What does "glamour photography" mean?

ElNico · May 27, 2018

Not in terms of the strict definition, but in terms of what models and photographers generally think it means, or what they think of when they hear it.

My problem is that, from where I sit, the term appears to cover what I would consider a very wide range of types of photoshoots, particularly in terms of how risque it is; and as such it seems like it would be very easy to get signals crossed when using the term while discussing shoot concepts with models.

I recently talked with a model who said that an office/secretary concept where a buttoned shirt/blouse is undone low enough to show part of the bra, or even just a lot of cleavage, firmly crosses the line from fashion photography into glamour photography. Comparing that to the photos on the Wikipedia page for "glamour photography", I would call the latter far more risque than the former. (Does anyone disagree with me on that??) And that's not even a case of the two using different definitions and one being ignorant of the other, because she linked me to that exact page when I asked "what do you mean by glamour photography?"

So, again, I feel like the term is very ambiguous when discussing concepts with models. If I say I'd be interested in doing a glamour shoot, what does she probably think I mean by that? Not just in terms of what it means if she says yes, but in terms of what I am implying about my interests and intentions by even asking.

This is not me asking "if a models says she does glamour photography, does that mean she's cool with shooting in basically her underwear?" It's actually the opposite; if I want to do a shoot that's kind of sexy, and focuses more on the sexiness of the model than on the "fashion" of the clothes (i.e. what you would expect if the purpose of the shoot was literally to advertise the clothes), what do I call that kind of shoot that doesn't imply that I want her to shoot in basically her underwear (or, going by those Wikipedia images, out of it)?

tirediron · May 27, 2018

"What's in a name?" Glamour, fashion, boudoir... they all mean whatever you want them to mean. IMO, "glamour" is the broadest and most meaningless of the terms that's used to describe the various sub-genres of portraiture. What the photographer and the model need to do is discuss the type of shoot in plain English, without resorting to terms so broad and varied as to be meaningless. If you want to shoot nudes, or semi-nudes, than that's what you say. If you want to shoot fully clothed, that's how you describe it. Somewhere in between? Spell it out. There's nothing worse than confusion on the set because you and the talent have a different idea of the goal of the session.

All that said, this is at least the second post you have made which seems to be designed to get someone to tell you the "secret" to photographing female models in a partially disrobed state. This seems to me more than a little suspect and rather gives me the impression your goal is to take "sexy" photos of women for less than honest reasons. If that's not the case, than you really need to sit down with someone (parent, older friend, teacher, etc) and learn how to talk to people. If it is the case, save yourself a lot of trouble and likely jail time and sell any camera gear you have.

Derrel · May 27, 2018

In this and an earlier post you did, I am left wondering what, exactly, it is that you want to achieve, and why exactly, that you seem to have difficulty in communicating with female models. I mean this seriously and in all earnestness: the best way to communicate with a model or a prospective model, well, it's with honest, simple, and plain language. It's not that difficult. Say what you want to achieve. Ask in simple phrases like, "Are you OK with that?"
The Wikipedia page on glamour photography is, in my opinion, correct. If you want to call what you want to achieve (???)!Glamour Photos then use that term. Otherwise, describe what you want to achieve and don't label it and ask your prospective model if she's OK with the goals of the shoot.

ElNico · May 28, 2018

Derrel: If there is no real term for the kind of shoot I want (which I did actually explain, and will reiterate in a minute), and thus I just need to be specific, then that's fine. But since you asked why I would even want to know what to call it; I did feel as though if there was established terminology, I ought to use it. To my mind (and this is is NOT the kind of shoot I'm primarily trying to do, this is an EXAMPLE), saying "I'd like to do a shoot in your underwear in an intimate setting, with seductive poses and facial expressions," sounds less professional than saying "I'd like to do a boudoir shoot." But maybe that's just me.

tirediron: The first half of your post is very helpful. To the second... hoi.

this is at least the second post you have made which seems to be designed to get someone to tell you the "secret" to photographing female models in a partially disrobed state. [...] If that's not the case, than you really need to sit down with someone (parent, older friend, teacher, etc) and learn how to talk to people.

