DeBoer Photography wrote:
There are agencies out there that specialize in petite...

Name them.

Quite a long post to confirm how people run on with little perspective (pun intended) of the industry as a whole.

Nothing in your post referred to the largest segment of modeling that contributes to the claim of being a "successful" model.  The fashion aspect you emphasize is not it.  Fashion just happens to be what most equate to making it to the top. 

For example, for every "fashion oriented" magazine there are ten that aren't and all of them are using models.  There are thousands of companies required to create annual reports.  View some and see how many models are used.  You'll find many.  There are "industry select" magazines for everything under the sun.  They are filled with models.

The truth is this. For each of the examples above, models are chosen based on being qualified to pay the bills.  There is little room (again, pun intended) for those that give presentation on anything less than what is expected from the height dynamic.  The hiring parties will take a pass on working with those with less than stellar credibility, thus the stringent requirement.  The 'net has no such requirement, but it also has no limitation on entry and so it isn't needed. 

It is unfair to give the impression and false hope that "you too can be a successful model" to those not remotely considered at the successful model fraternity.  The statements should come with a very tall caveat, that the possibilities extend to getting the most out of what is merely a going through the motions activity.  And maybe, by some very limited distinct chance...

Many can play basketball.  Very few can make it to even the semi-pro level.  Mainly due to size, but there are rare exceptions for those shorter in stature.  It is a tall game.  So is modeling.  Your statements were merely speaking to those rare exceptions to those on the Internet playing the modeling version of the ultimate pick-up game with a remote chance of being accepted beyond due to size limitation.

That's the way it is.  No amount of cheerleading is gonna change that.

area291 wrote:
Name them.

Hi Area291,

Thank-you for offering your perspectives, but I beg to differ.  Once again, you seem to associate modeling success with fitting the standards for a mainstream agency representation.

As far as finding reputable petite agencies, or any of the others, a simple search via google for "petite modeling agency" produced this:

http://www.perfectlypetite.com/perfectl … /home.html

and there are more...

Being "short" certainly limits a model's abilities to appear in "mainstream" fashion/catalog/runway work, but it certainly doesn't limit them from success.

Does that mean ALL short models can be successful?  Certainly not.

Are all TALL models successful?  Certainly not.

I am sure this figure is outdated, but from what I "learned" via a show on TV a few years back about "real modeling," the average model (and we're talking models who appear in print, on tv and whatnot) earns between $2,000 - $5,000 a year from modeling.

This is why so many models work in other fields when they aren't modeling.  Would those people be considered successes?

area291 wrote:
No amount of cheerleading is gonna change that.

No one is cheerleading the "models" on here (at least in my posting).  If anything, I am making them aware that to pursue "fashion" and mainstream commercial work is a waste of time if they do not meet the minimum of even having a chance to enter that field of modeling.

If anything, I have pointed out that models should realize their "niche" and try to capitalize on it.

And yes...for some of them, their niche IS "Internet Modeling" and some "Internet" Models earn well over the $2,000 - $5,000 figure posted above.  Would THEY be considered a success?

Regards,

Denoy

area291 wrote:
Name them.

Quite a long post to confirm how people run on with little perspective (pun intended) of the industry as a whole.

Nothing in your post referred to the largest segment of modeling that contributes to the claim of being a "successful" model.  The fashion aspect you emphasize is not it.  Fashion just happens to be what most equate to making it to the top. 

For example, for every "fashion oriented" magazine there are ten that aren't and all of them are using models.  There are thousands of companies required to create annual reports.  View some and see how many models are used.  You'll find many.  There are "industry select" magazines for everything under the sun.  They are filled with models.

The truth is this. For each of the examples above, models are chosen based on being qualified to pay the bills.  There is little room (again, pun intended) for those that give presentation on anything less than what is expected from the height dynamic.  The hiring parties will take a pass on working with those with less than stellar credibility, thus the stringent requirement.  The 'net has no such requirement, but it also has no limitation on entry and so it isn't needed. 

It is unfair to give the impression and false hope that "you too can be a successful model" to those not remotely considered at the successful model fraternity.  The statements should come with a very tall caveat, that the possibilities extend to getting the most out of what is merely a going through the motions activity.  And maybe, by some very limited distinct chance...

Many can play basketball.  Very few can make it to even the semi-pro level.  Mainly due to size, but there are rare exceptions for those shorter in stature.  It is a tall game.  So is modeling.  Your statements were merely speaking to those rare exceptions to those on the Internet playing the modeling version of the ultimate pick-up game with a remote chance of being accepted beyond due to size limitation.

That's the way it is.  No amount of cheerleading is gonna change that.

While I don't completely agree with everything Denoy says here, he is much more right than wrong.




She's been working in NY, successfully (by most standards) for years. 5'4"




The tear sheets on her comp speak volumes. 5'2"




More tear sheets. 5'5"



And here is a whole division of petites, although Flaunt uses 5'2 to 5'8" as petite;

http://www.flauntmodels.com/petitemodels.htm


There are lots of other examples, but this should be enough to satisfy. Check the NY and L.A. and Miami and Atlanta and Chicago agencies for yourself if you still doubt. These are from two of the most respected commercial print agencies in NYC. All the commercial and some of the fashion agencies have girls under 5'9".

This is not to say that shorter is better. It's not. It's much more difficult for shorter girls to get repped. There are more of them, so the standard for looks, talent, and attitude is higher. There has to be some really compelling reason for an agency to take a girl under 5'6" while a 5'7" girl will have it easier finding representation.

Hoot wrote:
While I don't completely agree with everything Denoy says here, he is much more right than wrong.




She's been working in NY, successfully (by most standards) for years. 5'4"




The tear sheets on her comp speak volumes. 5'2"




More tear sheets. 5'5"



And here is a whole division of petites, although Flaunt uses 5'2 to 5'8" as petite;

http://www.flauntmodels.com/petitemodels.htm


There are lots of other examples, but this should be enough to satisfy. Check the NY and L.A. and Miami and Atlanta and Chicago agencies for yourself if you still doubt. These are from two of the most respected commercial print agencies in NYC. All the commercial and some of the fashion agencies have girls under 5'9".

This is not to say that shorter is better. It's not. It's much more difficult for shorter girls to get repped. There are more of them, so the standard for looks, talent, and attitude is higher. There has to be some really compelling reason for an agency to take a girl under 5'6" while a 5'7" girl will have it easier finding representation.

does a little happy dance

♥

Angel Tara wrote:

does a little happy dance

♥

I saw that Jaime girl at the Sunglass Hut casting I went to today!  LOL   Or someone just like her!  Who knows there were 300 ppl at the casting and I was #225!

Diana Moffitt wrote:

I saw that Jaime girl at the Sunglass Hut casting I went to today!  LOL   Or someone just like her!  Who knows there were 300 ppl at the casting and I was #225!

were you like towering over her? I'm really just kidding

Angel Tara wrote:

were you like towering over her? I'm really just kidding

Did you have to pick her up to say hi? 

-Dave

Dave Krueger wrote:

Did you have to pick her up to say hi? 

I hear Diana kneeled in front of her and still saw only her forehead...

afterdarc studios wrote:
don't shoot upwards or else they look like midgets.

I disagree.

Nemi wrote:

I disagree.

Oohhh, I like that!