Glamour 1™ is loaded with great photographers and models portfolios, forums, photography tips, workshop info and much more than a typical portfolio site. These valuable services increases traffic and operating costs and those that support our community of models and photographers by upgrading their accounts as a Lifetime Member (pay only once, never pay again) enjoy practically no advertising--upgrade now to increase your viewing pleasure while supporting this community and family of glamour photographers and models.
Don't want to see this message or large ads, register, then upgrade now!
Well I just bought my first Playboy in 20 years (yes, it really is true) so that I could take a look at two of the models that are in the Girls of the Pac 10 issue (I shot with Bella and McKenzie at Rolando's workshop last summer). They look great.
Now, here is the point of this post: I think that the photography of the BEAUTIFUL centerfold model is very good but has a couple of GLARING issues. First, look at the opening image (page 88). The model is fully clothed and holding a book. Does anyone see the long blonde hair growing out of her right arm just above the wrist? It seems that a hair has fallen from her head and landed on her arm. The back light highlights it ...... VERY distracting...... Is this the best that "the best" can do? Does Playboy no longer care to produce only "the best"? If you or I sent this picture to PB (or any other editor), it would likely get rejected because of this flaw. So, why did they publish it?
Next, look at the image on page 91. I remember in college (last time I read Playboy) that I was always wondering why Playboy thought that it would be a good idea to use a backlight ("Rim light?") to light the outside of a model's arm.... the ONLY thing that this does is highlight the hair on her arm and make her look like a gorilla. They did it 20 years ago and are still doing it now. Why? does anyone find the image on page 91 attractive (look at her right arm again). Would it not be an IMPROVED image if they did not backlight the hair on her arm?
Many of the images that I have seen on this board are far better than either of these two images (to be fair, the rest of the Centerfold images are Great).
That is true in the worst way.
Last month (Jessica Canseco) there was a bad print in the copy I got and the holwebottom half of one picture was nothing but noise. But since it was all below her calf I had to point it out to everyone I showed the page to.
Well, 20 years ago when I was in college, I was not a photographer yet, I noticed the "gorilla arm" look. I found it strange that in a mag that was showing the "soft side" of woman that they would include "gorilla" arms.
I assisted on a test shoot with Bella and McKenzie and had the pleasure of taking them to the airport the day after the shoot (really sweet and delightful girls - intelligence and beauty, a great combination), so I was really looking forward to this issue.
Okay, maybe I'm just jaded by the talented "amateurs" on GG (as well as some of you working pros), but it seems to me that the quality of the images in PB are just kind of "eh". They aren't blowing me away. I no longer look at most PB images and say, "I'd like to shoot like that." I find myself, much like Murphy, critiquing the images - looking for (and finding) the flaws; like stray hairs, "gorilla" lighting (I like that phrase!), unflattering poses, etc.
Where PB used to be the grail, I now look at it as a text book filled with the right way *and* wrong way to do glamour nudes. If, as Christian told us at HTL, the Devil is in the details, there must be Hell to pay in Chicago!
btw - the shots of Bella and McKenzie in the issue are nothing compared to what the photographer I assisted got. Man, those were some smokin' shots he got!! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
I saw this issue and saw the 'hairs' too. However, I'm not sure the bar we need to set is SO HIGH that absolute perfection is the only thing worth publishing!
I personally like the backlighting and 'peach fuzz' - at least you know
something's natural on her without expecting a total shaven, baby-smooth silky skin from head to toe! Sheesh!
2nd - it highlights the sharpness of the focus on the image - a good thing.
I would agree - Playboy is probably the 'best of the best' in mass marketing "beauty" photography - but probably because they're only 99.997% perfect.
And finally, I will confess IMMEDIATELY - the term "gorilla" was NOT the first thing that came to my mind when I saw Ms October's 'peach fuzz'. Sorry!
anytime i'm looking to be un-inspired i'll look at a newsstand special. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
the first issues of the newsstand specials were outtakes from gatefold shoots, sadly that's not the case anymore. the photo quality and model quality has gone downhill significantly.
IP: 66.32.252.145
Linear Mode
