|
Forums >
General Industry >
You might be a glamour photographer if...
Just bored with the threads on the police, thought I would start something fun so fly my little monkeys, fly fly like the wind.... Jun 26 06 01:20 am Link If your hair constantly gets caught in your nikon camera strap...you might be a glamour photographer... If your bandana is greasier than a bag of french fries... If you're wearing a trench coat with shorts and it's 90 degrees out... If your belly sticks out farther than the front element of your lens... Jun 26 06 01:23 am Link You've seen more nudes in a hotel, then in your bedroom. Jun 26 06 02:49 am Link You create great images that will last longer than any fashion trend or magazine. Jun 26 06 02:52 am Link Michael Bell wrote: Wha???? Jun 26 06 03:51 am Link How about 90% of George Hurrell's portfolio? Or... the Marylin Monroe windblown shot? *ducking behind the bushes* Jun 26 06 04:06 am Link *looks around the place and figures I'll be better off not saying a word lol.* Jun 26 06 04:29 am Link Rafael Alvarez wrote: Same here, this thread got derailed fast... Jun 26 06 04:39 am Link you bore me to tears. TEARS! Jun 26 06 09:17 am Link Michael Bell wrote: BwaHhahhhahahahahA! Jun 26 06 09:34 am Link (Note that all of these say MIGHT.) If you've ever set your camera to the "Cloudy" white balance setting indoors, you might be a glamour photographer. If you've got a trunk full of panties, stockings, and similar items, and you're a non-transvestite male, you might be a glamour photographer. If you've also got a trunk full of various makeup items, tweezers, nail files, and similar items, and you're still a non-transvestite male, you might be a glamour photographer. If you've ever blown more than a hundred bucks on the day after Halloween in a costume store, you might be an alternative glamour photographer. If you own a device (such as a filter) which is designed to make your images less sharp on purpose, you might be a glamour photographer. If you've ever had to deal with the string, you might be a glamour (at least) photographer. If you know Bernard of Hollywood's first name, you might be a glamour photographer. If you've ever spent ten minutes trying to figure out how much more you can raise or lower a piece of clothing without showing something you don't want to show, you might be a glamour photographer. If you've ever photographed a model in a swimsuit and there was no body of water larger than a bathtub for miles around, you might be a glamour photographer. (Or a catalog photographer. Or a GWC. Your call.) If you've ever been six feet away from a woman too beautiful to be real, wearing little or nothing, and doing her best to look like a fantasy come alive, and all you could think about was how the damn lighting just wouldn't cooperate and she needs to stop smoking so her mouth won't do that thing anymore and isn't it time for lunch, you might be a glamour photographer. M Jun 26 06 11:09 am Link PK Digital Imaging wrote: George who? Jun 26 06 11:11 am Link James Jackson wrote:
Jun 26 06 11:12 am Link If you get into long discussions about the "butt-up-in-the-air" pose. Describe how far apart the model's legs are to be spread in terms of "Playboy" or "Hustler". Get very upset when models have nude pictures on ther profiles but say that they don't pose nude. Jun 26 06 11:16 am Link that still from breakfast at tiffany's - with the cigerette holder. Glamour al the way baby! And timeless to boot... lets not forget our english - glamour is only glamourous thats been shortened and stripped these days  Jun 26 06 11:21 am Link If you look at a magazine like Playboy and critique the images, spend time trying to figure out how they were lit and never really notice the woman in the picture are naked. Jun 26 06 11:25 am Link You see a beautiful woman and think "I'd love to shoot her", instead of "I'd love to do her" Jun 26 06 11:30 am Link Timm wrote: A) Not glamour - look up the definition Jun 26 06 02:47 pm Link Gregory Garecki wrote: Jun 26 06 03:07 pm Link PK Digital Imaging wrote: Again...not glamour photography. Jun 26 06 03:09 pm Link James I hate to break it to you but you may be kinda on your own with your own little definition of glamour. Its a widely debated topic to be sure and I doubt you'll catch many flies continually insisting that everyone else is wrong. Rather than saying what it isn't - tell us what YOU think glamour is and perhaps show us some POSITIVE examples. I doubt many will agree with your definition but at least we will be exposed to another perspective and possibly some fantastic images. I can't wait! Jun 26 06 05:24 pm Link Photofurnace wrote: Actually I personally had no definition of glamour photography until I read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamour_photography Jun 26 06 05:36 pm Link William R Beebe wrote: OMG THATS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING!!!! lol- thats so funny Jun 26 06 05:49 pm Link Stacy Leigh wrote: Stacy...you reading my mind? LOL Jun 26 06 05:51 pm Link James Jackson wrote: That may well be the wiki definition but that is not authorative...wiki is a "catchall everyone have a go" type of source. Jun 26 06 06:11 pm Link James your source of definition seems to make my point. By that definition Timm's image of Farrah is in fact a perfect example of glamour. Anyway despite the fact that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source on anything (they accept contributions from anyone) that is a really decent definition or description of glamour. Not that it matters but I totally agree. I'd still love to see what constitutes glamour for you. Jun 26 06 06:15 pm Link ... if you are smart and confident enough to create images that you like, not to con errr, convince other people how deep and intelligent you are. ... if you are talented enough to create images in color that can inspire people that less honest folks have to shoot in monochrome to look artistic. ... if you think beautiful and sexy women are interesting enough. ... if you have the financial means to pursue images you enjoy, not what you have to shoot to be marketeable ... if you have the confidence and skill to shoot in a style that near every new and non photographer want to shoot in and yet still distinguish yourself through quality ... if you don't take yourself so seriously ... if you are like me. Jun 26 06 06:29 pm Link Star wrote: You spend an inordinate amount of time on Model Mayhem. Jun 26 06 06:39 pm Link ... if you are more concerned about the fading "golden hour" light than the naked woman in front of you. ... if your first reaction to a gorgeous woman lying topless on the beach is to set up a scrim and a reflector ... if you look at a naked woman staring lasciviously at you and think "she needs to put something on; maybe stockings?" Jun 26 06 06:40 pm Link James Jackson wrote: From your Wiki link: Jun 27 06 07:45 am Link James Jackson wrote:
Jun 27 06 08:02 am Link Sian Louise wrote: Actually glamourous is derived from glamour which is an old word for spell. Someone would be under a glamour. Jun 27 06 08:03 am Link James Jackson wrote: I'm probablly less of a fan of what glamour SEEMS to mean to a vast majority of the Internet shooters than anyone, but there's a style, time, and place where it does have a great purpose. Brooke Shields (iirc this was in Time): Jun 27 06 08:20 am Link If you think just because it is black and white it is art, you might be a glamour photographer. Jun 27 06 08:36 am Link if you have convinced a model that a fashion shoot needs one bend over butt shot than you are. Jun 27 06 09:21 am Link Meehan Photography wrote: A. H A M I L T O N wrote: hrm....seems I've been bested by not one, but two timeless glamour photographs... Congrats. Jun 27 06 09:25 am Link If you say to the bride: "Hold it... That's good now, stick your ass out... beautiful!" You might be a glamour photographer (or an interesting wedding photographer!). Jun 27 06 10:18 am Link Say cheese. (my subjective opinion of course) Jun 27 06 01:17 pm Link Stacy Leigh wrote: Damn! Guilty... Jun 27 06 02:14 pm Link Stacy Leigh wrote: I think it's the other way around. Jun 27 06 03:18 pm Link |
)
