Daniela V wrote:
They are bad.

Then stop.

yani wrote:
you are 170 posts from a t-shirt.    Can we do some glam fashion when it arrives?

You took the words right out of my mouth.

ABSOLUTELY

DigitalCMH wrote:

Then stop.

I haven't shot with you yet, so I can't really stop...

Daniela V wrote:
I haven't shot with you yet, so I can't really stop...

Yes you can.  No one can force you to keep doing something you don't want to do.  Just say no.

But if you want to keep doing bad glamour until you can talk me into shooting with you, so be it.

DigitalCMH wrote:

Yes you can.  No one can force you to keep doing something you don't want to do.  Just say no.

But if you want to keep doing bad glamour until you can talk me into shooting with you, so be it.

WTF?

I don't want to shoot with you. I never did. I never asked. What are you talking about?

Yeah- bad glamour- I'll keep doing that...mmmhm.

Serene Death wrote:
Do you mean just bad glamour in general? Or ones that have been taken of you? Or that all Glam photography sucks? This isn't a very specific topic... though I think the cheesy 80's over air-brushed boa/gloves/robe/lingerie AND heels and jewelry with the stiff ringlets and "hazy" quality.... well that's just a dead and buried fossil, or it should be. there are so many ways to make a woman beautiful that don't envolve Dynasty re-runs....

No- I posted this whole thread as a joke...which means it will get bumped to Off-Topic.

Then again- I kinda posted it to make a point to counter a photographer who made the statement "There is no such thing as good glamour", which I think it untrue. I think there is good and bad glamour, just like good and bad commercial, good and bad fashion, etc.

What do you think constitutes GOOD glamour?

Paramour Productions wrote:
care to point me to the "no such thing as good glamour" comment?

I have actually  been quite depressed for the past two weeks and have given this tremendous thought.  Last night in a drunken jerry macguire inspired haze it came to me what i wanted and I started writing my manifesto.  I'll share it when I'm done...

Absolutely:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=81504

yani wrote:
This is bad glamour from what I have read:




If I understood what I read correcly... there is no good glamour. 

Yes, there is no good glamour. But hypothetically, let's say there is. Why does your first picture constitute BAD glamour?

Daniela V wrote:
Yes, there is no good glamour. But hypothetically, let's say there is. Why does your first picture constitute BAD glamour?

it is overshopped, it is glamour, Ched says so.  Need more than 3 reasons?

Serene Death wrote:
I could be talking out of my ass though, it's been known to happen.

When I talk out of my ass, I either say excuse me or blame it on the dog

Paramour Productions wrote:
The first picture is bad because the retouching sucks...  There could be other reasons too....

...

Retouching?  Care to elaborate?

Serene Death wrote:
Joke thread, gotcha, well now it makes more sense. Good glamour? Hard to say, to me Glamour is something old movie stars had, you know before you got to see Paris Hilton throw up her latte in full colour glossiness in The Enquirer. Back when you used to whisper about who was sleeping with who, not downloading it onto your phone... I guess Glamour is a bit of mystery and class thrown in with the sexiness, as opposed to a "pin-up" which was more to showcase the idea that some girls want you to have them, even if it's in 2-D. I could be talking out of my ass though, it's been known to happen.

A pinup could be glamour...  Technically anything that sells the model above else would constitute as "glamour" by most modern definitions...   But what is good glamour?  Again, I'll post later.

yani wrote:

it is overshopped, it is glamour, Ched says so.  Need more than 3 reasons?

If you can think of some.

I'm sure you can

Paramour Productions wrote:
I actually agree with much of what Ched wrote...  There is soooooo much bad "glamour" out there...  And glamour is what I shoot...  But it needs to change...  I need to change...

Sure, there is also soooooo much bad fashion. Sooooo much bad art. Sooooo much bad commercial.

It isn't all bad. And it's unfair to make a statement that ignorant.

-D

yani wrote:

Retouching?  Care to elaborate?

Come on man I have to start drinking.  Well it's hard to tell from the size of the shot, but unless you intended a watercolor effect it looks like very bad retouching of the skin and eyes.  If you were going for more of a painted effect, you may want to re-examine it.

Photoshop and retouching has gotten a bad rap and bad glamour is a major reason for this.  Hell, I've even been guilty of it, albeit I was being paid to do it at the clients request but still...  it sucks.

Look at any beauty shot in any major rag and you will see an image that has been completely retouched, and yet it looks real and beautiful.  Even Playboy (and I'm talking centerfolds here, not the flats) while it has a certain "too flawless" look, looks good for what it is.  A lot of glamour I see today, has either a skanky look or a mannequin look to it.  Both suck.  Glamour is about a fantasy.  The perfect woman, as has been said a mystery.  But she still has to be a woman - not a manequin. 

I have to go now, I'll post more later....

Daniela V wrote:

WTF?

I don't want to shoot with you. I never did. I never asked. What are you talking about?

Yeah- bad glamour- I'll keep doing that...mmmhm.

Do you actually read what you write?

Daniela V wrote:
I haven't shot with you yet, so I can't really stop...

I took this as a you joking that you can't stop until you've shot bad glamour with me because I shoot bad glamour.  I took that in a humorous way.  I'm sorry you missed it.

Daniela V wrote:

Sure, there is also soooooo much bad fashion. Sooooo much bad art. Sooooo much bad commercial.

It isn't all bad. And it's unfair to make a statement that ignorant.

-D

You are without question correct....  I'm not agreeing with everything that was said, nor especially with how it was said, but there were some aspects in there that I do agree with....

