Shei  P wrote:
^ Yes, its really tough in NY these days.

During NYFW castings, I'm considered one of the shorter (5'9 3/4) Asian girls! Many of the new Asian girls are 5"11.

That does seem to be the way it's going... I was looking at something on the internet the other day, all the girls were Asian, all 5'10 or 5'11 and all drop dead GORGEOUS....

Cherrystone wrote:
1. It's a hair show
2.  [/cquote]

veypurr wrote:
On the flip side models like Anja Konstantinova "who is 5'4" and Giza Lagarce "5'8" have been photographed by Terry Richardson. These Models are "Internet Famous" and there photos are all over Tumblr and other websites with people fawning all over them. They may not be getting much money from this but everyone on said websites knows there name.

Jennifer Sullins, who is huge on the internet is only 5'3.

For the most part they are not doing nudes.

This is a great time for models under 5'8. Again maybe the money and contracts aren't there but the ability to get your name out there and have your photo taken by photogs with real ability is

There was already a mention of how short models might have a chance at making it, if a photographer takes a special interest in them.

However, if by most part you mean very little part, you might be more honest.
Both Anja and Jennifer do nudes.
and Giza at 5'8 is hugging the line.. it isn't really in the realm of what we're talking about here. You've more or less just proved the point..

veypurr wrote:
High Fashion Models could actually be getting even taller!

I was just on Tumblr and read a post that stated that Irina Kulikova, Karlie Kloss, and Frida Gustavsson are actually 6'1 but are listed at 5'11!

if they give up on fashion, its an outside shot but they could try out for the Nicks.  afterall...they can always dream

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

if they give up on fashion, its an outside shot but they could try out for the Nicks.  afterall...they can always dream

No we can dream.

If a bunch of them made the team, then I might watch bb.

veypurr wrote:
With Karlie Kloss and Frida Gustavsson topping out at 6'1 (in a off topic discussion right here on Model Mayhem they have her at 6'2!) 5'8 may no longer be hugging the line in the future.

I do not disagree shorter models are few and far between and will not be taking over the world of high fashion anytime soon.

That being said I was very bored last night as well as this morning so while watching "Cowboys and Aliens" on HBO (it's not a very good movie) I decided to compile a list of shorter models and major campaigns they have scored. Once again not disagreeing with the fact that it is extremely hard for a shorter model to make it, this list was simply for fun.

Devon Aoki-5’5- Chanel

Laetitia Casta-5’7-Chanel, H&M

Charlotte Free-5’7-Maybelline

Georgia May Jagger-5’7-Rimmel, Hudson Jeans, Material Girl

Anja Konstantinova-5’4-Wildfox, Evil Twin

Audrey Marnay-5’7-YSL, Longchamp

Kate Moss-5’7-Versace, Dior

Barbara Palvin-5’7- Chanel, Armani, L'Oreal, and Calvin Klein (she is ranked 23 on “the money girls” list)

Twiggy-5’6- 12 Vouge covers and the cover of Newsweek

Amber Valletta-5’7-Prada, Versace, Emilio Pucci

And all VERY special ladies.

Still proves the point.
You have to be much better then the rest if you are not tall.
And several of them had a powerful mentor who was able to say "I/we will use her".

K I C K H A M wrote:
If people can't take the information I give, which is truthful information, and use their own brains to make out what's realistic and what's not, I can't help them. I come here and post to help the people I CAN help.

The girls who only aim to hear what they want to hear won't be helped by realistic optimism, realistic pessimism, or unrealistic posts on either side. They'll take what they like and avoid the rest.

That my dear, is unfortunately, human nature.
It happens everywhere.

With Karlie Kloss and Frida Gustavsson topping out at 6'1 (in a off topic discussion right here on Model Mayhem they have her at 6'2!) 5'8 may no longer be hugging the line in the future.

We're talking right now, and what flew 20 or 30 years ago probably won't fly now.


Devon Aoki - also an actress, mentored by kate moss, started in 1995, nearly 20 years ago.

