Oscar Partida wrote:
because they make clothes look better

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

Ditto for cars, motorcycles, etc.

Philipe wrote:
For one thing tall models stand out, I have not met a designer who does not like long legs.
Fashionable clothes look better on taller models.
When a person is small, the proportions change, such as shorter legs, narrow shoulders that make the head look bigger, shorter arms where the model can some times swim an get lost in some clothes even it fits and altering the clothes changes and sometimes ruin the whole look.. For fashion, shooting taller models is much easier, with a good tall model, they can do poses that shorter models can not pull off and can sometimes look silly.
Such as the hands on hip and bringing elbows forward. Linda Evangelista did it good in the early 90's but, it looked good because she is tall, proportioned and had a very strong look.. When smaller models do the elbow pose, it looks horrendous, they look like a chicken trying to lay an egg, you have to have a long arms and thin body. But even if your thin, when short, you have shorter arms and you also need a long neck...
Unless your Dean Johnson (and there is ONLY one Dean Johnson meaning she has even surpassed and has had a longer career than models like Karen Mulder, Helena Christensen, Cindy Crawford etc... the list is long) Not saying these models are not modeling anymore. Even Linda Evangelista is not working as a model as much as Dean Johnson.
So even tall models don't really have someone like Dean Johnson..
Again not just "still modeling" No, meaning still relevant and still getting covers and yes probably still in demand..
So does Dean Johnson help short models? Hell no. Its non related..
She does not even help tall models, many tall models were like WTF? How is she getting so much work?..(when Kate first came out in the scene..)

Again when some models say "if Dean Johnson can do, it so can I"
NO.
Understand that no strong exception has been made more, than the one for Dean Johnson. Because she simply HAS the look...
What other model can still model and still came out smelling like a rose, from scandal (severe scandal), drugs, Tabloids trying to discredit her?...
and than a month later getting the cover of Vogue and new ad campaign.
I have not seen many tall super models that can pull that off..

Why does the industry like tall models? Its just the way it is with fashion. Its that way with designers, clients that hire them, modeling agencies that deal with fashion models, photographers who prefer tall models...
Thats what they want...

Not all clothes look better on tall models. See my above post.

I am not saying if Dean Johnson can do it so can I.

I am saying if you put that crap out of your mind you can actually as a shorter model get work in fashion.

I am saying that shit has nothing to do with the likes of us but there is a huge fashion industry and the vast majority of work Dean Johnson is priced way way out of the league for. And even the several divisions below that are priced out of the league of small designers, boutiques, catalogue work, retro fashion companies, lingerie and swimwear companies etc etc. Then all the fashion houses employ fit models too. Again they aren't going to have agency models at hundreds of pounds and hour and they rarely stipulate height. Get real. And see the fashion industry for what it is not the dream factory you are talking about. Because some of you aspire to the cutting edge of photography one sees in that field and the models who work it you are forgetting the vast majority of journeymen models and photographers who actually work in the lower ecehelons of a very large pyramid and where height is less of a factor.

I am saying if you forget about Dean Johnson you can actually earn a living doing journeyman stuff and that is what I think most serious models aspire to. Just to earn a living and work in fashion. That is as far as my ambition went and it wasn't difficult at 5ft 6ins.

Azimuth Arts wrote:
If there is a shot of you dwarfing a building then it was done with angles and perspective to create that illusion.  In order to do that a photographer would need to frame the shot in a certain way to give the illusion you are taller.  That would eliminate other angles, and perhaps more interesting backgrounds, in order to add 3-4" to your height.  If the llama is already 5' 10" then there is no reason to limit the photographer to those angles.

It's Thanksgiving in the US - imagine if the store ran out of turkeys and said - we have two five pound chickens you can use instead of a ten pound turkey would it be the same?  Sure you'd have enough food to feed the family, but the two birds on the table to be carved would not look as impressive as the one large turkey.  And it wouldn't taste the same.

(And I am not suggesting in any way llamas are the same as chickens or turkeys, but just because you can make do with something does not mean you should do it).

I call fowl on your analogy. Your argument is weak and easily carved up. If you were on this side of the border you would likely have the stuffing beaten out of you.

Now I’m hungry.

udor wrote:
geriatricism!!!

Wow. I learned a new word today

Eliza C wrote:
Not all clothes look better on tall llamas. See my above post.

Read my post above where it says.
"Fashionable clothes look better on taller llamas."
To elaborate. Meaning Haute couture.

