Alex Davenport wrote:
Glad I got in before they got shut down! Sucks for them though- I like the magazine.

same here.....I just made it in the December issue.  It's kind of sad to see it go.

Cardillo Photography wrote:
From what I understand of this situation, the magazine will still be published....Just not in paper form.  It will be a totally online magazine, subscriptions will be for online content.

I think the UK will still have a print format, but I'm not positive.

It's just not the same as holding the mag in your hands.  There is just no comparing internet images versus glossy tangible images.  Something gets lost in cyberspace.

Cat Platz wrote:
I'm not sure why some photogs are so hateful about glam images/models/photogs/mags. 

Just because it's not your thing doesn't mean it's the worst thing that ever happened to photography.  I'm not sure why everyone can't just be respectful of different forms of photography and those involved.

I think the style of photography is beautiful...but jst like music I love everything and all styles. I think FHM/Maxim style shots are hot! I wish I could shoot them as well as some of people on this site......I agree with you....people put it down because it's not there thing.....I think every style has it's place and market.

Cat Platz wrote:

I think the UK will still have a print format, but I'm not positive.

It's just not the same as holding the mag in your hands.  There is just no comparing internet images versus glossy tangible images.  Something gets lost in cyberspace.

You are right....UK will still have the print form

Cat Platz wrote:
It's just not the same as holding the mag in your hands.  There is just no comparing internet images versus glossy tangible images.  Something gets lost in cyberspace.

I agree totally.
I like shooting all genres, and occasionally use these mags for idea concepts that I can expand from.

Thomas B wrote:

I think the style of photography is beautiful...but jst like music I love everything and all styles. I think FHM/Maxim style shots are hot! I wish I could shoot them as well as some of people on this site......I agree with you....people put it down because it's not there thing.....I think every style has it's place and market.

precisely!  That's exactly my though.....everyone excels and enjoys something different, and there is no reason not to be respectful of different forms of photography. 

We've all seen the threads that have photogs/models bashing glam photogs/models/mags and there is just no reason for it.  It's fine to share your opinion, but some of those posts are nothing but hateful.

Cat Platz wrote:

precisely!  That's exactly my though.....everyone excels and enjoys something different, and there is no reason not to be respectful of different forms of photography. 

We've all seen the threads that have photogs/models bashing glam photogs/models/mags and there is just no reason for it.  It's fine to share your opinion, but some of those posts are nothing but hateful.

I agree but these forums will always be like that....I think people who close their minds to different styles are the ones who suffer. I want to learn something about every style there is...and I can appreciate it all.

Thomas B wrote:

I agree but these forums will always be like that....I think people who close their minds to different styles are the ones who suffer. I want to learn something about every style there is...and I can appreciate it all.

well said!

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
If you read between the lines, they have been moving closer to actual nudity to be competitive but it was too racey for the grocery store shelf.   What I am wondering is if this is the end of the great experiment in American glamour.

Maxim/Stuff/FHM decided to go head-to-head with Playboy (which is big but doesn't make money) by offering a new kind of suggestive, but non-revealing glamour, AKA Maxim style.  At least for FHM, it didn't work, although Maxim still does fine.

I wonder if the American market is getting a little bit bored with Maxim style tameness.  At elast for FHM, it wasn't enough and they have moved on.

I, for one, am sorry to see them go.  I was happy to see the market tame down.

This glam syle is a part of American culture, and it's really a shame to see FHM go.  I hope it isn't the downfall of all glam work.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I wonder if the American market is getting a little bit bored with Maxim style tameness.  At elast for FHM, it wasn't enough and they have moved on.

I, for one, am sorry to see them go.  I was happy to see the market tame down.

I dont think that the market is getting bored, but it has been harder for stores to keep a moral standard when magazines are pushing the envelope.

When I worked in a retail Pharmacy, I remember many times emails coming from corporate to remove a magazine ( Elle, Glamour, and even Cosmo) because of a story or image that was deemed too graphic for the morality of the company.
One in particular was a story on genital herpes with images to illustrate the severity (gross, but an integral part of the article) and it was pulled from shelves.

