Mercy Studio wrote:

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.

Cost isn't entirely irrelevant. 
Making one industry standard sized outfit means you only have to make one for the runway show as opposed to having to tailor the outfit for each vastly different model.  It minimizes the amount of tailoring and thus time which is in turn money, so therefore it minimizes the amount of money spent on each individual model.

Just throwing that out there.

Keni wrote:
All samples are made in a size 2.

Yes! That explains it !

Just think of how much material is saved worldwide compare to them using size 6 for example

Mercy Studio wrote:

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.

Cost is hardly irrelevant. Capitalist economy, capitalist values.

Not to mention the time factor. It takes more time to make more than one size pattern. Maybe things work different in the fashion world of Canada.

Aaron S wrote:
Cost is hardly irrelevant. Capitalist economy, capitalist values.

Not to mention the time factor. It takes more time to make more than one size pattern. Maybe things work different in the fashion world of Canada.

Actually I was trained in fashion in Paris.

So by your rational, designers would just have to change the industry standard dress size and everything would move along smoothly after that?

Mercy Studio wrote:
Actually I was trained in fashion in Paris.

So by your rational, designers would just have to change the industry standard dress size and everything would move along smoothly after that?

The standard has changed throughout history. Of course, it's never one single factor that changes it.Just like, it's not one reason, and cost, is just as relevant as looks in reasoning.

Seregon ODassey wrote:
I have an odd theory (actually it's not mine, but here it is anyway): a lot of male designers are gay, no boobs makes a model look more like a guy. Hell I don't know. I only ever did runway for a friend who was a designer and it made me nervous as hell. I can act my ass off, but I get nervous on a runway, go freakin' figure, LOL...

lol.

Aaron S wrote:

The standard has changed throughout history. Of course, it's never one single factor that changes it.Just like, it's not one reason, and cost, is just as relevant as looks in reasoning.

Not all dresses/outfits use the same amount of material.  However, I can appreciate that it is more efficiant to make a "one size fits all," and yes it can inadvertantly save money, and more importantly time.  The the cost of the fabric itself is not a big concern (unless you're in school, or just starting the trade).  It's not however the reason why tall skinny models are industry standard.

Seregon ODassey wrote:
I have an odd theory (actually it's not mine, but here it is anyway): a lot of male designers are gay, no boobs makes a model look more like a guy. Hell I don't know. I only ever did runway for a friend who was a designer and it made me nervous as hell. I can act my ass off, but I get nervous on a runway, go freakin' figure, LOL...

Boobs are fatty tissue.  Industry models generally don't have boobs because they are just to lean.

Mercy Studio wrote:

Not all dresses/outfits use the same amount of material.  However, I can appreciate that it is more efficiant to make a "one size fits all," and yes it can inadvertantly save money, and more importantly time.  The the cost of the fabric itself is not a big concern (unless you're in school, or just starting the trade).  It's not however the reason why tall skinny models are industry standard.

For some business any cost is a big cost.

And it is not only just starting out businesses. Look at when Tom Ford did his first runway show for Gucci, and they could only afford one pair of shoes for everyone.

It might not be the single reason. But, there is no single reason why, it is a grouping of many factors.

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?

maybe they save money because then they use less fabric????
all those starving artist clothing designers...they gotta feed their kids ya know!!!

EDIT: boo, i really have to start reading the entire thread before i post things(that people have already said).....but then i'd never sleep....

Seregon ODassey wrote:
I have an odd theory (actually it's not mine, but here it is anyway): a lot of male designers are gay, no boobs makes a model look more like a guy. Hell I don't know. I only ever did runway for a friend who was a designer and it made me nervous as hell. I can act my ass off, but I get nervous on a runway, go freakin' figure, LOL...

I actually agree with this "theory" more then any other.  If you look at some of the ads that show up in Vogue and other fashion mags..  They show very Androgynes looking young women.   

I have to admit the tall skinny models are more visually appealing for fashion spreads.  I'm not sure if its because I have seen so many pictures that i have been brain washed or if its something I am naturally attracted to.  Don't get me wrong, I would much prefer to date a woman that is more full figured then the fashion models. But for the pictures I take and the pictures I like to look at there is a common theme.  Tall, skinny and young.

Mercy Studio wrote:
..More importantly, eyes are also drawn to legs..  The skinnier they are the longer they look, they further they enhance a dress and shoes..

Now what if you have a rather short person, with rather long legs?

little apple blossom wrote:
it's totally because I'm biased but I would love to see a show that uses all short models every now and then. even it's a gimmick I don't care. I think there is something special and idealistic about being petite and I think it should be shown off by designer clothes in a runway show.

I didn't read all of the replies after this, but I am pretty sure that in the late 80's and early 90's petite models were actually somewhat common and there was actually a small demand for girls under 5'4!

JAY carreon wrote:
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.

Crucifissa wrote:
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."

He adressed your point of a 5'2" model when he said that 5'9" models are "visually impressive". A 5'2" girl doesn't have NEARLY the impact of an amazon woman, and as is stated in the original post, is much harder to see from the back row.