Of course tall llamas will not look good in petite clothes ............

Wow can't believe she just told me to get real..
The subject I speak are rules I did not make, its reality.
You asked a question and I gave you an answer...
BTW my answer was not to you, but in general...
I never said you mentioned Kate Moss, but I brought her up because many bring her up on subject like this..
I wanted to address it...

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
a) They look great in almost everything and obviously also nude. It's very hard to find an outfit that a tall skinny model can't model.

b) With or without clothes, the extra length of their limbs and torso combined with their skinniness means that they are generally more bendable and can make more interesting shapes with more space between the angles, limbs and torso than a more compact model. If you wanted to make the largest number of interesting shapes out of a pipe-cleaner, would you use a short one or a long one?

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

Aby Sloan wrote:
WHY?

Why are you asking?  The vast majority of models I shoot are 5' 7" or shorter. 
It wasn't always that way, but since the Internet came to be, I don't care about height. 
In fact, I tend to prefer shooting with shorter models.  They make other things look
bigger around them, especially cars.  Every guy likes to think he has the biggest ... car!
Every single model in my portfolio is shorter than 5' 9"  ... every one of them!

Most average about 5' 4"  ... must be the Asian blood?   

Philipe wrote:
Read my post above where it says.
"Fashionable clothes look better on taller models."
To elaborate. Meaning Haute couture.

Of course tall models will not look good in petite clothes ............

Wow can't believe she just told me to get real..
The subject I speak are rules I did not make, its reality.
You asked a question and I gave you an answer...
BTW my answer was not to you, but in general...
I never said you mentioned Dean Johnson, but I brought her up because many bring her up on subject like this..
I wanted to address it...

Firstly I am here in this conversation so please don't refer to me as 'she'.
Secondly nothing was meant personally against you by me saying for real. I am also adressing the converstaion generally to people who compare what we do here with high fashion. But that doesn't mean we don't do fashion modelling. And that is the point. There is room for sthe shorther model in fashion if she makes up for her lack of inches in other ways.

Aside from the fact that Dean Johnson is an exception and you cite her for that which doesn't exactly help your argument what I am saying is most good fashion models who are tall are agency signed. That means they are expensive. So they get used for the elite modelling. But fashion is a huge cake and that is just the icing. Most of you will never get near it and neither will most of us. But yet there are thousands here making a living in fashion. Shooting for small designers, boutiques, catalogues, swimwear and lingerie etc etc. That is what I meant by get real: that is the reality for most of us and the truth is the vast majority of fashion concerns do not use supermodels or top photographers. They use journeymen and locals in both departments.

I worked as a model in a couture house. Haute Couture just means high sewing and it is meaningless outside the top French houses who emply legions of seamstresses out of an almost social duty. So to all intents and purposes any company who design garments with a proper seamstress the old fashioned way on a fitting model can be classed as couture. There is no doubting the credibility of the company I worked for in terms of quality and craftsmanship. I was the fit model but did some runway for them. Some merch cat shoots. Some parts. Stands to reason what was designed on me looks good on me and frequently models used in various campaigns were not the choice of the design team. Not that they'd have used me - but they'd have used someone more my shape.

There are no rules. There are guidelines and yes there are industry standards. It is sometimes said that rules in any case are to guide leaders and for slaves to follow. hence the excpetions happen a lot more frequently than you think even at top level.

But I haven't heard once in this whole thread or any others the actual reason those industry standards developed.

Prior to the late fifties most models were shorter. They were usually fitting models to start with. so sometimes they weren't that skinny either. Way before the advent of photography as we know it fashion models were used for fitting and showroom and events. Marie Vernet Worth was the first well known one simply because she was married to Charles Worth.

The first well known fashion model was Lisa Fonsagrives. Tall for a model then at 5ft 7ins. Too tall for her original intended priofession of ballet but graceful and elegant and was able to put that to good use modelling. Prior to here many models were short; some atheltic build (particularly in the 1930's) and some very normal looking so as not to distance themselves from an economic and war strained public.

The most famous - arguably the first - supermodel in the world at the time was in fact Dorian Leigh standing in at just 5ft 5" . Around average but by no means short for models of the time. The tall were the exception not the rule. Mary Jane Russell another famous model of the time associted with the New Look was 5ft 6ins.

If you don't know Dorian Leigh she is the one who made those angle hip shots with negative space a trademark pose that we still use today.

