Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 7/27/02 8:39:52 PM, allanwafkowski@mac.com writes: << Teresa299@aol.com wrote: > You mean glamour shots or....? > Have you ever noticed that there is absolutely nothing glamorous about glamour shots? Allan >> I think "glamour" is an ill-defined subject area. Most "glamour" shots bring to mind cheesy images of women, typically shot by guys who are using their cameras (typically looooong zooms or primes) as excuses for and extensions of their genitalia. So if that's the definition of glamour, I'd agree and say there's nothing too glamourous about those shots. On the other hand, if you look to the definition of glamour photography as being romanticised or illusory alluring images...then that includes certain fashion photography, and a good number of photographers who neither shy away from sexuality or the human (often female body) as a means of photographic expression. There are fetish photographers (steve diet goedde, derek ridgers), fashion photographers (jeanloup sieff, dominque isserman), old-fashioned glamour photographers (william mortensen, bunny yeager) and even hollywood portrait photographers (Hurrell and Willinger) who I would consider to be good examples of creating glamour/glamourous shots. - -kim - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html