Mayanlee wrote:

Trying to dangle them carrots, are you?

Yes. 

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
is it your position that height requirements for runway models are purely a matter of mechanical considerations such as draping and lines of view, and that cultural preferences are entirely irrelevant?  (this is not a rhetorical question.  if my assumption that this is your position is mistaken, i will modify my previous statements accordingly.)

Since you asked: the cultural preferences that factor in to who does or does not get selected to walk a runway involve the view that "tall & slender" translates into "elegant & beautiful" - attributes that just about any fashion designer at any time would want associated with their creations.  But, as Udo stated - this is not the only consideration or parameter.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Jerry Whiter wrote:
When a TV station here asked this question one female designer answered that this used to be different and one of the reason is most designers are male and gay so they prefer the boyish look which now became a standard, unfortunately.

I give up
I'm too tired and too drained to even respond to this bigoted inaccurate idiocy at the moment

Jerry Whiter wrote:
When a TV station here asked this question one female designer answered that this used to be different and one of the reason is most designers are male and gay so they prefer the boyish look which now became a standard, unfortunately.

OMG, Jerry said something politically incorrect !!!! *snickers*

but, on the merits, apparently clothing used to drape differently than it does now.

MelissaLynnette LaDiva wrote:
Y'all are still doin this dance?

Yeah..it got old long ago.

Udor wrote:
Originally posted on February 11, 2006, revised on January 24, 2007

Since this question seems constantly to come up, I did some extra shots at this current Fashion Week (Fall 2006 Collection) here in New York City (with the purpose of doing an informative thread on my own... soon... but here's the "preview").

The girl in image 1 and 2 is NOT a model, she's one of the finalist designers for "Project Runway", I shot the show on Friday morning... and thought that this is an excellent example for showing the visual effect of "short models" mixed with tall, high fashion models.

The first shows her alone, she's is somewhere around 5'2" and  has actually a pretty face.

Just think that if it were the other way around and all the models in the show were 5'2" to 5'3" except one who was 5'9". Now who would look out of place.

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.

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.

There are actually a few more rows... but I would have cut out the model... and it was necessary for me to demonstrate the room and the model.

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!

Short "model", finalist of Project Runway, could "pass on her own, if a tad slimmer, but(!)...



... here is the "short model" in comparison to regular runway models... looks funny, doesn't it?!



Putting height and major fashion show in perspective... Would the garment on a five foot model be seen by the fashionistas in the remote seats?

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
i'm referring to your one-line response, "get rid of the tittie picture", after i inadvertently coded this 18+ picture of Dr Victoria Zdrok with [img ] tags instead of [url ] tags:

https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=584278

now that i have forthrightly responded to your question, please respond similarly to mine, which is asked in the hope that we may find some common ground:

Okay... you committed a Model Mayhem rule violation by posting an image that is 18+ in a public forum... and I asked you to remove the [img] tags... so that it's linked and not visible... and you are freaking out on me and being hurt a year later... I don't even remember this photo or the person in it...

Comes with the territory, this has been done thousands of times by the moderators... and not only you feel "special", you also interpret this as an insult to the model??? ... tsk... tsk... tsk.

Btw... to post an URL... you do NOT need [url]-tags!

.... is it your position that height requirements for runway models are purely a matter of mechanical considerations such as draping and lines of view, and that cultural preferences are entirely irrelevant?  (this is not a rhetorical question.  if my assumption that this is your position is mistaken, i will modify my previous statements accordingly.)

Also... I have answered your question I believe in detail... and I pointed you to the page... but you seem to prefer to ignore the information... again...

Mayanlee wrote:

Don't even ask.

How many times do I have to tell you men (looking pointedly at UdoR, SLE and TX)?? As a popular saying goes: don't argue with idiots.  They'll drag you down and beat you with experience.

You are right... but I always hope that some information is being dissipated that can and will be read by others who actually are able to understand the context.

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.

Omg wow, so true...

that makes me feel better for being short and curvy

Udor wrote:
Originally posted on February 11, 2006, revised on January 24, 2007

Since this question seems constantly to come up, I did some extra shots at this current Fashion Week (Fall 2006 Collection) here in New York City (with the purpose of doing an informative thread on my own... soon... but here's the "preview").

The girl in image 1 and 2 is NOT a model, she's one of the finalist designers for "Project Runway", I shot the show on Friday morning... and thought that this is an excellent example for showing the visual effect of "short models" mixed with tall, high fashion models.

The first shows her alone, she's is somewhere around 5'2" and  has actually a pretty face.

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.

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.

