Eliza C wrote:
When one has written editorial at a very high level for a living and dealt with the world's press daily one can read between the lines and see the motivation for any article.

So... you think that you know exactly what the author was thinking and intended... even so it isn't clear at all, but you know it because you can read between the lines.

Granted, English is my second language and I make a lot of mistakes in grammar, but my comprehension is pretty good... and from what I can see... that author wrote an article that appears rather hastily written and, even I could proof reading and research it.

You wrote  now the second time that I shouldn't patronize you, yet... you are the one who talks down on me and others that don't agree with your "all knowing, all seeing" opinion (which is based on reading between the lines, and you defend like a papal decree... I don't get that!


P.S.: I wouldn't be surprised if the author is a guy, who was dating a "model" off MM and, maybe she broke up or rejected him and that article was a piece of revenge... but... that is a humorous assumption, because I don't read the authors mind.

Jean Renard Photography wrote:
No one can attack truth of money making. 

If you are successful some blog will not undo this.  That does not make being mean justifiable but today it seems anything goes.

I find that blanket statements tend to be wrong on all sides, but you have to be honest, the models making money (or could one day make money) stand on one side of the line, the others who do not and are delusional stand on the other.  There is simply no arguing that fact.  If you are standing on the side you want to be then no one can say you are elsewhere and if not, all the pretense will not pay the rent nor change the fact that you will never make it.

Survival of the fittest has no mercy.

That is a true but slightly oversimplified view.
Sometimes, people target others to claw their way up or exploit the success of others. In journalism, or the confrontational politic business, success depends on attacking other groups. Usually the stereotype is used.

Sometimes we can turn away and say well it doesn't bother me because I am making a living so what. But other times it is time to make a stand and stop it. In this case I though nah; this is wrong and ultimately personal because they used a competent ...and actually subsequently turns out dazzlingly brilliant model.

So yes; we can rise above it because we are doing okay but sometimes it is appropriate to put these nasty little snipers where they belong. A mosquito has the right to survive by parasitic behaviour on others; but sometimes you just have tio squish the klittel f*****. Survival of the fittest too. Of course they are too many to wipe out; and for the most part we tolerate them. But when one bites you on the face you are going to kill it.

udor wrote:
So... you think that you know exactly what the author was thinking and intended... even so it isn't clear at all, but you know it because you can read between the lines.

Granted, English is my second language and I make a lot of mistakes in grammar, but my comprehension is pretty good... and from what I can see... that author wrote an article that appears rather hastily written and, even I could proof reading and research it.

You wrote  now the second time that I shouldn't patronize you, yet... you are the one who talks down on me and others that don't agree with your "all knowing, all seeing" opinion (which is based on reading between the lines, and you defend like a papal decree... I don't get that!


P.S.: I wouldn't be surprised if the author is a guy, who was dating a "model" off MM and, maybe she broke up or rejected him and that article was a piece of revenge... but... that is a humorous assumption, because I don't read the authors mind.

No I just now how journalism works like you know how cameras work. I am not going into it all again I have said it; I have cited the audience figures, internet rankings etc  several times and why folk devils and moral panics are created using stereotypes. It is bad, cheap journalism. You KNOW that and have said it. And clearly; once more, by the use of Jessa's profile is an attack on ALL internet models. As she says; it isn't a screengrab of the myspace duckface bedroom model you are implying it is meaning.


Let's argue about cameras you will win that one

Eliza C wrote:
No I just now how journalism works like you know how cameras work.

Let's argue about cameras you will win that one

Well... I can argue about journalism as well... I grew up in a media family, my father was a journalist and sound engineer for (you may know) the German network ZDF, since 1963 the year they were founded and before I was born (sic!) and I grew up in their housing for their employees.

When I was 15, I've made an internship at their photo lab at their national headquarters in Mainz-Lerchenberg* and worked there for two years part time after school.

I have been working as a photojournalist since the mid-eighties and off and on, while working in another field for 17 years.

Now, I do work as a photojournalist as well, for different media outlets, print and online and a combination thereof.

I grew up in that field... I work in that field..., so please don't make any more assumptions about my background... it is so much more complex (I also studied engineering physics and worked for a long time on Wall Street as a trader), but you'd be surprised.

So, please don't limit my professional and life experience to just a camera and models.






* The big round building wasn't there when we moved to that location, it was all rye fields where we used to play as kids... the square building behind, that was the place where I interned and later worked for two years.

udor wrote:
Well... I can argue about journalism as well... I grew up in a media family, my father was a journalist and sound engineer for (you may know) the German network ZDF, since the year they were founded (sic!) and I grew up in their housing for their employees.

When I was 15, I've made an internship at their photo lab (Mainz-Lerchenberg, national hq) and worked there for two years part time after school.

I have been working as a photojournalist since the mid-eighties and off and on, while working in another field for 17 years.

Now, I do work as a photojournalist as well, for different media outlets, print and online and a combination thereof.

I grew up in that field... I work in that field..., so please don't make any more assumptions about my background... it is so much more complex (I also studied engineering physics and worked for a long time on Wall Street as a trader), but you'd be surprised.

