Rue99 Photography wrote:

Everything adds up, stats, port, fashion, activity, face. Don't be misled by the short analysis - some things are so obvious they aren't worth thinking about - I'd be drooling at the opportunity to work with you.

Rating: Excellent

Thank you! I think our shoot would be really amazing!

Rue99 Photography wrote:

You have the figure, you have the stats, and you're clearly interested in a quality port. You obviously won't be doing modeling full time, but you're very active in the forums too. Normally that would be just perfect for me, but there's something missing, but I can't pinpoint it at the moment. Maybe it's a lack of intensity or edge in the expressions... or maybe it's just my mood today.

Rating: Puzzled

I'll try to work on my expressions more.

Rue99 Photography wrote:

I shoot artistic, so the story I get from reading your profile and looking at the avi is that there's probably not a good match. But then I open the port, and I see another story someone's got a double life - the commercial model by day, the artistic model by night. At first glance the port is not that cohesive, but many of the images are strong when taking individually. I'd be excited. 

Rating: Very good.

Thank you! Yes - my port is my weird blend of commercial modeling (which pays the bills) and artistic stuff that I do for the love of it :-) I wish we could work together sometime!!

Kennedy Deshawn wrote:
groovy

Avatar is different but doesn't hightlight features I'm interested in. But the 24" waist at 5'10 is impressive, plus the fact that you want to do runway/editorial. Looking at the port, there's a lot of black/white studio backdrop work and nothing jumps out at me.

I'd be trying to decide whether my work would be helpful in a runway model's port. But not many models around here (San Fran Bay Area) have your height, look, and build, so I'd give it a shot. 

Rating: Very good, for what mother nature has given you.

Rue99 Photography wrote:

Artistic type - check
Work would get exposure - check
Height - check
Stats - check (for someone who's 5'10)
Work is compatible with your port - check
Interesting face - check

Pursuing modeling seriously - doesn't seem like it but with everything else going, this is an easy one.

Rating: Very good

Thank you!  I wish I was going to be in San Francisco longer, your work is beautiful!

Tara Bryan wrote:
Yes please

I'll assume you contacted me, so I'd normally ignore the part about not doing various styles on a tfp basis. But when someone is so firm and specific about what they'll do without being pay, it's hard to imagine the port will improve quickly because most the best photogs will not pay you - they have plenty of models who will shoot lingerie or implied to improve their ports, especially in Florida.

Besides all that, your avi and looks don't strike me as a art model, the style I shoot, and your stated goal is a fitness model.

Rating: Incompatible

Tia Lynn wrote:
Ummm I'm up for this could be fun.

I always check myspace to see if I can get an idea of who the model is and where she's at right now. The unedited photos are often there so I have a better what-you-see-is-what-you-get. I see someone from myspace who's having fun, and has a variety of looks and expressions, all without even looking at the mm port.

Although individual photos on mm are good, some are not, there are too many duplicate looks, and the collection is not cohesive. Dups are a pet peeve because if the model can't make up her mind which is the better photo, maybe she doesn't have enough sense of style to appreciate my work. 

But height, weight, and stats are great. Age doesn't look like an issue from what I can see.

Rating: Very good.

Windy Eubanks wrote:
i'd love a critique... message me

The port has blurry photos, and profile has no measurements, although the height-weight combination should be alright. Cheek creases are very prominent in photos, but it could be partially due to lighting. The profile description is not terribly exciting, and as a new model, there are lots of unknowns for the types of shoots I do.

Rating: Not ready

Val A wrote:
me please?

Stats, weight, and height are good. Paid assignments only though... hmm. Avi is good, it shows what you look like, with nice facial featuers. And the profile says selective tfcd, and presumably that's why we'd work together if we did so things are looking up. 

Looking at the port, I see a pic or two where the waist looks like it bulges a bit. Is it the clothing, did the photog shoot a bad angle, or will it be a problem with my implied nudes? Classic case of why you're judged by the worst feature in your pic if it matters to the photog.   

I like your face a lot, and model activity is high, both pluses. And I think the waist is not a problem for me to work with.

Rating: Very good

Alex N wrote:
As long as outright insults aren't involved I'm game.

