nyk fury wrote:

the closest thing to that in my mind is guillermo del toro. or maybe that is just wishful thinking.

That is what I was thinking. With a dash of Tarsem Singh.

Sugar Sharai wrote:
I can wear clothes.

actually.. i MAKE clothes look good......

the clothes i CHOOOSE.... look good...

the clothes that i wear, i LEARN to make look good...

Are you under the impression that the clothes you make look so good are designed by top fashion houses that required fashion designers and agency-standard models? You're talking about a pair of Levi's and a crop top, not haute-couture.

And no, you don't make the clothes look good. The clothes were manufactured to make YOU look good. You took no part in the design, manufacture, fitting, purchasing decisions or marketing of those garments.

Your part in the equation was only in the selection of the proper attire. Looking good in what you choose to wear doesn't make one a fashion mogul...or a model.

That's where we are now? Axe Body Spray and picking out a pair of jeans at Forever 21 is fashion?

Sean Buie wrote:
I didn't read all the replies, so maybe someone has touched on this already but...I have always considered it has a lot to do with who designs fashion. I think it really just speaks to their tastes. And to each their own. It seems kind of silly to think that "fashion" in a general sense doesn't apply to everyone. We all wear clothes, regardless of our height or any other measurement. It's really just about the vision of the people designing in that niche. They like tall, skinny...people...do the math

The designers don't do the ad campaigns and frequently don't like them. But that isn't their job.
The designer hires the fit models. We aren't always industry standard. We sometimes get thrown in the runway shows too by the designers. So it isn't the designer's fault.

Sean Buie wrote:
I didn't read all the replies, so maybe someone has touched on this already but...I have always considered it has a lot to do with who designs fashion. I think it really just speaks to their tastes. And to each their own. It seems kind of silly to think that "fashion" in a general sense doesn't apply to everyone. We all wear clothes, regardless of our height or any other measurement. It's really just about the vision of the people designing in that niche. They like tall, skinny...people...do the math

It sounds like you're confusing someone's "fashion sense" with the niche of llamaing that is Fashion. Other than Eliza and a few others who work in that area it seems there is a lot of confusion among us on what Fashion really is.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Are you under the impression that the clothes you make look so good are designed by top fashion houses that required fashion designers and agency-standard models? You're talking about a pair of Levi's and a crop top, not haute-couture.

And no, you don't make the clothes look good. The clothes were manufactured to make YOU look good. You took no part in the design, manufacture, fitting, purchasing decisions or marketing of those garments.

Your part in the equation was only in the selection of the proper attire. Looking good in what you choose to wear doesn't make one a fashion mogul...or a model.

That's where we are now? Axe Body Spray and picking out a pair of jeans at Forever 21 is fashion?

Except if one is a fit model we have a humble input.

I take your point however. The design process of any company designing quality clothing  is complex and has a team with fit models working to make clothes make the consumer look good. It is a real eye opener and has made me appreciate what goes into it. The designers I worked with were immensely talented. I can sometimes see their signature in other things. It is true they make us rock not vice versa.

But then many of us do get employed to model the jeans for a boutique ad because our arse makes them look like they are worth $200 so sometimes Sugar may have a point. Sometimes it's just our arse see. Sometimes its our legs, or our feet or our hands or our boobs. But only when they are the best available and frequently better than the industry standard model.

Fashion may not be anything to do with Axe deodorant I agree. That is campaign stuff not fashion. Ad men sell pizzas, pensions, fashion it's all the same. It's not fashion agreed. It's where often the photography comes into fashion at the most visible and elite level of course. So maybe that is why some photographers see that AS fashion. It isn't. It is campaign ad. Or maybe they do editrorial shoots. That is just part of fashion too.


But fashion is haute couture and jeans and lingerie and anything to do with the rag trade and models have work at all those levels. I have done runway for a couture house alongside Premier agency girls and modelled the jeans close ups for the boutique ads and walked them down the local runway show. I modelled couture millinery costing £thousands and baseball caps costing a tenner. I have modelled with girls of 5ft and 6ft and most between my height and 5ft 10. I never have and will never do editorial except in lifestyle and local mags. But I and many other girls make a living from fashion. And we aren't all industry standard.

