Paramour Productions wrote:
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.

exactly.  People want to chalk it up to GWC's and GWP's but seriously, the net isn't the place you're going to find an over abundance of land based agency modls of the photographic styles that cater to them, being that they are LAND based.

SPRINGHEEL wrote:

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....

You're right Springheel it was for him. Thanks for your input. Isn't it strange how so many of the posters on this question have photographed Maya!!

Paramour Productions wrote:
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.

"FASHION ALERT - THE BEST CLOTHES FROM PARIS AND MILAN"
"Cameron Diaz - One Look at the White-Hot Star Leaves No Doubt: Sexy Is Back"

Sounds like it's selling fashion for the coming season to me.

The rest I agree with.


Personally, I don't go along with all these MM posters who try to divide everything into rigid categories fashion vs glamour vs art vs commercial vs blah-blah-blah, and debate endlessly over what goes where.

Advertising is advertising. W is certainly also selling magazines. They push many hot buttons, not the least of which is wrapped in a feeling of embracing readers with "secrets" of fashion to come and an impulse to buy something. Of course, celebrity appeal and projecting the viewer into this is one of the biggest hot buttons of all.

What these potent covers are selling is a complex array of many things.

Life is sweet.

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:) "

Gaylord Hill wrote:
Thanks Alix--the only model to respond so far. Your reasoning is illustrative of one of the many "whys" and is appreciated.

her "agency" as listed in her port is an ultra-sluggo.  that may help explain her response.

--face reality

Stan Schutze wrote:
"FASHION ALERT - THE BEST CLOTHES FROM PARIS AND MILAN"
"Cameron Diaz - One Look at the White-Hot Star Leaves No Doubt: Sexy Is Back"

Wait?  Sexy is back?!  Where the hell was it all this time?

Ransom J wrote:
Because glam rawks and everything else sucks donkey bawls.

Give it time and you will move into the donkey ball sucking genre if not just to fulfil creative quests!   

---Yoda

Johnny Degenerate wrote:
Wait?  Sexy is back?!  Where the hell was it all this time?

LOL

Stan Schutze wrote:

"FASHION ALERT - THE BEST CLOTHES FROM PARIS AND MILAN"
"Cameron Diaz - One Look at the White-Hot Star Leaves No Doubt: Sexy Is Back"

Sounds like it's selling fashion for the coming season to me.

The rest I agree with.


Personally, I don't go along with all these MM posters who try to divide everything into rigid categories fashion vs glamour vs art vs commercial vs blah-blah-blah, and debate endlessly over what goes where.

Advertising is advertising. W is certainly also selling magazines. They push many hot buttons, not the least of which is wrapped in a feeling of embracing readers with "secrets" of fashion to come and an impulse to buy something. Of course, celebrity appeal and projecting the viewer into this is one of the biggest hot buttons of all.

What these potent covers are selling is a complex array of many things.

Life is sweet.

Your comment about covers is just part of my point about the direction I seek with glamour. I am not after glamour per se, but want to add levels to the appreciation of the total photograph. I guess my initial question does have simplistic answers. MM people shoot glamour 'cause they like it. I guess the extened question is "why do they like it"!

Gaylord Hill wrote:

Give it time and you will move into the donkey ball sucking genre if not just to fulfil creative quests!   

---Yoda

I already have and do from time to time.  But i still find more creative release in glamour than most other model specific genre's.

FaceReality wrote:

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:) "

her "agency" as listed in her port is an ultra-sluggo.  that may help explain her response.

--face reality

Face--it is very interesting how your avatar and your comments about it are intimately intermingled with the questions behind my question!

Stan Schutze wrote:
"FASHION ALERT - THE BEST CLOTHES FROM PARIS AND MILAN"
"Cameron Diaz - One Look at the White-Hot Star Leaves No Doubt: Sexy Is Back"

Sounds like it's selling fashion for the coming season to me.

The rest I agree with.


Personally, I don't go along with all these MM posters who try to divide everything into rigid categories fashion vs glamour vs art vs commercial vs blah-blah-blah, and debate endlessly over what goes where.

Advertising is advertising. W is certainly also selling magazines. They push many hot buttons, not the least of which is wrapped in a feeling of embracing readers with "secrets" of fashion to come and an impulse to buy something. Of course, celebrity appeal and projecting the viewer into this is one of the biggest hot buttons of all.

What these potent covers are selling is a complex array of many things.

Life is sweet.

The text may be fashion oriented, but the PHOTOGRAPH (which is what I believe we are discussing) is glamour.....

[EDIT: As is the caption for the photo...]

