I offered a "Hot or Not" critique to models last week and my unscientific conclusion was that over 70% of the models that replied were absolutely NOT hot and not "model material."
While I am open to the concept that not all models should be hot, shouldn't they at least be attractive in some way?
(to the anal moderators, this is a serious question)
Hawaii Capital wrote: I offered a "Hot or Not" critique to models last week and my unscientific conclusion was that over 70% of the models that replied were absolutely NOT hot and not "model material."
While I am open to the concept that not all models should be hot, shouldn't they at least be attractive in some way?
(to the anal moderators, this is a serious question)
Hawaii Capital wrote: I offered a "Hot or Not" critique to models last week and my unscientific conclusion was that over 70% of the models that replied were absolutely NOT hot and not "model material."
While I am open to the concept that not all models should be hot, shouldn't they at least be attractive in some way?
(to the anal moderators, this is a serious question)
Just because you don't think they are attractive doesn't mean others feel the same, just sayin'
probably about the same percentage as photographers who are not photographer material =P (myself definitely included when I compare my shots to those of really good photographers).
funny thing is, the "industry" requires all kinds of people as models
i would imagine that the more competitive modeling agencies would be even more selective than me!!
Not everyone here aspires to be an agency model. I certainly don't.
Different looks are suitable to different genres in the modeling world. Very few people on here fit into the fashion/mainstream, but there are plenty of successful models here who don't have a conventional look, or might not be "hot" according to your definition, that fit into niches that their look is suitable for.
Stock Photo Showcase wrote: probably about the same percentage as photographers who are not photographer material =P (myself definitely included when I compare my shots to those of really good photographers).
funny thing is, the "industry" requires all kinds of people as models
good point. however, if you check out the competitive modeling agencies list of models, they are pretty much all hot-level attractiveness.
sure, i understand "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Hawaii Capital wrote: I offered a "Hot or Not" critique to models last week and my unscientific conclusion was that over 70% of the models that replied were absolutely NOT hot and not "model material."
While I am open to the concept that not all models should be hot, shouldn't they at least be attractive in some way?
(to the anal moderators, this is a serious question)
No
And have you EVER started a thread that didn't get locked?
Sometimes, being able to bring a personality, or a character, into an image is attractive, and certain people can do this. They might not be particularly good-looking, or might even be ugly (to some people), but in that moment in that particular image, they do something spectacular with it.
Not everyone here aspires to be an agency model. I certainly don't.
Different looks are suitable to different genres in the modeling world. Very few people on here fit into the fashion/mainstream, but there are plenty of successful models here who don't have a conventional look, or might not be "hot" according to your definition, that fit into niches that their look is suitable for.
ok, fair enough. my opinion may mean nothing. i'm just wondering! :-)
My opinion is, there is diversity here. Putting someone in a HOT category is not judging someone if they are model material or not. Plus you are now talking agencies etc...... You were judging if they were HOT or not with no explanation or being diverse about it.
Hawaii Capital wrote: I offered a "Hot or Not" critique to models last week and my unscientific conclusion was that over 70% of the models that replied were absolutely NOT hot and not "model material."
While I am open to the concept that not all models should be hot, shouldn't they at least be attractive in some way?
(to the anal moderators, this is a serious question)
Hawaii Capital wrote: I offered a "Hot or Not" critique to models last week and my unscientific conclusion was that over 70% of the models that replied were absolutely NOT hot and not "model material."
While I am open to the concept that not all models should be hot, shouldn't they at least be attractive in some way?
(to the anal moderators, this is a serious question)
lol *grabs popcorn* I think the fail meter just tipped!!
dude...... the industry calls for all types of people. granted there is a higher demand for "attractive" people, but there is certainly nothing saying they must be "hot".
On the side of advice.... when you say stuff like this, you come off as being on here to date rather then be a professional model
Hawaii Capital wrote: I offered a "Hot or Not" critique to models last week and my unscientific conclusion was that over 70% of the models that replied were absolutely NOT hot and not "model material."
While I am open to the concept that not all models should be hot, shouldn't they at least be attractive in some way?
(to the anal moderators, this is a serious question)
It is always shocking to me to see how incredible some people can appear as a model and how ordinary they can be in "person".
When you find a portfolio with a "not hot" ... "not attractive" model ... there may be two things in play ... 1) no photographer has caught that right angle yet. 2) the model doesn't know how to model yet.
But yea. I get your drift ... lol. There are some who don't seem REMOTELY capable of modeling. I just say ... be nice to them ... they have the same hopes and dreams that we all have ...
Hawaii Capital wrote: I offered a "Hot or Not" critique to models last week and my unscientific conclusion was that over 70% of the models that replied were absolutely NOT hot and not "model material."
While I am open to the concept that not all models should be hot, shouldn't they at least be attractive in some way?
(to the anal moderators, this is a serious question)
Different strokes for different folks. One doesn't have to "hot" to be in demand. Agency representation is just a small percentage of model desirability.
It is always shocking to me to see how incredible some people can appear as a model and how ordinary they can be in "person".
When you find a portfolio with a "not hot" ... "not attractive" model ... there may be two things in play ... 1) no photographer has caught that right angle yet. 2) the model doesn't know how to model yet.
But yea. I get your drift ... lol. There are some who don't seem REMOTELY capable of modeling. I just say ... be nice to them ... they have the same hopes and dreams that we all have ...
thank you! :-) finally, honest dialogue without troll accusations. that's all i'm lookin for really. just curious.
So... I actually answered the question posed by the OP and get no reply for being constructive in the thread, yet he finds time to answer the off topic questions and attacks and stoke the flames. Thinly veiled... thinly veiled.
Ok OP, you want an honest answer? Being hot has nothing to do with it. Someone who is shallow, materialistic, elitist, with a shitty attitude....that person is not model material. Does that help?
Svend wrote: So... I actually answered the question posed by the OP and get no reply for being constructive in the thread, yet he finds time to answer the off topic questions and attacks and stoke the flames. Thinly veiled... thinly veiled.
good question. for one, i did not choose to be a model. international publications approached me. to me, that is as credible as one can get.
That means nothing in the real world to photographers who hire someone based on the photographers specific needs. Every photographer has different needs and require different looks.
"Just" being "hot" doesn't insure success or desirability.
