Renee West wrote:
cuz i don't know about everyone else but i want a real chick on a stage then an imaginary one whom i can say hey i can do that!!

Then you are in a distinct minority.

It is a fundamental truth of marketing that you achieve the maxiumum effect on potential consumers by giving them something to aspire to. It is just not as effective to show them a model who looks just like them, only with the product, as it is to show them a model who they would like to look like with the product. Yes, it's deceptive. It implies an untruth - that if you only bought the product, you would be as attractive or as cool or have as interesting a life as the model portrayed. But that is how advertising works. If it worked better the other way, by now, somebody would have noticed and they would do it that way.

M

Mandy McKeating wrote:
not trying to start shit, just playing devil's advocate...

i understand the height thing, but why do they have to be stick figures? what makes a size 0-2 model carry the clothes better than, say, a size 4-6 model, assuming both are of the same height?

#1  Because that particular sample size range has already been standardized, according to established practice in the industry

#2  Creating sample sizes in L or XL would cause extra expenditure in terms of material - the designers are trying to balance visibility of the pieces by putting them on tall models with economizing in terms of the required amount of cloth; certain kinds of cloth/material can be very expensive

Does that answer your question?

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Oliver Cole wrote:
Folks for 2007 and beyond...less bitching and more work.

Oliver Cole

Well put.  LMAO!

Oliver Cole wrote:
Gee, why does the NBA want tall men? Why does the NFL want men with strength and speed? Why does the NHL want men that can skate? Why does the WNBA want taller than average women?

Yep.
https://modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=111825

Oliver Cole wrote:
Gee, why does the NBA want tall men? Why does the NFL want men with strength and speed? Why does the NHL want men that can skate? Why does the WNBA want taller than average women?

Folks...get a grip!! You come to our house to play our game...learn the rules or get with them, it is what it is. If it is not for you move the f*#k out of the way and make room for those that can do what is required of them.

Everybody wants to make a doctors' salary, but not go to and through 8 years of med school.
If you want to model, then model WHEREVER you can doing WHATEVER you can get away with.
If you want to photograph, then shoot some damn pics, wherever and whatever you can do and get away with.

Folks for 2007 and beyond...less bitching and more work.

Oliver Cole

Some things are skill and some things are looks. Why do people confiuse the 2? If you're good at playing basketball, enough where you spin circles around people, no matter your height, then you have a chance....You have to have the SKILL, you don't need to be tall to be good at all of those examples you've used.

Here you go...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball … egulations

Height
At the professional level, most male players are above 1.90 meters (6 ft 3 in) and most women above 1.70 meters (5 ft 7 in). Guards, for whom physical coordination and ball-handling skills are crucial, tend to be the smallest players. Almost all forwards in the men's pro leagues are 2 meters (6 ft 6 in) or taller. Most centers are over 2.1 meters (6 ft 10.5 in) tall. The tallest players ever in the NBA, Manute Bol and Gheorghe Mureşan, were 2.31 m (7 ft 7 in). The tallest current NBA player is Yao Ming, who stands at 2.29 m (7 ft 6 in).


The shortest player ever to play in the NBA is Muggsy Bogues at 1.60 meters (5 ft 3 in). Other short players have thrived at the pro level. Anthony "Spud" Webb was just 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 m) tall, but had a 42-inch (1.07 m) vertical leap, giving him significant height when jumping. The shortest player in the NBA today is Earl Boykins at 5 feet 5 inches (1.65 m). While shorter players are often not very good at defending against shooting, their ability to navigate quickly through crowded areas of the court and steal the ball by reaching low are strengths.

I'd say 2007 should be for progression of portfolios!
I know I will!

JAY carreon wrote:
Does that answer your question?

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

yes, thank you. although it has already been answered in several ways, i appreciate your input.

SWEETFACE SHOTS wrote:
Some things are skill and some things are looks. Why do people confiuse the 2? If you're good at playing basketball, enough where you spin circles around people, no matter your height, then you have a chance....You have to have the SKILL, you don't need to be tall to be good at all of those examples you've used.

Right, and if you have the modeling skills of Kate Moss, you don't need to be 5'10".

But the Kate Mosses of the world are just as rare as the Spud Webbs of the world.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Right, and if you have the modeling skills of Kate Moss, you don't need to be 5'10".

But the Kate Mosses of the world are just as rare as the Spud Webbs of the world.

I agree with that! They're rare, but they ARE around
My only point, carry on!

Crucifissa wrote:
Someone mentioned less fabric...wouldn't it take MORE fabric to design a dress for someone who is 5'9, than someone who is 5'2? Thats 7 inches in fabric! I hate the excuse that people use, "Models have to be skinny to save fabric expenses." Thats such bullshit.