The retail market and people in general, are afraid to push the envelope in fear of gettin sued for one thing or another.  Just my opinion.

studio36uk wrote:
For all except the lead dog the view is pretty much the same.

Studio36

So are you saying the same thing that I am thinking? 

Hard copy publications are difficult to sell.  More magazines and newspapers have found the need to be Internet based, with many being 100% net based!  Soon the "hard copy" magazine will go the way of film, with those who don't adjust to the shrinking market going out of business.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I, for one, am sorry to see them go.  I was happy to see the market tame down.

Pooch that.  Show the boobies or don't show the boobies, but the fake tease gets ridiculous, boring, and repetitous in short order.
Tame=lame.

Thomas B wrote:
One less magazine that GWC's can say they are testing for....lol

haha that was funny

Cat Platz wrote:
I'm not sure why some photogs are so hateful about glam images/models/photogs/mags.

I just want to clarify something. Earlier, I said that I won't miss FHM, but that's only because I never got aquainted with it in the first place. I have nothing against the glamour genre at all.

Any glamour models that want to shoot in WV, feel free to contact me anytime. 

Thomas B wrote:
One less magazine that GWC's can say they are testing for....lol

good point thomas.  on the other hand there are still numnuts out there claiming they will get you in their own startup 'magazine'...

check out this news story right here in wisconsin

http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/vide … index.html

Happy Holidays !

Cat Platz wrote:
I'm not sure why some photogs are so hateful about glam images/models/photogs/mags. 

Just because it's not your thing doesn't mean it's the worst thing that ever happened to photography.  I'm not sure why everyone can't just be respectful of different forms of photography and those involved.

I suppose it's like comparing slick, overproduced top 40 pop music with classical symphonies.  You can argue that there are talented, hard-working, innovative people in both areas.  But the latter is considered higher brow, perhaps because the geniuses in mainstream music need to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

I think in this analogy, I'm an obscure singer-songwriter type who makes raw recordings on outdated analog equipment in my makeshift home studio, mainly for my own enjoyment and need to express myself.

Serene Death wrote:
Still, I always loved the hyper-unreal sexuality of the photos in men's magazines...

Hyper-unreal?

I guess that comparison depends on the people you hang out with. 

Cardillo Photography wrote:
I dont think that the market is getting bored, but it has been harder for stores to keep a moral standard when magazines are pushing the envelope.

When I worked in a retail Pharmacy, I remember many times emails coming from corporate to remove a magazine ( Elle, Glamour, and even Cosmo) because of a story or image that was deemed too graphic for the morality of the company.
One in particular was a story on genital herpes with images to illustrate the severity (gross, but an integral part of the article) and it was pulled from shelves.

Very sad, very thoughtless.  What better place for a frank discussion on a health problem than a pharmacy?

Glen Berry wrote:

I just want to clarify something. Earlier, I said that I won't miss FHM, but that's only because I never got aquainted with it in the first place. I have nothing against the glamour genre at all.

Any glamour models that want to shoot in WV, feel free to contact me anytime. 

I didn't mean you in particular......there have been a few threads on this topic, and some people have left some pretty harsh responses.

Richard Tallent wrote:
Good riddance, IMHO.

Maybe with one fewer mainstream influence, more would-be models would be inspired by fine art and fashion than by "tease" glamour.

I'm not against tasteful glamour, but I tire of the oodles of model profiles all looking for that plastic-skin-Barbie look and the association of that look with all Internet-based modeling.

Highly agree
FHM, Stuff,and Maxim are all just meat magazine where the didn't show all the meat. They make women look cheap and stupid and make them look like their only good for one thing. Maxim being the best of them. Hell a lot of the times the photographers couldn't even get the White balance correct.  A model get getting a several page layout in them is something to give credit to but A FHM hometown hottie ( what a joke) gee isn't it cool that maybe a model just might get their pic download for a cell phone wall paper at tops. I have shoot several models who made the list gee and they never got anything else from that.

AlloyOne wrote:
"With conditions in the U.S. worsening, we have decided to suspend publication to focus resources elsewhere on faster growth platforms,"

I love it. There's something so harmonious about using FHM and "faster growth platform" in the same sentence.