Talk:Glamour photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Is non-nude pin-up photography really not considered 'glamour photography'? DJ Clayworth 18:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely DJ: pictures of Betty Grable, Joan Collins etc. were most certainly glamour photography. The extra skin exposure today is just a sign of changing mores; if there was a massive backlash against nudity, we'd simply see the swimsuit images returning again. Also, note all the "semi-nudie" magazines like Maxim that are now displacing the old softcore pornographic magazines in the market niche for mild titillation.
I've edited the article appropriately.-- Karada 23:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be noted that "glamor photographs" in America imply no nudity. Instead, they are professional photographs taken with the intent of portraying the woman (usually) in a particularly flattering way, often involving soft focus, a makeover, and a borrowed wardrobe.Juniper Ann 05:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Shaun McManus[edit]

Is there a photographer Shaun McManus. This linked to Shaun McManus a sportsman, who seems to have nothing to do with glamour photography. -- Beardo 00:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC) there certainly is his site is shaun mcmanus photographer he is based in the united kingdom and at present workd for several magazines worldwide as well as helping models with there portfolios —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunmcmanus (talkcontribs) 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Altho if y check site hes more softcore porn., tho well composed and photographed.Jabberwoch (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed with this definition of glamour photography. Glamour photography originated in Hollywood to "glamorize" celebrities. While in Dec. 1953 Hugh Hefner introduced nudity to glamour photography, glamour photography doesn't have to include nudity. Glamour photography is NOT "erotic." Erotic photography is a separate genre. Hustler is not glamour photography neither is Penthouse, not even in Europe where I lived for three years. The same with "fine-art nudes," which are artistic nudes, not glamour.

Disputed statements[edit]

It's sad that someone here continues to add words like penetration, erotic, Hustler, etc., to the definition of glamour photography. Let's not dilute the definition of glamour in glamour photography anymore. I repeat, as a professional glamour photographer, author, writer and speaker on the subject at places like Photo Plus Expo in NYC, glamour photography is nothing, nothing, about Hustler, penetration, etc., and wikipedia is totally wrong to include such words in the definition. Rolandogomez 15:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Rolando Gomez.

I agree as well, which is why I added the {{dubious}} to the article. Of course, most glamour photography in the late 20th century and 21st century involves nudity, but the photographers and the models never shoot with the full intention of arousing the viewer. I think this article needs to clearly state the difference between Softcore and glamour. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 11:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Some gripes I have with this article.[edit]

  1. Glamour photography is a touchy subject from the perspective of the models, photographers and glamour enthusiasts, since it pushes the line between class and crass, for lack of better word. We need a clear distinction between "glamour pics" and "sofcore porn", which are both very similar, but are on two different sides of the "moral" line. As I understand, Glamour photography is photography that is emphisised on the models themselves and not what they wear, as that is fashion modeling. Softcore porn is the explicit focus on sex, which includes emulating sexual activity or having a main focus on the subject's sexual organs (breasts and backside included).
  2. There's not a single reference in this article, which makes me believe this whole thing is original research. These articles are as believable and credible as where they get the information from. This article needs verifiable sources.
  3. It needs expansion to reflect on the changes of Glamour since the '30s. Glamour has dramatically changed in the last seventy years.

Hopefully we can have this article GA'ed when we have this dealt with. --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 06:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess an issue I have is that the main sites mentioned and then linked at the bottom are actually commenrcial sites as such quite a part of the article is in a sense spam. If it could be developed as a proper article fine - otherwise I question it's validity -- Nigel (Talk) 07:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You are right. I've removed the last of the spam. --SandyDancer 00:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


It seems that there is a large difference between the British Englisn definition of glamour photography (essentially softcore pornography) and the American English definition which can include any subject-centred photography (eg that of Hollywood Stars). This article is most certainly bias towards the British English definition. Perhaps we should introduce a dismabiguation page and then two articles? A1octopus 22:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Or just accept that the American view you cite is a minority one, reference this minority view in the article, and be done with it? --SandyDancer 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

First PB cover[edit]

I'm probably splitting hairs but didn't the first cover of PB feature Marilyn Monroe with a revealing dress instead of a nude photograph? While it probably was the raciest US magazine cover yet and PB certainly did start the revolution so to say, I think it should be noted that it wasn't that much different from other magazine covers that had pinups of movie stars on them. I would change the sentence if I wasn't too lazy to find a picture of the cover to check if I'm correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC).


