Ransom J wrote:

high fashion is still a subset of fashion.

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

Yes you can, but it isnt a "category".
elle and vogue= high fashion
seventeen and etc= fashion
there is a difference..

maxim, stuff, kings= glamour. Yes, one magazine might have better glamour photography, but it is glamour.

MadamePsychosis wrote:
Anyone else?  Do we put this here mare to rest?

No apparantly not. lol.

Josie Artography wrote:

Yes you can, but it isnt a "category".
elle and vogue= high fashion
seventeen and etc= fashion
there is a difference..

maxim, stuff, kings= glamour. Yes, one magazine might have better glamour photography, but it is glamour.

And by catagorizing glamour as being what you see in maxim, stuff and king then you have officially put glamour out of the reach of "fashion" in terms of production costs and in the same realm of "high fashion"

Thank you and good night.

Ransom J wrote:
And by catagorizing glamour as being what you see in maxim, stuff and king then you have officially put glamour out of the reach of "fashion" in terms of production costs and in the same realm of "high fashion"

Thank you and good night.

Oh, come on, there is hardly very much production value in Maxim, Stuff or King.....

Now if you're talking about Playboy where they will build and entire set at great expense so that they can light it perfectly using 20 or more lights and everything is impeccably styled (even if the model isn't wearing it all) THEN you have a $$$$ glamour shoot....

Paramour Productions wrote:

Oh, come on, there is hardly very much production value in Maxim, Stuff or King.....

Now if you're talking about Playboy where they will build and entire set at great expense so that they can light it perfectly using 20 or more lights and everything is impeccably styled (even if the model isn't wearing it all) THEN you have a $$$$ glamour shoot....

On of the most recent issues of king  has pictures of Kimora Lee Simmons on the front cover in diamonds  walking out of a G4. The amount of liability on that set is JUST as much if not more than any couture shot and King is a skin mag. 

Point made.

Ransom J wrote:

On of the most recent issues of king  has pictures of Kimora Lee Simmons on the front cover in diamonds  walking out of a G4. The amount of liability on that set is JUST as much if not more than any couture shot and King is a skin mag. 

Point made.

Point taken.  Obviously, I don't check out King often enough....

But the point I'm trying to make isn't getting across, so I must be trying to make it poorly...

When I think of production value, I'm not just thinking of what's on set, but how it translates into a final image.  For example, I could lease a Bentley for the day and park it in front of a beautiful rented estate.  One shooter would still shoot images that look like a snapshot (albiet an expensive one) and another shooter would create a sexy glamour shot which looks like a frame out of a high budget film.  See what I mean?  I'm not really talking about the argument you were just having, I'm just throwing another variable out there, which I think supports your argument that glamour, like anything else, can be done well or not.

Paramour Productions wrote:

Point taken.  Obviously, I don't check out King often enough....

But the point I'm trying to make isn't getting across, so I must be trying to make it poorly...

When I think of production value, I'm not just thinking of what's on set, but how it translates into a final image.  For example, I could lease a Bentley for the day and park it in front of a beautiful rented estate.  One shooter would still shoot images that look like a snapshot (albiet an expensive one) and another shooter would create a sexy glamour shot which looks like a frame out of a high budget film.  See what I mean?  I'm not really talking about the argument you were just having, I'm just throwing another variable out there, which I think supports your argument that glamour, like anything else, can be done well or not.

Production costs are the amount of costs or liabilty cost that go into producing the pics.

Her arguemnt wasn't about "value" she was arguing raw numbers.  Mine was that in raw numbers it Varies on both ends and that GOOD fashion and GOOD glamour isn't relagted to a budget, but the eye of the person shooting, the MUA on set and the talent of the model.  no more no less.

Ransom J wrote:
I.e.  my current avatar has a model weaing a Jacob watch, a Vacheron Constantine piece, an  Iceberg piece, and a Piguet piece.  Is it NOW a High fashion shot and NOT a glamour shot?

I think you know the answer to that.

Ransom J wrote:

Production costs are the amount of costs or liabilty cost that go into producing the pics.

Her arguemnt wasn't about "value" she was arguing raw numbers.  Mine was that in raw numbers it Varies on both ends and that GOOD fashion and GOOD glamour isn't relagted to a budget, but the eye of the person shooting, the MUA on set and the talent of the model.  no more no less.

Again, I agree with you and would include MUAs, stylists, lighting, grip equipment in the production value definition.  It's not just the liability on set, it's the cost of making the picture, and those CAN be two different things, am I making any sense?

To go back to the bentley scenario, if you show up there as the shooter with a point & shoot and nothing else, your pictures are not going to show the kind of production value I would want for a glamour shot if I were the AD or end client.  However, if you showed up with a grip truck, a good MF rig, assistants and stylists (wardrobe, hair and MU) I would stand a better chance of getting what I wanted, assuming of course that you have the talent to pull it off (which really just translates into, you see the world the way I would like to and I appreciate your vision).

