edu LIBRARY

Editorial Modeling (part 1)

We’ll start with the basics: Editorial fashion models are tall (usually 5’9″ minimum) and beautiful—not just pretty but beautiful and different looking, too. How can you be beautiful and different? Whoa, this is hard! When they start, most editorial models are way too young. Figure 16 or 17 years old as a median age for new faces; there’s no way that women this young can be prepared for the stress of editorial fashion. They are thin—scary thin, like mother-wants-to-take-you-to-the-doctor thin. Claudia Schiffer is 5’11” and was reported to weigh around 118 pounds. The industry takes a lot of heat about creating unhealthy images for young (and not so young) women, but that doesn’t change reality. A 5’7” model that weighs 136 pounds is pretty close to perfect, but that doesn’t cut it in Big City fashion.


Photographer: John Fisher

Are there exceptions? Yes, Kate Moss is not 5’9″ (5’6″ is closer), Cindy Crawford at the height of her editorial career weighed… Well, let’s just say that she weighed more than 118 pounds. So why am I getting into all of this? In part, because most young people who consider modeling are familiar only with editorial models, and so very few should even contemplate an editorial career. Far more up-and-coming models would find more work if they chose commercial modeling instead of editorial (which was the subject of my previous post). But if you want to know about editorial fashion in New York City, here it is…

Commercial vs. editorial modeling

First, there are enormous differences between modeling commercially and editorial fashion models. There are actors, pilots, firefighters, housewives, and students who model commercially—some are very successful and make a good deal of money at it. But they are not commercial models in the same sense that editorial fashion models are editorial models. This is because you don’t build a “name” as a commercial model. You do build a reputation (you show up on time, wear proper attire, easy to work with, etc.) that helps an agency place you. But not a name, like the way an advertiser would want Cindy, Linda, or Kate. This “name” thing is a big deal. Think about it this way: If you’re not an industry insider, can you name a model that is not an editorial model? (Okay, I’m a commercial model and you know me! The big, dumb, bald, white guy who looks like a thug—not a name, just a description.)

The top fashion agencies give only exclusive contracts (usually two to five years for a “new face”). They have the contacts with the fashion magazines to help you build that “name,” and they expect to benefit from that relationship through this exclusive relationship. Their resources are directed solely to the
development of the models they represent, which is why you see the term “Model Management” in so many of the agency names. If you want Karolina Kurkova, you call Women (or Mega here in Miami), but not Ford. If you want Gisele Bündchen, call IMG, not Wilhelmina. The “inventory” of a commercial agency is its clients (e.g., Coke, Kodak, and Xerox), and the “inventory” of an editorial agency is its models (Kate, Gisele, Karolina, Adriana, etc.). In short, commercial agencies have clients and find models, but fashion agencies have models and find clients.

Live the life

Editorial models are expected (as someone here has said repeatedly) to live the “life”—you model, that’s it.

You may wait tables or something else part time to pay the rent when you start, but you still model as much as possible. Furthermore, keep in mind that when you start you’ll have some jobs and work with certain photographers for little or no pay—simply because these assignments or connections might build your name later on and give you exposure. I can think of no other career where the “prestige” jobs pay so little. Most in this field would be stunned to learn how little a model is paid for the cover of Vogue or Elle, or for the purely editorial layouts inside those magazines. So why do it? Because that all helps to builds a name. Then, when an advertiser calls the agency, they are not asking for a “type” (brunette, athletic, Asian, bald, etc.), they are asking for Gisele, Adriana, or Kate.

There may be a thousand beautiful blondes, but there is only one Karolina because of all of her magazine layouts and covers (not ads, but editorial layouts: the ad work comes later, after your name is established). Once your name and image are established, you go to the bank big time doing fashion ad work (commercial modeling). Why? Because the ad agency or designer wants Karolina, not a thin, busty blonde (lots of blondes, only one Karolina, and you pay to shoot Karolina). Every editorial model spends some time in the trenches: go here, go there, shoot with this guy, cut your hair, lose some weight, go to the agency, etc. Had a bad night? Tough. Went on six go-sees yesterday with no bookings? Too bad, here are four more. Live the life. Models do not “try” editorial fashion modeling; fashion tries you. It is hard, but it’s supposed to be hard. It’s great because it’s hard. If it were easy, everyone would do it.

I am posting this because there has been a lot of discussion about what agencies do and what models should expect. Some of the photographers here are full-time professionals (I’m in that group, full time, not sure about the professional part). Like modeling, this is not an easy business, and those that do it are passionate about what they do. You wouldn’t stay with this if you didn’t love it with an emotion that is hard to describe. However, depending on whichever side of the street you work on (commercial or editorial), your expectations of models and agents can be radically different. I work almost exclusively as a commercial photographer and represent myself as such, but I have worked with fashion agencies and fashion models. I like commercial models, they are gifted and talented people, and they want to be paid. I love fashion models, too. They always want great pictures, but if you can’t deliver, forget about it (trust me on this one, the world is full of fashion models who can’t remember my name).

These opinions and observations are the result of my experiences with both commercial and fashion models (and agencies) over the past twenty years. I hope you find them helpful.

Read part two of John Fisher’s article on Editorial Modeling.

John Fisher

John Fisher is a fashion photographer who does magazine editorial, advertising, catalog and swimsuit photography. He's a member of Canon Professional Services and was recently named as a sponsored photographer for Paul C. Buff Companies. His website is www.johnfisher.com.

