bigbee wrote:
Just scrolling through the model listings, I noticed that 95% of the profile pictures are crap. It's not a stretch to conclude that if you don't have an even half-decent picture to post for your profile, chances are you are not a model.
Or maybe they haven't met a photographer who has the talent to make them look like a model. Hence, why they are on ModelMayhem, to be discovered.
It's full of tons of girls who with egos/issues who want to say "Hey, I'm a model!" etc. Most of these girls are toothpicks and 5'3" with no chance at ALL of ever becoming a model.
Just use them as props while you learning, don't worry about "social" issues (lol) that's totally unnecessary, they're just purse props while you learn.
What does 5' 3" and skinny have anything to do with not being a model?
Gregory.Rotter wrote:
Um, perhaps he means a runway model? There are other types of models too of course.
I guess you guys didn't watch last seasons 'America's Next Top Model'. Living with two girls I have no choice...but just to inform those who stereo type, last years winner was 5' 3".
Yes its true, there is a market for short models as well. Again, if you are a good photographer and you have a good model, between you and her, her 5' 3" frame can look 6' tall.
BradTaylor wrote:
I guess you guys didn't watch last seasons 'America's Next Top Model'. Living with two girls I have no choice...but just to inform those who stereo type, last years winner was 5' 3".
Yes its true, there is a market for short models as well. Again, if you are a good photographer and you have a good model, between you and her, her 5' 3" frame can look 6' tall.
Sure the best photographer can make a 5'3 model look 6", but why should he, when 5"7 and up models are a dime a dozen? I'm not saying there aren't short models, or disagreeing that Americas top model winners are the new standard in modelling ; I'm just saying they aren't the norm.
Oh, and in case it doesn't show , I really have no clue about the fashion industry, I'm just a newbie here
BradTaylor wrote:
I guess you guys didn't watch last seasons 'America's Next Top Model'. Living with two girls I have no choice...but just to inform those who stereo type, last years winner was 5' 3".
That's only because the theme of last season was "short". Every season before that (and probably every season afterward), women 5'7 or shorter are deemed too short to be models. In fact, the promo poster shows Tyra Banks as a giant next to all the contestants.
I was trying to be as snarky as possible toward Tyra Banks in this post, but I couldn't muster enough ire to really articulate how much I dislike her. Whatever the case, hopefully fashion models aren't what most people strive to be as the fashion industry is quite disgusting. Non-fashion models are allowed to be short as well as "plus-size" (which is fashion speak for "normal body size").
Ian Bower wrote:
I guess what I am looking for, is someone who will come out and stand infront of my camera, while I practice using my equipment and lighting.
I dunno, just an idea. You can also get a mannequin and a lot cheaper. The "skin" doesn't have sub-surface scattering though. http://www.mannequinmadness.com/ These might teach you something about make-up too - fairly important for a photographer to know about.
Just got to any model agency and ask or look at their requirements. A lot of them want you to be 5'9" or higher.
A LOT of females on MM have a hard time accepting that htye have no chance at all of ever becoming a model, and think because they feel they are "pretty" it entitles them to something in that area. It doesn't.
Short people with beautiful faces work in print all the time. Its called 'lifestyle'.
Half of the girls (females? lol) on MM are deluded, but don't take it so personal. Not everyone has the same blazing intelligence and sense of self that we do.
I've been on MM for years and love it. I'm an amateur who loves photographing beautiful women. I've found some wonderful models and some dogs (physically and intellectually). Most of them can't make it as models. But I've never paid anyone (OK, I think twice I given some gas money, but not enough to be considered payment). I give them a CD with a Photoshop created website (all the photos, good and bad, and the large images are small enough to e-mail but not large enough to print). I'm in the shoot for about $5, mainly for the storage and postage costs.
I've never missed anything they might have stolen and the occasional model's left things not worth mailing back to them.
My specialty is portraiture, so they always get some good headshots to give to mother, etc. Getting nude models can be difficult, but on MM they are fairly common, so I don't have a problem there.
The worst part about MM is the volume of models covered in tattoos, ugly piercings, or cheap boob jobs. It's not that hard to look at their portfolios and make an educated guess about which ones have issues. The import car models are the best for sure.
MCLMM wrote:
The worst part about MM is the volume of models covered in tattoos, ugly piercings, or cheap boob jobs. It's not that hard to look at their portfolios and make an educated guess about which ones have issues. The import car models are the best for sure.
The notion of "being covered in...cheap boob jobs" sounds at once repulsive and intriguing.
