Photographer
RAW-R IMAGE
Posts: 3379
Los Angeles, California, US
It is my presumption that MM is a networking site for all things related to photography, modeling, makeup, styling etc. Why is it that almost ALL of the photography here is a type of glamour or a subset of glamour. Just curious how a site like this gets hi-jacked to be so cloistered!
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Glamour is by far the most photographed genre.
Many photographers (male and female) get in to photography for the love of women's bodies.
Many models get in to modeling for the love of seeing themselves as sexy.
In the pursuit of photographing beautiful bodies, glamour is a logical stopping off point for those without the guts to do figure study work.
You'll find a lot of other stuff here as well... just go looking around.
PS. I find it ironic that your question came from a glamour shooter... Why all the glamour in your port?
Photographer
darkman_photo
Posts: 30
Miami, Arizona, US
lets assume you are typical photographer here,
in my opinion you have on your profile:
1-2 fashion (dependant on definition)
1 editorial
2 erotic
3 artisitic
the rest glamour...
no commercial print or lifestyle..
which is proabably 90% of the modeling industry work.
so maybe you can tell us how this happens.
Photographer
27255
Posts: 975
San Diego, California, US
Odd presumptions.
Espeically for the fact that your portfolio blends right in with the rest of us shooting glamour.
MM is exactly what it is. Nothing "hijacked" around here.
EDIT: Silly me. I looked at your portfolio again and see that you are just having some fun trolling.
Photographer
Mr Degenerate
Posts: 26
Charlotte, Iowa, US
I like reading your posts James, you're very informative and to the point without being a**holish.
Photographer
XtremeArtists
Posts: 9122
Gaylord Hill wrote:
Why is it that almost ALL of the photography here is a type of glamour or a subset of glamour. Because GWC's want to shoot naked or barely-dressed chicks.
Because it appeals to the lowest common denominator, and that is what an open membership attracts.
Because it was set up that way in the begining to attract the most people from the internet.
Because that's how OMP is.
Because this is not a professional modeling or photography site. If it were a professional site, there would be some understanding that males and women over 30 account for the majority of models used in commercial print.
It all comes back to horny guys. That is what 90% of the "photographers" here really are rather than being professionals.
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Johnny Degenerate wrote:
I like reading your posts James, you're very informative and to the point without being a**holish. 
*speechless*
Photographer
Tog
Posts: 55204
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Gaylord Hill wrote:
It is my presumption that MM is a networking site for all things related to photography, modeling, makeup, styling etc. Why is it that almost ALL of the photography here is a type of glamour or a subset of glamour. Just curious how a site like this gets hi-jacked to be so cloistered! *Looks at post...*
*Looks at poster...*
*Looks at post......*
*Looks at avatar.......*
Screw you guys, I'm goin' home.
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
XtremeArtists wrote:
Because this is not a professional modeling or photography site. If it were a professional site, there would be some understanding by members that males and women over 30 account for the majority of models used in commercial print. That's funny...
In the time I've spent shooting and working on catalog shoots... that's just not been the case...
Like to know where you get your stats from there XA... cute info though... not accurate... but cute...
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
W.G. Rowland wrote:
*Looks at post...*
*Looks at poster...*
*Looks at post......*
*Looks at avatar.......*
Screw you guys, I'm goin' home. Too easy for you?
Photographer
darkman_photo
Posts: 30
Miami, Arizona, US
James Jackson wrote:
to know where you get your stats from there XA... 87% of all statisitics are made up on the spot...
Photographer
RAW-R IMAGE
Posts: 3379
Los Angeles, California, US
OK--I'm trolling for COMMENTS to help ME determine why MM is the way it is. I shoot some "glamour", but I wouldn't say I have great quantities of glamour in my port. I was just asking for input from OTHERS as to why we do this so much. I was not excluding myself! I ALREADY know why I do it, but wanted others opinions. Of course; it seems, as usual, a question like this brings out the attacks dogs!!
Photographer
UnoMundo
Posts: 47532
Olympia, Washington, US
this from a man whose avatar is a big BUTT.
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Gaylord Hill wrote:
OK--I'm trolling for COMMENTS to help ME determine why MM is the way it is. I shoot some "glamour", but I wouldn't say I have great quantities of glamour in my port. I was just asking for input from OTHERS as to why we do this so much. I was not excluding myself! I ALREADY know why I do it, but wanted others opinions. Of course; it seems, as usual, a question like this brings out the attacks dogs!! Personally, I'm not attacking you at all... just found it kind of ironic.