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!

why would you think this site has been hi-jacked or cloistered,it just reflects the way the world really is.

Gaylord Hill wrote:
MM people shoot glamour 'cause they like it. I guess the extened question is "why do they like it"!

Perpetuation of the species?

Freud, Pavlov, Skinner, Maslow? ... Darwin? ..Socrates, Plato? 5th & Madison Av?

Gaylord Hill wrote:
Face--it is very interesting how your avatar and your comments about it are intimately intermingled with the questions behind my question!

would you please rephrase that statement where it makes sense.

--face reality

Laura Tillinghast Photo wrote:
I'm not new to photography but I don't really get the difference between glamour and everything else fashion related. I shoot beauty. Does that makes me a glamour photographer? I guess I always assumed "glamour" was cheesy portraiture with feather boas and too much make-up. I consider myself a fashion shooter but it's only one thing that I do.

From a technical perspective, Glamour and Beauty are strongly related as both are essentially product photography.

I love good beauty photography, it is my second favorite thing to shoot.

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
So Mayor Gaylord. Explain to me this message.
http://www.unomundo.net/images/mm/_MG_0044.jpg


or you just see boobs.

UnoMundo--that is a loaded question!

This photo obviously has more intent than titties!! It is rather open ended allowing one to supply their own answers. I hope you don't consider this glamour unless revolvers are what floats your boat.

darkman_photo wrote:

87% of all statisitics are made up on the spot...

Lies, Damn lies, and statistics!

Gaylord Hill wrote:

UnoMundo--that is a loaded question!

This photo obviously has more intent than titties!! It is rather open ended allowing one to supply their own answers. I hope you don't consider this glamour unless revolvers are what floats your boat.

get a lot of "what?" with that photo.  Revolvers no, but dangerous women are sexy.

stan wigmore photograph wrote:

why would you think this site has been hi-jacked or cloistered,it just reflects the way the world really is.

Just my mis-placed usage of imflammatory adjectives to wake up people from the hypnotic titty gazing that goes on here.

UnoMundo Photography wrote:

get a lot of "what?" with that photo.  Revolvers no, but dangerous women are sexy.

You have done quite a critique yourself and not once talk titty.

Danger/sex---interesting combination that will take you even deeper as to why that combination appeals to you. Others will just look at that photo and just see bad surgery!

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!!

In addition to the reasons given above, I think it is that glamour is easy to shoot, and before anyone jumps down my throat, notice I didn't say GOOD glamour is easy to shoot. Poses can be standard and clothing is or can be minimal, couple of lights BANG...glamour. To do it well takes much more from model and photographer, but I think it is the equivalent of the family snapshot, without the family, of course....

Merlyn_Magic Photo wrote:

In addition to the reasons given above, I think it is that glamour is easy to shoot, and before anyone jumps down my throat, notice I didn't say GOOD glamour is easy to shoot. Poses can be standard and clothing is or can be minimal, couple of lights BANG...glamour. To do it well takes much more from model and photographer, but I think it is the equivalent of the family snapshot, without the family, of course....

bad photography in general is easy to shoot.

Gaylord Hill wrote:

You have done quite a critique yourself and not once talk titty.

Danger/sex---interesting combination that will take you even deeper as to why that combination appeals to you. Others will just look at that photo and just see bad surgery!

Aw , dont slam the model, You want us to see a deeper meaning.
I am not a glamour photographer. My forays into that genre are always about strength and sexiness.

Ransom J wrote:

bad photography in general is easy to shoot.

Truer words were never written!

Ransom J wrote:

I already have and do from time to time.  But i still find more creative release in glamour than most other model specific genre's.

You're lucky--Glamour frustrates me. You have many successful glamour shoots--the stuff with Amber--stokes fires inside and your joy shows! My frustrtion resides in the fact that Glamour, for me, is just a means to another end--no I don't mean gettin' in the models pants

UnoMundo Photography wrote:

Aw , dont slam the model, You want us to see a deeper meaning.
I am not a glamour photographer. My forays into that genre are always about strength and sexiness.

Wasn't slammming the model--was her surgeon. If the model see's this please don't take offense at my statement about the surgery--it is not about you!

And Uno--you see--your glamour shots are not about Glamour, but are into strength and sexiness.

Gaylord Hill wrote:

You're lucky--Glamour frustrates me. You have many successful glamour shoots--the stuff with Amber--stokes fires inside and your joy shows! My frustrtion resides in the fact that Glamour, for me, is just a means to another end--no I don't mean gettin' in the models pants

Then why are you shooting it?  I think if you shot something you enjoyed you would see a marked improvement in your work....

