Claire Elizabeth wrote:
glamour

Ok.  Now why??

area291 wrote:
It is what individuals think it is.  For some it adds to the Kleenex budget.  For some it creates a yawn.  Because of that you won't find a definitive answer.

Em. . .that's what I'm asking.  What YOU, as an individual, think it is.  Care to respond in that regard?

bang bang photo wrote:
My experience is that "Playboy" tends to mean glamour with full nudity. Sometimes you will hear the term "tasteful" associated with the term. Typically that means full nudity, without open leg shots, simulated masturbation or sex, and so forth.

As with any of these terms, it's always best to discuss what EXACTLY is expected so that there is no misunderstanding. Because it's very common for two otherwise reasonable people to have different definitions of terms like this, and discussing the work frankly and clearly is always best for everyone.

Regards,
Paul

I thought the "why" of my question did that job.

Christopher Bush wrote:
i haven't read the actual magazine since i was like 10 or something (my grandfather taught me how to hide it inside another magazine and "read" it at the store), but i want to bring up that helmut newton did some very nice work for them that's been collected into a book recently.  it's worth checking out.

Yes he has.
But to answer my question. . .you think. . .

Jayne Jones wrote:
I thought the "why" of my question did that job.

Well, I would say the "why" means what the photographer hiring the model actually intends to shoot, whatever he or she calls it. What the rest of us think doesn't matter too much if you discuss it with the photog to make sure you are both on the same page before the shoot begins.

I haven't looked at Playboy in a long time -- but last time I did, it was actually pretty racy. There are often pictures in it, usually from movies, of people having sex. But the point of the term isn't to clinically describe what's in the magazine, but rather to give a general idea of broad type of photography that is going to be done for a project. So, it's been my experience that people often use the term "playboy-type" nudity to differentiate from more explicit, blatantly sexual nudity that is sometimes called "hustler-style."

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Not this again.

Yup.  If you don't have anything to lend to the convo. . .you can always just read something else.

Anjel Britt wrote:
YAWN...

See response to Melvin

Jayne Jones wrote:

Yup.  If you don't have anything to lend to the convo. . .you can always just read something else.

So what's YOUR point?

Jayne Jones wrote:
I thought the "why" of my question did that job.

bang bang photo wrote:
I haven't looked at Playboy in a long time -- but last time I did, it was actually pretty racy. There are often pictures in it, usually from movies, of people having sex. But the point of the term isn't to clinically describe what's in the magazine, but rather to give a general idea of broad type of photography that is going to be done for a project. So, it's been my experience that people often use the term "playboy-type" nudity to differentiate from more explicit, blatantly sexual nudity that is sometimes called "hustler-style."

Well, I'm asking about the magazine itself.  If you think it's erotica, glamour or what style of photography you think it is.  Also why you feel that way.  Not asking about what the photographer or client is asking for. . .but rather when you see a playboy magazine and look at the pictures. . .what style of photography do you think that is and why.

Jayne Jones wrote:
when you see a playboy magazine and look at the pictures. . .what style of photography do you think that is and why.

Playboy style.

Jayne Jones wrote:
Yup.  If you don't have anything to lend to the convo. . .you can always just read something else.

bang bang photo wrote:
So what's YOUR point?

I started the thread.  That is my contribution.

Jayne Jones wrote:
when you see a playboy magazine and look at the pictures. . .what style of photography do you think that is and why.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Playboy style.

LOL!  Silly Kevin.  Always making me laugh.

Jayne Jones wrote:

Jayne Jones wrote:
when you see a playboy magazine and look at the pictures. . .what style of photography do you think that is and why.

LOL!  Silly Kevin.  Always making me laugh.

The thing is, Playboy-style--at least for any given 5-year period--is consistent, and it's not really in any of the other categories as such. It really is distinct enough that calling it 'playboy style' is description enough. ("Maxim-style" is approaching that level of recognition, and has the same issues vis-a-vis the existing labeled fields.)

Pinup--technically, but it doesn't 'fit' what most usages of pinup mean.

Glamour--well, yes, in the sense that they're 'selling' the model as opposed to the model selling something else, but...

Fashion--neither editorial fashion nor commercial fashion

"Fine Art"--not in the typical usages

There's a LOT of "categories" which don't fit, and a lof of images that don't fit into a given caegory.

area291 wrote:
It is what individuals think it is.  For some it adds to the Kleenex budget.  For some it creates a yawn.  Because of that you won't find a definitive answer.

That about sums it up.