Kalico Clothing wrote:

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.

Exactly how have you determined they are unhealthy?

The Grand Artist wrote:
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.

Is that very different than the OP?  Or very different than choosing not to "enlighten" the other people here when it comes to art when trying to show how much more enlightened you are?

The Grand Artist wrote:
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.

The OP's use of "the industry" looks like such a situation.

Again, since you've said "the industry" repulses you: would you be interested in sharing which industry you meant?

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

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.

While I agree with your first statement I disagree with your second (but perhaps not, I'm actually a bit confused by the wording - we may be on the same page). 

Quotes are easy to read into, so if you're really interested in his views I would highly recommend the biography: Stieglitz: A Beginning Light by Katherine Hoffman (probably the best biography on him I've read).

Essentially his argument goes like this.  To get good at something requires not only the practice of accepted skills, but a certain amount of experimentation and failure as well.  As we advance we reach a variety of plateaus along the way.  The further we go, the more experimentation and failure becomes a part of the process.  I know you're a musician, so think in terms of an instrument.  You can teach most people how to play an instrument well enough to play little brown jug in the high school jazz band.  You can't teach someone how to be the next Coltrane.

Most professionals of his day were not expanding the craft and art of photography.  They were craftsmen merchants (think Sears portrait studio type work).  They had already gotten good enough to make their living and that's what they were doing.  Prior to Stieglitz, most did not even think of photography as an art form. 

It was the amateurs who pushed the envelope, who developed new ways of working with the camera and in the darkroom.  It was not commercial photographers who developed the zone system, for instance.

There have always been dilettantes and in fact I would argue that since the invention of the Brownie, they have been the largest group of photographers around, and this trend has continued with the advent of digital.  But, by necessity, they need to be dismissed from the conversation.  They simply aren't worth mentioning.  So now you're left with two groups, the professional and the dedicated amateur/artist and those are the groups Stieglitz was referencing.

Star wrote:
Photographers- you should be shooting at least 2 times a week. You should be doing exterior, interior, and everything in between. You should be signing up for local college courses. You also want to take classes in dance, theater, and aquire some basic set building skills. You should be shooting from eye level, from below, from above, you should be circling the model once you have set your lights to see how light work from different angles. You should be trying every lighting modifier you can find and figuring out how they can work for you. You should be doing minimal photoshop work, instead it should be right in camera. Learn to read your histogram. You should be looking at work, and most of all you should NOT be falling in love with your subjects. Once you have done that for a year or two your photography will improve. maybe enough to even get a few paid gigs.

Disagree. For a bunch of reasons, mostly because you are making huge assumptions.

Kalico Clothing wrote:
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.

Thank you, doctor.

I have to admit being very impressed by someone who can confidently determine someone is extremely unhealthy and unnatural based on photographs where they look neither unhealthy nor unnatural, and that they have no muscles when it appears otherwise in said photographs.

Kalico Clothing wrote:

Wait... Are you actually telling models to be anorexic... you know at 5'10 or taller a 24 inch waist is pretty hard to come by naturally. OUCH! And you're saying that's the CAP for the waist, it can only get smaller?!

I'd take a healthy model with a fit body over a sickly girl who doesn't eat (or the opposite as well) any day. Unhealthy is unhealthy.

I dated a fit model for 3 years (the kind of model designers would use as a living mannequin while creating their designs).  She fit the above stats (actually she was 5'9") and she was in perfect health.

AJScalzitti wrote:
Exactly how have you determined they are unhealthy?

Actually, now that I look at pictures of Adriana Lima more, I take back what I said about her, she looks pretty in shape and healthy. But the other two models have no muscle in their body, which leads me to say they are unhealthy, look at their arms. There is nothing there but bone. (I'm not trying to bash on skinny girls by saying these models look unhealthy, I find them all to be very pretty, and I think if they are healthy, then good for them. They just don't 'look' healthy to me.)

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:

Thank you, doctor.

I have to admit being very impressed by someone who can confidently determine someone is extremely unhealthy and unnatural based on photographs where they look neither unhealthy nor unnatural, and that they have no muscles when it appears otherwise in said photographs.

Obviously I'm not claiming to be a doctor. It's just my personal opinion and my own speculation, isn't that what this whole thread is?

AJScalzitti wrote:

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

Yes, and when they think marketing, PR, advertising and publicity are all the same worst pet peeve

Kalico Clothing wrote:

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.

I never said it was better, just realistic. I'd much rather be able to be a size 8 pants then a 2, but that isn't what the fashion industry wants. It's what's required of the field and I've come to accept it. I was actually told to come back to an agency in NY when my waist was 23" not 24". While you personally would rather design for realalistic women, wich in my opinion is a good thing, most others don't. Modeling isn't as glamorous as everyone thinks. You're ment to be a living coat hanger for clothing and that is how it is.

