Paramour Productions wrote:
I don't know if it's so much that it's been underexplored as I'm not sure if the market is there.  I mean I know it is, but is it  big enough to significantly monetize it?  That's the real question, and to be sure, I have no idea what the answer is, although I am trying to find out....

Ok, and it's here where the snob thing comes in. Those of us who like something a little more than "the masses" have to find a cachet among the snobs in order to sell something and create a market that's at least sustainable if not wildly profitable. Enter the snob factor. That's unfortunate, but it sometimes works. At least we get to do what we like and get to get paid for it...

Searcher wrote:
If nothing else, glamour is about power.

Not a bad one. Although according to this definition, much other "commercial" work that's not generally considered "glam" is also "glam." And in that sense, I'd agree with that, too.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Yer welcome. *wink*

sorry to briefly go OT but who is November '06?

Paramour Productions wrote:

Harvard is in Boston and that would be in Massachusetts.  Yale is in Connecticut... 

ahh anyway you must be Northwestern or U Chicago or Columbia, by your account

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

Ok, and it's here where the snob thing comes in. Those of us who like something a little more than "the masses" have to find a cachet among the snobs in order to sell something and create a market that's at least sustainable if not wildly profitable. Enter the snob factor. That's unfortunate, but it sometimes works. At least we get to do what we like and get to get paid for it...

Oh without question, but there still has to be enough of a market to reach critical mass.  Let's say I started Paramour Magazine, a magazine dedicated to high-end glamour and I hired guys like you to shoot it in a Pirelli style.  It doesn't have to sell as many copies as Maxim by any stretch, but it does have to sell enough copies to be able to generate ad revenue to stay in business. 

Vellum tanked.....

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

Ok, and it's here where the snob thing comes in. Those of us who like something a little more than "the masses" have to find a cachet among the snobs in order to sell something and create a market that's at least sustainable if not wildly profitable. Enter the snob factor. That's unfortunate, but it sometimes works. At least we get to do what we like and get to get paid for it...

I understand that completely, but where the snob factor comes into play isn't just the yearning  to do something different, it's the constant put down of what you're striving to be different against.  that what gets us up in arms.

You don't like hamburgers fine, eat steak tar tar, but don't go on a crusade against Wendy's.  Just eat your raw meat and be happy.

MadamePsychosis wrote:

ahh anyway you must be Northwestern or U Chicago or Columbia, by your account

I emailed you my CV... 

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

Not a bad one. Although according to this definition, much other "commercial" work that's not generally considered "glam" is also "glam." And in that sense, I'd agree with that, too.

probably another thing you don't like about glam, and that i dont, is the soullessness of most of it... it's not that i think its unsophisticated but that a lot of it leaves me feeling empty after a while.  but its not always the case, and either way, it can be really fun.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
True 'nuff about Vellum. Vellum was naturally limited. It had one-hit-wonder written all over it, because it was pretty formulaic when all is said and done. They never used anybody but the same NY testing guys over and over again, shooting basically NY agency tests in studio repeatedly, albeit with their models popping their breasts out a lot more. It was pretty tasty the first time or three around, and got tiring because it was so one-dimensional and predictable. Like most one-hit-wonder bands.

It's also true that it was aimed pretty narrowly. I always tend to think that if you spread something a bit finer a bit wider, it would find a certain, slightly broader appeal. But Maxim and the like are always going to outsell this stuff. Not necessarily by the margin it does, however. A lot of it is in distribution and so forth. I never saw Vellum on a newsstand once, and I see a lot of well-stocked newsstands. Word didn't get out on it very far. It remained the secret Playboy for NY straight male fashionistas until the day it died.

Yeah, it has been a somewhat consuming pastime trying to figure out what the correct balance is...  See, the important thing is not what you are a snob about, just that you are a snob to begin with... 

MadamePsychosis wrote:

probably another thing you don't like about glam, and that i dont, is the soullessness of most of it... it's not that i think its unsophisticated but that a lot of it leaves me feeling empty after a while.  but its not always the case, and either way, it can be really fun.

Bingo, but I wasn't going to go into that here. Related to that is the fact that most glamour doesn't try very hard and doesn't set its bar very high above the purely technical, though to say that it doesn't because it's soulless, or it's soulless because it doesn't try, is a chicken-and-egg thing, methinks.

Every now and then, I DO go, "Oh hot!" But it wears off very quickly.

Finally, I'm not on a crusade to tell people to stop making and viewing this stuff. I accept that people's tastes and views and goals are different. I get testy when mine get crowded out by a whole lot of the same ol' same ol' but that too is life. I'd love to expand a bit beyond the stuff I normally have to do and shoot my own version of what I like about this genre, but for now, I don't have the luxery to very often.

Mikel Featherston wrote:
Is there such a thing as good rap?

oooo...i keep getting bumped off, but didn't bob randall and mikel take care of this like....immediately!!!!!????  i think i love bob!

Rae01 wrote:

oooo...i keep getting bumped off, but didn't bob randall and mikel take care of this like....immediately!!!!!????  i think i love bob!

Here's a reason (see Above) for not being able to resist a little glamour sesson.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
I get testy when mine get crowded out by a whole lot of the same ol' same ol' but that too is life.

and thank god for it.  or we wouldnt be special 

Brian Diaz wrote:
A lot of crappy fashion and crappy art is trying to sell clothes or say something about the world.

A lot of crappy glammer is trying to pretend it's not just crappy porn.

