Glamour picture versus modeling

[villiam_shahvosian1]

Hi everyone

 

What makes a picture Glamour and a picture modeling one?

[james_c._turner]

Glamour Photo's = campy, cheesy 50's looking tramp

Modeling Photo's = slutty, new skank pictures, bare, drug addict, goth

[Matt Laur]

Modeling: it's what's on the model. She/He is showing off wares, or being used to convey a concept.

 

Glamour: it IS the model. She/He is being shown for the sake of looking at him/her.

 

As an aside, I think this topic spills over indirectly into other areas, too. I've had this conversation about taking pictures of dogs (are we showing the activity the dog is doing, or glamorizing the dog itself?). Exactly the same thing might be said about the way some people take pictures of sailboats, or cars, or jewelry.

 

And because I think it's interesting, the word "glamour" goes back to meaning "a magic spell." So, one might have said, back in the day, "When he looks at her, he appears to be under a glamour." Which makes great sense when you think of what you're trying to accomplish with a good contemporary glamour shot. When you say, "that's a glamorous shot of the restaurant kitchen," you're saying that it is a mesmorizing depiction that produces perhaps a sense of longing or wistfulness. Yes, about kitchens (you know who you are!).

[abica]

Glamour photo=ego stroke for the model, or the model being the actual subject of the photo.

 

Modeling photo=intended to illustrate something other than "oh look, she's pretty." The combination of style and setting is the actual purpose of the shot; the model enhances it and facilitates it.

[puck]

from a personal perspective (being in UK) i tend to associate glamour as what he had here as PAGE 3 pictures until a few years ago. this would entail bare breast or partially covered breasts with the pubic area fully covered. i always thought that the likes of playboy which appears to be soft-porn to me, would also be classified as glamour shots.

 

as for the latter, anything can be picture modelling. a model dressed in anyway clothed or unclothed. from what i have read and heard picture modelling would be any work including nude work that would not quite fit in the so called glamour category.

 

please do note that my sensibilities here is entirely formed by living in uk where we can still go to any newsagent and pick up a copy of a newspaper like daily star or daily sport and have page 3 type glamour modelling pictures. i classify this soft-porn myself.

[villiam_shahvosian1]

Ok, now. To sum things up and place things in the right drawer, when the model convey an impression through the photographers command that is called modeling. Just like the relationship between a director and an actor on a movie set. Now we can say that can be fashion, product or beauty photo. But if a sitter expresses a gesture not under photographers command that can be called portrait, candid, glamour etc. Am I on the right track?

[fullmetalphotograper]

I would call this a distinction without a difference or a rat hole. To put it simply glamour is

just one aspect of modeling. You really can?t have a glamour shot without a model. Modeling

encompasses several disciplines, such as: body parts, fashion, fine art, figure and etcetera.

[david_m]

Glamour can be a male or female subject. Glamour is an idealistic beauty like the Hollywood portraits of the 30's and 40's which conveys a romantic richness, classiness and exclusivity. Glamour is sometimes used to describe overtly sexy or provocative photos but I believe that meaning is very outdated. Modelling is any photo where the subject is a person and poses formally, in other words not a candid. Professional modelling normally involves selling a product like clothes, make-up or accessories (bags, jewelry etc.) or possibly a product where the model is the adornment e.g. an exotic car or a set of bedsheets.