Lens Diaries Go Now
Glamour, Beauty, Nude, Models, Photographers

*    |  Register  


 
Go Back   Garage Glamourô > Garage Glamourô Main Forums > Main Community Forum
 

Main Community Forum General Modeling & Photography Forum
Adult posts prohibited!>>Please Read Our GUIDELINES before posting!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Playboy and Glamour shot
Old 09-25-2005, 08:07 AM   #1 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Member GG#: 42661
Location: Marietta
Posts: 28
Comments: 0

MurphyMurphyStudios is offline IP: 66.32.252.145
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Well I just bought my first Playboy in 20 years (yes, it really is true) so that I could take a look at two of the models that are in the Girls of the Pac 10 issue (I shot with Bella and McKenzie at Rolando's workshop last summer). They look great.

Now, here is the point of this post: I think that the photography of the BEAUTIFUL centerfold model is very good but has a couple of GLARING issues. First, look at the opening image (page 88). The model is fully clothed and holding a book. Does anyone see the long blonde hair growing out of her right arm just above the wrist? It seems that a hair has fallen from her head and landed on her arm. The back light highlights it ...... VERY distracting...... Is this the best that "the best" can do? Does Playboy no longer care to produce only "the best"? If you or I sent this picture to PB (or any other editor), it would likely get rejected because of this flaw. So, why did they publish it?

Next, look at the image on page 91. I remember in college (last time I read Playboy) that I was always wondering why Playboy thought that it would be a good idea to use a backlight ("Rim light?") to light the outside of a model's arm.... the ONLY thing that this does is highlight the hair on her arm and make her look like a gorilla. They did it 20 years ago and are still doing it now. Why? does anyone find the image on page 91 attractive (look at her right arm again). Would it not be an IMPROVED image if they did not backlight the hair on her arm?

Many of the images that I have seen on this board are far better than either of these two images (to be fair, the rest of the Centerfold images are Great).

Am I being overly picky? Any thoughts?

Dave
  View Public Profile Send a private message to MurphyMurphyStudios Visit MurphyMurphyStudios's homepage! Find More Posts by MurphyMurphyStudios
 
Re: Playboy and Glamour shot
Old 09-25-2005, 08:56 AM   #2 (permalink)
Free Member

 
Titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Member GG#: 42194
Location: Kentwood
Posts: 839
Comments: 5
Send a message via AIM to Titan Send a message via Yahoo to Titan

Titan is offline IP: 66.94.199.24
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

I'm not sure if I agree with you or not.

I'll have to go buy the issue for research.

Heh. research. Best excuse ever.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Titan Visit Titan's homepage! Find More Posts by Titan
 
Re: Playboy and Glamour shot
Old 09-25-2005, 09:28 AM   #3 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Member GG#: 41098
Posts: 77
Comments: 0

2112 is offline IP: 66.75.180.69
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Your average Playboy reader does not notice and/or care about such trivial things photogs notice and care about, if they even notice it at all.

  View Public Profile Send a private message to 2112 Visit 2112's homepage! Find More Posts by 2112
 
Re: Playboy and Glamour shot
Old 09-25-2005, 10:29 AM   #4 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Member GG#: 42373
Location: Lexington
Posts: 366
Comments: 0
Send a message via Yahoo to jackell

jackell is offline IP: 65.15.168.67
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

That is true in the worst way.
Last month (Jessica Canseco) there was a bad print in the copy I got and the holwebottom half of one picture was nothing but noise. But since it was all below her calf I had to point it out to everyone I showed the page to.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to jackell Visit jackell's homepage! Find More Posts by jackell
 
Re: Playboy and Glamour shot
Old 09-25-2005, 12:24 PM   #5 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Member GG#: 42661
Location: Marietta
Posts: 28
Comments: 0

MurphyMurphyStudios is offline IP: 66.32.252.145
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Well, 20 years ago when I was in college, I was not a photographer yet, I noticed the "gorilla arm" look. I found it strange that in a mag that was showing the "soft side" of woman that they would include "gorilla" arms.

