Photographer
Chili
Posts: 5146
Brooklyn, New York, US
i only date models that are tall, cuz im tall, oh wait you meant to photograph? LOL
i only photograph tall models, unless the client has something specific in mind, like wicked temptations, their bikini's/clothing are made for average height girls
Model
Stevi
Posts: 69
Washington, District of Columbia, US
David Anthony wrote:
Stevi and Stacy.... what you shorter models must remember. You are wearing store-bought clothing. Regardless of the store...it is store bought. Those come in various sizes NOT designer samples from (Prada, Gucci Design Houses). And yes, we CAN tell pretty darn close how tall a model is in her photos. Stacy does agree with you...
What I was writing had nothing to do with clothing. I was talking about how a model is proportioned. Sorry but I would bet way more than half of the human population could not tell how tall a model is if she is proportioned well, there is nothing in the photo to compare her to, and the angle is right.
and that was all I have to say. bye guys 0 ;P
Model
BeccaNDSouth
Posts: 1670
Olympia, Washington, US
Yeah...what Hamza said! Honestly, I'm short, I'm big, and I still pursue modeling. However, I want to be the model selling the products, and not the clothing. My goal is to be a commercial model/actress, and have found that photographers specializing in commercial print are more likely to have no problems working with shorter models, as not all commercial models stand at 5'9" or higher. Then again, there are also a few fashion photographers who don't mind working with shorter models either, as long as they are proportionate (like Hamza said), and they can make the shot "count" so to say. Then again, I could be wrong...
Photographer
udor
Posts: 25255
New York, New York, US
I work with any body type, height and gender... I don't care...
But if it comes to runway... that's a totally different story.
Photographer
Dave Krueger
Posts: 2851
Huntsville, Alabama, US
...Stacy wrote:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_id=43d52214e9297
see how my dress drags on the ground. it's cause I'm short. could never be a fashion model. luckily I'm not trying to be. But you can definately tell I'm tiny! I could fix that with a pair of scissors...
Wow! Sometimes I'm just astounded by my own resourcefulness.
-Dave
EDIT: Now that I see several people have pointed out this very fact already, I don't feel so damn astounded anymore...
Model
StacyJack
Posts: 2297
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
UdoR wrote:
I work with any body type, height and gender... I don't care...
But if it comes to runway... that's a totally different story. there... that.... thats what i was saying!!!
Makeup Artist
Camera Ready Studios
Posts: 7191
Dallas, Texas, US
Stevi wrote:
Yes the dress is long on you, but I am not talking about clothes.. if the dress was tailored to you right, and you were against a plain background w/nothing to compare height to, I am pretty sure the average person could not say you are this or that height, there is angles and everything involved... if you take photo in a weird angle of paris hilton she may look 5'0 so lets get the designers to tailor the samples to fit someone shorter, then lets remove all props and other models from the shot so we can't see how short she is...then lets just shoot one angle, again, so she looks taller, maybe we can give her tall hair?..or better yet...lets just hire a tall model
Photographer
D. Brian Nelson
Posts: 5477
Rapid City, South Dakota, US
Nerlande wrote:
Playboy is porn.
Hamza wrote:
Is NOT! Hustler, Penthouse, Swank, Bigguns, etc.. on the other hand is Porn.
Avedon has shot for Playboy, are you telling me he is a Porn Photographer???
I write:
Avadon and Newton and many others including fashion photographers shot for Playboy. When they did, they became pornographers. It's commercial photography intended to take money and be used to get off. All those others are merely later, lower quality versions.
What's the big deal?
Maybe we should try to see if we can all come to a consensus on the definition of "porn?"
But back on topic, I can't care less about height of models since I quit shooting fashion. When I did, I had to keep it in mind, as that's a prime requirement for fashion models and anything else lacks credibility.
-Don
Model
The_N_Word
Posts: 5067
New York, New York, US
Hamza wrote:
Is NOT! Hustler, Penthouse, Swank, Bigguns, etc.. on the other hand is Porn.