You are correct that MM was not nude on the cover, but she was indeed nude on the inside. The cover photo simply shows her smiling and waving. I have changed the sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

second photo in this article[edit]

doesn't look very glamorous to me (title is "nude photography in bangkok"). Is this really relevant? 20:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a photograph of a glamour photographer, not a glamour photograph itself. So the picture the man with the camera is taking would obviously be something different, as it's taken from an entirely different angle. In theory, yes, it's a good idea to get the photographer's perspective—something about the process rather than just the end product. I'm not so sure, though, about this particular image—is the man actually a professional glamour photographer?.--Pharos 23:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

'Popular portraiture' section[edit]

This should really be split into a different article. Eleven-year-old girls who go to a shopping mall to get a "glamorous" portrait of themselves with their hair blown have nothing to do with this genre of pseudopornography which the rest of this article is about. I can't think of a good name for an article on the mall photo shops, though.--Pharos 20:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the point of glamour is to give the most physically appealing image of a photographed person as possible, even if you have to borderline erotica. --wL<speak·check> 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Merkin image[edit]

The image of Michele Merkin is a badly photoshopped composite, so it should stayu out unless and until we have a reliable source describing this image as a good example of the genre. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That it's "badly photoshopped" may be your opinion, but many folks in the featured picture debate felt it was a good example of the genre. Do you suggest a higher-quality photo to use in its place? Videmus Omnia Talk 14:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Who cares if it's retouched? That seemed to be your reason for removing the image originally. Virtually all glamor photos are manipulated in some way and always have been. If consensus holds that the image was poorly composed and poorly retouched, I agree it should probably go. But don't assume that everyone sees the picture as you see it. I also find it mildly preposterous that every image must be accompanied by a source indicating that the image in question is a "representative example of the" article subject. We'd have to say goodbye to an awful lot of illustrations were this guideline actually in place. Those sort of questions (i.e., is this a good example or not) can be worked out among editors themselves. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


"Glamour photography is the photographing of a model with the emphasis on the subject." This strikes me as incomplete and inaccurate, at best. It could very well be an alternative definition of portrait photography. The focus of glamour photography on the erotic aspects of the subject and the fact that glamour photography is almost always about poses of females should be included in the definition, as well. -The Gnome (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That statement is backed by sources$. If you can find a good third party source it could be defined that way. --wL<speak·check> 07:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to find some. In the meantime, the links to the two sources currently cited in the article (i.e. this and this) are obsolete.-The Gnome (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The links were broken because of a change in how the database processes URLs. I changed the links so they can work. -wL<speak·check> 21:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Regional usage?[edit]

OK I just searched for "Glamour photography" and "Glamour model" and there is an overwhelming UK bias in the results- are these terms commonly used in other English speaking countries? If they aren't, is alternative phraseology used- perhaps we should explain the regional bias in the article? Meister Schmidt5 (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Glamour Modelling under 18 ?[edit]

Glamour modelling and page 3 or top shelf modelling naturally attracts critics accusing people of exploitation and here at we get inundated every week with dozens of wanabee models wishing to get into the industry and an increasing number of these applicants are under 18 and even as young as 14.

As the law is clear and vague at the same time regarding photographing under 18 year olds, it is nevertheless our policy not to deal in Glamour for anyone under 18.

Our worry is that many young girls are saying that either their parents or guardians are happy for them to go into glamour at this age, or alternatively they are saying taht they will still do it wothout their parental consent.

This is not only likely to be illegal , but will further add to the bad reputation of the glamour industry

"glamour photography stops short of deliberately arousing the viewer"[edit]

From the lede: "glamour photography stops short of deliberately arousing the viewer...". Would anyone care to provide a source for that? Given that arousal is in the mind (and possibly elsewhere) of the beholder, I think this is a dubious claim to make. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the key word is deliberate. If it's deliberate then it's presumably at least soft core porn.Rememberway (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Glamour photography part of WikiProject Nudity?[edit]

I was just about to add a WikiProject Nudity notice to this article on glamour photography. However, I stopped short when I considered it might not be part of the scope of that project. Though this article seems to fall between between both nudity and pornography. I need further clarification. --CavallèroTalk!! 19:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Cultural bias?[edit]

The British association of Glamour photography to soft-core porn is not the international perspective. I believe most of the world thinks of a "glamour shot" as being more like: File:Marlene Dietrich in No Highway (1951) (Cropped).png
~E: (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC):modified: (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. I agree that glamour photography in the U.S. means something much different, and much more like the Marlene Dietrich photo you linked to. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

no article at all[edit]