It also probably has to do in part with the birds of a feather rule... You seem to see more glamour because you shoot glamour... you like glamour, so it catches your eye. You'll see what is familiar to you before you see something else.
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 22234
Stamford, Connecticut, US
Look at the cover of this months W magazine with Cameron Diaz on the cover.
It is a glamour shot after all..... It may not be in keeping with some folks internet definitions, but it is indeed glamour. In fact, that was how glamour originated.
Why glamour? It's fun. It's difficult to do well. It allows for tremendous creativity. For those of us who place more emphasis on creating a specific image, as opposed to capturing reality, it can be more satisfying.
There are only a few genres of photography that allow for those things (editorial fashion being one).
Photographer
Artbroken Images
Posts: 235
Chicago, Illinois, US
Gaylord Hill wrote:
OK--I'm trolling for COMMENTS to help ME determine why MM is the way it is. I shoot some "glamour", but I wouldn't say I have great quantities of glamour in my port. I was just asking for input from OTHERS as to why we do this so much. I was not excluding myself! I ALREADY know why I do it, but wanted others opinions. Of course; it seems, as usual, a question like this brings out the attacks dogs!! It's probably because it is the one style that both the model and photographer agree on the most. Photographers want models to look sexy and models want to look sexy, but who's wants to put out for the wardrobe?
Photographer
RAW-R IMAGE
Posts: 3379
Los Angeles, California, US
darkman_photo wrote:
lets assume you are typical photographer here,
in my opinion you have on your profile:
1-2 fashion (dependant on definition)
1 editorial
2 erotic
3 artisitic
the rest glamour...
no commercial print or lifestyle..
which is proabably 90% of the modeling industry work.
so maybe you can tell us how this happens. I can tell you why my port has taken it's direction, but I was interested in what everyone else has to say. As to my port, suffice it to say my MM port is a sketchbook for a work in progress. I am assembling the pieces to move onto other things and to finalize the true direction of my work. Glamour will be a componet just as erotic, fetish and conceptual will be.
Photographer
SPRINGHEEL
Posts: 38224
Detroit, Michigan, US
UnoMundo Photography wrote:
this from a man whose avatar is a big BUTT. Heyyyyyy now, you leave Maya's beautiful butt outta this!!!!
Honestly, it seems that most photographers here do some variation on glamour....I believe alot of it has to do with why the photographer was inspired to pick up a camera in the first place....
I know I started photography because of my passion for filmmaking....thats why most of my work seems to have "come from a movie' as I've been told many times....a great deal of others where inspired by glamour....lets face it, that the majority of photography you run into out in the "real world"....
Photographer
RAW-R IMAGE
Posts: 3379
Los Angeles, California, US
UnoMundo Photography wrote:
this from a man whose avatar is a big BUTT. The big BUTT is for the dogs, the look of the face, flow of the hair and the softness of light is for those who would like to go a little deeper!
Photographer
27255
Posts: 975
San Diego, California, US
Gaylord Hill wrote:
OK--I'm trolling for COMMENTS to help ME determine why MM is the way it is. OK--
What's difficult to understand why MM is what it is? It simply reflects the attitudes and interests of those who join and swell it's ranks. MM has been very successful and has hit the nail on the head for a huge internet based demographic.
If you want a milieu of hard core, dry, technical photographers divided into industry subsets, you can find them elsewhere. Around here it's a lot of people having fun. Including the bashfest that goes on in the forums.
It's a social environment of people who like photography and modeling for fun more than anything else.
Why not?
Stan Schutze
San Diego
www.pbase.com/schutze/modeling
![https://ct.pbase.com/o6/94/490594/1/70610078.2m3n7n1a.2006110612204w.jpg]()
Photographer
RAW-R IMAGE
Posts: 3379
Los Angeles, California, US
Paramour Productions wrote:
Look at the cover of this months W magazine with Cameron Diaz on the cover.
It is a glamour shot after all..... It may not be in keeping with some folks internet definitions, but it is indeed glamour. In fact, that was how glamour originated.
Why glamour? It's fun. It's difficult to do well. It allows for tremendous creativity. For those of us who place more emphasis on creating a specific image, as opposed to capturing reality, it can be more satisfying.
There are only a few genres of photography that allow for those things (editorial fashion being one). THANK YOU!!!!!!
Photographer
Dave Mullins
Posts: 1775
Nashua, New Hampshire, US
If you are networking here for models, You need models in your portfolio. If my port was full of product shots (which i still do), landscapes, or otherwise, I would not be able to attract models to shoot.
