Glamour - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

12/21/2010 10:59:50 AM · #1

Glamour photography is a genre of photography whereby the subjects, usually female, are portrayed in a romantic or sexually alluring way. The subjects may be fully clothed, nude or seminude, but glamour photography stops short of deliberately arousing the viewer.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

12/21/2010 01:03:24 PM · #2

Bring it on dude, I'll take your ribbon away.. :)

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

12/21/2010 01:07:24 PM · #3

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Bring it on dude, I'll take your ribbon away.. :)

HEY, I was gonna use that ribbon to cover the naughty bits...

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

12/21/2010 01:13:14 PM · #4

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Bring it on dude, I'll take your ribbon away.. :)

HEY, I was gonna use that ribbon to cover the naughty bits...

:)

Did I mention that I like this idea?

KarenNfld

12/21/2010 01:15:53 PM · #5

Previous Glamour Challenge

12/21/2010 01:18:36 PM · #6

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

Previous Glamour Challenge

Funny that the first page is full of Beauty images rather than Glamour photography.

12/21/2010 02:11:48 PM · #7

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Previous Glamour Challenge

Funny that the first page is full of Beauty images rather than Glamour photography.

Actually half the challenge entries were beauty images....some didn't even have people.

12/21/2010 02:21:52 PM · #8

The challenge description was completely different, however and should have been titled "Glamor" rather than "Glamour".

This one would focus on actual glamour photography, rather than one shooting something glamorous.

12/21/2010 03:29:51 PM · #9

I need a handy photo analyzer to help me figure out what I'm looking at. I often get portrait, glamour and fashion all confused... well maybe just the grey areas between them.. but confused nonetheless.

12/21/2010 04:15:25 PM · #10

Originally posted by Nusbaum:

I'm not getting dragged into that "portrait debate" LOL

But, it's easy to tell fashion from glamour. Fashion sells the clothes, glamour sells the model.

12/21/2010 05:47:12 PM · #11

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Nusbaum:
I need a handy photo analyzer to help me figure out what I'm looking at. I often get portrait, glamour and fashion all confused... well maybe just the grey areas between them.. but confused nonetheless.

I'm not getting dragged into that "portrait debate" LOL

But, it's easy to tell fashion from glamour. Fashion sells the clothes, glamour sells the model.

Bravo! Bravo! someone actually has it right!

12/21/2010 06:51:01 PM · #12

Originally posted by albc28:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Nusbaum:
I need a handy photo analyzer to help me figure out what I'm looking at. I often get portrait, glamour and fashion all confused... well maybe just the grey areas between them.. but confused nonetheless.

I'm not getting dragged into that "portrait debate" LOL

But, it's easy to tell fashion from glamour. Fashion sells the clothes, glamour sells the model.

Bravo! Bravo! someone actually has it right!

I can say those words to myself over and over, but then I grab a magazine to review and it all gets twisted up. I grabbed a copy of Harper's Bazaar just now to help illustrate my problems in this area. After my first pass at identifying shots that seemed to cross the lines between fashion, glamour and portrait I found that most were selling fragrances, which probably explains my confusion. I'm looking at Charlize Theron for J'adore by Dior and... the dress is stunning (fashion), she's stunning and connects with the camera (portrait) and the ad is incredibly sexy (glamour). I made another pass and there were many ads that I made sense as fashion once I read who the ad was for. I don't think I have a glamour magazine, so I cannot do the same there.

If I accept that fashion sells the clothes, glamour sells the model, how do I keep either from becoming a portrait? I know it's silly to debate types or classifications of photography, but if I'm working with clients and trying to get published I need to find a way to communicate what I'm doing or understand what they want.

12/21/2010 07:17:07 PM · #13

Originally posted by Nusbaum:

If I accept that fashion sells the clothes, glamour sells the model, how do I keep either from becoming a portrait?

