# Glamour shots****Not work safe***



## dezmaas (Mar 12, 2005)

A couple of shots taken earlier this year. All comments welcome:


----------



## anton980 (Mar 12, 2005)

Very beautiful model, and I like the poses, but what bothers me is the flash shadow behind the model.  And It's a shame the foot was cropped in the first photo.


----------



## mentos_007 (Mar 12, 2005)

hmm I'm always wondering why such portraits are taken with a model in shoes... Damn... if she is in her/his underwear there's no need to be in shoes  did you see anybody at home in their free time only in an underwear and high heels???!! I never did!


----------



## photong (Mar 12, 2005)

mentos_007 said:
			
		

> hmm I'm always wondering why such portraits are taken with a model in shoes... Damn... if she is in her/his underwear there's no need to be in shoes  did you see anybody at home in their free time only in an underwear and high heels???!! I never did!



I agree.

It feels more 'stripper' to me because of the shoes. I understand why there are shoes. Apprently a lot of guys like that. It would feel better to me without them.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 12, 2005)

mentos_007 said:
			
		

> did you see anybody at home in their free time only in an underwear and high heels???!!



hehehehe...  funny!  I gotta tell ya, this seldom happens in my house.


----------



## dezmaas (Mar 12, 2005)

High heels can make the look of a leg much sexier by changing the tightness of the muscles, however, I can understand why some find it strange


----------



## ShutteredEye (Mar 12, 2005)

dezmaas said:
			
		

> High heels can make the look of a leg much sexier by changing the tightness of the muscles, however, I can understand why some find it strange




LOL, we use that as the litmus test as to whether a movie just has a lot of love scenes or if it's just a straight up porno--if the model is naked except for high heels, its a porno.  LOL!!


----------



## dalebe (Mar 12, 2005)

comments on the model "beautiful" comments on the shots "beautiful"


----------



## mal (Mar 12, 2005)

Nice shots. Oh, and I'm all about the shoes!


----------



## LEXTC (Mar 13, 2005)

404 glamour not found


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 13, 2005)

dezmaas said:
			
		

> High heels can make the look of a leg much sexier by changing the tightness of the muscles, however, I can understand why some find it strange


This only works when the model is standing up. And it isn't strange, just cliche.


----------



## dezmaas (Mar 13, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> This only works when the model is standing up. And it isn't strange, just cliche.




True - but nice!


----------



## dezmaas (Mar 13, 2005)

Another:


----------



## mentos_007 (Mar 13, 2005)

dezmaas said:
			
		

> High heels can make the look of a leg much sexier by changing the tightness of the muscles, however, I can understand why some find it strange



yeah.. but we should decide if we are shooting a "*****" (sorry Chase) or a pro model and we have to decide on topic: if it's sex, porn shots, adult's only - let her be in high heels, but if we want to show real beauty why not taking shoes away.

I don't like this kind of shots when the model is almost shouting: "take me, take me I'm yours, I wanna sleep with yah"... damn it's digusting. Then it's not a beauty.


----------



## mentos_007 (Mar 13, 2005)

mentos_007 said:
			
		

> yeah.. but we should decide if we are shooting a "*****" (sorry Chase) or a pro model and we have to decide on topic: if it's sex, porn shots, adult's only - let her be in high heels, but if we want to show real beauty why not taking shoes away.
> 
> I don't like this kind of shots when the model is almost shouting: "take me, take me I'm yours, I wanna sleep with yah"... damn it's digusting. Then it's not a beauty.



Ok I don't want to be offensive and I don't say that she is a *****, but the shots show her to be some kind of "easy one"


----------



## MDowdey (Mar 13, 2005)

dezmaas, 


i like the first two shots alot...but the third seems to be very unartistic. i dont think that pose is very flattering to her. ive never honestly thought that pose was flattering. but great work on the first two.



md


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 13, 2005)

mentos_007 said:
			
		

> yeah.. but we should decide if we are shooting a "*****" (sorry Chase) or a pro model and we have to decide on topic: if it's sex, porn shots, adult's only - let her be in high heels, but if we want to show real beauty why not taking shoes away.
> 
> I don't like this kind of shots when the model is almost shouting: "take me, take me I'm yours, I wanna sleep with yah"... damn it's digusting. Then it's not a beauty.


