MelissaAnn  wrote:
Congrats Eliza, you've just earned the award for the biggest threadjack ever.  Everyone here is talking about *fashion* modeling- which is the type of modeling with the height requirement.  You're talking about *fit* modeling.  It's great that you don't give a damn about the fashion models, but you may want to accept that other people do, and that's what this thread was about....but apparently you're too thick to get that.....or too selfish to stop talking about yourself, and what you see as the most legitimate type of modeling- fit modeling.  So laughable.

I have a list of emails from other models and photographers that have a different view.

Fit modelling is the original fashion modelling before the advent of photography. It doesn't always have a height requirement. It employs thousands of models in good regular well paid work. There are two of us in this thread alone. It is legitimate. How many threads of the thousands here talk about it? Very few. Yet we are able to make a living. Only the elite will ever do that with editorial aspirations and that goes for photographers too. The ones I shoot with work and are happy to do boutique work small designers and lifestyle mags. Or for that matter toasters. There are so many people here who act like they are the high priests of fashion and while they may know photography that is not the same as fashion.

That is not the fashion industry that is 'fashion editorial photography' and 'America's next top model' territory.

Nothing to do with most of us but the fashion industry is and there are many ways to work in it as a model.


I use my experience simply to demonstrate to others what working as a model in the fashion industry is about. So it's a good option for those interested in fashion who don't come up to height requirements.

There are many other avenues and I have touched on them. Other models working in alt or vintage fashion niches may offer their expereince as a possibility. I would be far more interested in such than somebody telling me I can't do it so I may as well get my boobs out. That is always given as the only option. It isn't. And as I said that is coming from someone happy to do that but I get more work from the fashion sector.

If you think that is a threadjack that is fine but at least I have not been rude or nasty to anyone.

It may have also escaped you attention that I am the only person that has actually provided the real answer to the ops question as to why the height requirement. Read the post about Suzy Parker and her sister and you will see why the height standard came into being. Before them the two biggest supermodels of the fifties were 5ft 5ins and 5ft 6ins and that was average.

MelissaAnn  wrote:
And the verdict is: Too selfish to stop talking about yourself.

LOLS.

Have a wonderful day, Eliza. 

If you wish to believe that you are kidding yourself. I am not at all a selfish person. But I don't need to do that people who know me know it.

As I said I am the only person who has actually answered the ops question and given her options based on my experience.

Mr Cruz wrote:
As a Model Scoutt in NY many years ago. I can tell you the the standard for agencies is 5'8 to 6'0 and that is because the Fashion Designers clothing for shows is design for females that high. Is the same the Male models should be 32" waist and 42" chest.

This doesn't mean that female models under 5'8 can't get work in other areas like photography and commercials.

Mr Cruz.

The problem through the thread has been that samples are made on women like me. Fitting models. We are (generally) not that high. Some couture fashion is made for runway but anything destined for production isn't. Hence the reason for my insistance this is not true. Everything else - that taller models still may look frequently better in the clothes etc is valid. BUT we also get thrown up on the runway as shorter models simply because the clothes were made on us.

Eliza C wrote:

If you wish to believe that you are kidding yourself.

As I said I am the only person who has actually answered the ops question and given her options based on my experience.

Eliza, I respect the point that you were trying to make. The OP did seem to be asking regarding high fashion/commercial fashion, and most folks answered in kind. Fit modeling is not the same and does not equate to fashion modeling. It is its own genre with its own standards.

Behind the scenes work like fit might be an option for the OP, but when she's made repeated references to magazines and the catwalk, it probably isn't what she was asking for when she created the OP.

If she had asked what alternatives there might be for a shorter model, it would be perfectly topical. That did not appear to be the question at hand.

You've trainwrecked/threadjacked this thread entirely arguing with everyone, rudely or not. This isn't the first time.

Fit might be a good choice for some models seeking steady paid work. You worked for Agent Provocateur. We get that.

Eliza C wrote:
The problem through the thread has been that samples are made on women like me.

I thought fashion starts on the runway and trickles down -- not the other way around. (At least this is what I learned from watching The Devil Wears Prada!)

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't "fitting llamas" also need to be certain measurements?  (FYI, a 5'10" llama can have the same measurements as you and me... so why use a shorter llama?)  But my point is, even then there are standards.  Just like any other industry.  The OP was originally addressing fashion, which if we're talking about llamaing and fashion is an industry, and I get you're saying there are other options....  but there are still standards, just as with any industry.