Well, your case is clearly different than most. I suppose it comes down to what you stated in your message to me regarding why you'd want the shoot, my feeling of what kind of person you were, and whether your health would allow something useful to come out of it. My shoots are physically challenging for models in the best of shape due to the poses, wind, and expressions. So a lot would need to be covered before I made a decision.

Rating: Courageous

Rue99 Photography wrote:
Thought I'd try critiquing a few models before turning in for the day. I'd like something different than the usual critiques, so...

I'll let you know what would come to mind if I were considering a shoot with you, by viewing your port and profile. Looks count, but looks are not everything. There will be a lot of reading between the lines because that's all I have to go by.

I will be blunt, so the squeamish need not apply!

I'd love that!

Lenora Dark wrote:
Go ahead, if you're still offering critiques

Stats are great, but pics in the profile and avi are not as edgy or punchy as I'd expect given the description in the profile. The port has lots of dups and looks like it's shot mostly by a small number of photogs. The photoshop work has flaws visible even in thumbnails on a couple of photos. Some photos look good, but this is a very mixed bag, especially for a model who's been working for so many years.

Rating: Borderline

Kandis Laree wrote:
I would love to be critiqued

First impression is that you're short but weight for height maybe alright depending on how it's distributed. Since I don't know, I try looking for a full body shot in the port but don't see a front facing, standing, full body shot. You've obviously just started, but show enthusiasm and are apparently open minded. I'd ask for your measurements. 

Rating: Promising

JessieDee wrote:
Please.

Straightforward profile description, good stats, can't tell if the face has a modely look or not. Most pics it doesn't, but some show interesting features. But you've been on MM for more than half a year though, so I'd have expected better photogs by now. I'd wait until you had more pics under your belt to see if you were going to keep up the quest for print.

Rating: Not ready

Rhian Alise wrote:
I am in. Be sweet!! I never participate in these critiques so Im weary!!

Profile is short and to the point, you obviously lean towards glam, so I checked myspace too which looks fine - nothing unusual there. You're in FHM though - you mean business, a big plus.

The port is glam of course, but it's good glam. But what would you be after? I see playful glam shots, but my work is edgier and moodier than what you have. Kind of a dilemma. but for art nude work I'll give it a...

Rating: Very good

Rue99 Photography wrote:

First impression is that you're short but weight for height maybe alright depending on how it's distributed. Since I don't know, I try looking for a full body shot in the port but don't see a front facing, standing, full body shot. You've obviously just started, but show enthusiasm and are apparently open minded. I'd ask for your measurements. 

Rating: Promising

My weight fluctuates from 98 - 102. I need to get my measurements soon, haven't had a tape measure. I will have more shots up soon waiting on my cd. Yes I have just started, hopefully there will be something in there that will help. Thank you very much!

Alex Davenport wrote:

I'm interested- let's hear it!

First impression on the profile is not good because of the first "2008" pic - waist looks about the same as hips, but the stats tell a different story. Looking at the port, the stats tell the truth and the pic lies - individual pics show a great figure, very nice face, and hair that can look good. The only thing is that very few photos show all 3, and lighting could be better on quite a few photos.

Despite that, I'd be really excited because I'd have a chance to impact your port, and you have enough activity that I'd feel comfortable knowing the work would be used.

Rating: Excellent potential, not fully exploited by current port.

mariam03 wrote:
Hi!  I'm squeamish, but let me have it!  Please keep in mind the 1st-3rd pics are unretouched from a shoot today...

The profile looks great with your background, and the port looks solid too. Unless a MUA has a comprehensive port with a huge variety of looks, I find that evaluating their work is best done by either working with them or by reputation with people that have. That's because so much is unknown - what did the model look like before, what did the photographer ask you to do, how much did you decide to do yourself, how much work was done in retouch, etc.

Also, the very best makeup work is best seen at print res unedited, not these tiny web res photos.

The times I could tell a MUA was outstanding simply from their port was when the work was superlative from an artistic perspective - patterns and materials used on the face and body, unique and outlandish hair styles, etc.

Rating: Very good - based on background, work history, and port.