Dave Mullins
Photographer
none of the above
Posts: 3528
Marina del Rey, California, US
Gaylord Hill wrote:
Why All the Glamour??
Why is it that almost ALL of the photography here is a type of glamour or a subset of glamour. truth be told, it is easier, more stimulating and the parameters of success are less rigid than creating lifestyle imaging.
--face reality
Photographer
27255
Posts: 975
San Diego, California, US
Gaylord Hill wrote:
The big BUTT is for the dogs, the look of the face, flow of the hair and the softness of light is for those who would like to go a little deeper! *rolling eyes
Model
Alix Andrea
Posts: 3035
Los Angeles, California, US
I actually originally wanted to do more fashion, but my agency and also lots of photographers who shoot me wanted to do a glamour look instead. Hence why I have so much in my port, plus glamour is a lot of fun to shoot, and it shows off that body us models work so hard at  When I'm 60 I'll have something to look back at and go "Damn, I used to have a nice figure:) "
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Paramour Productions wrote:
Look at the cover of this months W magazine with Cameron Diaz on the cover.
It is a glamour shot after all..... It may not be in keeping with some folks internet definitions, but it is indeed glamour. In fact, that was how glamour originated.
Why glamour? It's fun. It's difficult to do well. It allows for tremendous creativity. For those of us who place more emphasis on creating a specific image, as opposed to capturing reality, it can be more satisfying.
There are only a few genres of photography that allow for those things (editorial fashion being one). Gaylord Hill wrote:
THANK YOU!!!!!! Ahhh... so you were looking for vindication and validation not explanation
You must carefully word your queries on MM... strange things result otherwise.
Photographer
RAW-R IMAGE
Posts: 3379
Los Angeles, California, US
SPRINGHEEL wrote:
Heyyyyyy now, you leave Maya's beautiful butt outta this!!!!
Honestly, it seems that most photographers here do some variation on glamour....I believe alot of it has to do with why the photographer was inspired to pick up a camera in the first place....
I know I started photography because of my passion for filmmaking....thats why most of my work seems to have "come from a movie' as I've been told many times....a great deal of others where inspired by glamour....lets face it, that the majority of photography you run into out in the "real world".... I started photography as a sports photographer at age nine!! How you say?---While I was playing street football I always had my little brownie with me while playing!! In the middle of plays I would snap us in action. Those were wonderful years!!
At a later stage I was a devotee of A. Adams/ Weston Bros. style of work which eventually slide into documentary and human experience work after receiving some education from Lisette Model (name dropping). These genres were combined for years and I was just a gallery, magazine and display venue photographer. Coming out of that I began to "imitate" H. Newton, Guy Bourdin, N. Sieff etc. which eventually burnt me out.
Currently my submersion into Glam is a step towards another goal.
Photographer
Ransomaniac
Posts: 12588
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Because glam rawks and everything else sucks donkey bawls.
Photographer
UnoMundo
Posts: 47532
Olympia, Washington, US
SPRINGHEEL wrote:
Heyyyyyy now, you leave Maya's beautiful butt outta this!!!! I live in extreme adoration of Maya's butt. I can write an Ode to Maya's attributes.
But Gaylord is perhaps looking in the mirror and feeling the guilt pangs.
Photographer
RAW-R IMAGE
Posts: 3379
Los Angeles, California, US
Stan Schutze wrote:
*rolling eyes Seriously Stan!! It is just that combination of elements that I am investigating!! I haven't succeeded, but it is the counterpoint I am looking into. The play of ideas. Sometimes I use a obvious handle to draw the onlooker in, but sometimes they get stuck on the hook and don't go for the rest of the show.
Photographer
27255
Posts: 975
San Diego, California, US
Paramour Productions wrote:
Look at the cover of this months W magazine with Cameron Diaz on the cover. Gaylord Hill wrote:
THANK YOU!!!!!! James Jackson wrote:
Ahhh... so you were looking for vindication and validation not explanation
You must carefully word your queries on MM... strange things result otherwise. Looks like kick ass fashion to me. Well done.
Mert Alas & Marcus Piggott
![https://www.style.com/slideshows/standalone/w/feature/111706WFEA/15m.jpg]()
Photographer
RAW-R IMAGE
Posts: 3379
Los Angeles, California, US
UnoMundo Photography wrote:
I live in extreme adoration of Maya's butt. I can write an Ode to Maya's attributes.
