Models - Do you tick glamour because it's an option?

Pinklilith said

I always assumed glamour involved topless (showing my ignorance)

 Never heard them called that before!

Rick Martin said

Pinklilith said

I always assumed glamour involved topless (showing my ignorance)

 Never heard them called that before!

lol involved being topless :P

 One problem is, and Rick mentioned it, what is glamour and what isn't? It is not the outfit or lack of that defines a level, it is the way it is presented, the pose, a model standing in lingerie or a bikini is very different to a model leaning over a car, a sofa or a wheelbarrow with her back arched and bum out. I have numerous shots on my PP portfolio that aren't really glamour, but they aren't any of the other styles listed. One or two could be called fashion before they are called glamour, one or two are such that I haven't a clue what one would call them. 

 As far is "fashion" is concerned, well, there is an immediate response along the lines of "you are too short" or you are "too fat". From that, is someone suggesting a model of height, 5'4'' cannot have "fashion" ticked? What a ridiculous train of thought that is, this is internet modelling, not a London or Paris catwalk.  There are plenty of models who are "too short" according to people's "standards" who can model in a fashion style very well indeed.  

 Any model on an internet site is going to, rightly so, tick several styles to give her a range that different people can choose her for. This is not a niche market, it is people playing around at grassroots levels, models and photographers, "having a go", "carrying out their hobby" or earning just "earning a few quid on the side".  In the mix, there are a few really good models and photographers who could cross the invisible line between internet modelling and high end modelling or photography.  

I shoot lingerie but I don't want to be shot in a page 3 style therefore I don't tick Glamour as that to me is what I see modern glamour to be.

As for fashion, I rock it because I'm interested on shooting it. Despite being 5"4 and tattooed.

Ah...I've been mentioned in the same sentence as the legendary Matt Harper...the peak of my career no doubt...but I guess Matt has bottomed out:)

Interestingly...if I look at my port...I cannot see a single image which I would not class as glamour, although several of the models on my port claim not to do glamour:)

And if I look very quickly at "archetypal" glamour photographer Matt's port I can see at least 8 images which are clearly not glamour... 

[getting a comfy seat for this one]

IainT said

Ah...I've been mentioned in the same sentence as the legendary Matt Harper...the peak of my career no doubt...but I guess Matt has bottomed out:)

Interestingly...if I look at my port...I cannot see a single image which I would not class as glamour, although several of the models on my port claim not to do glamour:)

And if I look very quickly at "archetypal" glamour photographer Matt's port I can see at least 8 images which are clearly not glamour... 

Ha Ha, here we go, keyboards at the ready :) 

I think, pretty much, from past threads on other sites as well as the above, that Iain and I agree that a huge percentage of what we do and see is glamour.  The aim is to make a model look either beautiful or sexy, preferably both, some do it very well, Iain being the most notable photographer on these sites, some less well.  Somewhere in the comparisons, one has to consider the aim of the shoot, in my case, the images end up on here and other similar sites, posted by me and occasionally a model might think I have fluked a good one and uses it herself.  In  Iain's case, the main aim is commercial (I am aware some is not commercial), so he very carefully picks the models, spends a lot of time, money and therefore effort in preparing for shoots, which shows in the quality, not to mention, the success.  In my case, I do it for fun, a hobby and on no budget, shooting with models who are happy to bless me with their time and effort because for some reason, they like what I do. 

There are numerous models who don't tick glamour, yet many of their portfolio images certainly fall into the glamour style before any other style. Possibly, this is a form of snobbery (that is not calling anyone a sob), not wanting to have the word "glamour" attached to them. There is a fairly widespread suggestion that "glamour" is tacky, cheap, demeaning, some people may feel they  are "above" all that. 

Jenny Wren said

I once read that the difference between fashion and glamour was this:

Fashion - model appears to be saying "fuck you"

Glamour - model appears to be screaming "fuck me"

That's brilliant Jenny Wren, I am totally stealing that! ^^

IainT said

Interestingly...if I look at my port...I cannot see a single image which I would not class as glamour, although several of the models on my port claim not to do glamour:)

That would be me then Iain! haha.

I think the American version of glamour is glamourous (Hollywood fashion) and the British version is more page 3 (Hollywood wax!). The same with shooting glamour or boudoir - glamour is sexual, boudoir is sensual, it's all to do with the pose and expression. 

Glamour can be far from cheap and tacky. Guido Argentinis work is fantastic. It's certainly glamour but it can still look high end. It's all down to the quality of the model.

About half the shoot requests I get are from models that dont do 'glamour', some even make a point of saying something in their notes to reinforce just how much they definately dont do it! However, if I was asked to put a label on the stuff I do I'd say its 'glamour'. 

Labels are generally utterly meaningless. About 80% of the stuff labelled 'art' nude is anything but artistic. As for 'fine art'! Lets not even go there. I see a model posting that she 'doesnt do anything tacky like glamour' and see a portfolio stuffed with mainstream glamour shots. 

Either people have no clue what to call their stuff, including me, or they dont really care and take a stab in the dark. It doesnt really matter, does it. Make up your own minds what genre the images are, ignore the label and just get on with it. Whatever options you give people they will continue to label their own work according to what they imagine it to be. At least half the time you wont agree!

And that from John nicely rounds this thread up. Well said.

John VonGeezer said

............About 80% of the stuff labelled 'art' nude is anything but artistic. As for 'fine art'! Lets not even go there. I see a model posting that she 'doesnt do anything tacky like glamour' and see a portfolio stuffed with mainstream glamour shots. 

YAY, seconds out, round 2.

A small but very meaningful +1 to that :) 

Edited by Matt Harper

Jenny Wren said

I once read that the difference between fashion and glamour was this:

Fashion - model appears to be saying "fuck you"

Glamour - model appears to be screaming "fuck me"

Personally I reckon it's probably a really hard genre to get "right" as in my opinion a photoshoot is one of the least sexual environments around, therefore a fair bit of acting and emotion has to go in to get the feeling across to the viewer. I don't reckon I could do it, would like to have a go sometime, but wouldn't be surprised if I put the viewer more in mind of a constipated duck than a sexual being.

Haha that's great, now I know I can do both genres :-))

Akasha said

Jenny Wren said

I once read that the difference between fashion and glamour was this:

Fashion - model appears to be saying "fuck you"

Glamour - model appears to be screaming "fuck me"

Personally I reckon it's probably a really hard genre to get "right" as in my opinion a photoshoot is one of the least sexual environments around, therefore a fair bit of acting and emotion has to go in to get the feeling across to the viewer. I don't reckon I could do it, would like to have a go sometime, but wouldn't be surprised if I put the viewer more in mind of a constipated duck than a sexual being.

Haha that's great, now I know I can do both genres :-))

* LIKE * 

Rick Martin said

I would still like to see "Levels" and "Styles" separated out into some sort of matrix arrangement, so a model could indicate that she might do, for example, Lingerie in Fashion style, but not Lingerie in Glamour style.

 

You just really need 'levels' of nudity, which these sites revolve around and obsess on, everything else can be dealt with in notes and good old fashioned discussing it with each other.

Trying to encompass a style or genre into a few words and a tickbox is only ever going to be a big bag of hurt.