robert_byrd1 Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 I had never used a Leica for glamour work, but yesterday I did. I'm going to do that again!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_wills Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Thank you and yes, please do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abufletcher Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 I've noticed that in British photo circles "glamour" photography seems to refer to what we Yanks would probably call "nude" photography. In the US, "glamour" seems more bound up with high-style studio portraits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Art imitates life... photography imitates art.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_byrd1 Posted May 29, 2003 Author Share Posted May 29, 2003 Okay, it was a Rolleiflex, but the picture is certainly on topic. This kid has an, uh, outstanding derriere.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 So it's not a Leica shot? Well it ain't glamour, either. The caption and comments put it more in the soft-core porn category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Can't be porn - she's got her clothes on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abufletcher Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Harvey, I suggest that what is or is not porn in the mind of the purveyor and/or creator of a photography has little to do with whether the models is clothed or not. Many societies are saturated with subliminal sexual pandering which manages nevertheless to be acceptable. Is there any doubt that Britney Spear, Christina Agilera, and dozens of other pop stars are selling sex? Not that I mind, I just like to be honest with myself. As far as "glamour" photography is concerned, I have always thought it had a sort of stodgy perversity to it. As for example, here in Japan where a group of elderly men in a photography club pay a very young woman wearing a very very short plastic skirt and black pumps to "pose" for them in isolated locales as they fall over each other shooting "ground level" shots up her legs. This is truly the dark side of amatuer photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristian dowling Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Second what Ronald said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 <<As for example, here in Japan where a group of elderly men in a photography club pay a very young woman wearing a very very short plastic skirt and black pumps to "pose" for them in isolated locales as they fall over each other shooting "ground level" shots up her legs. This is truly the dark side of amatuer photography.>> What if they use Leicas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Art imitates life... photography imitates art. Photography is about life, it does not need to imitate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abufletcher Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Jay, don't be silly, NOBODY in Japan USES a Leica!!! ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeeter Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 robert, if that's not bokeh it doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victor_cruz1 Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 At the risk of offending anybody's friend...that's just booty-licious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Harvey, James Joyce had a pretty good definition of pornography. He said: (I'm paraphrasing a bit here) "Any work of art that creates in the viewer the desire to posess it is pornography." So vaginal penetration, male erection, or even nudity have no bearing on it. If you look at the picture and think: 'Man, I'd like to....' then it's pornography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_byrd1 Posted May 29, 2003 Author Share Posted May 29, 2003 Some interesting arguments here. I suppose the nude body allows you to respond on several different levels; whereas certain clothing underscores and points and suggests how we should respond. Another difference in the shots is that you see the model's face in only one. To me, glamour shots with faces have an edginess that averted-face poses do not. Eye contact, of course, adds even more to the sex appeal. Am I wrong here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 First, I think that all of the photos here are really beautiful. I know what Donald is talking about. There is an empidemic male obsession here in Japan for seeing what is often called "a brief view of panties" (rough translation, pun not intended). There are guys, so help me, who tape miniature cameras to their shoes to photograph up women's dresses on trains. (These sickos get arrested all the time; interestingly a lot of them are teachers.) The weekly magazines and so-called sports papers inevitably have shots up some starlette's dress at some point. I think I'm a normal hertosexual chap with all of the basic instincts but I've never understood this obsession; it must be something carried over from childhood. Straight nude photography is not pornographic. There is nothing sneaky or intrusive about it. The human body is beautiful and celebrating it fulfills some kind of natural moral imperative connected to propagating ourselves. As an aside, I'll mention that the problem of sexual harassment has become so great on Japanese trains that there are now "Ladies Only" cars. The good news is that though Japan is the land of the Leica maniac I've yet to read of any Leica photographer getting arrested for indecency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Kevin said: "Any work of art that creates in the viewer the desire to posess it is pornography." So if someone take a picture of his/her child (fully clothed) and some sicko out there feels desire for this child, that makes the picture pornography? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Oh god, I've done it again. I REALLY must remember to put a smiley after jokes... (Sighs heavily) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristian dowling Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 <center> <img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1372590&size=lg"> </center> How about doco Glamour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_byrd1 Posted June 4, 2003 Author Share Posted June 4, 2003 I might also point out happily that, in the glamour shot, the lens did not flare out despite being aimed straight at light sources. The film did a good job of resisting halation, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now