Avedon has shot for Playboy, are you telling me he is a Porn Photographer??? Playboy is a pornographic magazine. Wanna call it softcore now? Just because it's the most widely known or because Avedon has shot for it, that does not change the definition. Playboy has distanced itself from the hardcore meaning...household names have been in it, shot for it....
...but it is what it is
Just because no woman is getting ass blasted or covered in love mayonnaise in Playboy doesn't mean it's not...PORN
Model
Violet21
Posts: 5
Detroit, Michigan, US
I hope to become a great "fetish" or pin-up model. Height doesn't seem to matter for that. 
Photographer
udor
Posts: 25255
New York, New York, US
Nerlande wrote:
Just because no woman is getting ass blasted or covered in love mayonnaise in Playboy doesn't mean it's not...PORN Nerlande... Nerlande... although I know you are old enough and "around the block"... I am remaining very professional... and refusing to say anything innappropriate...
You are such a flowery pottymouth... I love it... LMAO
Photographer
Chili
Posts: 5146
Brooklyn, New York, US
well then i guess that makes all those well know celebrities who have appeared in playboy 'pornographers' too?
not for nothing, but i consider being naked with fur in a photograph to be obscenely offensive
Model
The_N_Word
Posts: 5067
New York, New York, US
UdoR wrote:
Nerlande... Nerlande... although I know you are old enough and "around the block"... I am remaining very professional... and refusing to say anything innappropriate...
You are such a flowery pottymouth... I love it... LMAO Sorry...::shrug::
Indeed you love it....
back to the thread
being tall matters...blah blah
Model
The_N_Word
Posts: 5067
New York, New York, US
Chili wrote:
well then i guess that makes all those well know celebrities who have appeared in playboy 'pornographers' too?
not for nothing, but i consider being naked with fur in a photograph to be obscenely offensive Is your mother a rabbit?
Photographer
Dave Krueger
Posts: 2851
Huntsville, Alabama, US
Chili wrote:
not for nothing, but i consider being naked with fur in a photograph to be obscenely offensive You don't see that many women with fur anymore. They shave it off.
Model
StacyJack
Posts: 2297
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
Nerlande wrote:
Is your mother a rabbit? mine was... it's why I'm so short.
Makeup Artist
Camera Ready Studios
Posts: 7191
Dallas, Texas, US
years ago Playboy was not ( in my opinon ) porn...over the last 5 to 8 years it has taken a downward dive into porn...It's no longer a classy tastefully nude magazine.
Photographer
Ceehawk Multimedia
Posts: 319
Clarksville, Tennessee, US
MichaelBell wrote:
As long as the clothes fit, do you want a model to be 5'9 and up? There are some models I will be working with shortly who are only in the 5'4-5'6 range, but they are more beautiful than most any 5'10 model you will ever see coming down a runway. Just wondering if any of you photogs only work with the really tall models. That's a false beauty standard created by the fashion industry. The thing I like about being a photographer is capturing and exploring all standards of beauty, not just what someone on madison avenue or some ivory tower in Paris says is beautiful.
Makeup Artist
Camera Ready Studios
Posts: 7191
Dallas, Texas, US
Ceehawk Multimedia wrote:
That's a false beauty standard created by the fashion industry. The thing I like about being a photographer is capturing and exploring all standards of beauty, not just what someone on madison avenue or some ivory tower in Paris says is beautiful. well then Fashion photography would not be for you Stick with what you enjoy, fashion photography isnt for everyone.
Photographer
D. Brian Nelson
Posts: 5477
Rapid City, South Dakota, US
Ceehawk Multimedia wrote:
...not just what someone on madison avenue or some ivory tower in Paris says is beautiful. Nope, it's what buyers of both magazines and fashion think are beautiful. More "real" sizes have been given chance after chance, but the public insists on 5'10" 115# 16-yr-old fashion models. Money talks and bullshit walks.