So, please don't limit my professional and life experience to just a camera and models.

Well I could see you said it was a crap written article so I did say that you acknowledged that so I knew you knew something. But it hasn't been your professsion to write editorial for a Learned Society magazine or deal with the world's media has it? Again you have specialised important but related not central experience; which gives you some insight but seeing a bit of the elephant can be problematic. Also it was you who questioned my ability to interpet media articles not me questioning yours.

But you don't appear to know much about the breadth of modelling. And why should you? You aren't a model. You just see them sometimes. Never wonder what they are doing the rest of the time? well I lived eat slept modelling for the best part of four years in London mixing socially and work wise with other professional models of all kinds.

I know a bit about photojournalism too. I was the one the photojournalists used to come to for advice if going somewhere tricky; and mounting their exhibitions when they came back. But that doesn't make me an expert on photojournalism because I wasn't there when they were working most of the time. So I only know one bit of the elephant there see?


Now. Back to the main issue which you have evaded and I will not let go of. They used an image and profile of a fantastic model here to headline the piece and wrote deceased all accross it. Is she a wannabe model that you attempt to say the article is criticising? IS SHE? If the answer is yes you have to concede the article was attacking a broader target than bedroom models. And if it is no, then you have to say the article is fundamentally flawed. So you are in a bit of a no win situation here and I am sure Jessa will be interested in your answer too.

Now we can argue about the peripheral and personal stuff all day long but that doesn't escape the fact I hold you in checkmate. Answer the question please.

Eliza C wrote:
But you don't appear to know much about the breadth of modelling. And why should you? You aren't a model. You just see them sometimes. Never wonder what they are doing the rest of the time?

Why do you think that nobody but you and other models know anything about modeling???

My social life (my ex-wife was a model) friends are models, I know models that do it part time, or work part time as waitresses, etc. My professional life deals with a lot of models,  I cast models, I scout from time to time for an agency, I consult models for the agency, etc.

Let me tell you Eliza:

I do NOT live in a bubble!

Eliza C wrote:
Now. Back to the main issue which you have evaded and I will not let go of. They used an image and profile of a fantastic model here to headline the piece and wrote deceased all accross it.


Now we can argue about the peripheral and personal stuff all day long but that doesn't escape the fact I hold you in checkmate. Answer the question please.

Honestly... I don't evade this issue... I was never involved in that discussion, I have not looked at the models' portfolio, because I don't think that the author's intent was to go after that specific model, but used her only, probably randomly, because maybe she just came up... the author is not mentioning her in the article and talked only about facebook.

I think that it is entirely possible that the author simply pulled a profile from MM, chosing MM as the most popular site, and selecting a model that doesn't fit the height requirements for high fashion modeling.

But... again... there is nothing to evade... my point the entire time was that you and your working peers are  not the ones targeted in that article, according to the author's definition... that was my ONLY point from the beginning... and frankly, I don't care much for the rest...

udor wrote:
Why do you think that nobody but you and other models know anything about modeling???

My social life and professional life deals with a lot of models, also on a private and friendship. I cast models, I scout from time to time etc.

Let me tell you Eliza:

I do NOT live in a bubble!

I never said you did did I?
I know a bit about photographers. But I only know a bit of the elephant.

You cast and scout models for what? A very specific field. Now I have TWO emails just now from photographers telling me they had no idea what models actually did before I explained the kinds of things some of us do. That was nice of them. Perhaps you already knew about those things; and that image making only makes up a small portion of it; and that the bulk of even fashion indsutry modelling is not about the agency editorial stuff.

BUT if you knew that I have to question how you can not see that Jessa is a fantastic professional model and it was an absolute outrage that article used her profile. I just want to know your thoughts on that please; and where that leaves your excusal of the article... yiour abobve answer is avasive at best.

How would YOU feel if it was on internet photographers and had your profile?

Yes; they could have pulled any of our profiles. That is EXACTLY my point. It does NOT target the wannabe but all of us.

Eliza C wrote:
BUT if you knew that I have to question how you can not see that Jessa is a fantastic professional model and it was an absolute outrage that article used her profile. I just want to know your thoughts on that please; and where that leaves your excusal of the article..

I don't know Jessa, don't know her profile... but I explained that in the other post... minutes earlier...

udor wrote:

I don't know Jessa, don't know her profile... but I explained that in the other post... minutes earlier...

Then have the decency to look.

Eliza C wrote:
You cast and scout models for what? A very specific field.

Agencies, magazine shoots, cosmetic campaigns, art shots, fashion shows, catalogs...

Eliza C wrote:
Then have the decency to look.

Okay... she's got a fantastic look and is a great model!

I still don't think that the article was a specific "outing" of her... it was random and thoughtless.

It also doesn't change the basic idea of "mudl" on FB who has "sexy" shots at 5'3" with pouting mouth, insisting that she is a high fashion model... because that's what that rant/article is about.

udor wrote:
Okay... she's got a fantastic look and is a great model!