As far as Kate Moss goes, i  googled her measurements and the number came up. She used to be a 24, but now she's a 26. I should have looked at more then one site. Still though, my point is that the successful models today are mainly 24" and lower. If you aren't geting your agency money because you're too big for Designer's clothes, they will replace you with someone else. And it's not just "one change to make it big", every casting you go to is a chance. Like any profession, there's always room for improvement. If you apply to every agency multiple times and make changes every time, they you probably shouldn't be a fashion model. That doesn't mean you can't be a hobbiest, or a alternative model, or promotional, just that you can't do the "big" stuff. And at 24", I'm perfectly healthy. I work out, eat a lot of fruits and vegatables, and do yoga. You're only unhealthy if you starve your self.

Echo_ wrote:

Yes, and when they think marketing, PR, advertising and publicity are all the same worst pet peeve

OMG I have clients like that.  Sure my agency does marketing and PR buts its not the same people.

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.

...

Hey!

Where were you with this advice when I was 14-20 with those measurements? Oh, wait, I was buried in factories and working around the clock and likely wouldn't have crossed paths.

Still, informative.
Jen

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.

You don't have standards for yourself? That's quite sad.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
A smart model who hustles can easily make $30,000 to $50,000 a year as a freelancer.   It means HUSTLE.  Don't ignore offers even TF.   That TF can become a paid shoot.   That person you ignored today may have paid work tomorrow. 


Smart successful models with major agencies that I have worked with over the years do 'test' shoots. When I needed to hire or recommend models for any assignment my first call went to the ones I had liked because of those shoots. I remember how girls from the agencies would 'drop' by my New York studio every few months or so, bringing 'treats' and showing off their latest work. These women eventually received paid work from my clients and many got television commercials through my introductions (big money) because they simply 'showed' up!

WIP wrote:
http://industrie.nowmanifest.com/

The Industrie magazine ... they coined a word.

Kate Moss who people seem to like to quote, she started out as a child model and was kept on due to the amount of bookings she got.

Absolutely... by the time everybody realized that she won't grow any more, she had been already established as an extremely successful brand.

She didn't get discovered in her late teens and signed at that height...

But... the Barbie-Zone and similar enterprises live off KM's myth!

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

You don't have standards for yourself? That's quite sad.

Believe me, if you don't have the standards of the elite, you have no standards even if you want to believe you do.

That why we Learn about the masters of art, they become a standard. The more you learn/know the higher those standards.

I know you want to believe one has taste but its not true, I've seen it enough.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Believe me, if you don't have the standards of the elite, you have no standards even if you want to believe you do.

That why we Learn about the masters of art, they become a standard. The more you learn/know the higher those standards.

I know you want to believe one has taste but its not true, I've seen it enough.

Who are these masters you speak of ?

WIP wrote:

Who are these masters you speak of ?

From Vittore Carpaccio to Pablo Picasso and everything in between that managed to last in the collective memory because of its greatness

IMAGINERIES 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 a very slippery slope......Photography is a subjective matter....

That's why I said "won't necessarily"

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

From Vittore Carpaccio to Pablo Picasso and everything in between that managed to last in the collective memory because of its greatness

Vittore Carpaccio to Pablo Picasso .. we are talking photography ?! I somehow don't think these artists would be inspiring or educational to photography esp. MM.

Now Penn and Avedon thet would be different. The question being what would people learn from them ?

Star wrote:
I 've been seeing a lot of thread recently that rehash the old question of, how do I get work?

The fact is paying work is pretty much going for the brass ring. It is good to have goals, to set them for yourself, but in the end nobody is owed the brass ring.

If you find yourself not booking paying work then you can consider continuing as a hobbiest. No it isn't as sexy to say you are a carpenter by day and a hobbiest photographer by night- but isn't it less stressful to do this for enjoyment rather than kill yourself trying to figure out why you aren't booking work.

But let's say you HAVE to be able to do this-

here are some tips

Photographers- you should be shooting at least 2 times a week. You should be doing exterior, interior, and everything in between. You should be signing up for local college courses. You also want to take classes in dance, theater, and aquire some basic set building skills. You should be shooting from eye level, from below, from above, you should be circling the model once you have set your lights to see how light work from different angles. You should be trying every lighting modifier you can find and figuring out how they can work for you. You should be doing minimal photoshop work, instead it should be right in camera. Learn to read your histogram. You should be looking at work, and most of all you should NOT be falling in love with your subjects. Once you have done that for a year or two your photography will improve. maybe enough to even get a few paid gigs.