Thank God we don't all have to care about fashion though. Isn't it great to have the whole world of women to choose from (provided they're young, beautiful and willing)?
-Don
Model
StacyJack
Posts: 2297
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
Mary wrote:
well then Fashion photography would not be for you Stick with what you enjoy, fashion photography isnt for everyone. Thank GOD!
Model
StacyJack
Posts: 2297
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Nope, it's what buyers of both magazines and fashion think are beautiful. More "real" sizes have been given chance after chance, but the public insists on 5'10" 115# 16-yr-old fashion models. Money talks and bullshit walks.
Thank God we don't all have to care about fashion though. Isn't it great to have the whole world of women to choose from (provided they're young, beautiful and willing)?
-Don and naked? snicker. Just kiddin!
Photographer
D. Brian Nelson
Posts: 5477
Rapid City, South Dakota, US
...Stacy wrote:
and naked? snicker. Just kiddin! That's the "willing" part.
-D 
Model
StacyJack
Posts: 2297
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
D. Brian Nelson wrote:
That's the "willing" part.
-D LOL!
Photographer
Ceehawk Multimedia
Posts: 319
Clarksville, Tennessee, US
[well then Fashion photography would not be for you Stick with what you enjoy, fashion photography isnt for everyone. I already know this is true and why I don't(and never have) limit myself to just fashion. Fashion is fun on occassion but the world offers much more to photograph and make statements about than what the in look is.
Model
Stevi
Posts: 69
Washington, District of Columbia, US
Mary wrote:
so lets get the designers to tailor the samples to fit someone shorter, then lets remove all props and other models from the shot so we can't see how short she is...then lets just shoot one angle, again, so she looks taller, maybe we can give her tall hair?..or better yet...lets just hire a tall model you didnt have to be so harsh... 
if you read all of my threads... I was only saying if you shoot a shorter model it doesnt matter so much because the main topic said IF THE CLOTHES FIT, does it matter if the model is tall or not.
The main topic didnt say the it was a FASHION SHOOT either & that was not was I was pertaining to. I was just saying you most likely can't tell how tall a model is.
P.S there are fashion models that are famous, well proportioned, and short.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45475
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Ched wrote:
As a photographer, I want to be taken seriously in the industry, and if I show up with pictures of 5'4" girls I'm gonna get sent home. Can you look at my photos and tell me how tall the models are? I say that height is not much of a factor when it comes to print work! 
Photographer
D. Brian Nelson
Posts: 5477
Rapid City, South Dakota, US
Stevi wrote:
P.S there are fashion models that are famous, well proportioned, and short. No, there is one. There were two, but one decided to be a bad actor instead after all the influence daddy had to spend to get her on the catwalk.
-Don
P.S. These would be Kate Moss and Devon Aoki. The same examples everyone uses to show that it "could happen." Moss was "discovered" by photographer Corinne Day and shown topless in "The Face" at 15 or 16 depending on the source. Aoki's daddy owns Benihana restaurants. She had a lot of help there, and has since gone on to act in B movies.
Model
The_N_Word
Posts: 5067
New York, New York, US
Stevi wrote:
P.S there are fashion models that are famous, well proportioned, and short. Shouldn't of done that....
She's gonna say "name them"
Photographer
DJTalStudios
Posts: 602
Seattle, Washington, US
MichaelBell wrote:
You cant be taken seriously with shots of say, Playboy models who are mostly under 5'8? There is ALOT more to the industry than fashion, glamour sells pretty well too ya know I guess it depends on what kind of work you want In fact glamour and nudes, porn whatever you call it sells better than fashion and has a lot more opportunities for both models and photographers.