And there are thousands of photographers making a quet living shooting fashion too at the kind of level I am talking about.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

It sounds like you're confusing someone's "fashion sense" with the niche of modeling that is Fashion. Other than Eliza and a few others who work in that area it seems there is a lot of confusion among us on what Fashion really is.

Welcome to Modelmayhem

Sugar Sharai wrote:
the idea is to make the clothes look good... make the clothes show you are a WOMAN. with boobs.. hips that bear children.   thats  a WOMAN to me.

however, this new species of females, are now considered "models" because they do not fit into the society norm.... not because they are talented...??

Can you be a little bit more condescending and insulting to a plethora of naturally tall and slender women on the planet?!

Eliza C wrote:

How is Axe fashion?

It's deodorant. Nothing to do with fashion modelling.

I'm 5ft 6 ins and worked almost full time in a pretty well known couture fashion house and did runway for them. That is an inconvenient truth and there are dozens of girls here with similar experiences.

A lot of work for models in the fashion industry has nothing to do with deodorant ad campaigns. Or even photography. Maybe that is why many of you don't know so much about it. I am sure that you know the photography part of it but that isn't where the modelling is necessarily.

I didn't say Axe was fashion modeling. I was telling the OP the concept of selling fantasies! Okay, that wasn't a good example. However, I felt that the OP didn't understand the modeling business is not one based on fairness. I'll stand behind those statements. To most folks, the fashion industry was about showcasing the clothes, not the model. I just need to clarify my statements.

Moore Photo Graphix wrote:
I didn't say Axe was fashion modeling. I was telling the OP the concept of selling fantasies! Okay, that wasn't a good example. However, I felt that the OP didn't understand the modeling business is not one based on fairness. I'll stand behind those statements. To most folks, the fashion industry was about showcasing the clothes, not the model. I just need to clarify my statements.

No the fashion industry is about everything from design to creation to sourcing materials to manufacture to marketing via magazines from elite to local, franchise, boutique, newspaper, internet, website, etc etc/ using photography in many areas from runway to merch cat to editorial to advertorial to website cat. But also there is showroom and trade show and fit modelling which doesn't have photography. Then there are all those models you see in the media wearing designs to events whose job it is to get noticed.

All that needs models. I used to get into bed sometimes too tired to shower still covered in the designer's chalk and pen marks. I even daydreamed about having them tatooed on

That is the fashion industry. It can't be that unfair because I made a living in it. Worked day in day out with a great team of designers and seamtresses. I am not industry standard.

The Ad campaign, fashion editorial world that's different. But what I don't like is that represented as the be all and end all of fashion industry. It isn't. Just a tiny part of it. Just the part that top notch photographers see or aspire to so think that is all there is to it. Yes the dream factory. The dream factory may not be fair.

Hence I pointed out Axe is not fashion: so I don't like such modelling being defined as what fashion is as such and those of us who do the journeymen fashion work as in getting covered in designer's chalk and pen marks every day as invisible to the point we don't exist or that we don't know anything about drape or aren't proper fashion models . So there is a lot more to fashion modelling than selling fantasies and there are plenty of opportunities in the actual realities of modelling within the fashion industry if she is inclined to pursue them.

ChiMo wrote:
Speaking as a photographer and only for myself, I prefer taller models as it is generally easier to get the visual impact and aesthetic I'm looking for.

Ah for the old days when women used to grow up to fifty feet tall.




Om a serious note there is something wrong because I can make any model look tall and I am not a pro photographer.

The only aesthetic re height should relate to the clothes. If a garment drowns a model that is different but even then you can do a lot with pins.

Eliza C wrote:
Om a serious note there is something wrong because I can make any model look tall and I am not a pro photographer.

The only aesthetic re height should relate to the clothes. If a garment drowns a model that is different but even then you can do a lot with pins.

If that is directed at me, then I don't know what to tell you other than I see things different than you and I'm not necessarily looking to make them "look tall, but as I said, a visual aesthetic and impact which must be different than yours.

ChiMo wrote:
^^^
Nice! Is she on MM?! I have to send her a FR!

No but she's on IMDB. I think there were some porky pies about her stats though!

http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm0370886/

ChiMo wrote:
^^^
Nice! Is she on MM?! I have to send her a FR!