I still don't think that the article was a specific "outing" of her... it was random and thoughtless.

It also doesn't change the basic idea of "mudl" on FB who has "sexy" shots at 5'3" with pouting mouth, insisting that she is a high fashion model... because that's what that rant/article is about.

Hi, Udor.   While that article may have seemed general it was really focused on models seeking to be fashion models.   Lets also be frank.  Most here want to be fashion models and be seen in magazines like Vogue, Elle or V.   Proof of that is the endless faux fashion shots ,5'4" 25 year old paid work only models here have.   Its kind of silly but as, I said in my reply there. People should be able to dream and who does it hurt.   There was no intent in my view to out anyone nor a slap at every web based model and this is a old joke;  its the dog hit by the rock that yelps.   Not calling models dogs either.

I actually feel bad for many of the wannabes.   A few weeks ago, I shot a MM model who had worked with one of our ego as big as the sun test shooters.   She had been sent to him by a local agency and paid some decent cash.   She's pretty and tall but as, I worked with her realized she's too old and stiff to do much of anything and in my view that agency probably knew it as well and she had invested a lot of money for nothing.   She's a bright woman and didn't seem to be hurting for money but what about those who scrape together all they can for a con game.

Most of us will work at thankless jobs we hate.   Modeling can be a fun and creative outlet.   However its also important to know what is involved and what the qualifications are for the industry outside of sites like MM.   Sadly some never learn.   Again even a casual reading of the link shows its focus is for models who want to do fashion.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

Hi, Udor.   While that article may have seemed general it was really focused on models seeking to be fashion models.

Yeah, Tony, I know...

Eliza C wrote:

Yes Jessa and I were wondering the same. Are MM owners on the case or how can we alert them? It is basically an attack on MM as well as the models. And quite clearly prejudicial.

I think MM (IB) would be more concerned about advertising revenue and not models.
But then again maybe the advertisers and MM (IB)are aware of such articles and don't give a damn as long as their advertisement gets through to the target audience.
Sometimes bad news is good news, negative into a positive.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Hi, Udor.   While that article may have seemed general it was really focused on models seeking to be fashion models.   Lets also be frank.  Most here want to be fashion models and be seen in magazines like Vogue, Elle or V.

Seriously, do I look like I want to be in Vogue or Elle or some snooty @ss fashion mag? Hell No! Does that give some internet 'zine the right to call me "disingenuous", "insecure", "not remotely appealing"? Would you call Jackson Pollock "disingenuous", "insecure", "not remotely appealing"? Maybe you would... and then the real artists would laugh at you.

udor wrote:
Okay... she's got a fantastic look and is a great model!

I still don't think that the article was a specific "outing" of her... it was random and thoughtless.

It also doesn't change the basic idea of "mudl" on FB who has "sexy" shots at 5'3" with pouting mouth, insisting that she is a high fashion model... because that's what that rant/article is about.

And IF it hadn't had Jessa's profile - or any other model who isn't a bedroom girl - at the top I'd have agreed with you totally. BUT it did.
And I could see that from the little pic this meany even the really good internet models; not just the wannabes. That could have been ANY of us. Oh no; it wasn't thoughtless at all. It was designed to do just this: generate hits for their site.

Anyway that is as near as an agreement we are going to reach I guess. At least you acknowledge Jessa is a great model; so lets call it truce there because I think that if it wasn't for that which set their stall and target out we wouldn't have got this loggerheaded. xx

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

I think MM (IB) would be more concerned about advertising revenue and not models.
But then again maybe the advertisers and MM (IB)are aware of such articles and don't give a damn as long as their advertisement gets through to the target audience.
Sometimes bad news is good news, negative into a positive.

Well one thing for sure is that many of us now know Jessa. Definitely among the elite of models here imho. so that proves your point I guess.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Hi, Udor.   While that article may have seemed general it was really focused on llamas seeking to be fashion llamas.   Lets also be frank.  Most here want to be fashion llamas and be seen in magazines like Vogue, Elle or V.   Proof of that is the endless faux fashion shots ,5'4" 25 year old paid work only llamas here have.   Its kind of silly but as, I said in my reply there. People should be able to dream and who does it hurt.   There was no intent in my view to out anyone nor a slap at every web based llama and this is a old joke;  its the dog hit by the rock that yelps.   Not calling llamas dogs either.

I actually feel bad for many of the wannabes.   A few weeks ago, I shot a MM llama who had worked with one of our ego as big as the sun test shooters.   She had been sent to him by a local agency and paid some decent cash.   She's pretty and tall but as, I worked with her realized she's too old and stiff to do much of anything and in my view that agency probably knew it as well and she had invested a lot of money for nothing.   She's a bright woman and didn't seem to be hurting for money but what about those who scrape together all they can for a con game.

Most of us will work at thankless jobs we hate.   llamaing can be a fun and creative outlet.   However its also important to know what is involved and what the qualifications are for the industry outside of sites like MM.   Sadly some never learn.   Again even a casual reading of the link shows its focus is for llamas who want to do fashion.

AHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Tony.
BEHAVE.
Most of us here have worked in the varied llamaling fields including fashion and haven't ever once daydreamed of being in Vogue.
The fashion shots is because Bognor on Regis Life magazine can't get Dean Johnson so they get us see? Based on our fashion shots. Dlores del Rio boutique can't afford an Agency llama so they get us too. Not even TOP design houses for which I have been priviliged enough to be a fit and bitofeverything llama on the payroll in house can justify agency rates unless its for a show; and even then they use us too.

So that is what the 'faux fashion' shots you put down are actually doing. We give out a z card with our MM port; they look and say ah yes she can do it email comes can you do blah blah blah...
Not so faux for dreams after all.

There are THOUSANDS of us that do this kind of thing professionally. Go back and have a good read of my posts. Then there are the alt fashion girls, the hair girls, the outsize girls, the petite girls etc etc etc. NOT to mention the 'older' llamas which you have cited. You have a read about the forty year old who does the catalogue work I mentioned and is very well paid; or have a look at Sirensong's port before you talk about old llamas being stiff. May make a few men stiff!

Pick up a lifestyle magazine and see all the stuff. That is the girls here most of them. I go through and think oooh there's so and so' there's someone else etc from here. Maybe its because guys don't read those mags and are only aiming hopefully at Vogue themselves

So I don't know...are you really thinking maybe we have paid photographers to mock those things up? Because I can tell you that we have been paid to shoot them; or at least done tf. Not knocking those that have paid the photographers; but I am sure they don't aim at Vogue either. But they maybe would like to get the local boutique or designer work.

We aren't aiming at the stars; but we aren't in the bedroom dreaming either. We are the internet llamas; and we do all the stuff in between and the myriad avenues you haven't apparently considered. Hell my friend just got paid £800 for llamaling warehouse overalls

Eliza C wrote:
AHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Tony.
BEHAVE.
Most of us here have worked in the varied modelling fields including fashion and haven't ever once daydreamed of being in Vogue.
The fashion shots is because Bognor on Regis Life magazine can't get Dean Johnson so they get us see? Based on our fashion shots. Dlores del Rio boutique can't afford an Agency model so they get us too. Not even TOP design houses for which I have been priviliged enough to be a fit and bitofeverything model on the payroll in house can justify agency rates unless its for a show; and even then they use us too.

So that is what the 'faux fashion' shots you put down are actually doing. We give out a z card with our MM port; they look and say ah yes she can do it email comes can you do blah blah blah...
Not so faux for dreams after all.

There are THOUSANDS of us that do this kind of thing professionally. Go back and have a good read of my posts. Then there are the alt fashion girls, the hair girls, the outsize girls, the petite girls etc etc etc. NOT to mention the 'older' models which you have cited. You have a read about the forty year old who does the catalogue work I mentioned and is very well paid; or have a look at Sirensong's port before you talk about old models being stiff. May make a few men stiff!

Pick up a lifestyle magazine and see all the stuff. That is the girls here most of them. I go through and think oooh there's so and so' there's someone else etc from here. Maybe its because guys don't read those mags and are only aiming hopefully at Vogue themselves

So I don't know...are you really thinking maybe we have paid photographers to mock those things up? Because I can tell you that we have been paid to shoot them; or at least done tf. Not knocking those that have paid the photographers; but I am sure they don't aim at Vogue either. But they maybe would like to get the local boutique or designer work.

We aren't aiming at the stars; but we aren't in the bedroom dreaming either. We are the internet models; and we do all the stuff in between and the myriad avenues you haven't apparently considered. Hell my friend just got paid £800 for modelling warehouse overalls

Great!!!!   

Eliza C wrote:
That is a true but slightly oversimplified view.
Sometimes, people target others to claw their way up or exploit the success of others. In journalism, or the confrontational politic business, success depends on attacking other groups. Usually the stereotype is used.

Sometimes we can turn away and say well it doesn't bother me because I am making a living so what. But other times it is time to make a stand and stop it. In this case I though nah; this is wrong and ultimately personal because they used a competent ...and actually subsequently turns out dazzlingly brilliant model.

So yes; we can rise above it because we are doing okay but sometimes it is appropriate to put these nasty little snipers where they belong. A mosquito has the right to survive by parasitic behaviour on others; but sometimes you just have tio squish the klittel f*****. Survival of the fittest too. Of course they are too many to wipe out; and for the most part we tolerate them. But when one bites you on the face you are going to kill it.

Fair enough and well said.
I guess I hear so much negative all the time from everyone that want what others have  earned , I take it as par for the course and ignore it.  The louder they yell the more you must be doing right as being ignored makes the worst sound of all...
Cheers!

DinoUnchained wrote:
Seriously, do I look like I want to be in Vogue or Elle or some snooty @ss fashion mag? Hell No! Does that give some internet 'zine the right to call me "disingenuous", "insecure", "not remotely appealing"? Would you call Jackson Pollock "disingenuous", "insecure", "not remotely appealing"? Maybe you would... and then the real artists would laugh at you.