Laetitia Casta - actress and discovered by a photographer that took an interest in her

Charlotte Free - interest taken by someone who appears to be a well known photographer

Georgia May Jagger - daughter of mick jagger

Anja Konstantinova - already covered above

Audrey Marnay - actress, she's also listed as 5'8, and started in early/mid 90s.

Kate Moss - she's Kate moss, started in 1988, discovered by a head of a model company

Barbara Palvin - to start with she's listed as 5'9, not 5'7, the second you've tried to fudge towards being shorter than they are

Twiggy started in 1965, completely different world

Amber Valletta - actress as well, 5'9, not 5'7 as you listed, that's the third one. About the closest thing to someone who got their on their own though as her mother put her in modelling school.


What can we take away from this? 20 years ago, if you were a 13-16 year old who happened to be spotted by a famous photographer and had just the right look, you might have gotten away with being slightly shorter. They were almost all mid-teens who were spotted and had an interest taken in them by someone famous or were related to someone famous. The only one who really wasn't was 5'9 and not remotely within the realm of what we're talking about here in terms of "short" models.

None of them were 20ish girls trying to make it on their own.

MC Seoul Photography wrote:

We're talking right now, and what flew 20 or 30 years ago probably won't fly now.


Devon Aoki - also an actress, mentored by kate moss, started in 1995, nearly 20 years ago.

Laetitia Casta - actress and discovered by a photographer that took an interest in her

Charlotte Free - interest taken by someone who appears to be a well known photographer

Georgia May Jagger - daughter of mick jagger

Anja Konstantinova - already covered above

Audrey Marnay - actress, she's also listed as 5'8, and started in early/mid 90s.

Kate Moss - she's Kate moss, started in 1988, discovered by a head of a model company

Barbara Palvin - to start with she's listed as 5'9, not 5'7, the second you've tried to fudge towards being shorter than they are

Twiggy started in 1965, completely different world

Amber Valletta - actress as well, 5'9, not 5'7 as you listed, that's the third one. About the closest thing to someone who got their on their own though as her mother put her in modelling school.


What can we take away from this? 20 years ago, if you were a 13-16 year old who happened to be spotted by a famous photographer and had just the right look, you might have gotten away with being slightly shorter. They were almost all mid-teens who were spotted and had an interest taken in them by someone famous or were related to someone famous. The only one who really wasn't was 5'9 and not remotely within the realm of what we're talking about here in terms of "short" models.

None of them were 20ish girls trying to make it on their own.

What a girl is listed as and her real height can be two very different things.

Not disagreeing with your overall point, but 5'9 listing doesn't mean a girl isn't 5'7.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:

If I didn't already toss out the casting, I would have posted one from last month.  It as an ad campaign from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority... you may not have heard of it, after all it seems as though nowbody ever has seen their "What Happens Here Stays Here" advertising campaign that they came up with a few years ago.

In any case, the same agent recruited for their latest ads.  A few not so tall models that I know were booked (I don't know their exact height, but I'm only 5'6" and I have to bend down when getting a hug from 'em).  I think the pay was about a grand a day (print and broadcast spots).

Of course, listening to MM photographers saying "those are low rates" and "that's only a little more than a MM photographer would pay a model" is a great way to rationalize belief in the myths.

... and btw, the parking is free.

i think i'm in love.

K I C K H A M wrote:

Let me put some emphasis on the fact that they are agency models, and that I don't know half of the agency models in LA.

It's not common, that's not what I'm saying-- my point is that it's not only the "one-in-a-million" it's made out to be.

oh my god, i'm in love with you too.

Mari Wahl wrote:
Uhm.. I am 5'2 1/2 and represent two very well known agencies..

If you don't mind me asking who are these two well known agencies and are they getting you paid work as a fashion model?