But the real change came in the fifties with several models who were very tall for the time and all of whom becamse sensational at roughly the same time. Anne st Marie and Jean Patchett at 5ft 8,  and two gigantic women : Neena von Schlebrügge (Uma Thurman's mother) and Suzy Parker at a whopping 5ft 11". Those four and others at the time heralded a taller model. And with notable exceptions that has remained. THAT is why we have industry standard. Because if something works you stick to it. Because of a look that epitomises the feel of the time Twiggy, Dean Johnson etc we see some change but generally the power of that late fifties fashion model revolution has stuck. It may not forever. At one time it was also considered for powerfully expressed aethetic reasons to use white women. The paler the better. Those days are gone.

Dorian Leigh incidentally was Suzy Parker's sister. Doubtful we'd have seen that height change so cast in stone as you believe it to be if it were not ironically for Dorian who introduced her sister to Ford.

AgX wrote:

I call fowl on your analogy. Your argument is weak and easily carved up. If you were on this side of the border you would likely have the stuffing beaten out of you.

Now I’m hungry.

Well there's your problem, you should not cook the stuffing inside the bird, always prepare dressing separately for a better cooked bird.

/threadjack

Eliza C wrote:

The designers don't do the ad campaigns and frequently don't like them. But that isn't their job.
The designer hires the fit models. We aren't always industry standard. We sometimes get thrown in the runway shows too by the designers. So it isn't the designer's fault.

For the most part, yes. However, here's an exception.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
You never seem to find forums with taller models complaining that they'd like to be Yoda height.

ah, you'd be surprised!

At 6'1, I'm actually too tall. My agency puts me as 6'0 or 5'11 even. I always wear flats to castings, certain catalogueshoots (as a plusmodel most of my work is commercial) can be a bitch because a lot of the clothes are just not long enough, I had to learn poses that shrink me a little when I'm posing next to a shorter model so we appear even, etcetera...
even as a model, there is such a thing as too tall!

Tim Griffiths wrote:
Any industry that can produce an advert as unintentionally hilarious as the new Chanel advert with Brad Pitt is capable of anything. All it will take is someone sufficiently hip to be sufficiently avant garde (say, catwalking a 5' 0" granny in thigh high wellington boots, a spandex thong  and a miner's helmet) and you will have a new aesthetic in place.

But if everyone was using 5'0" grannies in that outfit it would no longer be special or unique.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Likewise, a fuller figured model I shot the other day!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/ … 6536_n.jpg (18+)

I don't think one shape is necessarily better than the other per-se but as a photographer I definitely find it easier to make a tall skinny model look look elegant and interesting in photos. Maybe I'm just lazy!




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

LOVE that picture

if you're ever up for the challenge of making a non-skinny model look elegant and interesting, I'm totally up for it by the way

Eliza C wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting you can tell a girl's height through a photograph? .

by the way, yes; in a lot of cases, you can easily tell if a girl is tall or not through a photograph. different proportions (the head, shoulders and arms usually give it away)

MelissaAnn  wrote:
+1  tall= more impressive in clothes. 

You are comparing candid event shots with approved professional catwalk shots . Look at the eyelevel in some of the event candid shots. The forshortening of the legs because they are almost shot from above and close up. In addition you are comparing models with celebs. And we don't have height comparisons. Perfectly freasible some of those modesl could actually be shorter than the celebs.
It is an unfair comparison.

That doesn't mean I don't agree that sometimes dresses look better on a taller model but not always.

So who looks better in the Valentino dress?





EDIT: it's a trick question. The girl on the left is Devon Aoki.

Anna Adrielle wrote:
by the way, yes; in a lot of cases, you can easily tell if a girl is tall or not through a photograph. Different proportions (the head, shoulders and arms usually give it away)

Not with low perspective high heels and reasonably proportionate limbs. The head will become smaller with perspective.

In any case the most photographed model in the world is 5ft 6ins so I don't hear any photographers griping about her head being too big.

Are they all making exceptions for her and having to make her stand on a crate or something or moaning they want a taller model? I think not.

Eliza C wrote:

You are comparing candid event shots with approved professional catwalk shots . Look at the eyelevel in some of the event candid shots. The forshortening of the legs because they are almost shot from above and close up. In addition you are comparing models with celebs. And we don't have height comparisons. Perfectly freasible some of those modesl could actually be shorter than the celebs.
It is an unfair comparison.

That doesn't mean I don't agree that sometimes dresses look better on a taller model but not always.