There are actually a few more rows... but I would have cut out the model... and it was necessary for me to demonstrate the room and the model.

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!

Short "model", finalist of Project Runway, could "pass on her own, if a tad slimmer, but(!)...



... here is the "short model" in comparison to regular runway models... looks funny, doesn't it?!



Putting height and major fashion show in perspective... Would the garment on a five foot model be seen by the fashionistas in the remote seats?

\



It wouldnt look so different if the people in front of her were short then they would all blend. Say for instance you stuck a 9 foot female there she would stand out as well.

Travious R Crenshaw wrote:

\



It wouldnt look so different if the people in front of her were short then they would all blend. Say for instance you stuck a 9 foot female there she would stand out as well.

Yeah.
But again, the people in the back, how would they see?
Re the 9' female:  That is why there is a height range not just a minimum cut off.  6'3" women models get left out as well.

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 agree God made us all uniquely with different shapes & sizes

Pro Images of Atlanta wrote:
Short models do better on runway because the tall models dont have to duck when the airplanes land.

Oops.....I mean the tall ones have to duck.....landing gear can leave a bump on de head

SWEETFACE SHOTS wrote:

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

Ya whats with that?!

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?

Because the clothes sinply hang better on a rail thin model. companies want the clothing to be the focus, not the model....

i dont really agree but thats what i figured

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:

it seems that aggressively and noisily crushing the dreams of newbie women models is Udor's reigning obsession.

oh come on! they should be lied too. apples cant ever be oranges

Matt wrote:
if you're too lazy to eat properly and hit the gym...
or if your genetics are HONESTLY getting in the way of hitting the dress
size they want...

PICK A DIFFERENT PROFESSION!

Stupid people don't get to be neuro surgeons (bad example, I know),
and people who aren't thin and tall don't get to be models

What do you mean?  People who aren't thin can be models.  Look at me, I'm not a stick figure.

Oryx wrote:
Clothes just look better on tall, lean bodies. Short girls should realize this and stop complaining.

Only when blond wigs are worn on people who look good blond

lol!

Well... I don't personally agree that clothes ONLY look good on tall lean bodies.

There are requirements and if you don't meet em... *shrug* ya dont do the catwalk. Nuff said.

SWEETFACE SHOTS wrote:
I will say i'm surprised this thread was resurrected lol!

I took some interest in it.  Especially since a heigh thread turned into a weight thread.

TAM HEMA wrote:

I took some interest in it.  Especially since a heigh thread turned into a weight thread.

It always turns into a weight thread on top of the height*shrug*

It just does, it ALWAYS does.

SWEETFACE SHOTS wrote:

It always turns into a weight thread on top of the height*shrug*

It just does, it ALWAYS does.

I didn't like how that guy said that women who weigh above the standard can't model.  It's simply not true.

Ivan123 wrote:
Like most fashion designers she looks like she got dressed out of a dumpster.  I don't know anything about fashion or makeup but I can't help but notice that those who are expert in producing it seem not to indulge in it themselves.

For new designers, a profit won't even be made for at least a few years, if they ever even "make it" at all.  They also tend to be their own entrepreneurs without substantial funding from anyone else, and thus they put all of their finances into making clothes, without having the money or the time left to spend on themselves.

Gabrielle Marie wrote:
For new designers, a profit won't even be made for at least a few years, if they ever even "make it" at all.  They also tend to be their own entrepreneurs without substantial funding from anyone else, and thus they put all of their finances into making clothes, without having the money or the time left to spend on themselves.

I see your point ... but for those in an industry of design / fashion / photography etc. need to realize that it's a visual industry where impressions are very critical. One would think that one's own look would be important as well. If I were a designer, I would indulge myself and create something nice for me ... haha!

Megan E B wrote:
thinner, and also models with small breasts allow the clothes to be worn more as they look on the hanger, which is what the designer is going for.

please tell me you are joking.....please.

that is the most upsurd statement I think I have ever heard on MM.*


*DISCLAIMER....until the next one is said!

Melusine wrote:

please tell me you are joking.....please.

that is the most upsurd statement I think I have ever heard on MM.*


*DISCLAIMER....until the next one is said!

Madelynn Austin wrote:
I just wanted to say thankies Udor, because I learned a whole bunch from this thread.
I never wanted to do runway, but it's interesting to understand why designers use the models they do to promote their products.

Melusine wrote:

please tell me you are joking.....please.

that is the most upsurd statement I think I have ever heard on MM.*


*DISCLAIMER....until the next one is said!

upsurd?

And your disclaimer REEKS of irony.

Shon D Photography wrote:

Every time you post that, an angel gets its wings.