Portraits feature the face of the subject, prominently. Although some, including myself, consider most posed photographs of people to be portraits. With the second definition, both glamour and fashion photography would be portraits.

If you're looking at Harper's Bazaar, your likely looking at fashion, beauty or portrait imagery...not glamour which tends to be more "tantalizing". It's all based on INTENT of the image.

Also, more and more recently fashion has become more influenced by glamour photography, because SEX SELLS. Victoria's Secret has very successfully used glamour photography to sell clothes. Many clothing brands have leaned more heavily on sexuality to sell clothes, further blurring the lines. To further confuse you, Fashion photography often relies on selling a lifestyle, rather than a brand itself. "If you buy our clothes, you can be like this person." The clothing may be featured less prominently in the photo, but the INTENT is to sell the clothing.

However, glamour photography has pretty much remained the same. Yes, the "clothing" is more revealing now than it was in the 50's. But, the goal is to sell the model, not her clothes.

Overall, fashion DEMANDS your attention. Glamour gets your attention without really trying ;)

IE, this image of Jennifer Aniston from HB is a beauty portrait.

This image of Jennifer from Maxim is clearly a glamour nude.

Message edited by author 2010-12-21 20:12:48.

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

12/21/2010 07:54:10 PM · #14

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

If you're looking at Harper's Bazaar, your likely looking at fashion, beauty or portrait imagery...not glamour which tends to be more "tantalizing". It's all based on INTENT of the image.

A glamour magazine would have been better for this discussion, but I don't think I have one laying around.. unless you consider V to be glamour? It's in the "men's interests" part of the bookstore but it looks more like a fashion magazine to me.

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Also, more and more recently fashion has become more influenced by glamour photography, because SEX SELLS. Victoria's Secret has very successfully used glamour photography to sell clothes. Many clothing brands have leaned more heavily on sexuality to sell clothes, further blurring the lines. To further confuse you, Fashion photography often relies on selling a lifestyle, rather than a brand itself. "If you buy our clothes, you can be like this person." The clothing may be featured less prominently in the photo, but the INTENT is to sell the clothing.

Thank you! The conversation is actually helping, even though everything you are saying sounds obvious. There are times when I look at a GUESS add and I wonder if there are selling those soaking wet jeans that are hardly visible or something else. Not that I'm objecting, they have featured some amazing photography in their adds and I would call it fashion, but it is very sexy.

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

IE, this image of Jennifer Aniston from HP is a beauty portrait.

I was about to say you must have the wrong link until I looked and it IS Jennifer Aniston looking like Streisand, wow. This is also the perfect example of what twists me up. When somebody will ask what type of photography I do, or want to do, they are expecting to hear wedding, portrait, glamour, fashion etc, but THIS is the type of photography I want to do. Regardless of the intent or category, I just love the look of this.

Thanks again!

bohemka

Nikon D700

12/21/2010 07:59:12 PM · #15

Is that really Jennifer Aniston? I don't believe it.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

12/21/2010 08:07:05 PM · #16

who is that on maxim? that not jennifer aniston.

12/21/2010 08:20:25 PM · #17

Most mens magazines are considered glamour magazines (ie: Maxim, FHM, Loaded (although really a lad magazine), ect). These photos put the focus on the models body, curves, assests, and have the full intent on being sexy. The clothing is merely there to add to the sultry of the photo. A short skirt reveals just enough to keep you trying to look under her skirt. As you will notice with most of the photos in those magazines, they are pointing out who the woman is, how sexy she is, and completely selling her appeal.

It's hard to find a true fashion magazine that doesn't step over the line into extreme fashion, but most ads selling clothes or accessories are fashion photographs. Fotomann is right. They are not only selling the clothes or accessory they are selling the lifestyle. They want to appeal to men, so they will feature a man wearing this item with a sexy girl..."you buy this watch, you will attract this girl".