So who looks better in the Valentino dress?

Yes, it's all very unfair.....and it appears you like arguing just for the sake of arguing.  If you took the time to look up the models and celebs I posted, all the models are taller than the celebs.  Keep on arguing if you like, it won't change reality.

Eliza C wrote:
You are comparing candid event shots with approved professional catwalk shots . Look at the eyelevel in some of the event candid shots. The forshortening of the legs because they are almost shot from above and close up. In addition you are comparing models with celebs. And we don't have height comparisons. Perfectly freasible some of those modesl could actually be shorter than the celebs.
It is an unfair comparison.

That doesn't mean I don't agree that sometimes dresses look better on a taller model but not always.

So who looks better in the Valentino dress?





EDIT: it's a trick question. The girl on the left is Devon Aoki.

this post proves another point by the way...

OP, height is only ONE factor. one of many. You could be 5'10, that wouldn't mean anything in regards to your possibilities of being a fashion model. You could be 16, 5'10, 32-22-32 measurements, living in new york, with perfect skin, and that still would be no actual guarantee that you would ever achieve anything in fashion.

I see short girls 'complain' all the time (not you perse ) "oh if only I were taller blabla", but it wouldn't mean anything, except that they would be taller. That's it. But height alone is not enough.

Eliza C wrote:

Not with low perspective.

And that same low prospective will make the taller model look even better as well...

MelissaAnn  wrote:
Keep on arguing if you like, it won't change reality.

THANK YOU!

AJScalzitti wrote:

And that same low prospective will make the taller model look even better as well...

Exactly

Eliza C wrote:
Not with low perspective.

oh please. Half the time when they start using tricks like that, it gives it away anyway. Because if the model was actually tall with endless legs, they wouldn't need tricks like that. obvious elongating tricks just make it, well, more obvious.

If you have 2 pictures, taken against a seamless from the same perspective, with buttnaked models in them (so no clothes to give it away) , one long and one short model, there's a very likely chance there will be a very obvious difference and it will be easy to tell who's the tall one. proportions.

Anna Adrielle wrote:

oh please. Half the time when they start using tricks like that, it gives it away anyway. Because if the model was actually tall with endless legs, they wouldn't need tricks like that. obvious elongating tricks just make it, well, more obvious.

If you have 2 pictures, taken against a seamless from the same perspective, with buttnaked models in them (so no clothes to give it away) , one long and one short, there's a very likely chance there will be a very obvious difference and it will be easy to tell who's the tall one.

Virtually every photograph in a Vogue I have just grabbed has a low perspective. Below the model's eye level anyway. So it isn't a trick it's often used even with taller models. Some are obviously taller than others too. Or are they. Maybe not. maybe they are posed at different heights.

Eliza C wrote:
Virtually every photograph in a Vogue I have just grabbed has a low perspective. Below the model's eye level anyway. So it isn't a trick it's often used even with taller models. Some are obviously taller than others too. Or are they. Maybe not. maybe they are posed at different heights.

I'm not talking about subtle below eye level, and neither were you. A subtle lower perspective doesn't make the model obviously taller. I'm 6'1, and even I get shot at lower-than-eyelevel perspective all the time. but that doesn't really do all that much. It doesn't make a 5'6 model appear 5'9, that requires something more obvious.

if you really think you can't often tell height from a picture because of bodyproportions, then I'm sorry but you are kidding yourself.

Eliza C wrote:
Virtually every photograph in a Vogue I have just grabbed has a low perspective. Below the llama's eye level anyway. So it isn't a trick it's often used even with taller llamas. Some are obviously taller than others too. Or are they. Maybe not. maybe they are posed at different heights.

Somebody can't admit when they've been proven wrong.......over, and over, and over again. 

You're not swaying anyone to your side with this garbage, you're only trying to convince yourself at this point, darling. 

Eliza C wrote:
So who looks better in the Valentino dress?





EDIT: it's a trick question. The girl on the left is Devon Aoki.

The dress looks better on the girl on the right.  Devon Aoki is another exception to the rule.  She was signed at 14, when they perhaps thought she might grow more, and that was after meeting Dean Johnson. 

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

My recommendation to any llama who falls outside the agency standards is that they put all of their energy into being successful in the fields that do accept llamas of that height.  If they excel in those jobs there is an ever so small chance that they might have an opportunity to land a job in the "show" (to use a baseball reference).  Don't waste your energy fighting a battle you will likely never win.