That's all....

Ransom J wrote:
I.e.  my current avatar has a model weaing a Jacob watch, a Vacheron Constantine piece, an  Iceberg piece, and a Piguet piece.  Is it NOW a High fashion shot and NOT a glamour shot?

No, it's not a high fashion shot.  It could be a commercial shot, depending on venue and intended demographic, but it is not a high fashion shot, if for no other reason than because it would not appeal to a high-fashion minded audience...

Allen Coefield wrote:
Glamour gets a bad rap because to some people
Nudity is dirty and bad
They cant handle their own nudity
Therefore....all nudity is something they cant handle.

Gosh whatever happened to simply saying.....that person has a beautiful body without thinking bad of them, the photographer or the person feeling guilty for looking at it?

Glamour does not equal nudity.  Art nudes are not glamour.  Nudity is not a requirement for glamour.  Neither is implied nudity.

Allen Coefield wrote:
I am fully aware of the fact that all glamour does not contain nudity.....but most nude work is called glamour.....that is the basis of my comment

Yep and that's part of the problem, at least as I see it.  Plop some gal down on a bed naked and shoot her picture sans any other effort.  "Hey look guys a glamour shot, she's hot and she's NAKED!!!"  No....

Now, just to be clear, I have nothing against gals, beds, nakedness or any combination thereof.  I like shooting gals on beds who are naked.  However, from my perspective, that is not enough to make them look glamourous and in a glamour shoot, that is the photographers job....

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

I think you know the answer to that.

Of course i know the answer to it.

Paramour Productions wrote:

Again, I agree with you and would include MUAs, stylists, lighting, grip equipment in the production value definition.  It's not just the liability on set, it's the cost of making the picture, and those CAN be two different things, am I making any sense?

To go back to the bentley scenario, if you show up there as the shooter with a point & shoot and nothing else, your pictures are not going to show the kind of production value I would want for a glamour shot if I were the AD or end client.  However, if you showed up with a grip truck, a good MF rig, assistants and stylists (wardrobe, hair and MU) I would stand a better chance of getting what I wanted, assuming of course that you have the talent to pull it off (which really just translates into, you see the world the way I would like to and I appreciate your vision).

That's all....

You're speaking of the percieved value of the client/ buyer.  On both ends you can plunk a mint into the production of a shot (fashion or glamour) and if it misses it's target audience then it's percieved value is null.

Most shots in Italian Vouge would be worthless in  the current Maxim mag.  Does that make their value less? No  just in respect to the market they are placed in.

Ransom J wrote:

You're speaking of the percieved value of the client/ buyer.  On both ends you can plunk a mint into the production of a shot (fashion or glamour) and if it misses it's target audience then it's percieved value is null.

Most shots in Italian Vouge would be worthless in  the current Maxim mag.  Does that make their value less? No  just in respect to the market they are placed in.

Well, actually I was talking about both...

What I would LIKE to be talking about is how we can raise the level of production in glamour photography in general...

Jayne Jones wrote:
Pretty much. . .in the exact terms that Ransom put them.  The intent is to have it viewed in the same light as a love scene in a movie.  To me. . .the same thing. . .only difference is in movies people are actually moving, pictures are more still.  lol

Brian Diaz wrote:
I don't think that's what Ransom said at all.

In a movie, you have the context of a story and characters that drive the intent of the love-scene.  Glamour photography has the intent of making boys orgasm driving it.

Unless the movie is on Skinemax.

Paramour Productions wrote:

Well, actually I was talking about both...

What I would LIKE to be talking about is how we can raise the level of production in glamour photography in general...

Why?

W.G. Rowland wrote:
I know a lot of people will quickly bark up GWC and crap photography.. But in all honest I have seen as much or more crappy fashion and crappy art photography as I have glamour..

But I've seen glamour done with great technical skill on the photographer's part.. It seems like 2 out of every 3 models wants to pose for it..  Many are willing to pay (in fact it seems like the one market where photographers and still sell their services to models on a vanity service basis..)

And yet it seems like while almost everyone is doing it, almost everyone else is taking a giant snooty dump on it.

Why?


I don't personally do glamour photography because I don't have the eye for it.  I can make pretty pictures and I can make naked pictures.. And sometimes I can make naked pictures pretty.. But there's a commercial aspect that goes into good glamour photography..  There is a science (or art, if you prefer) to it.. 

I almost don't want to post this thread and ask this question.. Because there's plenty of photogs out there who I don't consider very good and they call themselves glamour photographers, too.. But..

It's a valid question.. Why is such a popular form of photography work so villified?

Because it is aproached in unprofessional ways..   There are many businesses out there that  are nothing but glamour photography studios and road crews. 

Now these are not businesses  that are trying to talk a young lady out of her clothes.... It is not the word Glamour photography,   it is the non professional way of handling glamour photography..

Ransom J wrote:
Why?

