|
Forums >
General Industry >
Artistic glamour.. Possible?
And what would it mean? I've nothing for or against shooting nudes (got another one coming up next week I'm looking very forward to..) In some ways it suits my style of shooting because there's a certain honest vulnerability that comes with being nekkid.. (For some models.. Not all..) But.. Clothes are nice too.. Lingerie.. And whatnot adds color and variety to the endless variations (which aren't really endless) of making a naked body reflect light in every way you can think of.. And yet if you add lingerie (or bikinis or whatnot) to a nude shot.. Suddenly it's a glamour shot.. For the most part.. (Although I can think of a few exceptions, they're damned few).. So.. If you're pushing for artistic (or at least trying to emphasize emotions other than "teh sexah") what differentiates a clothed or partially clothed art shot from a glamour shot? (I've got my own opinions of course, just wanted to see the discussion..) Jul 21 06 02:17 pm Link Shoulda posted this in Photography... Jul 21 06 03:26 pm Link pose: legs, back arch, shoulders, and neck all give powerful non-verbal cues about the intent of the image. expression: where is she looking and what is she looking for? outfit: a matching bikini top/bottom is more likely to cross into glamour than, say, bikini bottoms and a sweater. The more the outfit matches, the more the focus goes to the model. The more interesting and eclectic the wardrobe, the more the model becomes just part of the picture. lighting: as above. Even, clinical lighting puts the focus on the model's physiology, while more interesting lighting can decrease the "glam" look. footwear: if you're wearing a bikini and 5-inch heels, you might just be a glammer model. and, of course, if it's B&W, it's always artistic!  Jul 21 06 05:37 pm Link Look at this photographer's work. There's at least a bit of what you're looking for here. http://www.gabrielerigon.it/index.htm You've piqued my interest. Now I'll be thinking all weekend about this! It is hard to find what you describe! I find many photographs of Dancers can be Art no matter what they have on. Some of the Hollywood portraits of Clarence Bull and Ruth Harriet Louise are Art too. Jul 21 06 06:17 pm Link Jul 21 06 06:36 pm Link Shoot it in Black and White. That always makes something artistic! **rimshot** Jul 21 06 06:39 pm Link I think (retro) pinup photography classifies as "artistic glamour" or even the old Hollywood glamour. I'd rather look at that all day, instead of the cheesy T&A of Maxim/FHM/Stuff. Classy, not trashy is what I prefer.. Jul 21 06 06:48 pm Link Naked = without clothes, nude. Nekid = An old southern term meaning without clothes, nude, but 'up to something' There is a difference between being photographed naked and 'nekid'. Intimacy! Intimacy, intent and good taste, that's what separates traditional glamour, porn and P'boy images from art. Any attractive lady can pose in lingerie or a swimsuit, but when there is only skin, light and shadow, then things change. This may sound elitist and I do not really mean it that way, but no modeling experience at all is needed to pose for figurative art. Certainly artistic glamour is possible. It's different from P'boy style, not better or worse, just different. I do it all the time, that's why ldies travell from all over the country and pay me to shoot their nude images. They like the artistic nude images, portraits or othrwise, that I produce. It doesn't require superior photographic skill, just an understanding of light and shadow, the lines, shapes and forms of the female figure and an overwhelming appreciation of the female figure in all of its variations. An artistic nude. http://www.distinctiveimages.com/intima … Amy076.jpg Jul 21 06 06:58 pm Link Is this a trick question?  