I'm assuming the Guess ads you refer to (Ambercrombie and Fitch often do this as well) where they have the girl topless with her hair or hands covering her breasts and only wearing jeans....how you can you tell this is fashion? They aren't selling her curves. Look at the models...it usually a model who isn't very curvy or "blessed" in any real asset. You generally find the very skinny girl with little in the breast area who is pretty much a blank canvas wearing those jeans. So the focus is never really on the model or her body parts it's still on the clothing and works on your subconscious that there is some skin there. It's still fashion.

If you want to look at the true blur of these lines..look at sports illustrate swimsuit and Victoria secret. Both shoot very similar styles and use very similar models. Victoria Secret needs to use glamour because they are selling that if you wear this lingerie you will be as sexy as this...while sports illustrated is showing guys all these sexy models in swimsuits. The only major difference is who they market too. VS markets to women, SI markets to men.

A portrait doesn't usually sell either of these (sex or the clothing). A portrait is supposed to sell personality and primarily focuses on the persons face. Here is a simple way to tell the difference between the three....

If you look at a photo and you say:

"Man that's a nice watch", "That dress looks amazing", "How does he get a chick like that", - you are probably looking at a fashion shot.

"She has some nice *body part here*", I can almost see her *insert body part here*, "she is very curvy", "that is really sexy", "I'm turned on" - you are probably looking at glamour

"His/her eyes are piercing", "Those wrinkles make him/her look sophisticated", "He/she has a very friendly smile" - you are probably looking at a portrait.

"His/her make up is flawless", "I like the color of her lips", "wow that make up is very striking" - You are probably looking at a Beauty shot.

12/21/2010 08:21:42 PM · #18

Originally posted by mike_311:

who is that on maxim? that not jennifer aniston.

Gentlemen focus...and I don't mean focus on all that nekkidness!

12/21/2010 08:23:57 PM · #19

Originally posted by albc28:

A portrait doesn't usually sell either of these (sex or the clothing). A portrait is supposed to sell personality and primarily focuses on the persons face. Here is a simple way to tell the difference between the three....

If you look at a photo and you say:

"Man that's a nice watch", "That dress looks amazing", "How does he get a chick like that", - you are probably looking at a fashion shot.

"She has some nice *body part here*", I can almost see her *insert body part here*, "she is very curvy", "that is really sexy", "I'm turned on" - you are probably looking at glamour

"His/her eyes are piercing", "Those wrinkles make him/her look sophisticated", "He/she has a very friendly smile" - you are probably looking at a portrait.

"His/her make up is flawless", "I like the color of her lips", "wow that make up is very striking" - You are probably looking at a Beauty shot.

Good definitions :)

12/21/2010 08:30:03 PM · #20

After all this conversation I am starting to think that my problem isn't with the definitions, it's with my lack of intent when I create an image. If I have a nice looking model that wants to feature an outfit I'm probably thinking of her eyes and makeup as well as her outfit and I'll probably try to toss in a little bit of sexy just to add some kick to the image. If anything, I'm selling the model as a potential model and myself as a photographer... not glamour or fashion really. Then when I try to pull a portfolio together I'm not clear on the category of an image because I wasn't clear on the intent when it was created. As if getting the photo right wasn't hard enough, now I actually need to think about what I'm doing?

12/21/2010 09:05:12 PM · #21

Originally posted by Nusbaum:

Makes sense to me :)

12/21/2010 11:07:04 PM · #22

I almost forgot...

Great Idea...Lets get this challenge going

OH yeah...i was the one who suggested the first Glamour vs. Fashion challenges...didn't turn out the way I wanted them too.

Message edited by author 2010-12-21 23:07:50.

FocusPoint

XIAOMI Redmi Note 8 Pro

12/21/2010 11:24:39 PM · #23

Since Glamour was done before, maybe we should add a few extra rules, such as "BW", "Off-studio only", "No props, clothing and make up only" or "Use [a color here] as your main color for your shot" etc.