Uh.....  'Cause it interests me?

And because I agree that a lot of what I see as "glamour" is pretty crappy...  I like discussing what I do.  I like tossing around ideas with others who do what I do.  I am currently trying to do what I do better, I figure others might be as well....

Does this seem so strange?

Paramour Productions wrote:

Uh.....  'Cause it interests me?

And because I agree that a lot of what I see as "glamour" is pretty crappy...  I like discussing what I do.  I like tossing around ideas with others who do what I do.  I am currently trying to do what I do better, I figure others might be as well....

Does this seem so strange?

New things happen because people tinker.   Sometimes they tinkle as well.   Sometimes both at the same time.

My point is that whether by intention or sheer accident, we don't go to new places unless people are willing to go there.

So, keep going there....

Paramour Productions wrote:

Uh.....  'Cause it interests me?

And because I agree that a lot of what I see as "glamour" is pretty crappy...  I like discussing what I do.  I like tossing around ideas with others who do what I do.  I am currently trying to do what I do better, I figure others might be as well....

Does this seem so strange?

Who said it was strange.  I just asked why.  You think it's pretty crappy, that's your reasoning.  I don't think it's crappy so why would be a pretty valid question don't you think?

Ransom J wrote:

Did it strike a nerve?  you don't WANT to believe that 80 percent of the readers of the SI swimuit edition are NOT buying it as a catalouge of designer swimwear?

You don't ever question WHY it's the highest selling issue annually for SI?

It is porn.  It's just packaged different.  It's done  to let 15 year old boys jerk one off.  It's done so that 40 year old husbands can have eye candy sitting on the coffe table without looking like a pervert.  But make no mistake about it, NOTHING about it has anything to do with fashion, art, or sports.

aw, darn, i thought this was dead, but it's still here.  i am NOT reading ALL of the  rhetoric after this but quote, so sorry if i miss something someone else said, but, to comment on this particular note....

so...what you're saying, to be clear, is that if someone masturbates while looking at an image it's porn?  c'mon.  give me a frigging break.  guys jerk off to the images in the women's (or men's) underwear section in the penney's catalog...the lifetouch wallet photo their high school "wish i could have her" cute little cheerleader gave them...whatever.  fetishists jerk off to all kinds of odd, seemingly everyday...stuff.  so what you're saying is EVERYTHING is porn?   

did you strike a nerve?  no.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

I think you know the answer to that.

polo...  go boy, go.  i tink i wuv you.

Rae01 wrote:

aw, darn, i thought this was dead, but it's still here.  i am NOT reading ALL of the  rhetoric after this but quote, so sorry if i miss something someone else said, but, to comment on this particular note....

so...what you're saying, to be clear, is that if someone masturbates while looking at an image it's porn?  c'mon.  give me a frigging break.  guys jerk off to the images in the women's (or men's) underwear section in the penney's catalog...the lifetouch wallet photo their high school "wish i could have her" cute little cheerleader gave them...whatever.  fetishists jerk off to all kinds of odd, seemingly everyday...stuff.  so what you're saying is EVERYTHING is porn?   

did you strike a nerve?  no.

Maybe it would BEHOOVE you to read the rest of the rhtoric after that quote.  You'd find that even your fashion shooters, nay everybody EXCEPT one person agrees with me.

What I'm saying is that if something is made with the INTENT to turn on, with the INTENT to be kuckle fodder, then that's what it is.  You honestly THINK that the SI swimsuit issue is a swimwear catalouge of high end swimsuits  that is marketed to MEN?

Rae01 wrote:
whatever.  i'm bored.  yea for you that all except me are in agreement with you.  i'm still NOT.  good night.  maybe i'll find a nice photo of brad pitt to put myself to bed with.  he's a porn star, y'know?

If you're so bored then answer the question.  What OTHER reason would then make a catalogue of swimsuit models (many times without tops, jut bottoms doing the oft glamourized hand bra, or sand bra pose) with no designer credits or prices readily available, and package it and sell it to an 80 percent readership that subscribes to the base mag for the sole issue of learning about sporting statistics?

Where is the NON-eye-candy, spank bank logic in it?

Stacy Leigh wrote:
I think I shoot Glamour. Can somebody clarify this. If so I am sad...because now I know why I never get a thanks after leaving a tag on a "high fashion" Photographers port.- they think I am shit!!!!! wow...I had no idea until now.

I love almost all forms of expression via photography. I am just sad that my favorite genre makes people want to puke. Worse I don't think a man alive would get a woody from my pics either. So where do I go from here??? My style is not naughty enough for glamour and it certainly isn't art or fashion. 

I am in niche all by myself!!!

I think we are in the same niche.......

W.G. Rowland wrote:
Has this turned into everyone against Ransom J?

You kids better not make me turn this thread around!

Nah, aside from a couple of pissy models mad that SI makes the swimsuit editions to turn on middle aged men and pre teens, we've been getting along just dandy.