That article wasn't written with you in mind.   I looked at your work here.   You don't have the kind of shots the writer there spoke of.  You are not who they are talking about.   Every week a new model appears to ask if a offer to fly her to Fiji from, I wanttomodel, AL.  All expenses paid based on some crappy shots she has here.   They have sent me a check she will say and they need to me to take my cut and send the MUA the rest.   We all laugh and tell her its bs but there are women who fall for that garbage all because they don't understand the industry and lack common sense.

Look around this site at most of the images.   Glamor is number one but how many models here have cool fashion shots with great outfits and locations and all when their midgets.   They are all going to bust the fashion world open at 5'2".   Dopes here tell them they can because photographers can make them look tall.   That's who that article is pointed at.   There is nothing wrong with dreams and many of the dwarfs are pretty but they stand zero chance of doing anything as a fashion model.  All of that is fine.   What isn't is when they truly believe that they are going to be featured in French Vogue and invest hard earned cash to do so.   What is horrible is racing to NY or Miami or LA. and have some  con artist rip them off of their money and dignity.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
That article wasn't written with you in mind.   I looked at your work here.   You don't have the kind of shots the writer there spoke of.  You are not who they are talking about.   Every week a new llama appears to ask if a offer to fly her to Fiji from, I wanttomodel, AL.  All expenses paid based on some crappy shots she has here.   They have sent me a check she will say and they need to me to take my cut and send the MUA the rest.   We all laugh and tell her its bs but there are women who fall for that garbage all because they don't understand the industry and lack common sense.

Look around this site at most of the images.   Glamor is number one but how many llamas here have cool fashion shots with great outfits and locations and all when their midgets.   They are all going to bust the fashion world open at 5'2".   Dopes here tell them they can because photographers can make them look tall.   That's who that article is pointed at.   There is nothing wrong with dreams and many of the dwarfs are pretty but they stand zero chance of doing anything as a fashion llama.  All of that is fine.   What isn't is when they truly believe that they are going to be featured in French Vogue and invest hard earned cash to do so.   What is horrible is racing to NY or Miami or LA. and have some  con artist rip them off of their money and dignity.

You have seen Jessa's port have you? I guess not.

Now the reality. I have worked IN fashion for nearly two years as 60% of my income. NOT high fashion; not even photography. BUT I am 5ft 6ins. And I have done runway with Silvia Dimitrova etc. I was worried about it; mainly because I thought shit I can't do this I am going to look stupidly short next to all these top £5k a day top fashion agency llamas. Surprise surprise they are like an inch or two taller than me or the same height. And surprise surprise three of them are here on MM too. And surpise surprise I think I held my own. Certainly that is what everyone said including the boss.


Now I will never be there and have no aspirations; but she is a great llama. I am just a back room girl.  But have done runway with her for the undisputed best lingerie company in the world. And no photographer there because the collection we llamaled wasn't seen for a year by anyone else but the international buyers for a reason.

Jessa is 5ft 2 ins and could and probably does do some fashion. Just asked two small designers here what they thought and they said they'd use her without question. She's a llama. They can see that. They didn't know her height; but when I pointed it out after their enthusiasm; they said 'no problem'. Ok; again it is only small designers but it IS fashion.

Now we don't have any aspirations to do TOP fashion; but that is like just the icing. Who do you think does the day to day journeyman stuff and the small designer and boutique work and lifestyle editorial and advert shoots? Agency llamas? No no...unless of course they are local regional agency girls and anyway they are all here too.

To be frank most fashion industry llamaling work doesn't even involve photography as such.

Now I take your points about the wannabes but jessa is NOT a wannabe and they used her port.

You and the wannabe llama have the same cuckooland view of fashion llamaling. Thousands of us actually work in the bulk of the industry that actually pays us for the journeyman stuff and ever once even dreamed of being in Vogue. Hello! That is we internet MM llamas here!!! Invest hard earned cash my arse. I have never invested one penny in a photograph. I got work because I llamaled at the Royal Academy etc then came here; did one tf shoot and then touted my MM site and the work came to me.  And I am pretty sure most of the llamas here have had similar. Yes there are the others too; but as you say  - they aren't real llamas are they; they are just dreamers.

udor wrote:
Okay... she's got a fantastic look and is a great model!

I still don't think that the article was a specific "outing" of her... it was random and thoughtless.

It also doesn't change the basic idea of "mudl" on FB who has "sexy" shots at 5'3" with pouting mouth, insisting that she is a high fashion model... because that's what that rant/article is about.

Who cares what it was about?  The point is that if it wants to be a respected magazine why the hell is it ranting at all?

Eliza C wrote:
You have seen Jessa's port have you? I guess not.

Now the reality. I have worked IN fashion for nearly two years as 60% of my income. NOT high fashion; not even photography. BUT I am 5ft 6ins. And I have done runway with Silvia Dimitrova etc. I was worried about it; mainly because I thought shit I can't do this I am going to look stupidly short next to all these top £5k a day top fashion agency models. Surprise surprise they are like an inch or two taller than me or the same height. And surprise surprise three of them are here on MM too. And surpise surprise I think I held my own. Certainly that is what everyone said including the boss.


