Image K wrote:

I've decided that Ramsom J is now my hero, until I say otherwise.

Do i get a cape and utility belt with that?

Mike Walker wrote:
Short Girl Fashion

Put that on a T-Shirt...
ModelMayhem.com: Short Girl Fashion!

These two quotes were separated at birth, I think...

Rae01 wrote:
...si is not porn!  it's an annual swimsuit publication featuring the world's top models!

Paramour Productions wrote:
Brian, what do you think servicemen were doing with all those 40's pinups??

I'm also kinda mad that Ransom's photo of the girl with the watering can (and the huge cans) won't load because of this server speed modification crap. I want my crotch candy!

Ransom J wrote:
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.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Thank you all for the interesting conversation.  You've definitely challenged my views, and I hope I've done the same for you.  But now it's after 6am, and I do need some sleep...

But I will pose a parting question:

Do most (particularly new) glamour models understand the difference between being wanted and being used?

Brian, you're wrong on so many levels, at least about straight men, the history of glamour photography and even much classical art (not all, just much).  You also seem to have some serious issues regarding women and young boys masturbating to them....  

Trust me, every glamour model I've shot for print not only KNOWS that that could happen, but has fun with it (some are even turned on by the though).

Brian Diaz wrote:
Thank you all for the interesting conversation.  You've definitely challenged my views, and I hope I've done the same for you.  But now it's after 6am, and I do need some sleep...

But I will pose a parting question:

Do most (particularly new) glamour models understand the difference between being wanted and being used?

Never answered the parting question.  Most new models have on rose colored glasses, so no i'd wager they don't.  But most established models do.

Paramour Productions wrote:
Ok James, let me ask you.  My avatar is a glamour shot.  It wasn't intended to give you a boner (or make you hurl for that matter).  It wasn't meant to be a work of art.  It was meant to be hot shot of a model.  Well, actually it's the first in a few experiments I'm doing in an effort to find myself, but I digress....

It does not meet your definition of a glamour shot, but it certainly is one.  Thoughts?

cute

afterdarc studios wrote:
because 80% of the glamour photographers are wannabes or scum.

And which side do you fall on?

Ransom J wrote:

Never answered the parting question.  Most new models have on rose colored glasses, so no i'd wager they don't.  But most established models do.

yep, and egh, again, not just girlie modeling or fashion modeling.  any career-path often starts out with cock-eyed optimism and ends with some Jaaaade.... even some real noble shit like teaching, and publishing and, hello, politics!!

Ransom J wrote:
You gotta love when old topics are revived with inflammatory troll bait.

I enjoyed your posts with the model who by the way if you noticed has glamour
like images in her port.  Too funny.  Anyway someone mentioned SI and so
I will add this who the hell wears heels to swim in?  At its most basic, fashion
photography, most art photos of women as well as beauty is about sexuality.
Women buy and wear sexy outfits to be noticed by men and in some cases women.
Heels by their very nature hurt womens feet and cause back problems yet women
wear them all the time.  We are all human.  Men want to look at women and desire
them.  Women want to be desired.  One of my friends is a excellent landscape
shooter he often does fantastic black & white nudes of women as part of the
landscape.  Someone was looking at one of his pieces and commented about
the way the models body flowed into the landscape and added a few more of
those arty and full of hot air things 'educated' people repeat.  One person noted
how the models figure was perfect and her skin was luminious in the print.
My friend yawned and said plus she's got some great tits.  Of course they gasped
but I cracked up and she did have some great breasts.  While art nudes and fashion images aren't quite suppose to stir sexual feelings in us you would have
to be a robot or Chuck Norris to not get a woody looking at some of it.

MadamePsychosis wrote:

cute

Thank you!

MadamePsychosis wrote:

yep, and egh, again, not just girlie modeling or fashion modeling.  any career-path often starts out with cock-eyed optimism and ends with some Jaaaade.... even some real noble shit like teaching, and publishing and, hello, politics!!

True.  Reality is a dog that bites, and that bitch has rabies.

afterdarc studios wrote:
because 80% of the glamour photographers are wannabes or scum.

I like your port.  The sailboat shot has me jealous, mine has been dry docked this year as it's going through a refit so not only have I not been able to sail her, I haven't been able to shoot on her.

