Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Again ... Which industry?

Natalia you have one answer (Kalico Clothing {page 1}) ....'anorexic' to your question. Also the higher you go in the industry the sh...er people can get.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Again ... Which industry?

THE INDUSTRY of course which I am guessing is the entertainment, celebrity, VIP, wealthy industry but who knows. I am guess the industry that no one on MM is actually in since we are posting on MM.

The Grand Artist wrote:
THE INDUSTRY of course which I am guessing is the entertainment, celebrity, VIP, wealthy industry but who knows. I am guess the industry that no one on MM is actually in since we are posting on MM.

WIP wrote:
Natalia you have one answer (Kalico Clothing {page 1}) ....'anorexic' to your question. Also the higher you go in the industry the sh...er people can get.

Again

What industry? Photography industry?

Stock ?

Fashion industry? Editorial or commercial? Main steam of haute couture?

Advertising? Still life? Lifestyle? Creative? Retail?

Industrial? Corporative?

Fine art? Author photography? Conceptual?

Architectural? Landscape?

Photojournalism?

Event photography

I can keep going but I don't see the point.

There's a lot of implied mediocrity in this thread.


how closed minded can everyone be?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
What industry? Photography industry?

Stock ?

Fashion industry? Editorial or commercial? Main steam of haute couture?

Advertising? Still life? Lifestyle? Creative? Retail?

Industrial? Corporative?

Fine art? Author photography? Conceptual?

Architectural? Landscape?

Photojournalism?

Event photography

I can keep going but I don't see the point.

There's a lot of implied mediocrity in this thread.


how closed minded can everyone be?

+1

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
how closed minded can everyone be?

My thoughts exactly but I am sure in a different way than you mean.

The Grand Artist wrote:

My thoughts exactly but I am sure in a different way than you mean.

So you "are repulsed by  "the industry" and all that it stands for and believe it is a plague on human society across the globe"

You are repulsed by the London portrait gallery exhibition of  Irving penn .

You're repulsed by the last Valentino campaign.

You're repulsed by Emin Ozmen work in Syria.

Are you repulsed by the entire "industry"?

And you're calling others "closed minded"?

JadeDRed wrote:
The first rule of the industry is you do not talk about the industry.

+1

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

So you "are repulsed by  "the industry" and all that it stands for and believe it is a plague on human society across the globe"

You are repulsed by the London portrait gallery exhibition of  Irving penn .

You're repulsed by the last Valentino campaign.

You're repulsed by Emin Ozmen work in Syria.

Are you repulsed by the entire "industry"?

And you're calling others "closed minded"?

There are always two sides to every argument. Many people that claim being opened minded would do well to remember this simple fact.

The Grand Artist wrote:

There are always two sides to every argument. Many people that claim being opened minded would do well to remember this simple fact.

But one side may be specious.

The Grand Artist wrote:

There are always two sides to every argument. Many people that claim being opened minded would do well to remember this simple fact.

But youre making NO argument.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Photographers: doing it for a hobbie won't necesarily make you good with time since you have no standards if you do it for yourself. Not real ones.

This is what I take out of this thread.

Star wrote:
I
stylists- become a PR girl and work from there

NO!
It really frustrates me when people talk about PR and don't even know what it is....I work in PR and it has nothing to do with styling

Alannah Jones Styling wrote:

By becoming a "pr girl" I can assume you mean either to intern for a fashion pr agency or become a publicist.

Interning for a fashion PR agency is great experience for a stylist but from my experience this isn't enough to break into fashion styling.Another thing it's just as hard to break into fashion pr as it is to break into fashion styling.There are a lot of stylist who started off as fashion publicists but I doubt they went into fashion pr with the intent of becoming a stylist.

Agreed but also making a clarification working in PR Isn't the same as working as a publicist

Echo_ wrote:

NO!
It really frustrates me when people talk about PR and don't even know what it is....I work in PR and it has nothing to do with styling

+1 i am sure it bugs you as much as it bugs me when people think marketing is advertising...

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

The Grand Artist wrote:
There are always two sides to every argument. Many people that claim being opened minded would do well to remember this simple fact.

But youre making NO argument.

The fact that you believe you are making a valid argument within the confines of what is generally accepted by society speaks volumes

E Thompson Photography wrote:

But one side may be specious.

So let me see if I have this correct. When someone uses the term "the industry" on a site called Model Mayhem, you believe it is valid to actually discuss what industry they are referring?  I understand many people here need to identify with a niche or narrow label as a part of self identity but come on really.

Like I said, detached from how the world is and works, is detached from how the world is and works.