If that is directed at me, then I don't know what to tell you other than I see things different than you and I shoot for my vision, not yours.

Are you seriously suggesting you can tell a girl's height through a photograph? Or that you can't easily make a girl look much taller than she is?

Part of the skill; smoke and mirrors all that is what I am saying. Proprotions play a part, and clothes as I said - but not difficut to make someone shorter appear tall.

NYB wrote:
Tall women are statuesque and much more impressive when walking down the runway. Also, they have longer legs and everyone loves women with great long legs!!!

I never had any complaints.

Eliza C wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting you can tell a girl's height through a photograph? Or that you can't easily make a girl look much taller than she is?

Part of the skill; smoke and mirrors all that is what I am saying. Proprotions play a part, and clothes as I said - but not difficut to make someone shorter appear tall.

No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying:

ChiMo wrote:
Speaking as a photographer and only for myself, I prefer taller models as it is generally easier to get the visual impact and aesthetic I'm looking for.

ChiMo wrote:
No, that's not what I'm saying.

So why is real height a factor in aesthetics in a photo?

In my avatar image - one of the other shoot shots I look taller than the building if you get what I mean. Easily achieved. If a five foot six model can dwarf a massively imposing piece of brutalist architecture can a 5ft 9 model do it better? Come on!

You are quite within your preferences to chose who you want but to me you may as well say blonde hair makes for better aesthetics. It may for some and that is fine no probs. I just can't see that a tall model makes a better aesthetic for visual impact if a camera can make someone look fifty feet high.

Eliza C wrote:
So why is real height a factor in aesthetics in a photo?

In my avatar image - one of the other shoot shots I look taller than the building if you get what I mean. Easily achieved. If a five foot six model can dwarf a massively imposing piece of brutalist architecture can a 5ft 9 model do it better? Come on!

I find taller models more visually interesting and, for a million reasons that I'm still discovering, I typically make better photos of things I find more interesting.

But this is only me and is getting way off topic, I think.

ChiMo wrote:

Eliza C wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting you can tell a girl's height through a photograph? Or that you can't easily make a girl look much taller than she is?

Part of the skill; smoke and mirrors all that is what I am saying. Proprotions play a part, and clothes as I said - but not difficut to make someone shorter appear tall.

No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying:

Your preferences need no explanation.   I shot a 6'0" model the other day.   Her height and long legs made her stand out and as you mentioned had more of a visual impact without me having too shoot upward as much.   Most designers only make one sample size.   Catalog modelling is the same.   A Target, Kohls or Sears shoot won't feature different sizes.   You either fit the clothes or you don't work.   In a shoot with one or more models having one model who's short and the others who are tall can sometimes make the image less powerful.   

Using agency or standard size models eliminates trying to make your model look taller.   Some dresses/outfits look better draped across long lean figures.   I shot a very pretty model in Texas who is short.   The next shoot she brought a tall, thin friend.   There was a world of difference.   Long lean models with even average faces can rock shoots in ways a pretty but small model can't.   I don't think I said this too you but you really have some dynamite work.

ChiMo wrote:

I find taller models more visually interesting and, for a million reasons that I'm still discovering, I typically make better photos of things I find more interesting.

But this is only me and is getting way off topic, I think.

No I think it very on topic and please don't think I am getting at you. I am wanting to seriously ask the nature of your pereference. Because the reasons you have given ie visual impact do not sound supportable to me. In real life yes I can see it - so runway for instance of course height could play a part (though it is overstated - plenty of top girls are under industry standard). 

If you like tall girls that is fine. Naturally people shoot what they like. I wanted to ask if it was someting more than personal preference.

Because if it isn't about the clothes then I don't get it. Sorry to push you on this.

Eliza C wrote:
Because the reasons you have given ie visual impact do not sound supportable to me. In real life yes I can see it - so runway for instance of course height could play a part (though it is overstated - plenty of top girls are under industry standard). 

If you like tall girls that is fine. Naturally people shoot what they like. I wanted to ask if it was someting more than personal preference.

Because if it isn't about the clothes then I don't get it. Sorry to push you on this.

I absolutely make more interesting photos when I am more interested in the subject matter.

I suppose it would be like a musician playing a type of music they really find interesting versus a genre they can play very well, but don't find that interesting.