Fortunately I'm a Cubs fan and have the following philosophy seared into my psyche...

Wait till next year...

Josie Artography wrote:
Yeah that is why I dont like coming on this site. I feel so unwelcomed and looked down on.
But, I will admit that glamour is low budget production and can be photographed and put into category with almost any photographer.
Maybe a little saving up will allow me to start high fashion? heck im only 20, some people in here are so cruel.. damn

I want to understand what you said, but don't.

Are you the model in your portfolio as well as photographer?

Josie Artography wrote:
I use to model, but now I focus on my photography. My photo is not in my profile.
What I mean is glamour is considerably lower on budget to produce than compare to say.. high fashion.

I feel unwelcomed because I know glamour has no place in this website, fashion is "it".

Glamour CAN be very high budget or very low budget, as can fashion.  A lot of fashion is simple studio seamless background shtick.  add a bottle of baby oil and get the girl to look at the camera and it turns into glamour that quick.  the line can be very thin.

Ransom J wrote:
Glamour CAN be very high budget or very low budget, as can fashion.  A lot of fashion is simple studio seamless background shtick.  add a bottle of baby oil and get the girl to look at the camera and it turns into glamour that quick.  the line can be very thin.

Its more than that sir..
wardrobe... unless pay high fashion stylist (which they will not tfp unless you already shoot high fashion). bra and thong or topless or nude does not require that kind of expense.
Location.. high fashion actually takes a bigger space to shoot than glamour where it could happen in your living room couch. generally, high fashion is shot further than glamour(up close).
I am talking about REAL high standard fashion, not just putting baby oil with eye contact, or maybe its just my standard.

Josie Artography wrote:

Its more than that sir..
wardrobe... unless pay high fashion stylist (which they will not tfp unless you already shoot high fashion. Glamour-bra and thong is not so expensive.
Location.. high fashion actually takes a bigger space to shoot than glamour where it could happen in your living room couch. generally, high fashion is further shot than glamour(up close).
I am talking about REAL high standard fashion, not just putting baby oil with eye contact.

yeah and i'm talking REAL  glamour ma'am, which can be done on location in Jamaica or done after renting out a football stadium  to do  some high profile sexy sports things.

If you're under the impression that only glamour can be made on a low budget you are sorely mistaken.  Both can have inconceivable budgets, both can be done for a drop in the bucket, it's not a matter of budget at all.

Ransom J wrote:
yeah and i'm talking REAL  glamour ma'am, which can be done on location in Jamaica or done after renting out a football stadium  to do  some high profile sexy sports things.

If you're under the impression that only glamour can be made on a low budget you are sorely mistaken.  Both can have inconceivable budgets, both can be done for a drop in the bucket, it's not a matter of budget at all.

I guess your right then. Afterall I've only been shooting 5 months, and never tried to do any fashion so what do I know..
btw, how much did that g string cost your avatar model?
p.s. I never said glamour could only be made on low budget. It is easier produced from the models to the chanel shoes.

Josie Artography wrote:

I guess your right then. Afterall I've only been shooting 5 months, and never tried to do any fashion so what do I know..
btw, how much did that g string cost your avatar model?
p.s. I never said glamour could only be made on low budget. It is easier produced from the models to the chanel shoes.

Being snooty seriously doesn't make your point any MORE vaild.  Because i clearly said that neither is confined  by budget which can't be disputed.

Ransom J wrote:

Being snooty seriously doesn't make your point any MORE vaild.  Because i clearly said that neither is confined  by budget which can't be disputed.

I am proving a point, please dont get personal.
I am a glamour photographer trying to establish some editorials in my book so I know the difference between the two.

Josie Artography wrote:

I am proving a point, please dont get personal.
I am a glamour photographer trying to establish some editorials in my book so I know the difference between the two.

Go back and re-read.  You got snooty.  I didn't.  And you aren't the only one that knows the differnce dear.

Ransom J wrote:

Go back and re-read.  You got snooty.  I didn't.  And you aren't the only one that knows the differnce dear.

And so g string costs the same as a couture outfit. OKAY?

Josie Artography wrote:

And so g string costs the same as a couture outfit. OKAY?

No but the 20K custom bike that I shot a model on two weeks ago DOES. OKAY??