Photographer
Bob Helm Photography
Posts: 18922
Cherry Hill, New Jersey, US
For indoor shoot I prefer shorter models as the studio height is a little limiting for a 5"11 model in standing poses. Outdoors I am mostly concerned on the models overall looks and her modeling ability
Model
Tasha M
Posts: 2
Well, I have to agree that THE DESIGNERS OF FASHION are the ones that call for the tall models. Im not too sure why, I will have to research. I do LOVE tall models and I can see how they have the advantage over shorter models, but some take photos better than others, some are prettier, some excel in certain areas. We all have are strengths and as long as we use them to benefit us and what we think is in our best interest, we will all do fine.
My weakness, just so happens to be my height. I hate being short. Im 5'2 and in some of my photos I look chunky and stubby, Im actually a slender girl but with curves that alot of lack women have. Thick thighs, big butts, a waist.
Sometimes I wish I was taller but I do notice that taller models are extremely thin, some to a point where it doesn't look healthy, so that reassures me, that Im perfectly fine. God created us, not designers, models, photographers,and ASOLUTLEY NOT media!
****A TRICK FOR US SHORTER MODELS, WHEN SHOOTING. IN YOUR WARDROBE,IF YOU WEAR PANTS A BIT TO BIG, LIKE ONE SIZE ABOVE YOUR NORMAL, WITH STRIPES, WEATHER THEY ARE BLUE GREEN OR FADED STRIPES ON JEANS, THEY MAKE YOU LOOK TALLER AND A BIT SLIMMER. YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT DOING THIS THE RIGHT WAY. COMPARE PHOTOS WITH THE PANTS AND OTHERS WHERE YOU ARE NOT WEARING THESE TYPE OF PANTS AND SEE FOR YOURSELF. SHOW ONE PICTURE TO A PERSON AND ASK THEM IF THEY CAN IDENTIFY YOUR HEIGHT IN EACH IMAGE.******
BEST TO ALL!
Photographer
Hamza
Posts: 7791
New York, New York, US
Nerlande wrote:
Playboy is a pornographic magazine. Wanna call it softcore now? Just because it's the most widely known or because Avedon has shot for it, that does not change the definition. Playboy has distanced itself from the hardcore meaning...household names have been in it, shot for it....
...but it is what it is
Just because no woman is getting ass blasted or covered in love mayonnaise in Playboy doesn't mean it's not...PORN D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Avadon and Newton and many others including fashion photographers shot for Playboy. When they did, they became pornographers. It's commercial photography intended to take money and be used to get off. All those others are merely later, lower quality versions.
-Don Naked pictures of women doesn't make it porn.
Playboy is NOT meant for guys to jerk off to! Heck guys Jerk off to Victoria's Secret Catalogs, that doesn't make it Porn!
Can you see what the gyno sees in Playboy? Do you see any fucking? Any insertion? NO!
Playboy is NOT porn. If you think Playboy is Porn how about Page 6 in the British Tabloids? How about Artistic Nudes? How about Glamour Nudes? How about Biology Books??? Well???
Model
BeccaNDSouth
Posts: 1670
Olympia, Washington, US
D. Brian Nelson wrote:
No, there is one. There were two, but one decided to be a bad actor instead after all the influence daddy had to spend to get her on the catwalk.
-Don
P.S. These would be Kate Moss and Devon Aoki. The same examples everyone uses to show that it "could happen." Yes, but is Kate Moss still doing runway after her little "incident" she had? I'm behind the times on that, but I recall...um, reading about a*sniff* *sniff*...it's raining, it's snowing type incident not too long ago.
Photographer
D. Brian Nelson
Posts: 5477
Rapid City, South Dakota, US
Hamza wrote:
Can you see what the gyno sees in Playboy? Do you see any fucking? Any insertion? NO!
Playboy is NOT porn. If you think Playboy is Porn how about Page 6 in the British Tabloids? How about Artistic Nudes? How about Glamour Nudes? How about Biology Books??? Well??? Have you seen Playboy lately?
In any case it's nice to know that without gyno, fucking or insertion that it's not porn. I'll file that away. (How much gyno? PB's getting there, I think...)