Mari Wahl wrote:
Uhm.. I am 5'2 1/2 and represent two very well known agencies..
not a myth. It's not all about being tall in this industry.. There are plenty of Modeling+Talent  agencies that will take on clients that are shorter for even high editorial. please read this… Modeling is not all runway.. There are MANY different divisions.. It's not "america's next top model".. I see your a VIP to this MM site.. but that doesn't mean you get to choose who can make it in this business and who cant.. I've been acting and modeling since I was 11 from LA. Please learn more before making comments like this.. It's really just a low blow.. Plus that casting is a complete cattle call….  (to the person who said telling a 5'2 model she can be in the industry is blowing like smoke..)
please indulge..

https://www.modelmayhem.com/education/m … en-calaway

I have no ideal what you do but real world clients booking models for clothing have only one sample size.   Even if they wanted to use petite models the clothes won't fit.   Another problem is proportion.   It doesn't work having a 5'5" model with a 6'0" male model or a tall female model.   In general tall people are seen as commanding and stand out.   No pun intended.   Acting isn't the same as modelling for print or commercial.   Hallie Berry tried her hand at modelling and wasn't successful but was successful as a actor.   Later she did print.   Her first real print job was for a small magazine called 'Being Single'   Hallie was and is stunning but she couldn’t do catalogue and that's the bread and butter work for models.

The majority of paid work isn't high fashion which is a very small niche.   Its catalogue, lifestyle and commercial.   Agencies like Elite and FORD and WOMEN tend to use their fashion models sometimes for commercial print.   Are their working petite models, sure.   Are their a lot, not too my knowledge.   Lets not confuse a few big names who have made it with the average model.  Most even who are standard size and under 25 don't get a lot of work.   Some agencies may fudge height a bit for their models but its never down its always up.   A 5'6" model is 5'7" or taller for example.   This isn't to say what you or any smaller model can do.   If you are a working model signed with a real agency its curious why you're here.   Most agencies don't want their models on sites like MM.   Still you have nothing to prove.   However as a general rule; height, weight, age, sizes and proportion all matter for models.

Mari Wahl wrote:
Uhm.. I am 5'2 1/2 and represent two very well known agencies..
not a myth. It's not all about being tall in this industry.. There are plenty of Modeling+Talent  agencies that will take on clients that are shorter for even high editorial. please read this… Modeling is not all runway.. There are MANY different divisions.. It's not "america's next top model".. I see your a VIP to this MM site.. but that doesn't mean you get to choose who can make it in this business and who cant.. I've been acting and modeling since I was 11 from LA. Please learn more before making comments like this.. It's really just a low blow.. Plus that casting is a complete cattle call….  (to the person who said telling a 5'2 model she can be in the industry is blowing like smoke..)
please indulge..

https://www.modelmayhem.com/education/m … en-calaway

Hold on.

You live in Hawaii and are represented by a tiny boutique agency in L.A.
Idiom Talent has 298 likes on Facebook. I have more than that.

And if you agencies don't get you work, there's zero reason and legitimacy to being "signed".

So please don't brag about being 5'2 1/2" and being signed to two agencies unless you're going to qualify it with campaigns or acting work you've gotten specifically through those agencies.

Frankly, I could be signed by AbFab models here in town if I wanted. But I'm not a model and I'm not interested. There's hundreds of "modeling" and "talent" agencies around the country and most of them even have legit business licenses. A business license and fictitious name really doesn't cost that much.

How much have you paid out of pocket total since you've been signed by these agencies? Please be honest.

MC Seoul Photography wrote:
so I guess we're all going to dance around the elephant in the room?

What elephant? Seriously I feel like I am missing something, is it the gatekeeper status?

Herman Surkis wrote:
Nobody here with any real experience or common sense said that there is "zero" chance.

What are the odds of winning the Super Ball Lottery? But it does happen. But if you are going to plan your life on winning the lottery, not such a good thing.

The best advice here has been to tell someone, that it is highly unlikely to happen, but anything is possible. But as soon as you put stars in someones eyes, then the scam artists rush in.

And the odds are really against the pimply, 5'2", size 18 girl.

