the web models tell us about every detail of their life I know many who talk about their nails and toes being done to when they 'did' it with their boyfriend to how they hate some bitc% at work.   All on Facebook.   

However the second paragraph clearly says how they are trying to cheat their way onto the fashion scene.   Does that sound like you or Jessa or Eliza or the serious models you know?   Are you a self obsessed insecure person?   Do you race to Facebook every hour to update your fans about your life?   Nope.  Do you have those goofy self taken photos where you are making the infamous Duckface?   I got the impression you may think I'm downing web models.   Not so.   Most of those I shoot are not agency represented and many are like you, professional and serious.

However they sadly are not the norm.   I have the time and patience to deal with silliness.   Those running a business or a designer who needs his/her work shown does not.   Hence my agency comments.   Every other day a photographer posts about model flakes and other issues.   Even if we accept that half the stories are bullshi7 that means that far too many models who join MM are not going to follow through and again busy people can't afford to work with women who are playing models.   The last three weeks models have tagged and emailed about shoots yet gone silent for shoots they have asked me to do.

MM is a fun place to network and meet nice models like you and make friends.   It is not a reliable place to find serious models for real world clients who have decent budgets.   It is not a place to search for fashion level models.   It is not a place in general to find dependable models.   Present company excluded.

You do know Eliza knows supermodels and has them on her facebook do you?
Shows what the article knows.

My fb updates today where about d-day and Eliza's photos of Greenland. yesterday there are some snaps of me and her on the beach. That kind of stuff is normal for people; whoever they are. Keep posting pure work stuff and they think you are just a marekting site.
Women's nails are important especially if they are models or they do make up and styling! It is a sneering remark at anyone that posts any kind of normal thing about what they are doing. Models aren't gods who don't polish their nails; they have to even more so will tell you about it.

Yes I know there are the idiots here. But all the constant criticsm is doing is driving the good ones away. Eliza has had her finger on the delete profile maybe ten times over this over the last year. I have actually said do it a few times as it gets on my tits. But on the other side there are all the benefits of the great people she has met and shot wirth and the work that comes through the ether from off site just because they've found her profile. So why should the good ones be driven away because of the dubious claims of a few who have had their fingers burned?

There was one published photographer who I think may have even had Vogue in his credits that was a serious scumbag; probably the biggest name at that time here. Caught Eliza and a few other girls here off guard and last I heard was being done on serious charges. Now do those girls judge all photographers by him? No. She was a wreck after it and I persudaded her to shoot with others and get her confidence back. Precisely because I knew and now she does that that wasn't representative. So you can't always tell even when the photographers credits are great.

Now what I would suggest to you is that you actually look at the talent and deciated professionalism of the models here. Ignore the skanks; you can see what they are if you use your head -as you say you do so what is the problem?  Starts with the models in this thread. Now there may be some that wouldn't suit your very high quality fashion editorial style. But that doesn't mean they'd be no good for me. I regularly use burlesque and alt and pin up models for example; both for clothing and artwork.

You simply can't say present company excluded when on of the models here was targeted. It sounded like they thought Jessa was one of those trying to cheat her way on the fashion scene and she clearly ain't no duckface or wannabe.

What you say for the models is also the same for photographers.
The ones that email you and tag you and don't get back in touch well sometimes that happens even in real life when you get people chatting to you all night at an event and stopping you dealing with someone serious and then they never get back to you. That is life mate it isn't just the internet. Has that never happened to you? Happens to me every day. I had a guy last week pester my staff about having his dog painted (I am an artist too) for two hours. I called him and called him he hasn't got back to me. Nothing to do with the internet or models. Timewasters are everywhere. But they are no more the norm here than in 'real' life; as though the girls here are not real. Some of them aren't; but they are about the place IRL too.
And this is more than a fun networking site. Go to facebook if you want that. Much as many come in these forums to vent off they are also here to work; and the vast majority don't come into forums because they want to evade this constant crap that model mayhem models are amateurs. 

Now did you get who the model was I posted?