Ransom J wrote:
If you honestly believe that these crap ass fashion shooters are SERIOUSLY tryng to sell a product or make a statement then I don't know what to say to you.

Glamour is honest.   It's T and A for the sake of T and A.  It's not hiding behind "art" or trying to "send a message"  it's crotch candy at it's most raw, and if you ask me is one of the HARDEST genere's to do well and be lauded for because it will often be called "cheap porn"  by elitists that are insecure with their own boner.

carlo Di Paolo wrote:

Here's a reason (see Above) for not being able to resist a little glamour sesson.

what?  i don't understand.  i want to shoot with marko.  marko, where are you?

Rae01 wrote:
lighting, technique and compostion....hoooey.  i'll shut up now.  we all REALLY know this, don't we???

Hmmm....  No, I don't know this.  Most?  Maybe...  But I would offer that a well lit glamour shot takes a great deal of technique and is usually a FAR more complicated lighting plan than you will find in most fashion work...

Rae01 wrote:

what?  i don't understand.  i want to shoot with marko.  marko, where are you?

What don't you understand? And I can't help you with Marko, he's dam good but I don't know him.

Paramour Productions wrote:

Hmmm....  No, I don't know this.  Most?  Maybe...  But I would offer that a well lit glamour shot takes a great deal of technique and is usually a FAR more complicated lighting plan than you will find in most fashion work...

then why aren't all these guys who want to give up their day jobs but don't have a shot in hell of being the next playboy photographer starting out with glamour and not fashion....damn, it's all so taxing.  seems you should start with the easy stuff and work your way up.  someone vibe in francesco scavullo, would you?  i want his opinion, dammit!

carlo Di Paolo wrote:

What don't you understand? And I can't help you with Marko, he's dam good but I don't know him.

what i don't understand, is why i wouldn't understand why i wouldn't be able to resist such "glamour."  i think of rita hayworth and veronica lake when i think of glamour...not women in chains and bondage with styling that... maybe we need to reference webster's for the definition of glamour, because, yeah, really, it's all effed up for me the way you guys view it.

Paramour Productions wrote:
. . . Art based photographers shoot, well, art photography and much editorial fashion falls into this category.  Even if there is a goal of selling something, the images are still “art style” images where the focus is on the feelings the image creates as opposed to the product they are selling.  . . .

Rae01 wrote:

what i don't understand, is why i wouldn't understand why i wouldn't be able to resist such "glamour."  i think of rita hayworth and veronica lake when i think of glamour...not women in chains and bondage with styling that... maybe we need to reference webster's for the definition of glamour, because, yeah, really, it's all effed up for me the way you guys view it.

I think I mentioned Veronica Lake....

Jayne Jones wrote:
Thanks for giving me the speech to give my dad when he sees your photos of me.  I almost love u for that.

Just to understand, you're going to going to tell your dad that you're doing porn?

This is really the first time I've heard from a glamour photographer that glamour actually is porn (usually there's some speil about the natural beauty of women).  My question now is if the photographers understand that the purpose is to give teens something to wank to, how many of the models understand this? 

How many of the girls here actually want to be the catylist for so many ejaculations?
http://www.maximonline.com/hotties/hottievoting.aspx

Rae01 wrote:

what i don't understand, is why i wouldn't understand why i wouldn't be able to resist such "glamour."  i think of rita hayworth and veronica lake when i think of glamour...not women in chains and bondage with styling that... maybe we need to reference webster's for the definition of glamour, because, yeah, really, it's all effed up for me the way you guys view it.

I just ment your make a beautiful subject. Thats all, as for the women in chains and bondage, that crap is coming off my port, if that's what you mean. Maybe tonight, bit lazy right now.

Ransom J wrote:
We don't put a girl ass naked with a purse and say it was to try to sell the purse

What about ads depicting this that come from those who do sell purses, or as seen in this post, shoes?

jade83 wrote:

What about ads depicting this that come from those who do sell purses, or as seen in this post, shoes?

WE (glamour shooters) don't do that.  Fashion shooters do it.  And call it fashion.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Just to understand, you're going to going to tell your dad that you're doing porn?

This is really the first time I've heard from a glamour photographer that glamour actually is porn (usually there's some speil about the natural beauty of women).  My question now is if the photographers understand that the purpose is to give teens something to wank to, how many of the models understand this? 

How many of the girls here actually want to be the catylist for so many ejaculations?
http://www.maximonline.com/hotties/hottievoting.aspx

Plenty of models would.  I'm sure 99 percent of models on this site would do the SI Swimsuit issue at the drop of an ant's hat.  And if there are ANY misconceptions about what that is REALLY all about, i'll clear it up right here......


IT'S PORN!

Question though.  Is fashion porn better than glamour porn?

Paramour Productions wrote:

I think I mentioned Veronica Lake....

sorry, like i said, i didn't read everything.  these things get so long and the whole subject...truthfully....it seems moot.  i guess everyone's entitled to their own, personal vision...no matter how the mass public views it.  but, sorry, i just can't resist...the masses DON'T seem to be demanding more glam, less fashion.  imho...THANK YOU GOD!

Ransom J wrote:
And if there are ANY misconceptions about what that is REALLY all about, i'll clear it up right here......

IT'S PORN!

I can definitely respect that sentiment.  Thank you.

Question though.  Is fashion porn better than glamour porn?

Intrinsically, neither is "better".  But I'm biased because I don't really masturbate to either.  I prefer art porn and regular porn porn.

And I like my mainstream magazines to be filled with non-pornographic fashion and commercial imagery.