AJScalzitti wrote:
When my stylist goes and does pulls they are in the standard sample size.  When I have shot shorter models its been a PITA to get a good fit; Its that simple.

That is different. I bet that some tall models will look better in some of the stuff fitted on my body. Maybe most of the time. But not all. That is why sometimes we do actually get thrown up on runway and do catalogue stuff.

But those samples are NOT designed on fit models that are 00 and 5ft 11". They may still look better in them with a bit of pinning - do you see what I mean? It is purely the assertion oft stated here that the samples are made on such models that I take issue with.

I am not saying it's so unfair blah blah. Never come from that side of the debate. It IS industry standard; not saying it should change or will change at high fashion level. But sometimes those of us who are shorter sometimes have some value for fashion work. Sometimes certain clothes (lingerie swimwear pencil skirts etc may look ok on us because they don't have to be pinned. I do a lot of millinery. Some models do petite, outsize, reto and alt fashion etc etc so there are other niches too: especially when we are talking about target demograph.

Eliza C wrote:
I gave the answer: it is convention dating from the Ford days when fashion photography became big business. And there may be completely vaild grounds for that aesthetically.

And this was what I was trying to explain back at the start. (At least as far as my personal vision/work goes.)

ChiMo II wrote:
*re-enters thread agains better judgment.*

And this was what I was trying to explain back at the start. (At least as far as my personal vision/work goes.)

I said at the time I never disagreed with your right to do so. Just as it is every photographer who prefers blonde hair or whatever to do so.

My argument was those standards are not rigid across the industry - or we wouldn't have Dean Johnson - and that there is an actual reason HOW and WHY those standards were introduced. In the early fifties fashion models were shorter as Jean Practhett and Dorian Leigh typify. Ford changed that with Dorian's sister Suzy Parker who was 5ft 11" and she was introduced to tower above them so they were in awe. And then they all became much taller for the new photography with Ford's control of the industry. So that is why the convention. So what I was asking is why - to see if you could come up with the general aesthetic priciples established them rather than personal judgement.

Having said that that history shows aesthetic principles do change. They many never change in fashion again. Perhaps they should never change. I wasn't making a value judgement and am not stamping my feet saying it is so unfair!

Sorry if you thought I was getting at you. I tackled your angle thing because while that may be true in the majority of cases re the pipe cleaner example there are some shorter models who are also quite capable of producing startling angles; while not all tall models can. Now elegant long calves well now ya got me there. And that is why I am never going to be an agency fashion model and have never tried. But I do angles which is fine for those who actually want them and haven't got a budget for an agency model.

But notions of beauty elegance and size change from culture to culture and time to time. They are not hard and fast.
Having said that we have that cultural view at the moment and nothing will likely change it. Or perhaps should. If I was a designer I would probably use the tallest available model unless there was some other reason for using them (eg a particular look, target demograph, lingerie, retro, celeb etc etc). But that is just years of convention and domination by Ford and for the very good reason that it works. Most clothes do look better on taller models.

Star wrote:
And no, by the way, fit models were not the first fashion plates (the precursor to house models who were the precursor to fashion models in order to show the public the latest fashions).

The first fashion plates were the PBs (professional beauties.) Magazine and broadsheets and newspapers would hire illustrators to draw the clothing the PB's wore to show the latest popular styles. Fashion houses would vie to dress the most influential of the PBs, like Lillie Langtry. While these women mainly paid for their own clothing, they were the ones that all others would take their cue from and the styles they wore would be imitated by rich and poor alike.

http://edwardianpromenade.com/women/the … al-beauty/

Eliza C wrote:
First of all the professional beauty was not regarded as a fashion model in any way shape or form and they didn't work for fashion houses. They were used in the same way as ladies of high social status are used today by fashion companies whether that is celebs or chic women at Royal Ascot. That still exists. Nobody would call then fashion models.



Most fashion models until the advent of Ford Models came through fitting. There was no sepraration as such.

As for models making the transition to fashion modelling from fit most famously now is Lea T. And that is a supermodel.


So that was when the term fashion model began to mean exclusively photographic.

As I said I am happy to acknowledge that that is what YOU mean by fashion model.
If you wish to say that those of us that do fashion at a more lowly level are 'commercial' that is fine but I don't think it describes what many of us do. We model in the fashion industry. Some of us - like myself - are clearly NOT what you would think of as 'commerical'. I am not at all suitable for that. But I have done runway at a high level so what was that?