The guys who want to sell them portfolios are not exactly scammers, unless they fail to deliver the images, but they are taking advantage of clueless individuals, which often include the parents who are forking out on behalf of their daughters.
Sites are also not scammers, but they take advantage of the same cluelessness. They present the sites as inhabited by professionals who can take models on to fame and fortune, whereas the reality is closer to enabling them to earn a few quid doing the rounds of  amateur photographers who will pay to photograph them naked. One site where I was a member for some time showcases the good stuff on the front page. It's only when you sign up that you see the stuff that doesn't get selected, and that can have you reaching for the eye bleach. Every site I've been on has stuff from both ends of the spectrum. The producers of the really good stuff do not, generally speaking (although there are real exceptions), pay models, and even the models they will work with tf tend to outclass 90 percent of the models who are members. Some of those 90 percent wise up and move on, but too many cling to a fantasy. They  cling with a tenacity that is almost admirable, and will often be angrily defensive if it is ever suggested that someone with their look is wasting her (or his) time. Why? They are on the site, aren't they? Someone told them they should model and when they arrive they are welcomed by nice photographers who tell them they are gorgeous and will do well. They can't see straight, otherwise one look in the mirror would have told them to forget it, so they lap it up. Then they get frustrated when no one will not only not pay to photograph them in a summer frock, but will not even shoot them in it 'for free'. So they moan a bit on the forums, and are told they need to do at least topless to get any paid work. That's when they should stick two fingers up and walk, but often they don't. After all, they are surrounded by cool folk who are bohemian enough not to be bothered by a bit of nudity. So they jump that ditch and suddenly get interest. They don't know it's from the fresh meat brigade, so for a while they are doing fine. Then it turns sour on them and they start to post about perverts and creeps. If you suggest that it's not unreasonable to expect some unwanted attention from a few individuals out of a bunch of middle aged guys who are paying to shoot young women nude, they will scream the fucking house down and start banging on abut professionalism in 'this industry'. It will never occur to them that they are just another in a long line of pretty but hopelessly naive young women who fell for a bit of the old chat.
And there's nothing you can do to stop it. It will still be happening, in one form or another, in a thousand, or ten thousand years time.

Tim Griffiths wrote:

The guys who want to sell them portfolios are not exactly scammers, unless they fail to deliver the images, but they are taking advantage of clueless individuals, which often include the parents who are forking out on behalf of their daughters.
Sites are also not scammers, but they take advantage of the same cluelessness. They present the sites as inhabited by professionals who can take models on to fame and fortune, whereas the reality is closer to enabling them to earn a few quid doing the rounds of  amateur photographers who will pay to photograph them naked. One site where I was a member for some time showcases the good stuff on the front page. It's only when you sign up that you see the stuff that doesn't get selected, and that can have you reaching for the eye bleach. Every site I've been on has stuff from both ends of the spectrum. The producers of the really good stuff do not, generally speaking (although there are real exceptions), pay models, and even the models they will work with tf tend to outclass 90 percent of the models who are members. Some of those 90 percent wise up and move on, but too many cling to a fantasy. They  cling with a tenacity that is almost admirable, and will often be angrily defensive if it is ever suggested that someone with their look is wasting her (or his) time. Why? They are on the site, aren't they? Someone told them they should model and when they arrive they are welcomed by nice photographers who tell them they are gorgeous and will do well. They can't see straight, otherwise one look in the mirror would have told them to forget it, so they lap it up. Then they get frustrated when no one will not only not pay to photograph them in a summer frock, but will not even shoot them in it 'for free'. So they moan a bit on the forums, and are told they need to do at least topless to get any paid work. That's when they should stick two fingers up and walk, but often they don't. After all, they are surrounded by cool folk who are bohemian enough not to be bothered by a bit of nudity. So they jump that ditch and suddenly get interest. They don't know it's from the fresh meat brigade, so for a while they are doing fine. Then it turns sour on them and they start to post about perverts and creeps. If you suggest that it's not unreasonable to expect some unwanted attention from a few individuals out of a bunch of middle aged guys who are paying to shoot young women nude, they will scream the fucking house down and start banging on abut professionalism in 'this industry'. It will never occur to them that they are just another in a long line of pretty but hopelessly naive young women who fell for a bit of the old chat.
And there's nothing you can do to stop it. It will still be happening, in one form or another, in a thousand, or ten thousand years time.