It remains a commercial medium for distribution of photographs intended primarily as an aide to masturbation, with the primary goal of making money.
-Don
Model
The_N_Word
Posts: 5067
New York, New York, US
Hamza wrote:
Naked pictures of women doesn't make it porn.
Playboy is NOT meant for guys to jerk off to! Heck guys Jerk off to Victoria's Secret Catalogs, that doesn't make it Porn!
Can you see what the gyno sees in Playboy? Do you see any fucking? Any insertion? NO!
Playboy is NOT porn. If you think Playboy is Porn how about Page 6 in the British Tabloids? How about Artistic Nudes? How about Glamour Nudes? How about Biology Books??? Well??? my my...Oh so passionate
I said just because there is none of the whatever you wanna call it, insertion etc..doesn't make it not porn...
Playboy is porn..I'm not gonna play the semantics game
You have your opinion..be proud ::thumbs up::
Photographer
Hamza
Posts: 7791
New York, New York, US
D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Have you seen Playboy lately?
In any case it's nice to know that without gyno, fucking or insertion that it's not porn. I'll file that away. (How much gyno? PB's getting there, I think...)
It remains a commercial medium for distribution of photographs intended primarily as an aide to masturbation, with the primary goal of making money.
-Don Playboy is NOT primarily an aide to self gratification! If that's what you use it for well...
LMAO Ever read Playboy? It has won numerous awards for it's Journalistic Content!
Sexual Repression in America never ceases to amaze me...
And Don, I would say Pink is Porn...
Photographer
DJTalStudios
Posts: 602
Seattle, Washington, US
D. Brian Nelson wrote:
I write:
Maybe we should try to see if we can all come to a consensus on the definition of "porn?"
-Don Good luck. The courts have been trying to do this for years and failing miserably. Thank goodness too. So if they can't do it then I think it is a pretty safe bet to say that no one here will be able to do it either.
Nerlande wrote:
Playboy is a pornographic magazine. Wanna call it softcore now? Just because it's the most widely known or because Avedon has shot for it, that does not change the definition. Playboy has distanced itself from the hardcore meaning...household names have been in it, shot for it....
...but it is what it is
Just because no woman is getting ass blasted or covered in love mayonnaise in Playboy doesn't mean it's not...PORN HUH? By your logic then paintings and photographs showing the nude female form is porn. Playboy is so far removed from "PORN". People who actually are IN the porn industry LAUGH when people mention Playboy. (Unless of course it is a playboy playmate wanting to do some spreads or hardcore. Just love turning Hef's girls.)
But please give us a break with that one. But wait maybe Playboy would be more artistic if the images were in black and white. Yeah that seems to make everything all better. Oh and don't forget Herb Ritts shot Cindy Crawford for Playboy, and her shots were in Black and white. Guess she's now a pornstar.
But really for print work why does it matter how tall the models are. You think you can tell me how tall the models in my profile are? I bet you couldn't. Especially considering that unless she is on a runway 98% of the clothes directly from a designer that a model is posing in doesn't fit them ANYWAY without a great amount of clips, safety pins and tape it really doesn't matter how tall she is for print work.
A good photographer can make just about anyone look like just about anything. Tall or short. You dont really think that Rambo is as tall as he looks on screen do you? Cuz he's not. Nor is the Terminator... they're both very short. Both under 5' 7". Hell Sharon Stone is taller than Stallone.
Photographer
D. Brian Nelson
Posts: 5477
Rapid City, South Dakota, US
"Maybe we should try to see if we can all come to a consensus on the definition of 'porn?'"
"The courts have been trying to do this for years and failing miserably. Thank goodness too. So if they can't do it then I think it is a pretty safe bet to say that no one here will be able to do it either."
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I'm outta this stoopid argument now.
-D
Photographer
Zero Dean
Posts: 139
San Diego, California, US
DJTalStudios wrote:
...[comments]... Ditto.
|
Stick with what you enjoy, fashion photography isnt for everyone.