Eliza C wrote:
Because if it isn't about the clothes then I don't get it.

I believe I know what he means.

Shorter girls (as long as they are well proportioned) can look great in many outfits, especially lingerie, and can look fantastic nude. No question.

However, the advantage of a tall skinny model from a photographer's perspective is twofold:-

a) They look great in almost everything and obviously also nude. It's very hard to find an outfit that a tall skinny model can't model.

b) With or without clothes, the extra length of their limbs and torso combined with their skinniness means that they are generally more bendable and can make more interesting shapes with more space between the angles, limbs and torso than a more compact model. If you wanted to make the largest number of interesting shapes out of a pipe-cleaner, would you use a short one or a long one?



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Eliza C wrote:
Om a serious note there is something wrong because I can make any model look tall and I am not a pro photographer.

The only aesthetic re height should relate to the clothes. If a garment drowns a model that is different but even then you can do a lot with pins.

If you can make a 5'4" model look 5' 9" then you can make a 5'9" model look at least 6'0".  And you can certainly make a 5'9" model look 5'9".  Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

You can't place two models of different heights next to each other and make them look the same height.  Making a shorter model look tall against a seamless is relatively easy.  But doing the same thing around furniture, doorways or other items of a known height is harder.

There are plenty of things models who are not 5'9" can do (You have listed many of them).  5' 5" or 5'7" for some lifestyle projects I do would fine.  I often shoot beauty with shorter models.  But for fashion and certain other projects where I want tall and thin I'd rather just book a tall and thin model than have the extra limitations of making her taller.

Just my $0.02

Eliza C wrote:
So why is real height a factor in aesthetics in a photo?

In my avatar image - one of the other shoot shots I look taller than the building if you get what I mean. Easily achieved. If a five foot six model can dwarf a massively imposing piece of brutalist architecture can a 5ft 9 model do it better? Come on!

You are quite within your preferences to chose who you want but to me you may as well say blonde hair makes for better aesthetics. It may for some and that is fine no probs. I just can't see that a tall model makes a better aesthetic for visual impact if a camera can make someone look fifty feet high.

If there is a shot of you dwarfing a building then it was done with angles and perspective to create that illusion.  In order to do that a photographer would need to frame the shot in a certain way to give the illusion you are taller.  That would eliminate other angles, and perhaps more interesting backgrounds, in order to add 3-4" to your height.  If the model is already 5' 10" then there is no reason to limit the photographer to those angles.

It's Thanksgiving in the US - imagine if the store ran out of turkeys and said - we have two five pound chickens you can use instead of a ten pound turkey would it be the same?  Sure you'd have enough food to feed the family, but the two birds on the table to be carved would not look as impressive as the one large turkey.  And it wouldn't taste the same.

(And I am not suggesting in any way models are the same as chickens or turkeys, but just because you can make do with something does not mean you should do it).

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
You never seem to find forums with taller models complaining that they'd like to be Yoda height.

And if they did, I have a saw they can borrow for a small fee!

Aby Sloan wrote:
WHY?

I haven't a clue.

5' to 5' 2" is better for much of the shooting I do.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

I believe I know what he means.

Shorter girls (as long as they are well proportioned) can look great in many outfits, especially lingerie, and can look fantastic nude. No question.

However, the advantage of a tall skinny model from a photographer's perspective is twofold:-

a) They look great in almost everything and obviously also nude. It's very hard to find an outfit that a tall skinny model can't model.

b) With or without clothes, the extra length of their limbs and torso combined with their skinniness means that they are generally more bendable and can make more interesting shapes with more space between the angles, limbs and torso than a more compact model. If you wanted to make the largest number of interesting shapes out of a pipe-cleaner, would you use a short one or a long one?



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I think I'm a pretty bendy pipe cleaner.



This kind or preference exists in many things. There are those who favour taller horses for example. They say they cover the ground more easily and can jump bigger fences. That may be true. But there are other who have over the years favoured smaller horses even for jumping. They say they get into them lower and get away from them quicker.

The result is now we don't have an industry standard steeplechase horse like there was perhaps fifty years ago. In fact the big awkward heavy chaser has been replaced by the smaller more agile one which is more fashionable.

So swings and roundabouts.