Ransom J wrote:

No but the 20K custom bike that I shot a model on two weeks ago DOES. OKAY??

a custom 20k bike isnt "require" for glamour.
But the right wardrobe is for high fashion.

Josie Artography wrote:

a custom 20k bike isnt "require" for glamour.
But the right wardrobe is for high fashion.

And everything in fashion isn't a 30k coutour dress either so THAT also isn't required.  But you seem intent on "winning" this.

Ransom J wrote:

And everything in fashion isn't a 30k coutour dress either so THAT also isn't required.  But you seem intent on "winning" this.

Then you did not read about "my standard" of fashion. Yes I can buy some $50 dress at the mall, but it wouldnt consider high fashion.
You could of shot the model on a regular bike and it will still be glamour since the focus is on the model anyways.
No, im not about winning. I just have opinions needed to express.

Josie Artography wrote:

Then you did not read about "my standard" of fashion. Yes I can buy some $50 dress at the mall, but it wouldnt consider high fashion.
You could of shot the model on a regular bike and it will still be glamour since the focus is on the model anyways.
No, im not about winning. I just have opinions needed to express.

Yeah you're right i could have shot her on a normal 12 thousand dollar bike and you could have gotten a 10 thousand dollar coutour dress and i'm still up 2 thousand bucks. LOL.

Seriously, i'[m not saying you're WRONG, just that it's not as black and white as you SEEM to be painting it.

Ransom J wrote:
Yeah you're right i could have shot her on a normal 12 thousand dollar bike and you could have gotten a 10 thousand dollar coutour dress and i'm still up 2 thousand bucks. LOL.

Seriously, i'[m not saying you're WRONG, just that it's not as black and white as you SEEM to be painting it.

my bottom line is, fashion has its "neccessities" and glamour can be accomplished with or without those "neccessities".
its not just baby oil and eye contact.

Josie Artography wrote:

my bottom line is, fashion has its "neccessities" and glamour can be accomplished lower budget.
its not just baby oil and eye contact.

Fashion needs clothes.  That's it.  Sometimes those clothes are expensive.  Sometimes they aren't.

Glamour needs  a setting. Sometimes that setting is expensive some times it isn't.  Both are accomplished with either a large or small budget.  neither is defined by thier budget.  that's what I'M saying.

Ransom J wrote:

Fashion needs clothes.  That's it.  Sometimes those clothes are expensive.  Sometimes they aren't.

Glamour needs  a setting. Sometimes that setting is expensive some times it isn't.  Both are accomplished with either a large or small budget.  neither is defined by thier budget.  that's what I'M saying.

the keyword is high fashion. I stated that in the very beginning.
Glamour can cost a lot, but in the end, it is glamour.
And high fashion do have settings too, not only wardrobe.

Ransom J wrote:
True.  Reality is a dog that bites, and that bitch has rabies.

hahaha, a good one to wake up to, (or for matthew, "a good one to which to wake up...")

Josie Artography wrote:

the keyword is high fashion. I stated that in the very beginning.
Glamour can cost a lot, but in the end, it is glamour.
And high fashion do have settings too, not only wardrobe.

Lord.  First you said fashion.  Then you said couture, then back to fashion, now back to high fashion.

Just like their are levels of fashion, there are levels of glamour.  And there is some glamour that costs an arm and a leg to produce.  Compare THAT to your high fashion.

High fashion is just fashion with REALLY REALLY expensive clothes.  And high profile glamour is just glamour with REALLY REALLY expensive settings. Shit isn't hard to understand.

Josie Artography wrote:
I use to model, but now I focus on my photography. My photo is not in my profile.
What I mean is glamour is considerably lower on budget to produce than compare to say.. high fashion.

I feel unwelcomed because I know glamour has no place in this website, fashion is "it".

My very first comment. If you read the other messages, you'd see it too. 
glamour can cost more or less. Accomplished.
high fashion isnt considered high fashion unless it is properly excuted.

Josie Artography wrote:

My very first comment. If you read the other messages, you'd see it too. 
glamour can cost more or less. Accomplished.
high fashion isnt considered high fashion unless it is properly excuted.

high fashion is still a subset of fashion.

i can use the same convoluted argument with high profile glamour.  Accomplished.