And some models are fat. What's wrong with pointing it out?

Lestari wrote:
Im just wishing.. 5 inches taller.

So am I.

Virnella wrote:
i bet i can catch more eyes wearing wutever those 5'8 models are wearing even though i'm only 5'0

Congrats, but it's not a competition to see who can get the greatest amount of horny guys gawking and drooling over them; it's supposed to be about the clothes remember?

Fotticelli wrote:
People, get over it! If you are not thin and tall just move on. Find something else to do. Ruway is not for you.

You could start a grass roots campaign to outlaw tall and skinny models but then make sure they make going to fashion shows mandatory. Like jury duty. While you are at it have them outlaw singers that can sing and football players that can play.

There is a runway that everyone can walk, it's called a sidewalk. Do you want to see that at the New York Fashion Week?

lol- @ the runway for everybody... "sidewalk"

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

In general...thinner girls can pull off more styles. You don't have to worry about "Will this dress make her legs look thick?" "Will this top make her belly look poochy?"

There's also another aspect that I don't think most people really consider, but it's something that seems very important to me. Stick shaped models are inherently less sexual looking. If I were on a runway, you wouldn't be looking at my hot rack...you'd be looking at the dress. On a runway, the walk is rather sexy to start...add some womanly curves to that, and the clothes aren't the focus anymore.

Seregon ODassey wrote:
I have an odd theory (actually it's not mine, but here it is anyway): a lot of male designers are gay, no boobs makes a model look more like a guy. Hell I don't know. I only ever did runway for a friend who was a designer and it made me nervous as hell. I can act my ass off, but I get nervous on a runway, go freakin' figure, LOL...

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!

Virnella wrote:
i bet i can catch more eyes wearing wutever those 5'8 models are wearing even though i'm only 5'0

uh huh.. I'm sure you can

"wutever"???? wtf is that?

Virnella wrote:
i bet i can catch more eyes wearing wutever those 5'8 models are wearing even though i'm only 5'0

Photography by Martin wrote:
uh huh.. I'm sure you can

"wutever"???? wtf is that?

Hahahahaaa... that's a good one!

Virnella wrote:
i bet i can catch more eyes wearing wutever those 5'8 models are wearing even though i'm only 5'0

Right. We all think we could do it better. It just aint gonna happen.

Why is there still this reat debate? Nobody is complaining about why doctors have to have degrees or why you have to be a female to work at Victoria's Secret (although I suspect there could be some sort of lawsuit someday resulting from that policy) anyways, point is this is the way things are. Designers have a right to choose who wears their clothes.

Gunfitr wrote:
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.
Mark

LOL!  That's an image for you!

Fotticelli  wrote:
There is a runway that everyone can walk, it's called a sidewalk.

LMAO!! Hil-ar-i-ous!!

UdoR wrote:
This is a short bump and the pun is fully intended...

I can only imagine the "short" designer and the "tall" model, pictured in your OP, together in a lesbian embrace... It creates a mind picture from which I can not escape.

Udo... what have you wrought? You have somehow brought out the worst in me. LOL

Studio36

UdoR wrote:
The second image shows her walking behind her models, wearing her designs... this shows how funny it would look like if you put a short model into the mix.

I think by using only average height girls it would not be different if they are all the same height

UdoR wrote:
The third image is from the show of the designer Chado Ralph Rucci. I shot this image for the purpose of demonstrating the size of the showrooms at major fashion shows... and why very tall models are mandatory, so that the audience far away are able to see the model and the garment she's presenting.

For this purpose in the Greek theatre they used super high platform shoes and masks but they were much farther from the audience than 5 -10 rows. Regular theatre has solved this problem too by raising a stage so everyone can see it.

UdoR wrote:
In short (pun unintended ), there is a very practical reason WHY runway models have to be tall!

Agencies like to sign models that are versatile and can be used for many different applications..., the more a model is limited (height in this case), the more is the earning capacity limited for the agencies.

It all boils down to economics!

I believe a nice proportional short girl if that was the fashion could be just as versatile if we have only short girls as models and the tall ones above a certain hight would not fit the requirement.I mean if it was all the way around. But since trends are set and not changing  that is why the short models fall out. Also if a girl is size 2 and short she may appear bigger the girl who is size 2 but 5'11". Obviously long dresses would not look that good on the shorter girl either. I think if our fashion trends would start to change a bit towards to average sized women and designers would start to design clothes that looks good on that body type as well we may change the runway models look too.

All the best,

Niki B.

Mandy McKeating wrote:

ya, my question does not come from sour grapes, simply curiosity.

i know, too, that designers tend to make clothes in a sample size for shows, but my point is why is it that size? is there something that makes the clothes look that much better?

Maybe they're just cheap and they don't want to spend a lot of money on fabric.

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?

the majority of designers want "hangers" on their runways.
i understand this for fashion-but when i see a walking skeleton in a lingerie or swimsuit show-it makes me a little ill.