Just my $0.02

Anna Adrielle wrote:

this post proves another point by the way...

OP, height is only ONE factor. one of many. You could be 5'10, that wouldn't mean anything in regards to your possibilities of being a fashion model. You could be 16, 5'10, 32-22-32 measurements, living in new york, with perfect skin, and that still would be no actual guarantee that you would ever achieve anything in fashion.

I see short girls 'complain' all the time (not you perse ) "oh if only I were taller blabla", but it wouldn't mean anything, except that they would be taller. That's it. But height alone is not enough.

I agree. But I am not moaning I don't get fashion work and isn't it unfair. I did and therefore I don't think it is. I just think you have to be realistic and see where you can work re fashion.
I am saying it is possible and height is not the only factor if you have strong assets or looks in other ways. If not for editorial fashion then for retro petite mature/classic outsize lingerie swimwear , target demograph or social recognition factor (brand) fitting and showroom modelling etc etc

MelissaAnn  wrote:

Somebody can't admit when they've been proven wrong.......over, and over, and over again. 

You're not swaying anyone to your side with this garbage, you're only trying to convince yourself at this point, darling. 

I don't have to do I. I worked in fashion every day. No need to prove to myself what I already know.

I have given the only rationale here of why the industry standard exists. You are free to read it or ignore it.

Several others have also mentioned the fact that even taller models look better from a low perspective.

Azimuth Arts wrote:
The dress looks better on the girl on the right.  Devon Aoki is another exception to the rule.  She was signed at 14, when they perhaps thought she might grow more, and that was after meeting Dean Johnson. 

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

My recommendation to any model who falls outside the agency standards is that they put all of their energy into being successful in the fields that do accept models of that height.  If they excel in those jobs there is an ever so small chance that they might have an opportunity to land a job in the "show" (to use a baseball reference).  Don't waste your energy fighting a battle you will likely never win.

Just my $0.02

My point is that there are plenty of openings in fashion that do not require such strict height standard. Fitting is just one of them. There are also plenty of lower level small designer and boutique jobs; swimwear and lingerie even favour slightly shorter models. True you still have to have strong assets in other areas but it isn't impossible.

I didn't exactly have to fight my way into doing a modelling job in fashion. I probably earned more than a lot of agency models who don't work all the time.

Oh and I think most would say Devon looks better in it.

Eliza C wrote:

My point is that there are plenty of openings in fashion that do not require sich strict height standard. Fitting is just one of them. There are also plenty of lower level small designer and boutique jobs; swimwear and lingerie even favour slightly shorter models. True you still have to have strong assets in other areas but it isn't impossible.

when people on here (again, not perse you OP) come and complain about "why short girls can't do fashion", they're not talking about local stuff and things outside the industry. They're talking about "why can't short girls be a VS model or be in Vogue and get signed by a top agency", that sort of stuff.

Anna Adrielle wrote:
when people on here (again, not perse you OP) come and complain about "why short girls can't do fashion", they're not talking about local stuff and things outside the industry. They're talking about "why can't short girls be a VS model or be in Vogue and get signed by a top agency", that sort of stuff.

That is why I always say look be realistic and you can do a bit and tell them how.

There is no bigger 'inside' the industry to me than having the designers own hand chalk all over you day in day out!! There is a nice satisfaction there in a fashion modelling job just not the fame.

Eliza C wrote:

That is why I always say look be realistic and you can do a bit and tell them how.

There is no bigger 'inside' the industry to me than having the designers own hand chalk all over you day in day out!!

fit modelling and showroom also often goes through an agency (I know that from working fit modellling and showroom myself, and from girls from agencies). so that's that. And sure there's are opportunities out there outside of agencies, if you look for them, or if they happen to fall into your lap ( because you happened to stumble across an ad in the newspaper, for instance).
Honestly, both fit and showroom pay good money, but it's hard work, kinda boring, and long days (especially showroom, fit is okay). Not the glitz and glam people are hoping for. Which is okay. but if I was a shortie looking for a bit of fame and glory, I'd much rather go freelance and make fabulous art nudes and travel the country and experience all these fabulous things then to work everyday as a fitmodel and have designers (lol) "hand chalk all over me day in day out".

Oscar Partida wrote:
because they make clothes look better

I believe they make the clothes look better, but not that they look better in clothes...

Curvy wastes, and nice breasts tend to be more eye catching in a lot of outfits, a lot of designers like thin models, because their bodies don't take attention from the outfits.