Rather than that conclusion being inevitable, I challenge that you simply did not pay attention to what I actually said.

I'm not going to waste too much breath on this, but I will clarify two things, even though I explained them already and am basically just repeating myself.

First, the bit I mentioned about "a buttoned shirt/blouse undone low enough to show part of the bra," is not what I was asking for the name for. I mentioned that to illustrate the large difference between what the model in question said qualified as "glamour," and what Wikipedia says "glamour" means. It was what we were discussing when she said "that's glamour not fashion," so it was the example I used. (And moreover I didn't really have another one, as that's the first time that the meaning of glamour has come up when talking to a model.)

What I was asking what to call in my last paragraph - and again I accept the answer that there isn't really a name for it and I just need to be more specific - is a photoshoot that showcases the model as opposed to a photoshoot that (only) showcases the clothing. This distinction has less to do with how "disrobed" a model is, and has more to do with posing.

Second, both this and my previous thread are - in different ways - about knowing what I want to say and trying to find out how to effectively communicate that; and, contrary to what you imply, communicate it clearly. How to ask a question so that the model and I both agree on what the question means, and (consequently) we both agree on what her answer means. Neither thread is about wanting to "trick" anybody into anything, which is the opposite of being clear about what you want.

ClickAddict · May 28, 2018

I never use the term "Glamour" when discussing shoots with Models / clients. It's too broad as you have pointed out. Best to simply use sample images. Lightroom quickly builds a webpage in seconds from a set of photos (I've had models send me links to samples on Pinterest as well it can easily be set to create private albums) so I just put together some samples This way we can easily point to "I like #2, not comfortable with #4", or in your example something like I like #5 but one button higher still fastened....." They say a picture is worth a thousand words so why not use them ?

Be clear when posting samples if they are actually your photos or not. It's ok to send a photo and say "I like this shot and am trying a similar look, as long as they know it's not yours. Otherwise they might feel tricked if you don't produce something of the same caliber. I do the same for boudoir shoots with clients. (but I have a standard image set I always use) One person's boudoir is another person's porn shoot.

Regardless of what anyone THINKS/KNOWS to be the correct definition, if the client is expecting something else, it does not matter who is right or wrong. As the photographer you are at fault for not making sure it was clear.

I send a document with a sampling of "looks/poses" to see what they are comfortable / wanting to shoot. It's not a complete list of all the poses we are going to do of course, but if the client says they are "ok with a little bra showing" as your example, then I know what to suggest during the shoot as possible poses. Many of my clients mentioned they appreciated it cause they were not worried going into the shoot as to what to expect.

JoeW · May 28, 2018

I agree that "glamour" can mean a lot of different things to different people. So it's important to talk with your subject ahead of time to make sure you're both on the same page.

To me, "glamour photography" basically means
--the focus is on the model (rather than the model is integrated in to the setting, with glamour the setting compliments the model).
--the purpose is to make the model look attractive and perhaps even sexy.
--the assumption is that there is likely to be some makeup or hair involved (as opposed to a shot of an attractive woman working up a sweat in the gym or hunk of a man who has just finished running 5 miles and has his top off to reveal his six-pack abs). So even a "casual look" has still been styled.

vintagesnaps · May 28, 2018

That Wikipedia info. is inadequate. Just about anybody can potentially write something in Wikipedia if it gets accepted/approved, so the info. is not necessarily accurate or reliable. Look at the citations; not many are listed, and three of them are from the mid '90s which is too outdated for describing what's considered glamour today; those might give you an idea what was considered glamour photography 20 years ago. At least one reference is some sort of beefcake whatever, which explains the photo of the male model that doesn't seem remotely glamour to me and just shows how inadequate the Wikipedia listing was researched. The link to an article about Hurrell was inactive but if nothing else, historically that would be a good resource - Hurrell certainly was able to capture glamour of his era.