But Gaylord is perhaps looking in the mirror and feeling the guilt pangs. Not guilt Springheel--Maya is a Gem! This particular capture of Maya I enjoy on several levels one of which it happens to be a very good capture of her less appreciated curves, but that is not really the whole story with this photo. Seek and ye shall find more!!
Everyone like run-on sentences?
Photographer
RAW-R IMAGE
Posts: 3379
Los Angeles, California, US
James Jackson wrote:
Paramour Productions wrote:
Look at the cover of this months W magazine with Cameron Diaz on the cover.
It is a glamour shot after all..... It may not be in keeping with some folks internet definitions, but it is indeed glamour. In fact, that was how glamour originated.
Why glamour? It's fun. It's difficult to do well. It allows for tremendous creativity. For those of us who place more emphasis on creating a specific image, as opposed to capturing reality, it can be more satisfying.
There are only a few genres of photography that allow for those things (editorial fashion being one). Ahhh... so you were looking for vindication and validation not explanation
I was thanking the OP for placing a informative response rather than a sideways attack.
You must carefully word your queries on MM... strange things result otherwise.
Photographer
Caspers Creations
Posts: 11409
Kansas City, Missouri, US
W.G. Rowland wrote:
*Looks at post...*
*Looks at poster...*
*Looks at post......*
*Looks at avatar.......*
Screw you guys, I'm goin' home. LOL
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 22234
Stamford, Connecticut, US
There is something else, and it often gets overlooked here (especially here where the mere mention of "adult" is verboten). And that is that most internet models (as opposed to models signed to a land based agency) who make a living off of modeling are doing nude modeling, and the majority of them are doing adult nudes. It may not be hardcore porn, but glamour nude (playboy/pentouse style) certainly. Yes, there are the art models, but most girls deriving a full time living (and sometimes a very good one) off of their internet modeling are doing some form of glamour or adult modeling and it is sites like this and others where they do the majority of their networking.
Photographer
SPRINGHEEL
Posts: 38224
Detroit, Michigan, US
Gaylord Hill wrote:
Not guilt Springheel--Maya is a Gem! This particular capture of Maya I enjoy on several levels one of which it happens to be a very good capture of her less appreciated curves, but that is not really the whole story with this photo. Seek and ye shall find more!!
Everyone like run-on sentences? Hmmmm, I think you meant this for UnoMundo....I think Maya is wonderful to work with and hell yes, she has a great ass.....I do think your photos of her are wonderful and you did what you describe.....most photographers see someone like her and only see the body....you certainly captured more than that....
Photographer
Artbroken Images
Posts: 235
Chicago, Illinois, US
Thanks for posting the Cameron Diaz cover (I don't get out much). Yeah, I would call that glamour.
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 22234
Stamford, Connecticut, US
Stan Schutze wrote:
Paramour Productions wrote:
Look at the cover of this months W magazine with Cameron Diaz on the cover. Gaylord Hill wrote:
THANK YOU!!!!!! Looks like kick ass fashion to me. Well done.
Mert Alas & Marcus Piggott
![https://www.style.com/slideshows/standalone/w/feature/111706WFEA/15m.jpg]() It is not fashion. It is not selling clothing. It is a sexy celebrity shot, which, as I said, is where glamour originated. Anytime you see a sexy shot of an actress on the cover of a magazine, whether that magazine is Vogue, W, Maxim, Cosmo, GQ, etc., it is a glamour shot. Glamour has been back in a big way for the past 10 years. Not all glamour is cheesy but shots.
Photographer
RAW-R IMAGE
Posts: 3379
Los Angeles, California, US
Alix Andrea wrote:
I actually originally wanted to do more fashion, but my agency and also lots of photographers who shoot me wanted to do a glamour look instead. Hence why I have so much in my port, plus glamour is a lot of fun to shoot, and it shows off that body us models work so hard at When I'm 60 I'll have something to look back at and go "Damn, I used to have a nice figure:) " Thanks Alix--the only model to respond so far. Your reasoning is illustrative of one of the many "whys" and is appreciated.
Photographer
Doug Lester
Posts: 10591
Atlanta, Georgia, US
While glamour is a small niche market in mainstream, brick and mortar modeling and photography, it's the bulk of modeling and photography on the net. For several reasons, very few, if any, serious commercial jobs are booked on the forms. The commercial clients are not here, instead they go through agencies. Most of the photographers on the various forums are amateurs, many are quite capable, but they are not shooting commercial catalogs, serious fashion work or magazine ads, the bread and butter of mainstream work. The net is all about glamour, nudity and fetish.
|
When I'm 60 I'll have something to look back at and go "Damn, I used to have a nice figure:) "