Paramour Productions wrote:
Then why are you shooting it?  I think if you shot something you enjoyed you would see a marked improvement in your work....

I shoot it to learn. That is why what I do here is called testing. I really don't set out to shoot glamour. The glamour concept will be used in a stylistic concept I am working on--so as I said, it is a means to another end!

BTW-- I do enjoy shooting my pseudo-glamour--it is just frustrating. And yes, if my sole intent was to shoot a glamour shot I would be more successful at that, but I am after something different, therein lies the frustratrion.

Gaylord Hill wrote:

I shoot it to learn. That is why what I do here is called testing. I really don't set out to shoot glamour. The glamour concept will be used in a stylistic concept I am working on--so as I said, it is a means to another end!

BTW-- I do enjoy shooting my pseudo-glamour--it is just frustrating. And yes, if my sole intent was to shoot a glamour shot I would be more successful at that, but I am after something different, therein lies the frustratrion.

Well, what is it about glamour your trying to learn?  Lighting?  Posing?  Art direction?

I see three shots in your port I really, really like - they are not glamour.  I don't actually see any shots in your port that I would consider glamour, really.  So where are you trying to go?  I don't mean this as a slam, but if we knew what you were trying to learn, we might be able to offer some advice...

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
this from a man whose avatar is a big BUTT.

UnoMondo--back to this post, but do you really think my purpose in this photo was to present Maya in a "Glamourous" light.
things to think about:

1. Her pose/position.
2. The look in here eyes.
3. The placement of her left hand.
4. The type of boy shorts.
5. The freshness of her skin.
6. The strength in her thigh muscles.
7. Even the presence of the faded tatoo on her finger (how many women do you see with faded   tatoos?)

There is much to savour here beyond just a Big Butt!!

Gaylord Hill wrote:
hi-jacked to be so cloistered!

That has got to be one of the stupidest phrases I've ever read.  It's like someone took a thesaurus and a rhyming dictionary and mated them in the dark.

Gaylord Hill wrote:

UnoMondo--back to this post, but do you really think my purpose in this photo was to present Maya in a "Glamourous" light.
things to think about:

1. Her pose/position.
2. The look in here eyes.
3. The placement of her left hand.
4. The type of boy shorts.
5. The freshness of her skin.
6. The strength in her thigh muscles.
7. Even the presence of the faded tatoo on her finger (how many women do you see with faded   tatoos?)

There is much to savour here beyond just a Big Butt!!

Sorry, I don't see it...

Sarah Ellis wrote:

That has got to be one of the stupidest phrases I've ever read.  It's like someone took a thesaurus and a rhyming dictionary and mated them in the dark.

I have one of those.  I use it for songwriting, but I'm currently trying to mate it with my dictionary of synonyms and antonyms.

Sarah Ellis wrote:

That has got to be one of the stupidest phrases I've ever read.  It's like someone took a thesaurus and a rhyming dictionary and mated them in the dark.

LMAO!  Can I shoot you, please?

Paramour Productions wrote:

Well, what is it about glamour your trying to learn?  Lighting?  Posing?  Art direction?

I see three shots in your port I really, really like - they are not glamour.  I don't actually see any shots in your port that I would consider glamour, really.  So where are you trying to go?  I don't mean this as a slam, but if we knew what you were trying to learn, we might be able to offer some advice...

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, no glamour---I LIKE that! I felt no slam at all.  I wasn't really seeking advice to help my direction--I was just interested in why there is so much of it on MM. About where I am going it is a solitary quest ,but a rather simple quest-- a development of a signature style to separate my work from the masses. It will be a consistant and identifiable bouillabaise of interlocking genres!

Sarah Ellis wrote:

That has got to be one of the stupidest phrases I've ever read.  It's like someone took a thesaurus and a rhyming dictionary and mated them in the dark.

I'd like to mate with you in the dark--you're so tuff!!

It's fun playing with words don't you think?

And NO thesaurus, just a pompus ass with to much time on my hands. Hell, I had to look at your spelling to see how to spell thesaurus.

Lossen your panty hose and get some circulation to your brain!

Gaylord Hill wrote:

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, no glamour---I LIKE that! I felt no slam at all.  I wasn't really seeking advice to help my direction--I was just interested in why there is so much of it on MM. About where I am going it is a solitary quest ,but a rather simple quest-- a development of a signature style to separate my work from the masses. It will be a consistant and identifiable bouillabaise of interlocking genres!

Oh,  yeah, ok...

Good luck to you with that...