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

*    |  Register  


 
Go Back   Garage Glamourô > Garage Glamourô Community Related Forumss > Photo Reviews & Critiques Only
 

Photo Reviews & Critiques Only Constructive & professional critiques only

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Not really Glamour
Old 03-09-2004, 09:25 PM   #1 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Member GG#: 35629
Location: Toronto
Posts: 392
Comments: 0

grsphoto is offline IP: 67.69.129.252
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

From a session last week... comments welcome


  View Public Profile Send a private message to grsphoto Visit grsphoto's homepage! Find More Posts by grsphoto
 
Re: Not really Glamour
Old 03-09-2004, 09:38 PM   #2 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Member GG#: 37977
Posts: 102
Comments: 0

Sean_Armenta is offline IP: 68.66.128.70
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

i like this a LOT. she looks like she works out -- or does a lot of dishes by the veins in her hand [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] but i think the former seeing as how she's built [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

nice work -- nitpick: i'd clone out the hair falling behind her back to make it more streamlined.


sean
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Sean_Armenta Find More Posts by Sean_Armenta
 
Re: Not really Glamour
Old 03-10-2004, 11:13 PM   #3 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35360
Location: Texarkana
Posts: 300
Comments: 0

Clint is offline IP: 65.148.8.109
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

what is not glamourous about this image....very nice
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Clint Visit Clint's homepage! Find More Posts by Clint
 
Re: Not really Glamour
Old 03-11-2004, 05:35 PM   #4 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Member GG#: 35629
Location: Toronto
Posts: 392
Comments: 0

grsphoto is offline IP: 64.231.246.26
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Most good glamour images have one thing in common, eye contact with the model.

This image is more a figure study.

Glenn
  View Public Profile Send a private message to grsphoto Visit grsphoto's homepage! Find More Posts by grsphoto
 
Re: Not really Glamour
Old 03-12-2004, 12:08 AM   #5 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Member GG#: 35803
Location: New York
Posts: 71
Comments: 0

photoknight is offline IP: 68.164.39.176
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Beautiful image. What's not lit is as important as what is lit. This is certainly a glamour image.

James
  View Public Profile Send a private message to photoknight Visit photoknight's homepage! Find More Posts by photoknight
 
Re: Not really Glamour
Old 03-12-2004, 11:16 AM   #6 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Member GG#: 35629
Location: Toronto
Posts: 392
Comments: 0

grsphoto is offline IP: 67.71.188.86
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

[ QUOTE ]
This is certainly a glamour image.

James


[/ QUOTE ]


I have to disagree.

In order to be a glamour image there should be a contact or connection with the model. This is usually developed with eye contact. Once you have the eye contact, the act of breaking the contact to look at the rest of the image creates a tension that enhances the sexuality of the pose.

Most nudes and fashion images do not have eye contact, because the purpose of the image is for you scan the pose ( or the clothes) not to make a connection with the model. This is why the vacant stare is so popular in fashion, and nude figure studies don't have eyes.

grs

an image with eyes
  View Public Profile Send a private message to grsphoto Visit grsphoto's homepage! Find More Posts by grsphoto
 
really?????????????
Old 03-12-2004, 03:04 PM   #7 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35230
Location: new york
Posts: 478
Comments: 1
Send a message via AIM to glennusdin Send a message via Yahoo to glennusdin

glennusdin is offline IP: 66.109.230.128
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

says who?
  View Public Profile Send a private message to glennusdin Visit glennusdin's homepage! Find More Posts by glennusdin
 
Re: really?????????????
Old 03-12-2004, 04:07 PM   #8 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Member GG#: 35629
Location: Toronto
Posts: 392
Comments: 0

grsphoto is offline IP: 67.71.188.86
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

If you look at playboy or any classic pin-ups most of them have eye contact. If you look at the images that get posted on the front page of this forum... how many don't have the eyes.

If you look at any of the classic nudes, both photography and painting, and the common denominator is the lack of eye contact.

I would like to take credit for this idea but I heard it expressed years ago, and I haven't seen many examples that conteract it.

grs
  View Public Profile Send a private message to grsphoto Visit grsphoto's homepage! Find More Posts by grsphoto
 
Re: really?????????????
Old 03-12-2004, 05:14 PM   #9 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
mhickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Member GG#: 36016
Location: Franklin
Posts: 1,177
Comments: 2
My Mood:

mhickey is offline IP: 66.68.34.150
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

I think the discussion about whether or not the image is glamour is a disservice to a very nice image. It does not meet the definition of glamour that I have always heard but it is a classic fine art study.

Mike
  View Public Profile Send a private message to mhickey Visit mhickey's homepage! Find More Posts by mhickey
 
Re: really?????????????
Old 03-12-2004, 05:32 PM   #10 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Member GG#: 35629
Location: Toronto
Posts: 392
Comments: 0

grsphoto is offline IP: 67.71.188.86
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Mike, as the original poster of the image I don't mind if it is used as an example of what is and is not glamour ( and thanks for your compliment).

How do you define a glamour image?

Glenn

  View Public Profile Send a private message to grsphoto Visit grsphoto's homepage! Find More Posts by grsphoto
 
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 On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is glamour? R_Fredrick_Smith Main Community Forum 16 03-23-2007 12:30 AM
My Glamour Manifesto.... mcherry Main Community Forum 20 10-24-2006 01:44 AM
Has Adult Diluted the Glamour Biz? jimmyd Main Community Forum 25 03-02-2006 03:52 PM
Glamour, Glamour Photography, Glamour Models, Glamour Photos....etc.. JohnPaul Main Community Forum 32 10-26-2005 09:59 AM


New To Site? Need Help? Photographer & Model Links
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:51 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