IMO, Glamour is about wanting. No reason you cannot add art to it also. https://img2.modelmayhem.com/050729/17/ … 6eefc6.jpg Jul 21 06 10:37 pm Link I know nothing... Naked feels the same as Nekid to me... T Jul 21 06 10:56 pm Link T wrote: T's a good example of what I'm talking about.. When she looks at the camera she's instantly seductive.. And I think glamour.. When she's looking away.. Natural, intimate, but not actively trying to stir your emotions.. Jul 21 06 11:03 pm Link When a person views a glamour image it is always about emotion. Men want to be with her. Women want to be her. When the content is not directed at the camera, it hints of a voyeuristic aspect. Direct eye contact invites the viewers on a more personal level as if she is trying to seduce them. Glamour is about sexuality and feeling beautiful. Clothing really has nothing to do with it. Jul 22 06 09:40 am Link Rules...meh! Tell you what. Shoot what you like. Expand on it. Work on it. Collaborate with others on it. Work it some more when you think you got it. Don't ask permission to do it. Don't ask to define it. Don't explain it. Just do it. Call it whatever you want. Regards, Art. Jul 22 06 09:42 am Link WG Rowland wrote: Glamour: Jul 22 06 05:53 pm Link I find that the people I strive to work for in my industry need to label and segregate and categorize a talent by their perceived specialty because it helps to reduce the fear of making a mistake when choosing a talent. It is understandable. We tend to do the same thing to ourselves when presenting our work for review because if we don't we will be overlooked in favor of the person that does. This is understandable as well. I feel I am a competent professional and I can shoot anything. Through a slow progression I've shot ice cream and ice bergs as well as Cadillacs and F16's. Several years ago I made a purposeful switch to shooting people. I love to photograph people. I am categorized as a portrait photographer by the ad industry. I believe I can shoot fashion as well as high school seniors and lifestyle as well as workplace annual report. I don't believe there is any inherent difference between an F16 and a Goth chick. You have to understand their nuance and capture their essence. One you polish and one you coax. You need to use a camera and a light source. There are plenty enough categories at work, please, no categories here. Shoot any kind of shot you want. Be free and enjoy yourself. Jul 22 06 06:11 pm Link Don't worry.. My questions never pidgeonhole my shooting.. (Except the Jelly Donut one.. That may define me for the ages.. If they can ever decide if I'm lemon or raspberry filled..) Just thinking about what I and others are doing.. I've heard glamour defined as "about the model" and art defined as "about the photographer".. (And technically fashion/commercial as "about the product being sold" but that's for another time).. I think the above definition is crap.. If the subject is people, the subject is people.. But what the image does seems to matter.. Lapis is an art model.. I know this.. She told me so.. And yet very few people would argue the seductive nature of much of her work.. So either she's a switch hitter (very possible).. Or the definitions are broken.. I used to write.. Therefore I like words because they have exact definitions.. I used to write fiction.. Therefore I like words because ultimately I know those exact definitions all amount to horseshit.. Long day.. I need a nappy.. Night.. Jul 23 06 12:42 am Link I not only think it's possible, I even think I've done it a few times. Jul 23 06 12:48 am Link of course its possible. the pirelli calendar is a great example. glaviano, verglas, sorenti, etc posting the following for consideration in hope it will prove helpful http://www.macstein.us/temppostings/tex … ring99.htm Jul 23 06 01:06 am Link Nude is not the same as naked (or nekkid for that fact...) If you walk in on someone while they are changing and they don't want to be see with their clothes removed, they are naked. If a model removes their clothes for art, it's nudity. Hence, "nudest colony" vice "nekkid Kolonee" Jul 23 06 02:47 am Link Some of my images might be "Artistic Glamour' I try to shoot art, but sometimes the models drift....... kevin Jul 23 06 04:49 am Link Thanks to all those willing to post examples of what they're talking about.. (And to all of those who want to make sure I know the definition of every N word that might have to do with a lack of clothes..) The examples are great.. I'd love to hear from you all what makes you think that a shot you've referenced is art vs glamour.. Right now the one consistent thing I'm seeing: Lack of eye contact.. Jul 23 06 08:57 am Link i think location can change the feeling of your image as well.. like if you were to see a model on a bed with silk sheets and lingerie it would not necessarily give the same message as a model in the woods or a junk yard. not gonna look for examples but if anyone can imagine anything even remotely similar to what i am then hopefully im making a valid statement haha Jul 23 06 09:54 pm Link |
