Been lurking for a few weeks, reading all the critiques, will try to post as soon as I have a few shots that are worthily edited and lit, but... ANYONE WHO SAYS THIS MODEL DOESN'T HAVE A PHENOMENAL BODY IS INSANE. My #1 model (read: my wife) is a fitness model -- the absolute ideal of femininity in my opinion. And I don't mean the super-muscular ones like the Olympia. I mean Fitness America, FAME, etc. Why else are half the girls in WWE that are ogled by millions around the world from a fitness background? Why else are they all on bikini calendars, fantasy art, etc.? Who wants a girl with no meat on her bones and no musculature (that creates all the curves)?
I think it's safe to say that most of us grew up with a preference for a bikini model type vs. a supermodel type. Especially because most men aren't as tall as a supermodel. I'm 6'3" though and I still prefer a fitness model over a supermodel any day. It's all about the hourglass figure, and a girl who doesn't work out generally doesn't have a small waist and a round butt. Any model can go out and get implants for some curve. Doesn't do a damn thing for the other half of her body. And if she was born with no hips, well... I guess that's what photographers are for, right? Light her legs so that at least a small amount of curvature can be created.
I suppose models who just got implants want to flaunt them, so I can't blame the photographers. I just think the legs/butt (which are far more glamourous in my opinion) get overlooked or ignored too much -- or is it because most girls don't have nice legs? Am I missing something here? Is there just a far higher percentage of models with better chests than legs/butt, so everyone shoots torso/face shots instead of body shots that show off legs?
|