Maybe only photogs notice but, I doubt it.....


Dave
  View Public Profile Send a private message to MurphyMurphyStudios Visit MurphyMurphyStudios's homepage! Find More Posts by MurphyMurphyStudios
 
Re: Playboy and Glamour shot
Old 09-26-2005, 08:00 AM   #6 (permalink)
Free Member

 
eselby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35236
Location: Ball Ground
Posts: 361
Comments: 0
Send a message via AIM to eselby Send a message via Yahoo to eselby

eselby is offline IP: 63.84.113.197
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

I assisted on a test shoot with Bella and McKenzie and had the pleasure of taking them to the airport the day after the shoot (really sweet and delightful girls - intelligence and beauty, a great combination), so I was really looking forward to this issue.

Okay, maybe I'm just jaded by the talented "amateurs" on GG (as well as some of you working pros), but it seems to me that the quality of the images in PB are just kind of "eh". They aren't blowing me away. I no longer look at most PB images and say, "I'd like to shoot like that." I find myself, much like Murphy, critiquing the images - looking for (and finding) the flaws; like stray hairs, "gorilla" lighting (I like that phrase!), unflattering poses, etc.

Where PB used to be the grail, I now look at it as a text book filled with the right way *and* wrong way to do glamour nudes. If, as Christian told us at HTL, the Devil is in the details, there must be Hell to pay in Chicago!

btw - the shots of Bella and McKenzie in the issue are nothing compared to what the photographer I assisted got. Man, those were some smokin' shots he got!! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
  View Public Profile Send a private message to eselby Visit eselby's homepage! Find More Posts by eselby
 
Re: Playboy and Glamour shot
Old 09-26-2005, 02:40 PM   #7 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Member GG#: 36382
Posts: 3
Comments: 0
My Mood:

MikeLD01 is offline IP: 24.98.241.6
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

I saw this issue and saw the 'hairs' too. However, I'm not sure the bar we need to set is SO HIGH that absolute perfection is the only thing worth publishing!
I personally like the backlighting and 'peach fuzz' - at least you know
something's natural on her without expecting a total shaven, baby-smooth silky skin from head to toe! Sheesh!

2nd - it highlights the sharpness of the focus on the image - a good thing.

I would agree - Playboy is probably the 'best of the best' in mass marketing "beauty" photography - but probably because they're only 99.997% perfect.

And finally, I will confess IMMEDIATELY - the term "gorilla" was NOT the first thing that came to my mind when I saw Ms October's 'peach fuzz'. Sorry!

Mike

  View Public Profile Send a private message to MikeLD01 Find More Posts by MikeLD01
 
Re: Playboy and Glamour shot
Old 09-26-2005, 04:25 PM   #8 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35226
Location: los angeles
Posts: 97
Comments: 0

johnnyolsen is offline IP: 66.167.110.242
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

anytime i'm looking to be un-inspired i'll look at a newsstand special. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

the first issues of the newsstand specials were outtakes from gatefold shoots, sadly that's not the case anymore. the photo quality and model quality has gone downhill significantly.

  View Public Profile Send a private message to johnnyolsen Visit johnnyolsen's homepage! Find More Posts by johnnyolsen
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Glam lighting vs: Portrait lighting? nakins Tech Talk Forum 5 11-28-2006 11:53 AM
My Glamour Manifesto.... mcherry Main Community Forum 20 10-24-2006 01:44 AM
Just when you thought Playboy was still the end all - be all of contemporary glamour jimmyd Main Community Forum 7 06-27-2006 09:42 PM
Has Adult Diluted the Glamour Biz? jimmyd Main Community Forum 25 03-02-2006 03:52 PM

Sponsors


New To Site? Need Help? Photographer & Model Links
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 AM.

© 1999-2017 Garage Glamourô




Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94