But that isn't why I raised fitting modelling in any case.

I stopped reading after the quoted bit. You seem to think more words makes you more right, but it just doesn't. You are not a fashion model. Fit modeling is not being a fashion model.

I'll keep repeating this till you get it through your head.

Fit modeling is modeling in the fashion industry.

Fashion modeling is a specific term referring exclusively to runway, lookbooks, editorials and fashion advertisements. While other genres are sometimes associated with fashion modelings, like beauty, never ever ever ever ever is fit modeling associated with fashion models by any relevant industry source.

Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are  delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are  delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.

Do you get it yet?


And I quoted myself because LOL you absolutely could not understand what I was saying, even when it is 1/10th of the words you put up in your smoke screen. Also i asked for 20, you gave me one. So until you can back up what you are saying by SOURCING (like i have been doing all thread) stop, just stop. Nobody believes you, and the longer your posts are the less likely people will be to believe you.

So for those of you who do not have the ability to understand my first post-

shortened timeline of the creation of fashion models-

Professional Beauties (upon whom the fashion plates run in broadsheets copied the fashions)----> house models ------> fashion models

Funny but i don't see fit models in there anywhere. AND NO ELIZA HOUSE MODELS ARE NOT AND NEVER WERE THE SAME AS FIT MODELS SO DON'T EVEN TRY AND SUGGEST THAT. Even the Gibson Girl was taller than most women of the time.

if you feel like replying to my posts just know I won't read anything over 200 words.

model emily  wrote:

Wow. 

As a girl who is 5'7", this is very offensive.

I'm tired of always hearing from short curvy girls that "tall and thin" isn't pretty.  (Or worse, it's "wrong").

Fashion is an industry that (currently) FAVORS this look.  It is an industry you won't change by yourself, but collectively "society" MAY change over time -- maybe.   There are good reasons why height standards exist in the industry, and you should do more research on this BUSINESS before coming in here on your soapbox telling everyone what's "wrong".

(For your information, too -- 5'7" is short.  Fashion starts around 5'9" and prefers 5'10"+.)

I agree, couldn't have said it better myself. I'm 5' 7 135 and i get called skinny all the time, i get told that i need to gain weight etc. The fashion industry has its requirements just like any other job. You have to have a certain amount of education or referrals, degrees, past work experience able to pass a drug test....In the Fashion world, your body is your resume if you don't fit the requirements you don't get hired for the job p.s 5'7 is considered short....

Star wrote:

Star wrote:
And no, by the way, fit models were not the first fashion plates (the precursor to house models who were the precursor to fashion models in order to show the public the latest fashions).

The first fashion plates were the PBs (professional beauties.) Magazine and broadsheets and newspapers would hire illustrators to draw the clothing the PB's wore to show the latest popular styles. Fashion houses would vie to dress the most influential of the PBs, like Lillie Langtry. While these women mainly paid for their own clothing, they were the ones that all others would take their cue from and the styles they wore would be imitated by rich and poor alike.

http://edwardianpromenade.com/women/the … al-beauty/

I stopped reading after the quoted bit. You seem to think more words makes you more right, but it just doesn't. You are not a fashion model. Fit modeling is not being a fashion model.

I'll keep repeating this till you get it through your head.

Fit modeling is modeling in the fashion industry.

Fashion modeling is a specific term referring exclusively to runway, lookbooks, editorials and fashion advertisements. While other genres are sometimes associated with fashion modelings, like beauty, never ever ever ever ever is fit modeling associated with fashion models by any relevant industry source.

Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are  delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are  delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.

Do you get it yet?


And I quoted myself because LOL you absolutely could not understand what I was saying, even when it is 1/10th of the words you put up in your smoke screen. Also i asked for 20, you gave me one. So until you can back up what you are saying by SOURCING (like i have been doing all thread) stop, just stop. Nobody believes you, and the longer your posts are the less likely people will be to believe you.