Now I will never be there and have no aspirations; but she is a great model. I am just a back room girl.  But have done runway with her for the undisputed best lingerie company in the world. And no photographer there because the collection we modelled wasn't seen for a year by anyone else but the international buyers for a reason.

Jessa is 5ft 2 ins and could and probably does do some fashion. Just asked two small designers here what they thought and they said they'd use her without question. She's a model. They can see that. They didn't know her height; but when I pointed it out after their enthusiasm; they said 'no problem'. Ok; again it is only small designers but it IS fashion.

Now we don't have any aspirations to do TOP fashion; but that is like just the icing. Who do you think does the day to day journeyman stuff and the small designer and boutique work and lifestyle editorial and advert shoots? Agency models? No no...unless of course they are local regional agency girls and anyway they are all here too.

To be frank most fashion industry modelling work doesn't even involve photography as such.

Now I take your points about the wannabes but jessa is NOT a wannabe and they used her port.

You and the wannabe model have the same cuckooland view of fashion modelling. Thousands of us actually work in the bulk of the industry that actually pays us for the journeyman stuff and ever once even dreamed of being in Vogue. Hello! That is we internet MM models here!!! Invest hard earned cash my arse. I have never invested one penny in a photograph. I got work because I modelled at the Royal Academy etc then came here; did one tf shoot and then touted my MM site and the work came to me.  And I am pretty sure most of the models here have had similar. Yes there are the others too; but as you say  - they aren't real models are they; they are just dreamers.

Hi, Eliza.   I don't think the writer had you in mind when when he/she wrote it.   Just as those who have called photographers on MM rapists and pedophiles.   I'm not either so, I'm never offended.   The piece was a general over view of many of the web based models and it was on point.   Their isn't a week that goes by without one of us whinny babies isn't complaining about a  flake or unprofessional model.   Are all the models here unprofessional flakes?    Of course not.    That article was about the models who join sites yet still have self taken shots in mirrors months later.   It was about the friend collecting, waste of time, short models with fake tans who aspire to be fashion models when they stand 5'2".

You can be short and be a real model.   There are plenty here but they are not working fashion models.   That article was about the new Facebook Supermodel who has thousands of fans, hundreds of likes for her photos and who's next stop is WWD or Bazaar magazine.   She's on her way baby!   The ideal is NOT take what people say in these kinds of pieces personally.   He didn't say, Eliza was a dreamer.   He didn't say you would never work.   He didn't say every model on MM or the web was wasting her time.    As for investing.   Again you've made it personal.   Modeling schools still rake in millions from wannabe models.   Agencies send models to do paid shoots that parents or they pay for.   Companies like Pro-Scouts make thousands in every city they travel too.   This when 90% of those that attend these 'events' will never do any fashion or commercial work or be signed by anyone.

That article wasn't for you.   It wasn't for any of the wonderful working models on MM.   In fact the writer didn't mention MM or omp or iStudio.   It was a opinion piece about the majority of web based models.   Please don't tell me about a model you know from the Royal Academy of short models who's appeared in Elle.   Its not about a few exceptions.   Its not about you nor any other working model.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Hi, Eliza.   I don't think the writer had you in mind when when he/she wrote it.   Just as those who have called photographers on MM rapists and pedophiles.   I'm not either so, I'm never offended.   The piece was a general over view of many of the web based models and it was on point.   Their isn't a week that goes by without one of us whinny babies isn't complaining about a  flake or unprofessional model.   Are all the models here unprofessional flakes?    Of course not.    That article was about the models who join sites yet still have self taken shots in mirrors months later.   It was about the friend collecting, waste of time, short models with fake tans who aspire to be fashion models when they stand 5'2".

You can be short and be a real model.   There are plenty here but they are not working fashion models.   That article was about the new Facebook Supermodel who has thousands of fans, hundreds of likes for her photos and who's next stop is WWD or Bazaar magazine.   She's on her way baby!   The ideal is NOT take what people say in these kinds of pieces personally.   He didn't say, Eliza was a dreamer.   He didn't say you would never work.   He didn't say every model on MM or the web was wasting her time.    As for investing.   Again you've made it personal.   Modeling schools still rake in millions from wannabe models.   Agencies send models to do paid shoots that parents or they pay for.   Companies like Pro-Scouts make thousands in every city they travel too.   This when 90% of those that attend these 'events' will never do any fashion or commercial work or be signed by anyone.

That article wasn't for you.   It wasn't for any of the wonderful working models on MM.   In fact the writer didn't mention MM or omp or iStudio.   It was a opinion piece about the majority of web based models.   Please don't tell me about a model you know from the Royal Academy of short models who's appeared in Elle.   Its not about a few exceptions.   Its not about you nor any other working model.

I have just cited myself as a working fashion model who is short. There are three other girls at least in this thread who are working way above my level in fashion too and are 'internet models'. I know personally maybe 100; of which one is 5ft 3ins. I know of another who is 5ft 2ins and works at a high level in Japan. I am only 5ft 6 ins and was a working model 60% employed in the fashion industry. And I think while many here say ah yeah but she was a fitting model I can tell you working there gave me insights none of you would have a clue about; both into modelling and fashion at a very high level; and the journeyman level. That is where I shut up because I am not allowed to say more.