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.

EVERYONE ELSE- every type of modeling has its requirements. Learn what they are and see if you fit into them. NO model I have ever met easily lives on modeling. It is as hard as working at Burger King and in the end you make about as much. BUT you can say you are a model.

99.9999999% of people who want to model WILL not be able to book more than a few paying gigs. Instead of being upset if you aren't working well in front of the camera and getting paying gigs, why not pursue it as a hobby. Find who you are through modeling. Take dance and movement courses, learn basic sewing skills, become adept at understanding fashion and fashion movements. Behave like it is an art form, and you will get better results. Maybe you aren't a "pretty" model. Well then what kind of model are you, are you a kick ass chick like the Derby Girls. Who are you and how will that translate into what you do.

make-up artists- let us just start with if you don't have at least 10 years of experience you are unlikely to make it in editorial in a large market.

5-10 is needed for smaller markets

3-5 for wedding work

1-3 for Glamour shops

oh- and you need to be really good. There isn't really a hobbiest market as such for make-up so I suggest you go into the MUA forums and learn from the people in there, they mainly know what they are doing.

stylists- become a PR girl and work from there

photoshop experts- again unless you are amazing, with thousands of hours under your belt and actually taking classes in how to work the program, enjoy playing around with it as a hobby. Small end jobs are done by the photographer or their assistant, high end jobs go to the amazing pros and middle of the road jobs are pretty much gone.

Mainly I am saying if you feel like you can't make it in this business- why not do this for fun, if money comes then great. Imagine you want to be a painter, sure you can do some local fairs but mainly you are spending a lot of time and effort to create something you like for yourself and screw everyone else.

The mighty OZ has spoken !

WIP wrote:

Vittore Carpaccio to Pablo Picasso .. we are talking photography ?! I somehow don't think these artists would be inspiring or educational to photography esp. MM.

Now Penn and Avedon thet would be different. The question being what would people learn from them ?

Well, we disagree then.

Photography is a visual art form.

Composition, color theory, traditional art techniques and influences as well as tendecies, are as valid as photographic ones.

We learn by looking to develop the "data base" the brain uses to decode in perception.

But we can really agree to disagree on this one

WIP wrote:
Photography - Greek - painting with light.

Vittore Carpaccio to Pablo Picasso ... brush/paints and whatever other tools and light. Picasso, Carpaccio, composition, color theory, 'traditional art techniques' I don't think so.

Dont Worry, you can keep ignoring it, I will keep teaching it in my classes.

We can both be happy

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Believe me, if you don't have the standards of the elite, you have no standards even if you want to believe you do.

That why we Learn about the masters of art, they become a standard. The more you learn/know the higher those standards.

I know you want to believe one has taste but its not true, I've seen it enough.

You always talk in such extremes that it's hard to take you seriously, lol

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

You always talk in such extremes that it's hard to take you seriously, lol

It's good that other people don't think like you do

I did say "won't necessarily" because some people deficatw time an effort to something even with no professional goal in mind but most won't, most will need a goal to keep them learning, practicing and growing.

It doesn't have to be "work in advertising"
But "fine art" "getting into a great gallery" is still a professional goal
"Book publication" is still a professional goal
"Your image in the news" is a professional goal
"Cover of X" is a profesional goal

Do you disagree with this? Why?
Can you elaborate on your point?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

It's good that other people don't think like you do

You're right. I'm the only person in the WHOLE WORLD that thinks like me.

THE WHOLE WORLD.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
You're right. I'm the only person in the WHOLE WORLD that thinks like me.

THE WHOLE WORLD.

Sorry I'm on the phone and typed too fast, reading it it sounds like I was having a go at you and I wasn't

I meant is good for me that not everyone thinks like you since I teach in an institute and also do workshops, if people thought like you I couldn't do that and I enjoy teaching very much.

Specially abroad, it's a great experience.

So do you disagree with my point?
If so, why?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Dont Worry, you can keep ignoring it, I will keep teaching it in my classes.

We can both be happy

Probably the only one; how many people on MM make an effort to visit art galleries in various forms ? I'd think a very small percentage.

WIP wrote:

Probably the only one; how many people on MM make an effort to visit art galleries in various forms ? I'd think a very small percentage.

How Many are good at photography? I'd think a very small percentage

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

How Many are good at photography? I'd think a very small percentage

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

How Many are good at photography? I'd think a very small percentage

So what you're saying in regards to MM or maybe the whole world that the majority are crap.

Your cup is full! No more tea will go in.” ... “Like this cup,” the master said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. 'There is nothing more your mind is closed'.