Star wrote:
Models-
5ft 10 and above, 14-20 years of age, 24in waist or smaller, no breast implants, no hair extensions- congratulations you have the minimum requirements to go to an agency and try and get signed. Go to one and see what they say.

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but your "required" stats are incorrect. Based off of the "top rated" agencies on models.com, the typical height requirements for fashion are 5'8 or 5'9 and above, and 5'7 and above for commercial agencies. Sure, 5'10 is a great height for runway, but the requirements are different for other types of modeling. I agree with everything else you said though. Especially the waist size.

Cree Synster wrote:
24 inch waist? Are you kidding me? The average Victoria Secret's waist is between 26 and 28 inches, and they're like the "international supermodels" of the world.

Please tell me which VS models you refer too. Miranda Kerr is 32-24-34. Izabel Goulart is 33-24-35. Adriana Lima is 34-24-35. Kate Moss is 32-24-25. I could keep going. Notice how 24' is an occurring number?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
What industry?

the propaganda industry

JadeDRed wrote:
The first rule of the industry is you do not talk about the industry.

It actually appears to be not to identify what industry IS the industry. That way you can talk about it without anyone being able to rebut or support your claims.

The Grand Artist wrote:
So let me see if I have this correct. When someone uses the term "the industry" on a site called Model Mayhem, you believe [b]it is valid to actually discuss what industry[/i] they are referring?  I understand many people here need to identify with a niche or narrow label as a part of self identity but come on really.

Yes. Because it has many different definitions, frequently mutually exclusive, talking about 'the industry' without a definition in general conversation is as useful as talking about 'photography': landscape, portrait, advertising, wildlife, sports, underwater, etc.

In a closed group, it can be a practical shorthand for "what we do"; in an open group it's nigh onto useless.

So which "the industry" repulses you? The entertainment field? Art galleries? The porn industry? Fashion? Commercial? Lifestyle? Stock? Wedding photography? High-quality imaging? Even if you narrow it down to photography-with-models, any of the above are potential "industries".

As I noted earlier, the most commonly used 'the industry' in this area is the entertainment field, from PR to grip to director to whatever. The second most common is the porn industry. Are you so certain that the OP, living in the metro LA area, isn't using one of those that you object to anyone trying to get clarification?

Words have meanings. Words with multiple meanings...not so much.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

The Grand Artist wrote:
THE INDUSTRY of course which I am guessing is the entertainment, celebrity, VIP, wealthy industry but who knows. I am guess the industry that no one on MM is actually in since we are posting on MM.

Again

What industry?

This industry;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaoIsPZAgck

Echo_ wrote:

Agreed but also making a clarification working in PR Isn't the same as working as a publicist

I'm aware.

Echo_ wrote:

NO!
It really frustrates me when people talk about PR and don't even know what it is....I work in PR and it has nothing to do with styling

+1
Fashion PR and fashion styling are two completely different jobs.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
So which "the industry" repulses you? The entertainment field? Art galleries? The porn industry? Fashion? Commercial? Lifestyle? Stock? Wedding photography? High-quality imaging? Even if you narrow it down to photography-with-models, any of the above are potential "industries".

Apparently he is only repulsed by people with more money than him. But as long as he calls himself an artist, that's ok.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
One look at Star's profile and imagery would let anyone know she's talking about the world of fashion and commercial work.

What??? Whyyyy? Do you see ANY fashion in her port?

I see commercial/editorial portrait.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
When most photographers here mention the 'The Industry'  they are talking about the world of agencies, fashion, beauty and commercial work.

But "commercial" is VERY VERY broad.

I thought Advertising was the main goal for people since the money is there.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Her comments in my view were directed at those who want to work in those areas.

They are still VERY WRONG

Become a hobbyist? Become a PR girl (btw... only girls are stylists? The BEST I know are guys)
There's only High end retouching houses and nothing in between so you should quit if you're not in the top? How the FUCK do you get to the top?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Those who are focused on ass and titty shots can ignore them.

I think more people can ignore these "advices"

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Its important to note that the OP is shooting covers and works with real world fashion models.   With no disrespect to any members but most here on this site are hobbyists.

Apparently she's got ONE client... good for her.

The horse she is on seems to be higher than that.

Miss-information is against the rules of this site.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Your book must be excellent if you approach advertising agencies.    If you are doing fashion , beauty and or commercial.   You must have a good eye for what makes a models look works and what doesn't.   Many times photographers are judged not just by their work but by the models they show.   We can argue over what agencies accept from models and certainly some under 5'8" may find work as fashion models but their are standards and knowing them may save you heartache and cash.   Photographers are judged primarily by two things.   Their use of light and composition.   (beyond choice of models)   You can always get others to retouch your work.   Hire a MUA, stylist or book a great model but if you don't have the skills to light her/him and deliver strong compositions then you may not get booked.