Wow! Even more cynical than me. How did you do that?

Well said.

However you do know that the knives and pitchforks are being sharpened as we speak?

Kelleth wrote:
b) the fact that you're gonna end up with hair that will limit or completely squash any chances of further bookings until it grows out/can be returned to a normal hair color.

This is an extremely important point!!!

Joanna Bajena wrote:
I'm 5'6" and luckily I managed to get some really good work.

But that's because my look is really really different, and the chance of finding another me is very small.

But I do agree, it is very hard and frustrating.

You revived a thread that's been dead a year for this? Ok ... I'll play!

Certainly it's a no brainer that taller models (let's say for women 5' 8"+ and men 6'+) get signed. Without taking anything else in consideration, that is a general consensus for agencies that book high fashion.   HOWEVER the aspect of modeling is so much broader that that, and so are the agencies that might book those exceptions to modeling fashion.  I have nothing against tall models, and I've shot plenty of them!  Another "however" is that I don't focus my work on fashion, I do a lot more pin up, beach bikini, lingerie, glamour and nudes than I do fashion.  Therefore, the vast majority of models I shoot with are 5' 7" or shorter. 

I never use agencies, but recently a model I was scheduled to work "TFP" with pulled a late cancel (well 72 hours isn't bad, but the reason?) because after coming in 2nd in a fitness competition the weekend before, she was signed by an agency that handles fitness/health type models.  She is average height ... below the fashion agency standard. She is older than 18, and she has tattoos ... but that does not stop her from modeling OR getting signed by an agency that specializes in her genre of modeling.  Although I'm a bit disappointed in not being able to shoot with her TFP anymore, I certainly understand the reasoning behind that decision. 

It's a FACT that there are many options available to those wanting to attempt modeling.  Some find success, most don't.  The Internet has opened up more opportunities to make an income through photography and modeling.  Getting signed with an agency no longer is as important as it once was.

udor wrote:
This is an extremely important point!!!

Kelleth wrote:
b) the fact that you're gonna end up with hair that will limit or completely squash any chances of further bookings until it grows out/can be returned to a normal hair color.

Yes, my friend, it sure is!  Back in the 1990's I shot hair shows and the California Cosmetology Convention.  Having worked with models from those events, I know too well the sacrifice of their hair that the models make.  It does not ruin them for some other modeling gigs, but it does limit them for a time.  Most hair models don't regret it because it is an opportunity to get their foot in the door of the lucrative cosmetics industry.  There are all sorts of models, and hair is just one aspect.

Herman Surkis wrote:

Wow! Even more cynical than me. How did you do that?

Well said.

However you do know that the knives and pitchforks are being sharpened as we speak?

I realised a while back that nothing I say has any influence at all. I could offer concrete proof that Satan and all his cohorts were actively recruiting 'togs' in order to ruin the souls of innocents, and there would be a moment's pause before the question "yes, but do I have what it takes?' was voiced.
Theres a photography group on Facebook which is a whole  load of amateurs  posting pictures they have taken of just about anything you can think of. The reason it's so great is that it's uncontaminated by ambition or competition. You contribute what you can and everyone just accepts it for what it is. Nobody is struggling for recognition or to climb some mythical ladder so they can reach the top of a pecking order. What you have, then, is the pure enjoyment of taking photographs.
If these sites promoted the pure enjoyment of an activity such as modelling, or model photography, without it being tarted up as some kind of Fame academy where being Someone was everything, then you might have something honest and less injurious, or at least potentially injurious, to the more vulnerable members.
Ever watched a photographer gushing praise all over a model on the forums? Ever seen a middle aged man humbling himself and talked about 'someone of your stature' when referring to a 19 year old nude model? It makes me want to puke my guts up.

Tim Griffiths wrote:

snip

I realised a while back that nothing I say has any influence at all.

snip.

What you have, then, is the pure enjoyment of taking photographs.

What is this thing you speak of?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=928201