Fashion employs thousands of models. You are talking about high fashion editorial. That ISN'T what we are doing; or aim to do. The vast majority of talented designers won't get anything in Vogue either. I agree those who aim at that are dreamers; wannabes; and yes there are the unscrupulous who take their money. That article wasn't even talking about them. It was yes talking about the facwebook girl who WANTS to be a model. They are NOT models. WE are models. WE are internet models. And it attacked us all because it attacked Jessa. now another girl is up as Jessa stopped them using it.

Jessa is NOT one of those models of which you speak; or the ones of which the article speaks so it was WAY out of oder for them to attack her. She is 5ft 2 ins and can easily find a niche in the fashion industry because she is exceptional. Nobody looks how tall you are for example modelling millinery; jewellery; or indeed fitting or petite; or hair or lifestyle mag fashion or boutique ad. It isn't about getting in Vogue!!!!

Yes not a week goes by without one of you moaning about unprofessional models.
So what the hell do you use them for it isn't rocket science to see who's who here.

Julian  W I L D E wrote:
What no one has figured out yet... is the world is big enough for both Fashion Models AND Internet Models.   ;-)

Internet models and fashion models are frequently one and the same. There are three £5k a day Fashion Agency London girls here I know of on MM with ports. Doesn't mean they'd work with everyone. But I bet they won't cost you that.

The high fashion editorial model thing should never be compared to what many of us internet models do which is actually the vast majority of fashion work.

Eliza C wrote:
I have just cited myself as a working fashion model who is short. There are three other girls at least in this thread who are working way above my level in fashion too and are 'internet models'. I know personally maybe 100; of which one is 5ft 3ins. I know of another who is 5ft 2ins and works at a high level in Japan. I am only 5ft 6 ins and was a working model 60% employed in the fashion industry. And I think while many here say ah yeah but she was a fitting model I can tell you working there gave me insights none of you would have a clue about; both into modelling and fashion at a very high level; and the journeyman level. That is where I shut up because I am not allowed to say more.

Fashion employs thousands of models. You are talking about high fashion editorial. That ISN'T what we are doing; or aim to do. The vast majority of talented designers won't get anything in Vogue either. I agree those who aim at that are dreamers; wannabes; and yes there are the unscrupulous who take their money. That article wasn't even talking about them. It was yes talking about the facwebook girl who WANTS to be a model. They are NOT models. WE are models. WE are internet models. And it attacked us all because it attacked Jessa. now another girl is up as Jessa stopped them using it.

Jessa is NOT one of those models of which you speak; or the ones of which the article speaks so it was WAY out of oder for them to attack her. She is 5ft 2 ins and can easily find a niche in the fashion industry because she is exceptional. Nobody looks how tall you are for example modelling millinery; jewellery; or indeed fitting or petite; or hair or lifestyle mag fashion or boutique ad. It isn't about getting in Vogue!!!!

Yes not a week goes by without one of you moaning about unprofessional models.
So what the hell do you use them for it isn't rocket science to see who's who here.

Eliza, I've been following this thread and there is only one fashion model in it.   She has tears but forget that for a moment.   That article is a editorial piece about some web models but please for the love of all that's holy, stop with this stuff about short fashion models.   The majority of catalog, jewelry, cosmetic or beauty work, and fashion is booked via agencies and goes to models 5'8" or taller.   Forget Vogue or V or Elle because they pay next to nothing.   The bread and butter work for most models is catalog and again that work is going to agency signed models most of whom are under 21 and over 5'7".

There are  precious few petite models who work consistently but they are very few in number.   There are two very separate worlds.   The world of the real working fashion and commercial model and they are largely NOT on MM and the web based model who represents herself.   You may be able to point out a few members who buck the trend and work but they are the exception and not the rule.    A little reality the average model makes around $20.00 a hour.   This is adjusted based on down time and is a national average in the US according to the DOL.   Don't believe me?   Look up it up. 

The average fashion models career lasts a year if she's lucky.   A busy model doing catalog and fashion not the average mind you makes around $100,000 a year.   I am not speaking of the current crop of super models but the agency faces at Elite, Ford, DNA and other agencies.   I don't know many who work consistently who are not at least 5'7" and most range from 5'8" to 5'11".  However forget what, I have to say.   Go to:   http://www.dnamodels.com/women-main-board   If I'm looking to show off my new designs do, I hire a 5'2" model from MM or will I go there?

http://www.womenmanagement.com/models/list/1/all/1   no 5'3" models.   There is no niche for those models.   The truth is that real world clients hire real working models who fit industry standards.  There may be some petite working models but they are rare.   Most of all clients with decent budgets should always go to agencies.   Booking web based models is a recipe for failure.   Not pointing any fingers.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
That article wasn't written with you in mind.   I looked at your work here.   You don't have the kind of shots the writer there spoke of.  You are not who they are talking about.   Every week a new model appears to ask if a offer to fly her to Fiji from, I wanttomodel, AL.  All expenses paid based on some crappy shots she has here.   They have sent me a check she will say and they need to me to take my cut and send the MUA the rest.   We all laugh and tell her its bs but there are women who fall for that garbage all because they don't understand the industry and lack common sense.