Seriously though, to each their own. On the one hand, body modification is as old as human civilization. On the other hand, it's done all too often by people who are insufficiently interesting in and of themselves, and thus resort to such attempts to stand out.
Conversely, body modification is often looked down upon by people whose idea of personal self expression is limited to their choice of sports jersey and their appreciation of the Three Wolf Moon shirt they received for Christmas.
Wolfe_boy wrote:
Conversely, body modification is often looked down upon by people whose idea of personal self expression is limited to their choice of sports jersey and their appreciation of the Three Wolf Moon shirt they received for Christmas.
What's with all the negativity?
Personally, I don't have a problem with it, especially if done well. It's not really any different than, say, makeup. There are good makeup jobs and bad...really bad ones. *shudder*
But I still stand by my claim, that too often it is done for the sake of novelty. Which, by the way, isn't a judgment against their rationale, but it is I think a legitimate critique in the context of their interest in modeling. I myself have thought of getting a blacklight tattoo, but it would need to be something imbued with personal meaning, and to date there haven't been any developments to that end, unfortunately. Yet I have no illusions about modeling or posing or showing off.
It's not to say that there aren't people who take their modifications more seriously--I just get the sense that for quite a few people, it's just something to do to look more interesting than they really are. I present to you as evidence the following hysterically funny blog:
I have been using Mayhem for about a year. I have done an average of a shoot a week with their models, and have painted several as well. If you need references of reliable models in the NY area let me know. It is true that some do not show up, but here it is about one third to one quarter of the bookings. I tell them to call before they leave for here, and to be here 15 minutes early. If they do not call, I do not set up the studio and will not wait more than a few minutes past the scheduled time. They are more reliable with this system. Whether a model shows also depends on how much money is involved. I pay minimally, but always pay. If you arrange a free shoot, the model will grab any last minute work she can and forget about you.
johnbonham wrote:
I'm curious... what exactly is it that you get out of doing that, that you would spend all this money on equipment just to be able to giving away free photography to women who would never have anything to do with you on a personal level, are often incredibly shallow, often rude and self-centered and most pro's use as props for purses?
The term "GWC" comes to mind... kind of creepy that someone would even admit to such a fetish on this forum.
You think it's creepy that someone would like meeting, conversing with and photographing beautiful women? Really? You have to ask what someone would get out of that? Why do you care how he spends his money? Is that really how you see or your experience with most of the models on MM? Wow, wow, wubbzy!
johnbonham wrote:
The term "GWC" comes to mind... kind of creepy that someone would even admit to such a fetish on this forum.
Isn't this an ad hominem attack? Firstly, you're assuming an awful lot. Maybe he just simply has pleasure in photographing people. Did you check his MM portfolio out? Doesn't look like any sinister images there, and the models don't look unhappy or creeped out either. What he does with his time, and his money is not really for you to decide.
[creepy voice] "you got a purty mouth" [/creepy voice]
Seriously though, there's all kinds of people out there, photographers and models alike. There are creeps and there are non-creeps. Sometimes, it can be quite difficult to distinguish one from the other. It's not quite so black-and-white.
Let's put it this way. A lot of (straight) male photographers naturally prefer to shoot females. They'll explain that preference with statements like "women are just more pleasing to look at" or talk about how the female figure is inherently more aesthetic than the male. And that's just not true. It's not wrong to admit that you photograph women over men because you find women sexually attractive. That is called using your sexuality as a lever to facilitate taking good photos--but only to a point.
The same goes for gay male photographers who shoot other males, and of course, female photographers shooting either males or females. Everyone tends to want to photograph that which they find attractive, no matter if it is a person or a flower or a bird. Granted, you probably don't want to f*** a flower or a bird (but who am I to assume that?), but that's what separates a portrait photographer from a "GWC"--and I use that term to refer to anyone, male or female, whose photography of others is more a pretense than a sincere endeavor.
Much of the practice of photography is concerned with finding subjects that are visually interesting, whether that means being attracted to (or sometimes, repulsed by) something or someone; and that force that compels us should not be less worthy for having been born of some kernel of sexual desire. What ultimately decides the honor in one's intentions is how one's motivation is conveyed in the interaction with the subject and the final result.
For what it's worth, I find male subjects easier to work with, though I'd much rather be shooting macros and wildlife. The difficulty of shooting women is that there's already so much of that out there, that I find it more rewarding to focus my attention on subjects that aren't quite as popular, if that makes any sense.
I'm not saying there aren't short models, or disagreeing that Americas top model winners are the new standard in modelling ; I'm just saying they aren't the norm.
, I really have no clue about the fashion industry, I'm just a newbie here 
