Photographer
Art de Vivre Photo
Posts: 65
San Diego, California, US
What do models mean when they say they want "GLAMOUR" shots. Anyonw can explain, or show me examples.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
easy... glamour showcases the model fashion/commercial showcases the clothes/product artisitc showcases the photog ![https://i.imgur.com/m8TQi.png]()
Photographer
Tony Blei Photography
Posts: 1060
Seattle, Washington, US
Swinskey, you are a genious.
I guess that I've seen that -- but for you to spell it out in such a concise manner was perfect.
Thanks!
Photographer
Ivan Aps
Posts: 4996
Miami, Florida, US
I think that most modeling images showcases the model.....I am always confused because I see people use the phrase for "Maxim" type shots. And then again for "Playboy" types shots. I have gone ahead and just started using it for the Playboy style....not traditional artistic nudes, but not porn either....so Glamour.
Model
Angie Borras
Posts: 1933
Kissimmee, Florida, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
easy...
glamour showcases the model
fashion/commercial showcases the clothes/product
artisitc showcases the photog Yup what he said
Glamour to me is like beauty shots
Photographer
eyeconstudio
Posts: 5
San Mateo, California, US
The traditional definition was an image of amodel that was idealized: think classic Hollywood photography. The word meant something like "to cast a spell," and the classic Hollywood images did that by rendering the subject in highly idealized lighting and poses. I think of my stuff as glamour photography, and Mark Wangerin's stuff even more glamourous than mine. However, it seems to me the modern definition is the model in her unmentionables, regardless of lighitng and posing and the photographer's style. So when I talk about my work now, I call it "vintage-inspired," so that the model doesn't think by "glamour" I expect her to wear less than I actually do. My two cents worth, anyhow.
jeff
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Apfel Photography wrote:
I think that most modeling images showcases the model..... and this is what separates the great fashion and commercial photographers from everyone else...
when you can put the most beautiful girl in an image and have the viewing public remember her clothes or the product...
Photographer
Hamza
Posts: 7791
New York, New York, US
'Glamour' to one person can be 'Porn' to someone else...
Glamour can mean many different things...
To Doug Swinskey Glamour is about the Model, to others Swimsuit Photography such as Sports Illustrated is Glamour.
If a Client or Model tells you they are looking for 'Glamour', ask them for examples.
There is 'NO' standard definition of 'Glamour' anymore...
Photographer
Joe Koz
Posts: 1981
Lititz, Pennsylvania, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
easy...
glamour showcases the model
fashion/commercial showcases the clothes/product
artisitc showcases the photog I'm going to steal that ....
Photographer
Richard Tallent
Posts: 7136
Beaumont, Texas, US
glamour showcases the model Concise, but I'd expand it for some extra depth:
Glamour showcases the model, and is more idealistic (retouched heavily) and "sexy." No implied sexual activity, limited (non-genital) nudity. SI Swimsuit, car magazines, pin-ups, FHM/Maxim, some Playboy.
Beauty showcases the model, but is more realistic. Retouching is light, makeup/styling is more natural, lighting is more even. Typically headshots, also includes some swimwear, may involve some nudity/sheer/implied, but definitely not sexual in pose, gaze, and setting.
Commercial fashion sells the product/clothing. Tends to be presentational--purpose is to show off the product. May not include a model at all.
Editorial fashion sells a brand or lifestyle, or tells a story. Tends to be representational--the location and pose is showcased at the expense of the product, which may be obscured, underexposed, cropped into, or not even included. May have some nudity or implied, but it's just part of the mood.
Fine art is generally B&W or unnaturally colored/saturated, has an editorial (story) bent and a beauty styling. Nudity is common, but where nudity exists, it is less common to see recognizable faces (at least with figure studies). Implied sexual activity, if present at all, is an element of the photo rather than its focus. May involve significant retouching or reworking, but the goal is artistic, not merely to remove the model's imperfections.
Erotica is "across the line" glamour, beauty, or fine art, the "line" being graphic focus on sexual activity, exhibitive nudity, sexual activity, etc. Obviously, there is much debate as to where that line is drawn, and there are a number of important elements to consider other than which body parts are facing the camera or how many color inks are used in the print.
Fine art tends to try to push the line on erotic, so it's best to look at an entire series of images rather than a single photo before adding labels.
Pornography is "across the line" erotic, where the quality of the *art* is clearly and negatively impacted by the desire to capture the erotic. With porn, generally the plot, visual quality, beauty, lighting, etc. all take a back seat to graphic documentation. Some consider "erotic" and "porn" synonymous. I think there's a line, but opinions differ.
"Glammer" is what happens when a GWC attempts Glamour, *really* wants to do Erotic, and only has the skill of a pornographer.
Obscenity is "across the line" pornography, where the line is a work that, "to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest" and which is "utterly without redeeming social importance... and that goes "substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation." We'll know it when we see it, in other words.
Hope that muddles things up sufficiently. My definitions, BTW, are a little different from those at wikipedia, so I'm probably flat wrong, but I'm drawing more from inferred connotation reading forums like these than concrete historical definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamour_photography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art
Photographer
Chu Toi
Posts: 84
Los Angeles, California, US
Richard Tallent wrote:
Concise, but I'd expand it for some extra depth:
"Glammer" is what happens when a GWC attempts Glamour, *really* wants to do Erotic, and only has the skill of a pornographer. See now, there *it* is! The very reason why I keep coming back and reading posts on the MM forums. That is wicked good funny!
Photographer
Tom Tesarik Photography
Posts: 147
Ormond Beach, Florida, US
I agree with Doug and Richard but One of the clearest definitions I heard (although vulgar) between fashion and glamour is the attitude of the model, in fashion the model attitude is f_ck you, and in glamour the models attitude is f_ck me. The wardrobe is the same 
Makeup Artist
Camera Ready Studios
Posts: 7191
Dallas, Texas, US
Tom Tesarik Photography wrote:
I agree with Doug and Richard but
One of the clearest definitions I heard (although vulgar) between fashion and glamour is the attitude of the model, in fashion the model attitude is f_ck you, and in glamour the models attitude is f_ck me. The wardrobe is the same exactly what I was going to say...this is the best description there is out there.
Wardrobe Stylist
Narvell
Posts: 324
Dallas, Texas, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
easy...
glamour showcases the model
fashion/commercial showcases the clothes/product
artisitc showcases the photog I agree except most of the time if the makeup and wardwobe is artistic, the image will showcase the MUA or wardwobe stylist.
Tom Tesarik Photography wrote:
I agree with Doug and Richard but
One of the clearest definitions I heard (although vulgar) between fashion and glamour is the attitude of the model, in fashion the model attitude is f_ck you, and in glamour the models attitude is f_ck me. The wardrobe is the same Yeah... right on the money!
Photographer
Christofer Rodriguez
Posts: 156
San Bernardino, California, US
Tom Tesarik Photography wrote:
I agree with Doug and Richard but
One of the clearest definitions I heard (although vulgar) between fashion and glamour is the attitude of the model, in fashion the model attitude is f_ck you, and in glamour the models attitude is f_ck me. The wardrobe is the same Too bad it wasn't a girl who stated this Quote. I got a little excited after I read it. Thanks anyways Ol' Tom.
|