We know what you mean, Mentos, - or at least I do - and I couldn't agree more.


----------



## luckydog (Mar 13, 2005)

I see nothing wrong with the shoes. I always wear high heels when i'm walking the house in the wife's underwear! ......Did i just say that out loud? Damn Damn Damn!!


----------



## Xmetal (Mar 13, 2005)

luckydog said:
			
		

> I see nothing wrong with the shoes. I always wear high heels when i'm walking the house in the wife's underwear! ......Did i just say that out loud? Damn Damn Damn!!



I always knew people that lived in Medowie were a bit strange.... 


Nice shots, I think the shoes go well with the underwear but if the model was to be shot with no underwear/legwear i'd say "lose the shoes" because the shoes would detract from the model's 'pureness'.


----------



## Alison (Mar 13, 2005)

I think I'm on the same page as Hertz and Mentos here. The lighting doesn't flatter the model nor do the poses.  I guess it depends on your audience, but I wouldn't put these in a glamour category. I get a negative feel from these images, but I have no problem with partial nudity or full nudity in photos. I'm not a fan of the pose in the last and the expression on the model's face makes it appear she isn't either.


----------



## craig (Mar 13, 2005)

All the elements seem to be present. Great lighting and the model seems comfortable. I even like the couch in the second shot. I am not crazy about the "I am a tiger" pose in third frame.

Of course; generally speaking you are not going to go wrong shooting sexy blonde models who just broke up with her boyfriend so that she could move to Wyoming and hook up with a "30 something" photographer.


----------



## rob1116 (Mar 14, 2005)

2nd shot looks pretty good... some of the shadows are unfortunate, but the skin tone and pose 'does it' for me 


Am I the only one who noticed the wrinkled drop sheet?  Might want to add an iron to your photo-gear collection


----------



## JonMikal (Mar 14, 2005)

AlisonS said:
			
		

> I think I'm on the same page as Hertz and Mentos here. The lighting doesn't flatter the model nor do the poses. I guess it depends on your audience, but I wouldn't put these in a glamour category. I get a negative feel from these images, but I have no problem with partial nudity or full nudity in photos. I'm not a fan of the pose in the last and the expression on the model's face makes it appear she isn't either.


 
count me in ^


----------



## mentos_007 (Mar 14, 2005)

thanks Alison and Hertz! I see I'm not alone here


----------



## 2Stupid2Duck (Mar 15, 2005)

My only crit. is that the lighting is a bit harsh.  The shots could be softer as well - lighting and focus... specially the third one.

As much as I hate to say it, then I guess I am a bit of a "boy" - I like the shoes and don't find they cheapen a shot.  To me, adding class to a shot is about "hinting" and not actually "showing."  None the less, I wouldn't be game enough to agree with anyone else's opinion on this topic - except to say that porn is a very personal thing. One person's art is another's porn.  I don't actually think there is any right or wrong answer.  It's a cultural, age, gender, up-bringing etc etc. kinda thing.... unless my wife says it's crude .. then I ain't damn well looking!!!  (that okay dear.. did I say the right thing?.. whimpers...)


----------



## sillyphaunt (Mar 15, 2005)

I'm agreeing. I think the first 2 could have been artistic, but the shoes kill it, it just looks to me like an semi artistic porn shot.

The last one is not even artistic.


----------



## NikonChick (Mar 15, 2005)

porn vs art debate aside; dito on the light being harsh but what bothers me most is the indecision about cropping. Either crop off the hands and feet or dont. Having them half in half off looks like there was no thought put into composition. Im indifferent about which you do... but pickone. Just my HO.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Mar 15, 2005)

Funny debates.

I think both glamour and porn have their respective markets in modern society. To say that porn is somehow lower than glamour, is a bit prejudiced. It takes just as much skill and artistic ability to make a good porno clip which shows enjoyment and celebration of sex, as to make a nice glamour shot. But my (limited) experience with porn, usually the distance of the actors and their passivity shows through. Then it becomes disgusting.