So for those of you who do not have the ability to understand my first post-

shortened timeline of the creation of fashion models-

Professional Beauties (upon whom the fashion plates run in broadsheets copied the fashions)----> house models ------> fashion models

Funny but i don't see fit models in there anywhere. AND NO ELIZA HOUSE MODELS ARE NOT AND NEVER WERE THE SAME AS FIT MODELS SO DON'T EVEN TRY AND SUGGEST THAT. Even the Gibson Girl was taller than most women of the time.

if you feel like replying to my posts just know I won't read anything over 200 words.

Short attention span!

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Short attention span!

no short fuse. There are people who post 750+ words in their responses and respond dozens of times in a thread. At a certain point I just tune it out. Too much text just makes the eyes glaze over. If you can't get your point across in under 2 pages you probably aren't making a very good point.

And since the poster has already posted thousands of words in the thread, I feel rationing is in order in case the internet runs out of space.

Star wrote:
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.

+1

Star wrote:
no short fuse. There are people who post 750+ words in their responses and respond dozens of times in a thread. At a certain point I just tune it out. Too much text just makes the eyes glaze over. If you can't get your point across in under 2 pages you probably aren't making a very good point.

And since the poster has already posted thousands of words in the thread, I feel rationing is in order in case the internet runs out of space.

That's another +1.

Star wrote:
I stopped reading after the quoted bit. You seem to think more words makes you more right, but it just doesn't. You are not a fashion model. Fit modeling is not being a fashion model.

I'll keep repeating this till you get it through your head.

Fit modeling is modeling in the fashion industry.

Fashion modeling is a specific term referring exclusively to runway, lookbooks, editorials and fashion advertisements. While other genres are sometimes associated with fashion modelings, like beauty, never ever ever ever ever is fit modeling associated with fashion models by any relevant industry source.

Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are  delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are  delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.
Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are delusional.

Do you get it yet?


And I quoted myself because LOL you absolutely could not understand what I was saying, even when it is 1/10th of the words you put up in your smoke screen. Also i asked for 20, you gave me one. So until you can back up what you are saying by SOURCING (like i have been doing all thread) stop, just stop. Nobody believes you, and the longer your posts are the less likely people will be to believe you.

So for those of you who do not have the ability to understand my first post-

shortened timeline of the creation of fashion models-

Professional Beauties (upon whom the fashion plates run in broadsheets copied the fashions)----> house models ------> fashion models

Funny but i don't see fit models in there anywhere. AND NO ELIZA HOUSE MODELS ARE NOT AND NEVER WERE THE SAME AS FIT MODELS SO DON'T EVEN TRY AND SUGGEST THAT. Even the Gibson Girl was taller than most women of the time.

if you feel like replying to my posts just know I won't read anything over 200 words.

I suggest you look up Marie Vernet Worth.

The point is you suggested the samples as several others did  are made for the models that model them in editorial shoots. That is garbage and it has been the reason my fit modelling is RELEVANT here. And I shall keep repeating it until you get that through your head. a size 25 waist is a UK 8. Not a size uk 4 (00/0)

Your SAMPLES are made on models like me. That doesn't mean we are fashion models but it certainly measn the reason that models have to be tall is because the sampels ar emade for them is UTTER BULLSHIT and you are one of the ones who espoused it.

I am not a fashion model in terms of high fashion NEVER have I ever claimed to be.

But I have done runway because I am a fit model. At a pretty high level. With models who are fashion models.

And because of such experience I also do it for provincial boutiques and small designers. It is how I met my current partner. I did fit show and shoots for him. Now to you his work may not qualify as fashion either I don't know. I also model for five milliners making hats at £450 a pop. Maybe that isn't fashion either. As I have said throughout for those models who want to work IN or WITH fashion options such as fit may be of interest. It doesn't mean we all want to be in Vogue because we tick fashion it simply means we do some clothing shoots and runway and show.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

Short attention span!

Correct Jerry. The chap thinks a 25 inch waist is a sample size for fashion models. He fails to see the reason I know that is not true is because I am a fit model (not a fashion model) and it is my waist size and I am size UK 8 and 5ft 6. As are many other fit models. If he could be bothered to read the post unstead of exploding thinking I am saying something else he'd get it.

Eliza C wrote:

Correct Jerry. The chap thinks a 25 inch waist is a sample size for fashion models. He fails to see the reason I know that is not true is because I am a fit model

Really? YOU? Eliza, you're a fit model?!?!?!? You mean in fashion, right?

