James Jackson wrote:

Again...not glamour photography.

Glamour photography and Glamourous photography are two different things!

The poster is a clasic, with or without the hair!
An air of compelling charm, romance, and excitement, especially when delusively alluring.
She was and is alluring....That's Glamour.

Charlie

T H Taylor wrote:
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!).

lol

PK Digital Imaging wrote:
p.s. Using wiki as a 'source' is like using The Onion as a 'source'.

Damn it! Spewed coffee all over the keyboard!
Come on if it's in print it must be true.. I read that in the World Weekly News!


Paul

James Jackson wrote:
A) Not glamour - look up the definition

B) Not timeless - very dated, clearly late 70's early 80's even if you don't know who that is...look at the hair, styling, and coloration of the film!

Fashion photos arent dated? Clothes go horribly out of style a few years after they are "in".

A. H A M I L T O N wrote:

I think it's the other way around.

Maybe I'm jaded because a fair percentage of the girls I shoot are 13-15.

Andy

Thats sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Meehan Photography wrote:

Yay THAT'S 'TIMELESS'

But, I THINK, it's ART...


:-)

Sara Danielle wrote:

Thats sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wasn't sure I was reading that right, but glad to know I'm not the only one that though it was not appropriate.  Obviously, he's not a glamour photographer.

Fotticelli wrote:

George who?

OMG!.....you don't know who Hurell is????...

Hurrell was a contract photographer back in the Golden Years of Hollywood.....he photographed all the really big stars.......back in the 30/40s.....his images are absolutely beautiful....flawless skin tones.....beautiful lighting.....everything about his work is perfect.....I've got books about him.....and only wish I was 1/10 the glamour photographer he was......

Do a search on Google and check out his work.....it will be worth your while....