But then I'm a man and enjoy feminine shapes...


First shot:
Don't let direct light fall on the wrinkled cloth. This will reduce the effect of wrinkles.
Face is overexposed
You should position her parallel to the plane of focus. The lens is wide enough to make her calf look too big.
No on camera flash! (for all shots)

Second: Lack of purpose. I see bones, not curves. I don't see the face. Doesn't work, she's just sitting there...

Third: Is kinda interesting, but she looks more scared/apprehensive when staring in the camera. And her superior and inferior do not match. 

The hands are spaced for a jump, as well as the face. They communicate aggression and attack mode. If you wanted that, she should've been sitting on her toes, ready to jump.

But the inferior communicates mating call and passivity. If you wanted that, make the model cross her hands, lay her head on her hands and looking into the camera. That would give the mating call.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 15, 2005)

mentos_007 said:
			
		

> thanks Alison and Hertz! I see I'm not alone here



I'll stand over here too, please.


----------



## John E. (Mar 15, 2005)

Not sure what all the fuzz is about? Picture has been posted in the photo gallery not the critique gallery.  

Personally I am a landscape/portrait kinda guy, but if a person shoots abstracts or flowers I can kind of dig it. If a person takes pictures of scantily clad models in erotic postions and thats what they are into.....go for it.....I can dig it as much as flower pictures. Funny thing is tho that flower pictures gets no where near critisim or attention of glamour/erotica pictures?

Anyhow back to topic.  Nice pic's and keep on shooting.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 16, 2005)

Criticism? Fuss? Mentos expressed an opinion and some of us agreed. I think it was a general comment and not specific.
If you post a picture anywhere you are wanting people to look at it and if people look at things they are going to have a view or opinion, even if it's 'I don't care for that sort of thing'.
But mostly people comment just to make bad puns.


----------



## dalebe (Mar 16, 2005)

i agree with Hertz, even though my somewhat  "short view" was different than most that have been posted on here, "respect" when it comes to opinion...


----------



## FlashPhoto (May 29, 2005)

Technically speaking, the photography & lighting is OK.  But the poses?  None of them appeal to me.  In the last one she appears to have been surprised in the act of looking for a dropped contact lens.  And in the first, her face is hidden in an unusually uncomfortable looking way.

The shot on the sofa is the only one that is close to being acceptable, pose-wise.  But even it is not at all sexy or interesting.

I do a lot of arty nudes and glamour.  To me, all three of these are unclassy rejects.


----------



## danalec99 (May 29, 2005)

NikonChick said:
			
		

> dito on the light being harsh but what bothers me most is the indecision about cropping. Either crop off the hands and feet or dont. Having them half in half off looks like there was no thought put into composition.


Ditto.


----------



## Raymond J Barlow (May 30, 2005)

Interesting disscusion, i think everyone here has made valid points.  To me, every issue comes down to respect.  since this forum in not adult rated, and children have easy access to it, i find it disrespectful to our community.  This kind of expression has its time and place, but i don't think it's here in TPF.  (IMO)

As for the photos, and critque, I will only say that glamor does not come into play here., and suggest that further threads of this type not be posted in TPF.


----------



## rob1116 (May 30, 2005)

I don't know if I agree with that Raymond.  

This forum is for discussing photography; a subject in which nudes have always been a topic.  IMO, abstract or tasteful nudes have a place in this forum like any other photographic subject does, and the moment someone crosses the line between art and porn (a line which I believe is easily distinguishable) I trust our moderators will remove that content quickly.  

As for minors having 'easy access' :  Unfortunately, this applies for nearly every site on the internet.  I was using Google last week, and while searching for information on cellular respiration (Bio class... no, I'm not a minor),  I was presented with several 'XXX' sites... one of which promised they had a huge collection of underage 'model' photos... sigh.  

The point is that most adult sites that I've seen, (yeah yeah, I'm allowed!)  have a homepage message like, 'If you over 18, Click here to enter... otherwise leave...'.  This is the extent of the 'restricted access', and what's worst is that this message is usually displayed on a page designed to lure people in... aka, it's already plastered with content waaaaay worst than anything I've seen posted on TPF.    