I didn't get last time what exactly you're going for; you haven't seemed able to explain where you're going with this. Where do you want to be as a photographer in 2 years? 5 years? It obviously isn't becoming a fashion photographer, but if it's doing portraits specializing in boudoir that isn't clear to me either. You haven't seemed interested in portrait or business aspects of this, just how to get models to take off their clothes for you to take their pictures.

I think Tirediron has some good points, although I'm not surprised you wouldn't consider them. I've wondered too what is going on with you, and I think you need to take a look at why you're coming across the way you do to at least a couple of us on here and to many of the prospective models you've approached. It seems at the very least like you need to develop better skills in relating to people and expressing yourself.

If you studied glamour photography you might be better able to describe and explain to models what you're going for. Study glamour photographers from the past up to today; Hurrell would be a good start and think about how he captured glamour so well. Look at fashion photographers of different eras. If I don't do any of this type photography but am familiar with at least some of it, then certainly you should know this stuff. But so far you're coming across more interested in how to get girls to take their clothes off. If that's not what you're going for then you need to develop a much more professional attitude that could come across in your dealings with people.

Fujidave · May 28, 2018

I`d say the main thing in this sort of photography ( Glamour ) is talk and say what sort of photo taking you are thinking about, between both the model and photographer they need to talk and run ideas through each other and go from there.

Derrel · May 28, 2018

ElNico said:
>>SNIP>> To my mind (and this is is NOT the kind of shoot I'm primarily trying to do, this is an EXAMPLE), saying "I'd like to do a shoot in your underwear in an intimate setting, with seductive poses and facial expressions," sounds less professional than saying "I'd like to do a boudoir shoot." But maybe that's just me.

Agreed, it's just you. The _professional_ description is the one you somehow think is less-professional. The professional way to book a model is to describe what,exactly, the shoot is all about, and therefore the more-professional way to describe this imaginary shoot is , "a shoot in your underwear in an intimate setting, with seductive poses and facial expressions". That description of the desired shoot clearly, and unequivocally sets out the goals of the session, and the wardrobe, and the types of facial expressions and by extension, likely the types of poses the model will be expected to be engaged in during the shoot. That is what one calls a professional type of conversation: describing the shoot using clear, specific, descriptive, honest, direct language.

"I'd like to do a boudoir shoot," is what sounds less-professional,because the term "boudoir shoot" is rather vague, and it leaves open to the imagination an entire realm of things. "I'd like to do a boudoir shoot," does not specify wardrobe, nor the types of facial expressions or poses that are desired, nor the clothing or lack of clothing.

To communicate effectively, one needs to be honest, and direct, and up-front. Using vague, wishy-washy terms is not helpful when one is asking people to collaborate. The professional way is to be precise, be direct, be honest, and to use the grown-up words like "underwear, bra and panty, implied nude, fully nude, artistic nude, tasteful nude, breasts, nipples, public hair, genitals," etc--whatever it is that the shoot entails. Dancing around with words like "boudoir shoot," is actually un-professional, and does not, in any specific,direct way, describe or reveal what is under discussion. If one wants to shoot ________, then one needs to be able to use the words that honestly and unequivocally describe ________.

Please forget trying to describe the kind of shoot you want using some cliche word, and start by talking, clearly, about what you want to shoot. Do not hide the goal of the shoot, but instead bring the goal right to the forefront during the initial booking conversation or e-mail message. Be specific, not vague. The fact that you cannot describe what you want to shoot using the hugely broad term Glamour Photography speaks volumes.People's definitions of catchword categories are varied, but any model knows what bra and panty means, and she knows what implied nudity is, or full nudity. Use specific, direct, honest, descriptive words, and people will understand you're a straight shooter, whereas using vague,broad terms will brand you as another GWaC type, and many models will run from you.If you want to shoot nudes, or implied nudes, or whatever, then use the exact words that describe, precisely, what it is you want the shoot to entail. This is how you book shoots.

ClickAddict · May 29, 2018

I agree with pretty much everything Derrel said in his last post, but I would add caution with using "Implied Nude" as being truly clear and specific. It's a term that even in the industry there are subtle differences as to what some people consider implied nude and not. And since I would say it is also the most frequent "Line in the sand" for models. (They will do Implied, but not nudes is very common) those subtle differences could be a huge deal for a model. And new or non models certainly don't all understand the term.