Tall skinny models do not look so great in anything sleeveless. Or swimwear or lingerie. You may think so - but generally that is one industry standard that gives the smaller girls a chance. The tall are regarded as looking gangly and awkward.

Likewise your skinny model. I know you like shooting them Stefano but sometimes such models if they haven't got an arse can look shit for example in pencil skirts and a corset. Of course they can be pinned. But then why is it a problem to pin a hem on a shorter model?

The feminine shape rather than androgenous clothes horse is why there is room for the retro figured model and plenty of girls making money from that too.

On the whole it's fauir points you raise. But while height is advantageous for some of those reaons and while it is understandable that is an agency requirement it is by not means an absolute barrier for the determined and realistic shorter model who wants to work in fashion and maybe has other assets to make up for what she may lack in height. Whether that may be purple eyes, a public recognition factor, incredible cheekbones, a niche look, whatever.

Aby Sloan wrote:
WHY?

For one thing tall models stand out, I have not met a designer who does not like long legs.
Fashionable clothes look better on taller models.
When a person is small, the proportions change, such as shorter legs, narrow shoulders that make the head look bigger, shorter arms where the model can some times swim an get lost in some clothes even it fits and altering the clothes changes and sometimes ruin the whole look.. For fashion, shooting taller models is much easier, with a good tall model, they can do poses that shorter models can not pull off and can sometimes look silly.
Such as the hands on hip and bringing elbows forward. Linda Evangelista did it good in the early 90's but, it looked good because she is tall, proportioned and had a very strong look.. When smaller models do the elbow pose, it looks horrendous, they look like a chicken trying to lay an egg, you have to have a long arms and thin body. But even if your thin, when short, you have shorter arms and you also need a long neck...
Unless your Dean Johnson (and there is ONLY one Dean Johnson meaning she has even surpassed and has had a longer career than models like Karen Mulder, Helena Christensen, Cindy Crawford etc... the list is long) Not saying these models are not modeling anymore. Even Linda Evangelista is not working as a model as much as Dean Johnson.
So even tall models don't really have someone like Dean Johnson..
Again not just "still modeling" No, meaning still relevant and still getting covers and yes probably still in demand..
So does Dean Johnson help short models? Hell no. Its non related..
She does not even help tall models, many tall models were like WTF? How is she getting so much work?..(when Kate first came out in the scene..)

Again when some models say "if Dean Johnson can do, it so can I"
NO.
Understand that no strong exception has been made more, than the one for Dean Johnson. Because she simply HAS the look...
What other model can still model and still came out smelling like a rose, from scandal (severe scandal), drugs, Tabloids trying to discredit her?...
and than a month later getting the cover of Vogue and new ad campaign.
I have not seen many tall super models that can pull that off..

Why does the industry like tall models? Its just the way it is with fashion. Its that way with designers, clients that hire them, modeling agencies that deal with fashion models, photographers who prefer tall models...
Thats what they want...

Euan Anderson wrote:
from my experience it seems it is really not something against short or curvy girls -  the size and dimensions for most fashion shoots are defined by the clothes. clothing samples come in medium, they have been designed to fit around mannequins which as standard come in medium, so the best way to show it is on someone of similar build.

This is starting to annoy me.

They are designed on fitting models. That is girls like me. Thousands of us working in fashion. because you don't see pics of us all the time don't think we don't exist.
We DO NOT come in standard height. We do NOT come in medium.

If the garments are figure hugging they do not necessarily look good on tall shapeless models either that is for sure. That is why frequently fit models get catapulted onto the runway kicking and screaming.

Or for that matter stats.
often its the opposite. So for example if a designer wants a fit model they'll advertise for one  to be 8-10 so she is size 9 stats.

Eliza C wrote:
Likewise your skinny model. I know you like shooting them Stefano but sometimes such models if they haven't got an arse can look shit for example in pencil skirts and a corset.

Speaking of backsides, no pencil skirt or corset here, but I think this works

http://stefanobrunesci.tumblr.com/post/ … o-brunesci (18+)

Likewise, a fuller figured model I shot the other day!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/ … 6536_n.jpg (18+)

I don't think one shape is necessarily better than the other per-se but as a photographer I definitely find it easier to make a tall skinny model look look elegant and interesting in photos. Maybe I'm just lazy!




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com