Star wrote:
no short fuse. There are people who post 750+ words in their responses and respond dozens of times in a thread. At a certain point I just tune it out. Too much text just makes the eyes glaze over. If you can't get your point across in under 2 pages you probably aren't making a very good point.

And since the poster has already posted thousands of words in the thread, I feel rationing is in order in case the internet runs out of space.

Seems to me you have posted 10 000 more posts than Eliza. Maybe you should read more and post less.

She is my partner. I do some fashion design. I did  two collections and they both sold out. I turned a modest profit.

When I met her I needed a red head model as I had a dark haired one and a blonde one. My existing redhead went off to LA and signed with an agency. She is 5ft 7" as I recall. My website at that time I wanted those three. I also used an a model from India. This was to show different colour tweeds looked good with different hair colours.

Prior to this I had the first collection manufactured in the Czech Republic. I used a fitting model who was 5ft 5" with the most extraordinary figure. Like she was corset trained but wasn't. she was perfect to work on. Alterations could be made to the pattern to work up from her size 8 to size 16. Those are British sizes. At size 16 I  used another fitting model. I was happy to have both as models to begin with for my website and brochure pictures. The factory which at the time was also making pret a porter for two major French fashion houses closed when they lost the contracts due to the rising value of the Czech crown. I started again in the UK using a Czech seamstress.

A photographer wanted to shoot the clothes for a regional magazine and turned up with two agency models. They were going to cost me a lot of money; I had to say no. He wasn't happy but the clothes really did look too big on them because they were too thin. I paid them for turning up and after they had gone the photographer  agreed. The waists were also far too high on them. So I have always stuck to choosing my own models since. And they wouldn't be what you'd call fashion models but they all have some experience shooting fashion for catalogues adverts and so on and some were my fit models. I even got a make up girl roped in once. So that is what we do at Model Mayhem and why we come here for models. I see agency model I see another twenty metres of tweed. So I’d rather go with a MM model who is keen.

What Eliza says about fit is absolutely spot on. She looked good in the suits because they were made for her . She taught me a lot about how to cut clothes and show them off not just in photos but live. She had done four regional magazine editorials for me in the clothes and I sold out in a few weeks. The photographers or editors didn't complain either. She also did my little fashion shows. This was great to me and the clients because they knew she'd done runway for Agent Provocateur.

So what you want and see and what we want or see can be two different things. Now I sell made to measure from the samples and Eliza models them. Showroom she calls it. She isn't towering above the clients so they don't think that she only looks good in it because she is tall. You need models that are not intimidating and can talk to the client and they match the image the client wants. Tall thin young models are not much use to me and they simply don’t look good in samples. I had to alter one jacket for a shoot as it was for a slightly taller model.

So hope that clarifies what Eliza is trying to say. Maybe we don't do fashion here. But we do clothes made by highly qualified seamstresses that have made clothes for couture companies. But I don't want your tall thin models sorry because they don't look good in my clothes. And I certainly don't want photographers who think we are nothing because we aren't in some big corporation fashion company shooting what I have put so much of my life into. My port does not atm reflect that because I am also an artist and I use the port for that too and also do a bit of photography. Not all that good but some published in National Dailies and equestrian magazines etc quite regularly. But my clothing seems to sell well.

V Laroche wrote:

Really? YOU? Eliza, you're a fit model?!?!?!? You mean in fashion, right?

I know. I was shocked too. But, really, it's not about her. She incessantly spams the fashion threads with self-indulgent drivel on fit modeling, that only matters to her, as a benevolent act of humanity for the shorter models.

Show of hands from the shorter models. At what page or previous thread did you realize Eliza was a fitting model? At what page did you stop listening? Was it after the first post? Or did it take all 24,766 of those words to sink in that...

"Hey everyone! I'm a fitting model. Notice me! I'm relevant...really really I am!

PonyGurlCouture wrote:
Seems to me you have posted 10 000 more posts than Eliza. Maybe you should read more and post less.

Eliza has posted more words in one thread than all of Star's posts combined. And there's a flaw in your argument PonyGurl...Star's comments in threads actually have some relevance and knowledge of the topic.

They aren't self-indulgent desperate pleas for attention on the same topic...over & over.

I'm sure the fact that you work with Eliza has nothing to do with it right?

PonyGurlCouture wrote:
I do some fashion design. I did  two collections and they both sold out. I turned a modest profit.