Paige Morgan wrote:
Eliza, I respect the point that you were trying to make. The OP did seem to be asking regarding high fashion/commercial fashion, and most folks answered in kind. Fit modeling is not the same and does not equate to fashion modeling. It is its own genre with its own standards.

Behind the scenes work like fit might be an option for the OP, but when she's made repeated references to magazines and the catwalk, it probably isn't what she was asking for when she created the OP.

If she had asked what alternatives there might be for a shorter model, it would be perfectly topical. That did not appear to be the question at hand.

You've trainwrecked/threadjacked this thread entirely arguing with everyone, rudely or not. This isn't the first time.

Fit might be a good choice for some models seeking steady paid work. You worked for Agent Provocateur. We get that.

I actually cited the reason for the height standard and how it came about. Nobody else gave a valid reason. I gave the exact history of 'why'. I doubt many actually knew. I was pushing people - not arguing - because I knew they didn't know. They gave persdobal preferences as photographers. Nothing wrong with that but until the Suzy Parkers they were telling models they were too tall and that it wasn't aestehtically as nice.

The point was raised many times samples are made on tall models. That is not true and that is why fitting modelling is especially relevant.

I am sure what many models want is regular paid work. So yes fit modelling is a great option and it can sometimes get you on to other things. I left because those things were NOT important to me. It is relevant here not because I am showing off or something. Hell a minute ago I was being told that fit modelling isn't 'making it' so what's to show off about? I am seriously just suggesting it as an avenue because myself and a lot of other girls have done ok through it re making a living in fashion. How is that a threadjack?

model emily  wrote:
I thought fashion starts on the runway and trickles down -- not the other way around. (At least this is what I learned from watching The Devil Wears Prada!)

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't "fitting models" also need to be certain measurements?  (FYI, a 5'10" model can have the same measurements as you and me... so why use a shorter model?)  But my point is, even then there are standards.  Just like any other industry.  The OP was originally addressing fashion, which if we're talking about modeling and fashion is an industry, and I get you're saying there are other options....  but there are still standards, just as with any industry.

yes I am not saying there are not some height requirements.
The problem I have been challenging is the 'why'.

With fit modelling there is sometimes but not always a height requirement. So for example there was a VS bra fit model on MM that is 5ft 2in. My flatmate's partner was 5ft 3ins and a fit model. The stats are more important than the height and harder to come by exactly what the designer wants. And each uses different sets of stats. For lingerie that even goes down to cup size and bum shape.

Look at the risk of being accused of showing off I will tell you how it works. The clothes are not made for tall models with any job I have had. They are made for production or are post producion samples. The ones used on the runway were the opnes made on me. I was drafted into the runway shows too precisely because of that.

Haute couture houses make samples for the runway and probably do for their pret ranges too but from what I have seen many don't. And certainly the vast majority of fashion houses and small designers do not make special samples for runway and at boutique show level  you are wearing the clothes from the store. So sometimes they need size 12 models etc.

rp_photo wrote:
I can see that, but when they're naked and posing on or in background objects, shorter is much better. The 5' 4" model in my avatar is a good example.

Ditto for cars, motorcycles, etc.

Nah.  For nudes, I don't care. ( all links 18+)
4'11" and I love the shot:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/28980218

5'7"
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/8088013

5'11"
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/25760489

Azimuth Arts wrote:
I don't disagree that there are many jobs for models under 5'9".  But the vast majority of the girls and women who are shorter than that will NOT walk the runways or appear in campaigns for the major brands unless they have some else very special (e.g. a celebrity from another field such as acting).

The vast majority of girls and women who are NOT "shorter than that" will not "walk the runways or appear in campaigns for the major brands unless they have some else very special".

AJScalzitti wrote:
As others have pointed out fit models are a entire different category of modeling, by the same logic the OP could be a parts model; it is however not what she asked.

While we are on the subject of fit models, they have very rigid requirments about their sizes as well and it's very very important that they don't change.  It's a different world and not everyone is cut out for it, nothing is easy in modeling.

That is true re keeping to rigid size. And you are correct not everyone would find that easy.

It is a different world from the one that fashion photographers see. But it is the original fashion modelling and it is still aroute through the back door to runway and catalogue work.