More Posts - Website

17 Responses to “Editorial Modeling (part 1)”

  1. March 24, 2016 at 7:36 pm, Brian said:

    How dare you make an article about editorial modeling and fail to mention the TRUE supermodels that have actually built a lasting name for themselves. Karolina? Gisele? Adriana? Are you kidding me? If you wanted to make a respectable article you would have included Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford, Linda Evangelista… the REAL models. I’m glad you at least had some sense while writing this article and included Kate Moss, but the exclusion of the Big 5 is just complete disrespect to the people who paved the way for editorial models like Adriana Lima and Gisele Bündchen. Extremely disappointed in this article.

    Reply

  2. November 02, 2012 at 9:20 pm, Design Dog said:

    They ARE two different venues, but either way, there it’s ultimately about Branding. Putting a Face to a name. Even in some cases, and I am sure many at an agency will agree, even without a name. In that regard Commercial vs. Editorial or Fashion are no different. Yes, they are two different fields, but there are many who have made a name in the Commercial realm. The rules are different.

    Reply

  3. November 02, 2012 at 10:53 am, kenyee said:

    Thanks, John…good article…especially the part about commercial models having an easier time…

    Reply

  4. November 02, 2012 at 2:24 am, Maya_20 said:

    That’s a commercial model right there as your intro image. Couldn’t take the article seriously after that.

    Reply

  5. November 01, 2012 at 12:28 am, BellaPhotoshoot said:

    I think the article is spot on.

    Reply

  6. October 31, 2012 at 6:58 pm, Fallen Kittie said:

    Kate Moss might be an exception but, the likelihood of actually landing something (let alone, getting an agency to look at you twice…or once) if you’re 5’6″ or under is little to none. I have yet to meet an agent or agency that doesn’t explicitly state the minimum height at 5’7″. For acting and commercial stuff, it’s quite different and probably more “rewarding” financially as you appease a role as opposed to the frigid functionality of an industrial aesthetic [that doesn’t apply to the majority of consumers in terms of looks anyway]. I’m not demoralizing or promoting either, I’m just saying there’s a degree of logicality people (prospective models) should assume and invoke when approaching the overall profession; the long-term and short-term benefits, security, etc. There are also a good deal of editorial and commercial models (however “few”) whom land such jobs. The term “supermodel” is extinct given the benefits of new technology so, I think it’s a tad unrealistic to incorporate legends like Kate Moss and so forth however, I understand the significance of a “name” but, I also see the insignificance: aside from the brief professional personnel and modest circles (or the glamourous Wikipedia pages), I don’t see how names are correlated to success in the long-run nowadays. Facebook and like communicative have many names. Cool article nonetheless. It’s interesting to see the “differences” between the genres.

    Reply

  7. June 11, 2012 at 9:37 am, Brian Hillburn said:

    Thank for for the explanations…well done.

    Reply

  8. June 07, 2012 at 8:25 am, Kindra Mehta said:

    Awesome article I must share this and direct people this way to read it ..thanks for posting

    Reply

  9. June 02, 2012 at 9:35 am, Greyhound27 said:

    Thanks for the insight. Great work by the way.

    Reply

  10. June 01, 2012 at 7:11 am, Donevan K.Cherry said:

    Commercial vs (Traditional) Editorial Modeling

    Reply

  11. May 31, 2012 at 8:01 am, Efransophoto said:

    Editorial modeling: The kind of modeling that requires you to choose to be unhealthy.  My tip?  Choose a different type of modeling and leave the industry realizing it needs to change

    Reply

    • June 03, 2012 at 12:47 am, Pinkdebrisstudios said:

      there are plenty of careers that can be deemed “un-healthy.” 
      i doubt that the industry will change its ways. 

      Reply

      • June 07, 2012 at 5:59 pm, Efransophoto said:

        There are careers that involve risks (and those who take those risks are supposed to be made aware of the risks upon or before being hired).  Making one’s self thin by unhealthy means is made out to be a “good” thing through malicious psychological manipulation.  Don’t get me wrong–I know a lot of it starts long before a child ever knows what modelling is, when parents simply want their kids to fit a certain image pattern… but in the modelling world this is a standardized practice that can easily be overturned by the way average citizens spend their money (or not spend their money).

        Reply

      • November 02, 2012 at 5:49 am, GoodGracious said:

        Everyone is different and what most people don’t consider is that most of these models have a very high metabolism. I am 100Ibs & get called anorexic all the time – I eat like a pig and I run the beach everyday. No matter how hard I try, my weight does not budge.

        Most of the controversy out there is down to those who ‘just dont know’.

        Reply

    • October 31, 2012 at 5:58 pm, Tim said:

      Sitting in a chair all day is supposed to be more unhealthy for your heart than smoking (not your lungs though). And at the other end, being an athlete–with all the trauma and doping–is even worse. So there’s no reason to single out modelling; it just has to go on the list along with just about every other job these days.

      Reply

  12. May 31, 2012 at 7:41 am, Keithdewey3 said:

    Thank you for this.  I had no idea what the difference was.  I finally think I understand.

    Reply

  13. May 30, 2012 at 9:53 pm, Greg Autry said:

    Great Article John….
    Greg Autry Photo
    California

    Reply

Leave a Reply