Look around this site at most of the images.   Glamor is number one but how many models here have cool fashion shots with great outfits and locations and all when their midgets.   They are all going to bust the fashion world open at 5'2".   Dopes here tell them they can because photographers can make them look tall.   That's who that article is pointed at.   There is nothing wrong with dreams and many of the dwarfs are pretty but they stand zero chance of doing anything as a fashion model.  All of that is fine.   What isn't is when they truly believe that they are going to be featured in French Vogue and invest hard earned cash to do so.   What is horrible is racing to NY or Miami or LA. and have some  con artist rip them off of their money and dignity.

I am an internet model. The internet is where my work is primarily featured. This article attempts to lump all internet models into one group and label them as delusional and counterproductive.

1) Not all internet models have delusions they they are going to be featured in Vogue.

2) Who does it harm for someone to have delusions that they are going to be featured in Vogue?

Julian  W I L D E wrote:
What few of these "concerned" indiviuals have figured out... is that the world is big enough for both Fashion Models AND Internet Models.   And that's cool.  I'd hate to have just one or the other.  ;-)

DinoUnchained wrote:
I am an internet model. The internet is where my work is primarily featured. This article attempts to lump all internet models into one group and label them as delusional and counterproductive.

1) Not all internet models have delusions they they are going to be featured in Vogue.

2) Who does it harm for someone to have delusions that they are going to be featured in Vogue?

I would disagree about the writers aim to paint all web based models with the same broad brush.   Its a big world and there is room for all and there is nothing wrong with dreaming of being in Vogue.   However it can be important to know what the industry outside of MM is all about.   That thinking you are going to do print for catalog or fashion when you are 5'2" is a bit silly.   You aren't delusional so that article wasn't about you.   Its about delusional models and to be candid there are a lot of 'em here.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I would disagree about the writers aim to paint all web based models with the same broad brush.   Its a big world and there is room for all and there is nothing wrong with dreaming of being in Vogue.   However it can be important to know what the industry outside of MM is all about.   That thinking you are going to do print for catalog or fashion when you are 5'2" is a bit silly.   You aren't delusional so that article wasn't about you.   Its about delusional models and to be candid there are a lot of 'em here.

Where do you get these ideas?
Of course you can do catalogue work at 5ft 2 ins. The chances of doing it are far more limited; but it isn't impossible.
But doing catalogue work is NOT the same as being in Vogue. And you completely ignore the thousands of editorial fashion shoots and ads for those magazines going on daily for little regional monthlies. That may not qualify as 'fashion' to you but it is certainly the same kind of thing just at a lower level. So if I and a 5ft 2 ins model shoot some dresses for a boutique in  'The Rutland Life' editorial about upcoming trends this autumn that isn't fashion is it even though it may pay me £500 a for a days work which half the time even the Vogue model doesn't get.
STOP judging fashion industry and the massive amount of work therein by the elite fashion magazines.
Of course I agree if models DO think they are gouing to get in Vogue or even Rutland Life all the time they are very much dreaming. But you do a bit of this a bit of that and if you are good before you know it the fashion gets more and more; especially if you get into Fit which has models in all shapes and sizes you should check the castings sometime. But of course you DON'T check castings for models do you?

The industry outside of MM and inside of MM are the SAME. It isn't two different things.
For crying out loud why can't you realise every model apart from the ones at the very top agencies are here grafting for extra work? To get that work you NEED an online portfolio.
People even ASK if you are on MM. But of course you wouldn't know that would you because you don't do a little fashion show and have a drink with the buyers after who want you to do some show or advert for them and ask you right out if you are on MM because they like to cast that way. No pressure; no agency fees, direct link from your email or z card to one's portfolio.

Now things may be different for photographers; but I would never DARE to assume I knew how . I don't know who the f*** all these photographers shooting the regional editorial stuff and ads for boutiques and hair salons and fashion graduates and couture latex catalogues and milliner's websites and lingerie brochures and parts work (often at high level) if it isn't you guys but the models are us. Well I just do the odd bit of that but look at some of the girls in this threads ports.

I am getting pretty pissed off right now with the amount of NON MODELS telling models what we do, need to do, can't do, etc when we are F****** doing it for a living and some of us for a long time !!!!!!

It is some of the photographers who are delusional if they don't see that is where the bulk of work lies; and that much fashion journeyman stuff doesn't even involve photography.

Another of my aquaintances from the gym in London does showroom modelling in a designer boutique in Knightsbridge. That is all she does apart from some acting and makes a living. No photography involved. But she is a shit hot  model. She isn't here but she is on IMDB so I guess she's an 'internet actress'. So her credits are probably made up and when I see her in the shop or on tv I am imagining it.