This can go on for a whole 'nother 10 pages

Crucifissa wrote:
Someone mentioned less fabric...wouldn't it take MORE fabric to design a dress for someone who is 5'9, than someone who is 5'2? Thats 7 inches in fabric! I hate the excuse that people use, "Models have to be skinny to save fabric expenses." Thats such bullshit.

Did you notice that the person who mentioned less fabric specifically stated that it was sarcasm?

Crucifissa wrote:
Someone mentioned less fabric...wouldn't it take MORE fabric to design a dress for someone who is 5'9, than someone who is 5'2? Thats 7 inches in fabric! I hate the excuse that people use, "Models have to be skinny to save fabric expenses." Thats such bullshit.

lol thats what im thinking yeah this stuff said makes some sense but i feel its still b.s as you said but w/e this is why if i ever get to be a designer i will hold fashion run way shows i would be doing a variety of types of women preferrably real women my goal would be  showing  the all in all everything thats beautiful about us women  , us mothers and so on. those that deserve more recognition that dont enough teach our kids they can beautiful and healthy as they are. beauty is how u carry yourself and confidence

SWEETFACE SHOTS wrote:

Some things are skill and some things are looks. Why do people confiuse the 2? If you're good at playing basketball, enough where you spin circles around people, no matter your height, then you have a chance....You have to have the SKILL, you don't need to be tall to be good at all of those examples you've used.

Here you go...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball … egulations

Height
At the professional level, most male players are above 1.90 meters (6 ft 3 in) and most women above 1.70 meters (5 ft 7 in). Guards, for whom physical coordination and ball-handling skills are crucial, tend to be the smallest players. Almost all forwards in the men's pro leagues are 2 meters (6 ft 6 in) or taller. Most centers are over 2.1 meters (6 ft 10.5 in) tall. The tallest players ever in the NBA, Manute Bol and Gheorghe Mureşan, were 2.31 m (7 ft 7 in). The tallest current NBA player is Yao Ming, who stands at 2.29 m (7 ft 6 in).


The shortest player ever to play in the NBA is Muggsy Bogues at 1.60 meters (5 ft 3 in). Other short players have thrived at the pro level. Anthony "Spud" Webb was just 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 m) tall, but had a 42-inch (1.07 m) vertical leap, giving him significant height when jumping. The shortest player in the NBA today is Earl Boykins at 5 feet 5 inches (1.65 m). While shorter players are often not very good at defending against shooting, their ability to navigate quickly through crowded areas of the court and steal the ball by reaching low are strengths.

I'd say 2007 should be for progression of portfolios!
I know I will!

But being closer to the basket does help ....

Muneca wrote:
the designer is actually more around 4'10"- 5 ft because when she was on the show she was also ALOT shorter than the other designers, and they weren't tall. Also, she has short legs...

yea I agree with Udo in what he's trying to get at but that designer is definitely shorter than 5'2"... assuming a person's head is usually about 8"-12" long, if she's 5'2" and wearing heels like models, that will put the models around 6'5"~7" by the looks of it.

Crucifissa wrote:
Someone mentioned less fabric...wouldn't it take MORE fabric to design a dress for someone who is 5'9, than someone who is 5'2? Thats 7 inches in fabric! I hate the excuse that people use, "Models have to be skinny to save fabric expenses." Thats such bullshit.

Are you one of those people who only reads part of a post or part of an article?  I, among a few others, wrote that about "Models have to be skinny to save fabric expenses."   You will notice I stated that designers attempt to strike a balance between using visually impressive models who are 5ft. 9ins. tall or more and using the least amount of fabric to execute their designs.  Obviously, a fat model who stands 5ft. 9ins. tall would require more material in her outfit than would a slender model who stands at 5ft. 9ins. tall - if they were to wear the same design.

But please, do continue trying to convince the Fashion Industry to use dumpy 5ft. 2ins tall "models" - I'm certain they will listen to you, especially since you like to use foul language.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Garry k wrote:
But being closer to the basket does help ....

... That's all i'm going to say about that

JAY carreon wrote:
Are you one of those people who only reads part of a post or part of an article?  I, among a few others, wrote that about "Models have to be skinny to save fabric expenses."   You will notice I stated that designers attempt to strike a balance between using visually impressive models who are 5ft. 9ins. tall or more and using the least amount of fabric to execute their designs.  Obviously, a fat model who stands 5ft. 9ins. tall would require more material in her outfit than would a slender model who stands at 5ft. 9ins. tall - if they were to wear the same design.