Sorry, I didn't read anything past the first paragraph. So I am supposed to be ashamed because Eliza's partner is now in the thread?

You don't have a current collection. You are not carried in any stores. And if you want me to talk about the images in your portfolio you should probably start a critique thread.

BTW- your profile states that

" I have taken my website down pending a new collection when time and finances allow!! "

While your collection may have sold out it obviously did not make enough of a profit to even give you the seed money for your next collection. Part of that might be a marketing problem. So when you are arguing that your use of models that are not fashion agency standard is a good thing, I would argue back that your collection did not generate enough money to pay for the creation of a second collection. That isn't a good thing.

Maybe you should allow for just a moment that I might just know what i am talking about when it comes to fashion. That once again I see a post that has NO SOURCING LINKS to anyone's opinion but the poster, you. All I am asking for is for you to show that someone other than yourself or your partner believe this to be true.

My Mom says I am the best photographer in the whole wide world and that all my photos are brilliant. Doesn't make it true.

I have, however, been responsible for over 40 covers of magazines and weeklies, been the only photographer from the LA Weekly nominated in the last two years for a Los Angeles Press Club Award (the person who won also won a Pulitzer for the same editorial), won an honorable mention from the IPA for my photos of Dita Von Teese and was named by Lurzer's Archive as one of the top 200 photographers internationally. So maybe, just maybe, I have some professional knowledge even if i am not the best photographer in whole wide world.

Eliza C wrote:

Correct Jerry. The chap thinks a 25 inch waist is a sample size for fashion models. He fails to see the reason I know that is not true is because I am a fit model (not a fashion model) and it is my waist size and I am size UK 8 and 5ft 6. As are many other fit models. If he could be bothered to read the post unstead of exploding thinking I am saying something else he'd get it.

He is quite surprised to learn that HE had a sex change. He is also quite surprised to here that he said 25 inches was standard sample size. He is a resident of Los Angeles, where the PR companies host the majority of the places a stylist can do a pull and the sizes in LA are not the sizes in NYC. The pulls out here are for size 2-4. He did state that he could not utilize a model LARGER than a 25 in waist. He is actually a female photographer which if Eliza had bothered to even look up the work of the person they were arguing with (as the FEMALE photographer in LA did with Eliza) then maybe Eliza wouldn't be so confused as to gender identity.

Eliza C wrote:
I suggest you look up Marie Vernet Worth.

The point is you suggested the samples as several others did  are made for the models that model them in editorial shoots. That is garbage and it has been the reason my fit modelling is RELEVANT here. And I shall keep repeating it until you get that through your head. a size 25 waist is a UK 8. Not a size uk 4 (00/0)

Your SAMPLES are made on models like me. That doesn't mean we are fashion models but it certainly measn the reason that models have to be tall is because the sampels ar emade for them is UTTER BULLSHIT and you are one of the ones who espoused it.

I am not a fashion model in terms of high fashion NEVER have I ever claimed to be.

But I have done runway because I am a fit model. At a pretty high level. With models who are fashion models.

And because of such experience I also do it for provincial boutiques and small designers. It is how I met my current partner. I did fit show and shoots for him. Now to you his work may not qualify as fashion either I don't know. I also model for five milliners making hats at £450 a pop. Maybe that isn't fashion either. As I have said throughout for those models who want to work IN or WITH fashion options such as fit may be of interest. It doesn't mean we all want to be in Vogue because we tick fashion it simply means we do some clothing shoots and runway and show.

I am sure i will be brigged for this, but your portfolio does not reflect the level of experience you claim and I can see no photos in your portfolio that I would consider marketable fashion images. You may claim to be a fashion model all you like, but I see no evidence of it either in your MM portfolio or by searching through google.


Please link to published tear sheets in brick and mortar publications.

I am sorry to be so blunt, but no you are not a fashion model.


Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are  delusional.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Can't really believe the whining. Photographically, no one gives a damn about height, it's all about proportion. Look at my shots, you'll have absolutely no idea about the height of the model - clue - they vary from 4' 11" to 6' 2" and I bet you'll get it wrong about who's who. If you want to be a catwalk model, whole different ball game. Where's the point in whining about no one wanting you on their basketball team because you're too short to play the game well? Or no one wanting you on their squash team because you're too tall to be fast enough.....

could you link me to your fashion portfolio?