And that's all great but not at all what the OP stated.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Photographers: doing it for a hobbie won't necesarily make you good with time since you have no standards if you do it for yourself. Not real ones.

While I agree with you on all your points, I do want to expand on this one just a bit.  Granted, what you say is true for most on this site, given what they choose to shoot, but not really true for most art photographers.

A couple of years ago I was talking to Sasha Wolf about this.  Ms. Wolf has a very successful gallery in NYC representing art photographers (www.sashawolf.com).  Almost none of those artists (and she reps some fantastic art photographers) make their living selling art photography and most don't even make their living in commercial photography.  Many do, however, work (or have worked) as photojournalists (she's big into documentary art photography). 

To quote Stieglitz:

Let me here call attention to one of the most universally popular mistakes that have to do with photography - that of classing supposedly excellent work as professional, and using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs. As a matter of fact nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons. As the name implies, an amateur is one who works for love; and viewed in this light the incorrectness of the popular classification is readily apparent.
- Alfred Stieglitz, 1899

Now of course there are those who are the exceptions, the artists who do make a living, and in some cases a fabulous one, with their art.  Gregory Crewdson and Cindy Sherman come immediately to mind.  However there are many, many hard working art photographers, that will barely make enough money through their work to support themselves. 

I have been paid a great deal of money to take certain photographs.  Without exception I think they're all horrid.  lol.  But the photos I make for me, I enjoy.  That's starting to change somewhat, I'm starting to get work that I also enjoy creating.  But for many it is one or the other.  I LOVE commercial art.  But it is not all that exists in the world of photography.

The biggest problem, with most "art photographs" that I see here, is that, to your point, they not only have no standards, they have no idea of what the canon of art photography even is, how it came to be, how it has changed over time and how their work fits in.  They are shooting in a vacuum and calling their ignorance artistic integrity.  It isn't.

The Grand Artist wrote:
Why do so many people that post in the forums assume everyone here is trying to make it in "the industry". I am sure many people here are repulsed by  "the industry" and all that it stands for and believe it is a plague on human society across the globe.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Again ... Which industry?

LOL, exactly.

For myself, the only thing I've ever been told to make "look sexy" was a battery charger…  Not much glamour in shooting batteries, but it paid quite well.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Apparently he is only repulsed by people with more money than him. But as long as he calls himself an artist, that's ok.

That was cute in a 2 year old kind of way. Kind of like your need to show how much more enlighten you are than the other people here when it comes to art, after all our tastes do not matter. But it is the internet so I understand.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:

JadeDRed wrote:
The first rule of the industry is you do not talk about the industry.

It actually appears to be not to identify what industry IS the industry. That way you can talk about it without anyone being able to rebut or support your claims.


Yes. Because it has many different definitions, frequently mutually exclusive, talking about 'the industry' without a definition in general conversation is as useful as talking about 'photography': landscape, portrait, advertising, wildlife, sports, underwater, etc.

In a closed group, it can be a practical shorthand for "what we do"; in an open group it's nigh onto useless.

So which "the industry" repulses you? The entertainment field? Art galleries? The porn industry? Fashion? Commercial? Lifestyle? Stock? Wedding photography? High-quality imaging? Even if you narrow it down to photography-with-models, any of the above are potential "industries".

As I noted earlier, the most commonly used 'the industry' in this area is the entertainment field, from PR to grip to director to whatever. The second most common is the porn industry. Are you so certain that the OP, living in the metro LA area, isn't using one of those that you object to anyone trying to get clarification?

Words have meanings. Words with multiple meanings...not so much.

There are just some people in this world that just live in their own world without a care of what anyone outside of that world thinks. I find it best to just live them there and carry on with life.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

While I agree with you on all your points, I do want to expand on this one just a bit.  Granted, what you say is true for most on this site, given what they choose to shoot, but not really true for most art photographers.

A couple of years ago I was talking to Sasha Wolf about this.  Ms. Wolf has a very successful gallery in NYC representing art photographers (www.sashawolf.com).  Almost none of those artists (and she reps some fantastic art photographers) make their living selling art photography and most don't even make their living in commercial photography.  Many do, however, work (or have worked) as photojournalists (she's big into documentary art photography). 

To quote Stieglitz:

Let me here call attention to one of the most universally popular mistakes that have to do with photography - that of classing supposedly excellent work as professional, and using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs. As a matter of fact nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons. As the name implies, an amateur is one who works for love; and viewed in this light the incorrectness of the popular classification is readily apparent.
- Alfred Stieglitz, 1899

Now of course there are those who are the exceptions, the artists who do make a living, and in some cases a fabulous one, with their art.  Gregory Crewdson and Cindy Sherman come immediately to mind.  However there are many, many hard working art photographers, that will barely make enough money through their work to support themselves. 