Maybe I'm just having a mid-life crisis in reverse....

Paramour Productions wrote:
Come on man I have to start drinking.  Well it's hard to tell from the size of the shot, but unless you intended a watercolor effect it looks like very bad retouching of the skin and eyes.  If you were going for more of a painted effect, you may want to re-examine it.

.  But she still has to be a woman - not a manequin. 

I have to go now, I'll post more later....

1) Hard to tell from the size
2) Unless you intended watercolor
3) Mannequin

Sounds like 3 strikes - you are out.  It is a watercolor filter on my mannequin.

Not that I was trying to prove a point but thank you for proving that the vast majority of the critisims on this site are worthless.

More later...

Cheers.

DigitalCMH wrote:

Do you actually read what you write?


I took this as a you joking that you can't stop until you've shot bad glamour with me because I shoot bad glamour.  I took that in a humorous way.  I'm sorry you missed it.

I read...do you?

I said: Stop doing bad glamour. That was the origin of the post. Directed at NO ONE.

You then wrote: then stop.

Who started with who?

Daniela V wrote:
I read...do you?

I said: Stop doing bad glamour. That was the origin of the post. Directed at NO ONE.

You then wrote: then stop.

Who started with who?

You started a thread that was obviously(to me)and admittedly(by you) a joke.  So I joked that perhaps you should stop.

If you're going to make a joke and be unable to take a joke in the same stride, I really don't know what to say.  Perhaps you still have the cold and can blame it on the drugs like you did in the other thread you completely misunderstood me in.

Daniela V wrote:

Sure, there is also soooooo much bad fashion. Sooooo much bad art. Sooooo much bad commercial.

It isn't all bad. And it's unfair to make a statement that ignorant.

-D

Well I'm guilty as charged     Though, I think there is a balance of horrendous 'fine art nudes' and 'glamour/pinup' since these are the fields the most creepy GWCs tend to gravitate to (since it's usually the most direct route to 'gettin the model nekkid') LOL! .  Of course, there are fantastic examples within these genres, but on the net there is an overabundance of bad 'glam' or 'fine art' attempts versus fashion or commercial.

DigitalCMH wrote:

You started a thread that was obviously(to me)and admittedly(by you) a joke.  So I joked that perhaps you should stop.

If you're going to make a joke and be unable to take a joke in the same stride, I really don't know what to say.  Perhaps you still have the cold and can blame it on the drugs like you did in the other thread you completely misunderstood me in.

Man...you really think that the world revolves around you, don't you? It was NOT NOT NOT directed to you. If, by any stretch of the imagination, it was directed at anyone, it would be to someone else...NOT YOU.

Maybe you should start blaming your misunderstanding on the drugs you're on.

yani wrote:

1) Hard to tell from the size
2) Unless you intended watercolor
3) Mannequin

Sounds like 3 strikes - you are out.  It is a watercolor filter on my mannequin.

Not that I was trying to prove a point but thank you for proving that the vast majority of the critisims on this site are worthless.

More later...

Cheers.

Glad I could help...

Daniela V wrote:

Man...you really think that the world revolves around you, don't you? It was NOT NOT NOT directed to you. If, by any stretch of the imagination, it was directed at anyone, it would be to someone else...NOT YOU.

Maybe you should start blaming your misunderstanding on the drugs you're on.

No where did I accuse you of directing this thread towards me. 

Of course I think the world revolves around me.  That's because it DOES!  Did you not get the memo?

DigitalCMH wrote:
No where did I accuse you of directing this thread towards me.

How about your comment: "You started a thread that was obviously(to me)and admittedly(by you) a joke."

It wasn't obviously to you.

This is pointless. Whatever.

Daniela V wrote:
How about your comment: "You started a thread that was obviously(to me)and admittedly(by you) a joke."

It wasn't obviously to you.

This is pointless. Whatever.

Ok Daniela, I see the misunderstanding here and I'll take the blame for my poor writing skills.

I'll break it down to what I meant.

You started a thread as a joke.

It was obvious to me that it was started as a joke.

You admitted to it as being a joke.

The reason I originally wrote it as...

...that was obviously(to me)...

...was because it may not be obvious to anyone else.  I wanted to point out that it was, in the very least, obvious to me.  Obviously, I didn't write it very well and for that, I obviously apologize.

DigitalCMH wrote:
[Ok Daniela, I see the misunderstanding here and I'll take the blame for my poor writing skills.

The reason I originally wrote it as...

...that was obviously(to me)...

...was because it may not be obvious to anyone else.  I wanted to point out that it was, in the very least, obvious to me.  Obviously, I didn't write it very well and for that, I obviously apologize.

It's not obvious to anyone else because, for the last time, it wasn't to you. It wasn't to anyone. At all. It wasn't about you. It wasn't directed to you. It was a spoof on another thread that yes, you were a part of, but not the main cause of.

My original post, was not directed to you. So, it can't be obvious to you that it was directed to you, when it WAS NOT DIRECTED TO YOU.

My post was not directed to you.

My post was not directed to you.


My post was not directed to you.


My post was not directed to you.

My post was not directed to you.

My post was not directed to you.

My post was not directed to you.

My post was not directed to you.

My post was not directed to you.

My post was not directed to you.

My post was not directed to you.

My post was not directed to you.

Daniela V wrote:
What do you think constitutes GOOD glamour?

I prefer old school glamour.  Not many people do it anymore.  In fact, Mark Wangerin is the only photographer I can think of who does.  I'm sure there are more that I'm not familiar with.