Main thing is it is possible. For the vast majority of MM models Vogue is impossible.

I am not sure the op would be able or want to do that anyway. But it is possible.
The main reason I raised it was the many times cited reason for WHY being the samples are made for tall girls. Which is utter rubbish except at couture level. They are made for production. So sized accordingly on fit models like me and for average height.

The question WHY has only been asnwered by me and it's to do with ford models and Suzy Parker and others as cited. Until then 5ft 5-6 was the industry standard. So its just a convention from that which has been adhered to. But things change.

Before the 1930s the only fashion models were fitting models. So we aren't some tiny niche and even through to the fifties nearly all the miodels came via fit and showroom. And its still good work in fashion for thousands of models who aren't necessarily inudtsry standard. So it's an option as opposed to no option.

Just one of many options. Just one I know well. I know it gets on the nerves of some but really many others do not know about it. And it is more applicable for models here than dreams of Vogue.

Art of the nude wrote:
The vast majority of girls and women who are NOT "shorter than that" will not "walk the runways or appear in campaigns for the major brands unless they have some else very special".

Nothing special about me. How come I have done it? Mostly at local level true but two shows alongside Premier models - it doesn't get much higher level for most of us here.

The whole point I am here in this thread getting on people's nerves is because it is possible via fit.

But generally I agree with your observation.

Interesting to note what amazing angles you make with shorter models.

Eliza C wrote:
I couldn't give a damn about the 99% of llamas who think they are going to be the next Dean Johnson and watch America's next top llama.

If you care so little about them then perhaps it would be best not to threadjack their topics to fit your own agenda. Because that's what the OP asked. How to make it. Which means being recognized as a fashion llama - fame, fortune, etc.

So, contrary to your original position that you post these endless diatribes to HELP, the fact is you don't care. You're not helping by threadjacking every fashion thread.

You care about promoting Fitting llamaing. Not every fashion-related thread must be a Portrait of the Life of Eliza C.

It's self indulgent and completely unnecessary.

veypurr wrote:
why is it absolutely necessary that your in Vouge or that you walk the runway in Milan?

Because it's what dreamers aspire to.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
If you care so little about them then perhaps it would be best not to threadjack their topics to fit your own agenda. Because that's what the OP asked. How to make it. Which means being recognized as a fashion model - fame, fortune, etc.

So, contrary to your original position that you post these endless diatribes to HELP, the fact is you don't care. You're not helping by threadjacking every fashion thread.

You care about promoting Fitting Modeling. Not every fashion-related thread must be a Portrait of the Life of Eliza C.

It's self indulgent and completely unnecessary.

It must really bug you to have a couple of threads when girls ask how they can get into fashion when they are short to actually hear from one who has. That is entirely relevant. I don't give a damn what you think about me because those who know me here know that it isn't the case. Not all models do this to make fame and fortune or are simply dreamers. They just have an interest in fashion and can model. So if they ask about height I simply tell them what is possible because I do it. As do hundreds of others here who don't always come up to 'indutstry standard' but do some fashion work neverthless. You can't get in the front door but you can viia the back door. Just because there aren't as many photographers there don't make the mistake of thinking that it doesn't pay or is a stange little niche: it has been the route in for many models and even if you don't get any further it still pays well.

I post where my expereince is relevant and it is entirely relevant here. I certainly do not post in every thread about fashion but people need to consider fit is a part of fashion and has a history as long as it. Photography of fashion  is new and the kind you are speaking about at elite level NOT relevant here.

You however seem to have very little of positive worth to add.


I don't have any agenda other than helping other models do something they want to at a realistic level.

What I don't care about is those who think they are going to be signed up by a top agency and doing Vogue and want to be America['s next top model. That isn't going to happen.
What COULD happen is the route I have taken for the smaller girl
Both in fit and work for small designers boutiques etc. And there are other niches too such as swimwear lingerie and retro etc. Models are used for many things in fashion and often identification with target audience is important and employs many. Outsize and mature models etc for catalogues for instance. Petite too.

There is nothing to boast about other than the fact I made a living and so many struggle to do that. That is my only purpose in posting. And to see off some of the utter bullshit espoused here about fashion by people who don't actually have much to do with it.

Some do - and that isn't intended for them.

But I question why there are often people in the threads about fashion who don't actually work in it in any way shape or form telling models how to do it. Often they don't even know fit modelling exists, and they think boutiques don't employ models.