Star wrote:
could you link me to your fashion portfolio?

Ouch!




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Can't really believe the whining. Photographically, no one gives a damn about height, it's all about proportion. Look at my shots, you'll have absolutely no idea about the height of the model - clue - they vary from 4' 11" to 6' 2" and I bet you'll get it wrong about who's who. If you want to be a catwalk model, whole different ball game. Where's the point in whining about no one wanting you on their basketball team because you're too short to play the game well? Or no one wanting you on their squash team because you're too tall to be fast enough.....

Disclaimer:   I am NOT a fashion photographer but recently a college friend asked me too shoot some things she made.   She only had one of each item.   The models needed too be at least 5'9" or taller to pull it off.   This is a amateur designer.   Nude and art like work like you display.   Who cares but for the kind of imagery a fashion designer needs  height and weight can be critical.   One thing members can judge for themselves is who they are hearing from.   The last few posts have been from a member with multiple covers and published FASHION tear sheets.

Star wrote:
I am sure i will be brigged for this, but your portfolio does not reflect the level of experience you claim and I can see no photos in your portfolio that I would consider marketable fashion images. You may claim to be a fashion model all you like, but I see no evidence of it either in your MM portfolio or by searching through google.

Please link to published tear sheets in brick and mortar publications.

I am sorry to be so blunt, but no you are not a fashion model.

Fit modeling is not fashion modeling. People who insist it is are  delusional.

+1. I don't believe the above is a "critique", but rather pointing out the difference between fun shots vs. Agency-quality fashion portfolio shots. Not tearing anyone down by saying that since modeling for fun can produce some great shots. But considering the level of experience Eliza claims to have, I was also expecting something different when looking at her portfolio.

LA StarShooter wrote:
I think Star has been remarkably measured throughout and on point. As for Eliza C and her illustrious partner, while love is admirable and that a lover comes to the defense of their lover, is proof that they have love, and a shared love of hopeless causes.

I looked at Eliza C's port and my defense is Star made me do it. I really liked the experience as sometimes is nice to look at a non-fashion model, but a nice woman do adventurous nudes. My god, how you leap in the air is only surpassed by how you leap to wrong conclusions.

I would like to congratulate that ponyman-partner of yours for showing two collections and that gives soime legitimacy. For proper shows, as Star was trying to point out, you really need runway models, as there's just no way around it. You have got to attract distributors, and, otherwise you'll have great difficulty. I'm not saying you would have juggernauted straight away into a third collection pony-man, but the odds would have been better for you.

Most designers make up and alter clothes for presentation, whether it was a fashion shoot, as your story of the photographer indicated. Exposure. It appears yours was limited and perhaps the moral of the story is: rely on a fitting model to do fashion work is doom for the designer. I think this one should go in Aesop fables. Now, please die thread, of thread thrombosis. Thank you.

Well written and I agree.

Rollo David Snook wrote:
I walked in to Storm with a 5'6" chinese schoolgirl and they signed her. 3 years later, after a break, she went to Select. Select booker told her "you'll never be a model in the UK". Now a few more years later, she just did the Jonnie Walker campaign and had a small part in Skyfall.

It's not true to say the industry favours 5'7"+ . It depends who you are talking to.

This topic should really be titled 5'10" so all the 5'9" girls who can't attend the 5'10" castings can complain too. It's the clients who make these stipulations, not photographers or agencies.

I make no claims to be an expert or have the experience that many of the professional photographers in this thread have, yourself included from what I can tell. 

However, I contend your statement above.  The industry certainly does favour taller models.  It does not mean the are 100% excluding all models that are not 5'7", just almost all of them.

Also, if we are speaking strictly about fashion modelling (which most people posting here believe to be the intention of the OP - a few obvious people exluded) then an appearance in Skyfall and an ad for a product that is not clothing (Johnnie Walker) does nothing to support the argument that fashion models should be taller than 5'7".

Many actors are shorter than that - it's how they try to make Tom Cruise look tall.

Aspiring models of any height may do their best to break into the world of fashion modelling. They should just understand that it's incredibly difficult to do when you are 5'9" to 6'0" and a size 0-2.  It will be that much more difficult to do when you are outside of those stats.  My advise to most of those models would be to pick another aspect of modeling where they may be more likely to get work.