But please, do continue trying to convince the Fashion Industry to use dumpy 5ft. 2ins tall "models" - I'm certain they will listen to you, especially since you like to use foul language.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Gosh, so now all 5'2 models are dumpy?

JAY carreon wrote:
Are you one of those people who only reads part of a post or part of an article?  I, among a few others, wrote that about "Models have to be skinny to save fabric expenses."   You will notice I stated that designers attempt to strike a balance between using visually impressive models who are 5ft. 9ins. tall or more and using the least amount of fabric to execute their designs.  Obviously, a fat model who stands 5ft. 9ins. tall would require more material in her outfit than would a slender model who stands at 5ft. 9ins. tall - if they were to wear the same design.

But please, do continue trying to convince the Fashion Industry to use dumpy 5ft. 2ins tall "models" - I'm certain they will listen to you, especially since you like to use foul language.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Wouldn't it require LESS for a 5'2 model that is thin? I'm not trying to convice anyone, I'm just putting my two cents in a thread on a website. Maybe you should read my entire post before going on a rant about larger models, I'm talking about how its not true that they save fabric using really tall girls to model the clothes. My arguement is not about being thin or not, its about height.

Don't try to make yourself look respectful  when you're the one calling models "dumpy" and "fat."

JAY carreon wrote:

#1  Because that particular sample size range has already been standardized, according to established practice in the industry

#2  Creating sample sizes in L or XL would cause extra expenditure in terms of material - the designers are trying to balance visibility of the pieces by putting them on tall models with economizing in terms of the required amount of cloth; certain kinds of cloth/material can be very expensive

Does that answer your question?

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

And I wanted to be the one to say that

little apple blossom wrote:
I'm surprised no one else seams to view petiteness as an ideal. I really think it is and that at least every once and a while a designer would want to play on that ideal.

Some people do. But that's more of my adrogyny fetish.

Gunfitr wrote:
if you have ever seen a very statuesque model in a beautiful gown you wouldn't have to ask the question of why they don't use 5 foot two girls to wear the exact same style of gown.

Likewise if you took some of these stick thin models and put them in some lingerie with their ribs showing, their bones showing, and their little flat asses, you wouldn't sell as much lingerie.

As for why they want girls who are a size 2 versus a size 6, again it's all in the appearance and the thinner a model is it enhances her height which is already striking.

If you've ever seen a large woman stroll  down a catwalk followed by a thin model you would again understand.

Part of it iis based upon genetics and certain things that go on in people's heads and while I'm not a psychiatrist I at least understand the concept.

It might not be fair, you might think it's unreasonable, but you're not the person paying for the models to stand on stage or walk down the catwalk.

If you ever are in a  position to hire short models versus tall models where it will affect or might effect your bank account, then I would be willing to listen to your long-winded justification for why you want to use 5 foot 2 models.

Again I'm no rocket scientist but apparently somebody at Mercury thinks that what sells a new car is a tall brunette girl with very pointy breast because she appears in almost all of their commercials as of late.



Mark

LMAOOO i can't stand her look! I always say WHY HER?!?

Mandy McKeating wrote:
not trying to start shit, just playing devil's advocate...

i understand the height thing, but why do they have to be stick figures? what makes a size 0-2 model carry the clothes better than, say, a size 4-6 model, assuming both are of the same height?

For porportions purposes.. The human body is 8 heads high.. Slimmer makes the body look "taller" than that, giving more leg.  Leg is very important.

This is why High heels were invented.

Long legs also make a more elegant walk.

Comic book artists generally draw their charecters 10 heads high for the same "super human" look

Great article Udor.

215 Studios wrote:

The primary reason for this is, these women (0-4) are as close to a "walking coat-hanger" as the designer can get.  When designers send their clothes down the runway, they don't want you to look at the model.  They are not selling the model!  They want you to see the clothes.

-Major

No thats not it at all.

JAY carreon wrote:

#1  Because that particular sample size range has already been standardized, according to established practice in the industry

#2  Creating sample sizes in L or XL would cause extra expenditure in terms of material - the designers are trying to balance visibility of the pieces by putting them on tall models with economizing in terms of the required amount of cloth; certain kinds of cloth/material can be very expensive

Does that answer your question?

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Neither of those statements are true.

Mercy Studio wrote:

Neither of those statements are true.

So, making different sized dresses according to different sized models would not cost more money?

Mercy Studio wrote:

Neither of those statements are true.

Then what is it?

Mia Salen wrote:

Then what is it?

Read back about 4 messages

Aaron S wrote:

So, making different sized dresses according to different sized models would not cost more money?

The cost is is irrelivant..  Cloth for an entire outfit is normally bought 1 bolt at a time, not by to foot.  In fact, there is usually lots left over.