I have been paid a great deal of money to take certain photographs.  Without exception I think they're all horrid.  lol.  But the photos I make for me, I enjoy.  That's starting to change somewhat, I'm starting to get work that I also enjoy creating.  But for many it is one or the other.  I LOVE commercial art.  But it is not all that exists in the world of photography.

The biggest problem, with most "art photographs" that I see here, is that, to your point, they not only have no standards, they have no idea of what the canon of art photography even is, how it came to be, how it has changed over time and how their work fits in.  They are shooting in a vacuum and calling their ignorance artistic integrity.  It isn't.

I'm not the one making that distinction.

I meant do it as a hobby as GIVING UP trying to make it.

If you want to be a fine art photographer GIVING UP wont get you closer to being galleries.

If you want to be an advertising photographer GIVING UP wont get you work.

The Grand Artist wrote:

That was cute in a 2 year old kind of way. Kind of like your need to show how much more enlighten you are than the other people here when it comes to art, after all our tastes do not matter. But it is the internet so I understand.

I didn't know we were talking about taste... I thought we were trying to clarify EXACTLY what is it you find "repulsive" about which industry

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

While I agree with you on all your points, I do want to expand on this one just a bit.  Granted, what you say is true for most on this site, given what they choose to shoot, but not really true for most art photographers.

A couple of years ago I was talking to Sasha Wolf about this.  Ms. Wolf has a very successful gallery in NYC representing art photographers (www.sashawolf.com).  Almost none of those artists (and she reps some fantastic art photographers) make their living selling art photography and most don't even make their living in commercial photography.  Many do, however, work (or have worked) as photojournalists (she's big into documentary art photography). 

To quote Stieglitz:

Let me here call attention to one of the most universally popular mistakes that have to do with photography - that of classing supposedly excellent work as professional, and using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs. As a matter of fact nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons. As the name implies, an amateur is one who works for love; and viewed in this light the incorrectness of the popular classification is readily apparent.
- Alfred Stieglitz, 1899

Now of course there are those who are the exceptions, the artists who do make a living, and in some cases a fabulous one, with their art.  Gregory Crewdson and Cindy Sherman come immediately to mind.  However there are many, many hard working art photographers, that will barely make enough money through their work to support themselves. 

I have been paid a great deal of money to take certain photographs.  Without exception I think they're all horrid.  lol.  But the photos I make for me, I enjoy.  That's starting to change somewhat, I'm starting to get work that I also enjoy creating.  But for many it is one or the other.  I LOVE commercial art.  But it is not all that exists in the world of photography.

The biggest problem, with most "art photographs" that I see here, is that, to your point, they not only have no standards, they have no idea of what the canon of art photography even is, how it came to be, how it has changed over time and how their work fits in.  They are shooting in a vacuum and calling their ignorance artistic integrity.  It isn't.

He's not saying that the best work is being done by people who don't make their income from photography, he's saying that the best work comes from people who's motivation comes from their love of photography rather than their need to pick a way to make a living.

In other words, the categories are not pro/amateur they are love-of-photography/dilettante or amateur/dilettante.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Photographers: doing it for a hobbie won't necesarily make you good with time since you have no standards if you do it for yourself. Not real ones.

Hehe, that's what she said.

r T p wrote:


the propaganda industry

Hilariously overlooked post. It's a shame this word has taken on a negative meaning, because it really is the best word for it.

Not understanding this is the industry they're actually trying to get into is why most people are not making a living at photography - with the exception of the people making a living in the sentimental industry.

n a t a l i e  wrote:
Please tell me which VS models you refer too. Miranda Kerr is 32-24-34. Izabel Goulart is 33-24-35. Adriana Lima is 34-24-35. Kate Moss is 32-24-25. I could keep going. Notice how 24' is an occurring number?

Kate Moss is actually 34-26-36, plus she is 5'7. So I don't think she's a good example, since having a 24 inch waist at 5'7 isn't as extreme or unhealthy as having it at 5'10.

The other models, while they fit in your example, have chosen a career over their own health. They have no fat OR muscle, they are extremely unhealthy and it's unnatural to have that little body mass at that height. Even if models could get to such measurements, there is no guarantee that they will make it. It just seems like such a poor choice to me, to try and trade your own health for A CHANCE at modeling big.

Edit: Plus, half of your examples have implants, so those aren't even their natural measurements.