I am not hijacking every fashion thread - just those where it   is relevant - and I have serious reservations about those posting who do not have anything to do with the industry telling others asking about it.

Fit modelling employs a great many models and it is the origin of all fashion modelling.

She didn't ask how to make it she asked 'why' 5ft 7. I am the only person who answered how and why that arose.

Then we heard how garments are made form several posters for tall size 00 models. At haute couture yes they do that. But that is a tiny part of the fashion industry. The samples are made on fitting models who frequently aren't tall so again it is entirely relevant to point that out.

It is entirely relevant for photographers to say why they prefer taller models but it is perfectly reasonable to challenge some of the assumptions made such as the samples are made for taller models and tall models are bound to make better angles and gestures. Even at top level that doesn't stop shorter models 'making it'. And that is an area where even height and good modelling and signing with an agency isn't necessarily going to get you enough work to live on.

Eliza C wrote:

Unfortunately, when you offer the same advice on fitting modeling in every thread, regardless of whether it has any bearing on the initial question, it is called threadjacking. A model didn't ask "What options are available to me?" She asked "How can I make it in fashion. And all but you seem to inherently understand what that means. But you view it as an opportunity to lecture, preach and promote ONE thing...fitting modeling. You're not even offering the alternatives you claim. You're offering your alternative.

But, regardless, in the future, we will all direct any fashion-related thread questions to the only person who has a true understanding of the industry and it's history because she was a fit model for Agent Provocateur in her glory days.

Note: We will also direct any technical, camera-related questions to the employee at Canon who test fires the shutter button for the equipment purchased by Mario Testino.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Kelda has nice curves. [...] a great designer who makes clothing by hand for real women!  Her clothing line is awesome in how wonderful it makes women with figures look!  I love women with curves! 

udor wrote:
Oh Patrick... why had you to use this stereotype that "real women have curves"? 

This is so insulting to other women who are tall and slender (e.g. yoga body) and being teased by the 2/3rd overweight population...

You know that I respect you for years!

I am very sorry that you took that out of context.   The designer does custom designs for "real" women who come to her to be measured as opposed designing for manikins in stores or models that wear the clothing only in fashion shows. 

I am also sorry that you believe that 2/3rds of the general population is over weight.  You might be right, or perhaps not?  Regardless, I know you mean well in calling me to the floor on using the term "real women" as I know women who are not the stereotypical "model" height and weight are known to use that term to represent themselves.  That does not mean that women who have the traditional agency stats going for them are "fake women!"  Actually I LOVE ALL WOMEN!   I am tired of the bashing of women because of their bodies. 

Certainly I am educated enough to understand that that modeling agencies have their requirements.  In the past, I have photographed models who met agency standards.  Although I would never go to an agency to hire a model as there are no reputable agencies near me, but I have sent young qualified models for that kind of work to the Los Angeles to meet with Elite and Fords.  Some have been signed.  So I am not clueless about that aspect of the industry! 

What I most wish to express is written in a past post I made in this thread;

Patrick Walberg wrote:
It is far better to concentrate on what you can do rather than dwell on what you can't.  I wish people understood just how unattractive whining and complaining really is.  Before the Internet and the digital revolution, going back iin the days when I could only shoot film ... I was involved in running casting calls for models for a local designer.  I mainly booked models who were tall, but I made a few exceptions.  Not that I only shot fashion, but I was under the impressin that models needed to be tall.

However in recent years, I've been shooting with so many more models that are shorter than 5' 8" ... some as short as barely 5' tall!  Of course my focus has changed as I am shooting more bikini, glamour, commercial and editorial work than fashion.  My thoughts are that I don't even consider height when deciding to shoot with models.  So now that people have me thinking about it, I look at my portfolio here on MM and realize that a the vast majority of my images are of models 5' 6" or shorter.  There are plenty of opportunities to shoot with me regardless of your height!

V Laroche wrote:
Why would a short girl want a low-paying, brutal job for which she is completely unsuited?

I pay models who are suited for glamour and art nudes as well as for commercial. 

The era of the "Supermodel" is long over!  The 80's and the MTV channel no longer promote the likes of models we knew on a household first name basis ... Christie, Claudia, Naomi, Kate, Paulina ... and so on!

