Shyly wrote:
I miss the old Hollywood style glam.  That's what I think of as being "real" glamour.  Mark Wangerin does a bang-up job in that genre.

I agree.  Checked out Mark.  He has captured the old Hollywood style glamour and it looks great.

Anjel Britt wrote:
mostly though its SUPPOSED to mean
anything where the focus is on making the model look sexy /pretty/ good
rather than the shot, the product, clothes, the lighting or the style of shooting being the main focus

^^^ That's your answer. 

Though I've noticed that many on MM seems to have a healthy disdain for glamour.  maybe it's because of how much bad glamour  that permeates the site, but personally I see as much equally bad "art", "fashion" and "commercial".

I basically look at it like this:

Just because you took a picture in your panties doesn't make it glamour

Just because you took a picture in your prom dress doesn't make it fashion

Just because you have a shadow on your nipple and the pic was desaturated doesn't make it art.

And just because you're holding a can of Pepsi doesn't make it comercial.

Anjel Britt wrote:
mostly though its SUPPOSED to mean
anything where the focus is on making the model look sexy /pretty/ good
rather than the shot, the product, clothes, the lighting or the style of shooting being the main focus

That's my answer, too.

Myke Newman wrote:
I notice some folks have glamour in the name of their studio or photographic business, but when looking at their portfolio most what you'll see is bathing suits or women in the butt in the air ghetto club pose.

I'm not knocking the content, because to each his/her own, but may be my definition of glamour is different.

I just thought this was funny and want to share my thought.

So, what you think?

Well, if you're trying to dis it, or support it, you'll come up with more complex definitions. But for me, the most objective, unbiased definition is: Glamour photography is about the woman. She is the main subject. Fashion Photography is about the clothes being sold.

There are a million variations, but over the years and watching fads come and go, these continue to hold true to me.

Personally, I've never seen a better definition than these.

bang bang photo wrote:
Well, if you're trying to dis it, or support it, you'll come up with more complex definitions. But for me, the most objective, unbiased definition is: Glamour photography is about the woman. She is the main subject. Fashion Photography is about the clothes being sold.

There are a million variations, but over the years and watching fads come and go, these continue to hold true to me.

Personally, I've never seen a better definition than these.

Don't get me wrong  I'm not dissin' or for, I just made an observation based on what I've seen on this site, all respect to photographers out there. I was just wanted to know what others thought.

bang bang photo wrote:
Glamour photography is about the woman. She is the main subject. Fashion Photography is about the clothes being sold.

thank goodness its not as concrete as that or we would be forced to fail as we cannot provide the tactile sense of fabric or the heady rush of the girl of your dreams (could also be boy of your dreams) almost... maybe... finally in your arms.

in all categories, the intangible is as important if not more so than the tangible. in the case of glamour the subject may well be attainable... in fashion she is almost always beyond reach (for a mere mortal)

my thoughts.

bang bang photo wrote:
Well, if you're trying to dis it, or support it, you'll come up with more complex definitions. But for me, the most objective, unbiased definition is: Glamour photography is about the woman. She is the main subject. Fashion Photography is about the clothes being sold.

There are a million variations, but over the years and watching fads come and go, these continue to hold true to me.

Personally, I've never seen a better definition than these.

I agree with the statement above.

oldguysrule wrote:

thank goodness its not as concrete as that or we would be forced to fail as we cannot provide the tactile sense of fabric or the heady rush of the girl of your dreams (could also be boy of your dreams) almost... maybe... finally in your arms.

in all categories, the intangible is as important if not more so than the tangible. in the case of glamour the subject may well be attainable... in fashion she is almost always beyond reach (for a mere mortal)

my thoughts.

I wasn't trying to be concrete as much as inclusive. The things you are describing, to me, define the differences between "good" glamour, and well, whatever we don't think is good. But in the end, it's just a label. You either like the pictures, or not. Personally, I get a charge out of labels. Like the models who say they only do "tasteful" work, and then fill their portfolios with pix of themselves grabbing their boobies in front of a wrinkled bedsheet. . . . we all have images in our heads that go with the words, and it's amazing how really different those images can be!

  Paul

Glamour Makeover Studio wrote:
I am not sure how to copy a quote and reply to it so forgive me for the errors. On my web site www.glamourmakeoverstudios.com I show my first glamour makeover. She is the lady at the upper left hand side. This was my image of glamour in 2000. I have now advanced to a point that I also agree that Glamour is about a women. I am confused however when I go to your web page and I see  your picture called Brandy. This is a women sitting on a tree trunk with her legs gaped wide open.  I am still trying to find myself with the word Glamour and where I want to take it as a photographer.

I did not say I was trying to present myself as glamour or even use the word in that sense. In the case of the particular photo you mentioned, I was going for an artistic and provocative look without revealing much but leaving an unanswered question as to why did I shoot that. Hey, apparently it worked!


Thanx for ur comment

bang bang photo wrote:
I wasn't trying to be concrete as much as inclusive. The things you are describing, to me, define the differences between "good" glamour, and well, whatever we don't think is good. But in the end, it's just a label. You either like the pictures, or not. Personally, I get a charge out of labels. Like the models who say they only do "tasteful" work, and then fill their portfolios with pix of themselves grabbing their boobies in front of a wrinkled bedsheet. . . . we all have images in our heads that go with the words, and it's amazing how really different those images can be!

  Paul

Thank you very much this input, because I do agree it is how things are preceived and interpreted by the viewer or reader. It is amazing how some models will say that or they say "no nude request" and they have images that say other wise in their port(s). This is another forum post

Susi wrote:
I agree with you with different definitions of what "glamour" is or what is "glamorous".  However, in the model/photographer lingo, the term glamour means the Maxin, Playboy, FHM style of image.  I didn't come up with the term...but that's what it is.

I'll agree with this. I've always condensed the definition as "fashion in half the clothing."