ElNico · May 29, 2018

Neither this thread nor my previous one are in any way about wanting to get models to take their clothes off. This thread is, if anything, about the opposite; I'm talking about wanting models to take their clothes off less than in what Wikipedia calls glamour photography. The only mention I made of anything related to disrobing was the bit about unbuttoning a blouse; which, again, I mentioned as an example to illustrate a point, and was not the type of shoot that I was trying to find out how to ask for.

To everything everyone has said about being explicit: Thank you all, that is all very helpful.

I really don't understand what people mean when they keep on asking "what I'm trying to accomplish" and "where I'm going with this." (Perhaps I'm not the only one who needs to learn to ask more specific questions, hmm?)
Do I want models to take their clothes off? For the purposes of what I'm talking about here, no, not at all.
Do I want to do a lingerie shoot? Again, that's not what I'm taking about here. Not even remotely.
Do I want to do a lingerie shoot, like, ever? Maybe, but what does that have to do with anything? Am I not allowed to have an interest in more than one kind of people photography? Part of the reason why I don't understand the question "what are you trying to accomplish?" is that I don't understand why that question needs to have only one answer.

ClickAddict said:
I agree with pretty much everything Derrel said in his last post, but I would add caution with using "Implied Nude" as being truly clear and specific. It's a term that even in the industry there are subtle differences as to what some people consider implied nude and not. And since I would say it is also the most frequent "Line in the sand" for models. (They will do Implied, but not nudes is very common) those subtle differences could be a huge deal for a model. And new or non models certainly don't all understand the term.

This is getting off of my original topic, but since you brought it up, can you elaborate on how "implied nude" is ambiguous? I'm only aware of one meaning for that term. Thanks.

JoeW · May 29, 2018

I distinguish between implied nude and demure nude. A demure nude--the model is obviously nude but you see "nothing." An implied nude--the model may be nude, the model may be wearing a swimsuit or lingerie--you can't tell. You see only skin but not enough skin to determine if he/she is nude or clothed.

pixmedic · May 30, 2018

people are asking you what you want to accomplish because i think there is a general feeling that most of us are unsure just what sort of scene you are trying to set up. your asking for definitions of genres that are very broad. genres that can not be defined, or even addressed really, in a single term like "glamour" or "boudoir".
this is the reason for the suggestion that you be as specific as possible.

it is very easy to conceive a big difference between "i want to do a swimsuit shoot" and "I want to do a swimsuit shoot with thongs and suggestive poses". asking about models for the first, but having expectations for the second, might not get you the results you desire.

therefor...the absolute best way to ensure that there are no surprises when it comes time to do the shoot is to be as specific and forthcoming as possible so that the models are able to make an informed choice as to whether they want to step in front of the camera or not.
the reputations of both photographer and model are made and broken on such details...trust is essential, and once you have lost it, whether model or photographer (or MIA or whatever) your sunk.

just remember this...word travels fast, the internet is forever, there are few second chances if you blow the first one.

ElNico · May 30, 2018

I explained "what sort of scene I was trying to set up" in my first post in this thread, at least inasmuch as I think that is relevant to what I was asking; a shoot that focuses on the model and the attractiveness of the model, rather than a shoot that focuses on the clothes. That said, I now believe that difference to be less important than when I started this thread. After looking over some fashion advertisement photos, I see a number of elements that, at the time I wrote my original post (and my second post), I thought would be excluded by "a shoot that focuses on the clothing"; such as the model engaging directly with the camera, a pose that highlights the curve of the model's figure (in cases beyond where highlighting the wearer's figure is a feature of the clothing in question), and somewhat seductive facial expressions.

As for "asking for definitions of genres that are very broad," your objection is the answer to my question, not a reasonable beef with the question itself. I asked because I didn't know. And I further specified in my original post that a big part of my problem was the the usages of the term that I was seeing seemed too varied.