V Laroche wrote:
37.5% of Americans are obese and 33.3% of Americans are overweight (but not obese). Yes, throwing around terms like "real women" is demeaning to any women that you exclude from that. All women are real women and I can't think of any "fake women" except for those sex dolls from Japan.

I agree with you!  And I certainly do not advocate excluding any women if they are able to fit the image the photographer is looking for in a model.

Also I do not exclude any women from being photographed by me because of their height.  A "real woman" again is what the designer designed for ... a woman who was in front of her ready to have her design an outfit custom made for her as opposed to designing for the mass consumer or the catwalks.  Her designs are actually worn in the public for "real" not stuff that falls apart or is uncomfortable to wear in real life. 

I love women of ALL shapes and sizes ...  and that includes women who are thin and tall!  How can I make that more clear or make this a more loving post? 

Aby Sloan wrote:
I just don't get it...

If you walk in the street and look around the average heigh is about 5'4 for a woman... so yes a tall, skinny, long girl is pretty but that doesn't mean a shorter girl doesn't have potential, isn't good enough and or not beautiful...

The society give the wrong image of what a woman should be and this affect the youngest ones... Fashion is not only about being skinny and very tall!!!

I think modelling shouldn't have so many restrictions... I do understand there is a standard in a way but just don't fully understand it all as well...

I always hear your too short...ect... BUT trust me that won't stop me and one day will prove these people wrong!!!

Do a little more research into the real reason for this requirement, before making this your life long mission.

Le_Demimonde wrote:
One Word: Drape

+1
From a construction standpoint the height of a garment directly affects its appearance, based on its weight, drape, and stiffness.

Since most sample dresses have been found to look aesthetically pleasing when designed for women in the 5'8" - 5'10" height, most models are hired to fit those sample dresses.

Because sample dresses have to be made in very few sizes, if more than one at all, you have to make sure that the models that are available all fit into the size that is available.

Remember that dresses are not made for models - models are hired for the dresses.

It isn't that the expectations are unrealistic, it's just that the samples have been put together for those very limited sizes.

Considering how many dresses are needed for a fashion show, do you think a designer is going to waste time assembling multiple sizes of the same dress before orders are even placed??

On the other hand, there is a vast part of modeling that has nothing to do with selling clothing, and they don't necessarily fall into the pin-up, glamour, or even nudes category.

Do your research, work hard, and most of all be disciplined and you can find your market.

Melodye Joy wrote:
And as for "fit modeling" when did this become the subject when Aby inquired of FASHION modeling and got the same answer most of us short/petite's have....fashion is not a genre we will be making it in anytime soon.

Oh, has someone threadjacked about fit modeling again? I'm sure it wasn't Eliza C talking about herself again, right?

Did you know that Eliza wears top lingerie for AP with tippy top lingerie models in London????

MelissaAnn  wrote:
+1  tall= more impressive in clothes.  Making arguements that are contrary to reality is a waste of time.

You DO realize that  the runway pics are shot from more flattering angles with more flattering lighting?

V Laroche wrote:
You DO realize that  the runway pics are shot from more flattering angles with more flattering lighting?

Really?  I had no idea.  Thanks for the insight, V.

Regardless of how flattering the lighting and angles are, the point stands.

V Laroche wrote:
You DO realize that  the runway pics are shot from more flattering angles with more flattering lighting?

Oh. No.

Crap. It was mean of me to quote this.

Lorin Edmonds wrote:
Who would you call to get a 5' 4" model.

Easy call a casting on Model Mayhem... duh! 

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:
Oh. No.

Crap. It was mean of me to quote this.

There's no comparison of the grotesque stumpy legs and disgusting on-cam flash and the normal non-stumpy legs and the anything-that's-not-on-cam-flash.

I do think the woman with the plastic surgery looks good though

V Laroche wrote:

Oh, has someone threadjacked about fit modeling again? I'm sure it wasn't Eliza C talking about herself again, right?

Did you know that Eliza wears top lingerie for AP with tippy top lingerie models in London????

She does V? Didn't know that. Never heard of AP nor Tippy Top Lingerie but more power to her.

And no. Why would it ever be Eliza thread jacking? She never ever does that.

She brings up some good points but not always relivant to the subject at hand...okay I lied...it's rarely...no...never? ....oh well.

As a petite, why argue the fact. Of fashion comes along, we take the opertunity ...otherwise, we will stick to beauty, glamour, creative, some will do implied/nude ...

And that's okay