Minors having access to porn IS a major problem... TPF will not add to it by allowing this.  I woud bet my gear, (*gasp!) that any minor with enough online experience to find and use TPF has been presented the opportunity to view hardcore pornography elsewhere... and many times over.  Sad but true.


----------



## PlasticSpanner (May 30, 2005)

I might appear to be old fasioned here but anyway.......

These photos are of the kind that appear in over 18 magazines and as such I think they should be reserved for 18+ sites & forums. :thumbup: 

I personally think "glamour" shots should have some kind of story or focus e.g what the model is doing or wearing etc & not just a woman (or man even!) there to be looked at!

No debate for me about porn vs art or whether porn is good or bad. It exists to please different peoples tastes but only for a suitable audiance!


----------



## PlasticSpanner (May 30, 2005)

rob1116 said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who noticed the wrinkled drop sheet?  Might want to add an iron to your photo-gear collection



I thought it was supposed to look like that!?  I like the crinkled look as it seems to give some texture to the background which is otherwise dark and blank.


----------



## rob1116 (May 30, 2005)

IMO, the textured effect on the floor looks alright, but the one shot with the backdrop wrinkled looks, well, like wrinkled fabric!


----------



## Raymond J Barlow (May 30, 2005)

Of course it's all a matter of opinion, and viewpoint., to me, the fact that all the porn that is so readily available to minors has no relevance to this issue.  

I think that art, and nudity related to art has it's place also.  These photos are not what I consider art., and IMO, disrespectful to many people here.  A separate topic area, password protected, and members access must proof of age would be acceptable.

But, we all have a choice, if someone views something they find offensive, they can choose to no longer login.  I see so little of this type of photography in here, it really is not a concern for me personally., but if my 6 year old son was sitting beside me, and he saw these photos., it would be more of an issue.. (my baby is still in the woumb, so we won't sweat it too much for a few years)  hehe.

I just think it's great we can all share opinions, and hope nobody takes it too personally.


----------



## rob1116 (May 30, 2005)

I understand completely... but it is pretty much an unwritten law that anyone posting anything remotely revealing includes an 'Adult Content', or 'Not Work Safe' warning in the thread title, such as this one.


----------



## SonicAdvDX (May 30, 2005)

Mentos made a good point at the beginning, though. You always see that... I'll never understand softcore pornography... *shakes head*


----------



## Lensmeister (May 30, 2005)

Only my own opinion.  

Glamour to me falls in two two groups.  

1. GLamour as in top shelf / "artistic"

2. Using a photograph or lighting or make up to make the subject (be it male or female) look Glamourous.  

My own wife won a pro shoot in central Londoin many years ago.  She had on a fleecy/Leather jacket slipped off her naked shoulder (covered underneath I add) .. that is a shot and a half.... both sexy and glamourous.  

Call me old fashioned ... but I prefer a woman looking sexy yes ... but with something left to the imagination.  These pictures, although good, are not what I'd like my kids seeing albeit over my shoulder if I am on here.  

Pic 1 = Doesn't do anything for me ...... pose look awkward.

Pic 2 = Lovely shot and lighting great, posed well.  

Pic 3 = Poor woman looks uncomforatable, I want to pick her up and hand her a robe, and a mug of coco and put her in a chair.

Sorry only an opinion.  But a question ...... what would people think if this was a male posing with a towel or thong (and No I won't do it as I'd look like an elephant with telegraph pole between me buttocks) ?

TO each their own views ...


----------



## pursuer (May 30, 2005)

What the hell I might as well throw my two cents in 

First of all I don't have any problem with these kind of photos appearing here. the human form has always been an important theme in many forms of art and dezmaas has apropriatly marked this thread as "not work safe" which should make it quite clear what kind of photographs are contained within.

That said I like like the first two, although the shoes are certainly a matter of taste. The third I personally find distasteful and and certainly not flattering to the model, but thats my opinion, others may vary.


----------



## Corry (May 30, 2005)

Wow...someone's diggin WAAAAY back into the archives!


----------