This not only has no sources it is no article at all, written I suppose by someone completely unfamiliar with the subject and not an American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Erotic photography Suggestion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Not Merge Wayne Jayes (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Due to the issues noted above ( lack of clear definition; different styles in ~USA and GB; overlap with pornography; historical variation since 1930s) I propose a merge with Erotic photography. Some parts _could_ also be merged to Fashion photography (eg relating to Richard Avedon) Jabberwoch (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Weak oppose. Glamour photography <> Erotic photography. But feel free to present a stronger case and I might change my mind. Tip: don't merely refer to the "above", spell out your concerns in full. Don't expect us to read a full talk page just to chime in on your proposal, please. Don't use abbreviations, and avoid writing telegram style. If you can't be arsed to write it, we can't be arsed to read it :) CapnZapp (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Different concepts, as glamour photography takes elements of both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Erotic photography is the continuum that runs from glamour to hard-core pornographic. I have no problem with an article on the continuum and the individual ones. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's true that fashion photography overlaps with glamour photography, which overlaps with erotic photography, which overlaps with pornography, but also with nude photography. There's no bright line between any of these gradations, so why not merge all of these articles? :-) In all seriousness, there are differences between all of these categories, even if they do overlap, so I support retention of this article and oppose merger.

That said, I think this article could use some cleanup, and clarification of what type of images typify this category and how it differs other related categories is called for. This kind of clarification should be in the other articles as well, if it's not already. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus was oppose merge removed merge tags Wayne Jayes (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I m sorry you have difficulty reading my proposal, Capnzapp. I should have of course written:

"Due to the issues noted above (and not in other articles): a lack of clear definition; different styles in the USA and GB; an overlap with pornography; historical variation since the 1930s (e.g.

Glamour photography

attrib. euphem. (orig. Brit.). Of or relating to nude or topless modelling or photography, as glamour model, glamour photography, etc. 1958 (title) Glamour Guide supplement..1/6. ...[1])

, I propose a merge with Erotic photography. Some parts _could_ also be merged to Fashion photography (e.g. relating to Richard Avedon) Jabberwoch (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)"

Tip: don't use profanity. Tip: USA and GB are I.S.O. codes for the two states, the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They re a bit shorter. Tip: If you can't be bothered to research a proposal by reading the page, don't expect us to read your opinion. :) Jabberwoch (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


Discussion which may interest editors of this page[edit]

At WT:POTD there is a discussion regarding whether an image of Michele Merkin should run on the main page as picture of the day. If you are interested in weighing in, please comment at the discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Will this help?[edit]

Glamour Photography can be enlikened to Pop Music. Whereas Pop Music focuses on everything about the musical performer and the development of his/her character, Glamour Photography focuses on everything about the photographic model, usually a celebrity, and the development of his/her character. The main goal of Glamour Photography is to help deify the object. Any sensitive detail such as nudity is only "added to taste". The result should both be aesthetically appealing and memorable. The photographs of Monica Belucci, for example, helped transfix viewers into seeing her as a symbol of beauty. -- Suggested by Imperator Romanii 06:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The Introduction needs changing.[edit]

Hi, I'm new to editing wikipedia and this is the first time i've felt the need because the introduction to this page is opinionated and even insulting to people who work in this genre of photography, like myself. In fact it was my writing a book on the subject that prompted me to check out the wikipedia page in the first place.

I'm not sure if i'm doing it right but I would like to propose a major overhaul to the introduction that goes more like this (with appropriate sourcing and hyperlinks of course)''

Glamour photography is a genre of photography in which subjects are portrayed capturing a quality of fascinating, alluring, or attracting, especially by a combination of charm and good looks. While the definition of glamour photography has shifted and evolved, it is generally accepted that it is more interested in the fantasy than the reality of life as often captured in documentary photography or photojournalism.

Glamour photography accentuates the beauty of form. Often used in portraits, it may involve models as subject matter. Generally, professional hair and makeup artists are hired to assist. Photo retouching is often used to highlight the beauty of the subject or product being showcased.

The term glamour photography is a wide umbrella that may contain elements of other photographic genres, such as portraiture and fashion, but also may contain entire subgenres of photography like boudoir, pin-up and erotic photography.

The subjects of glamour photography for professional use are often professional models, and the photographs may be intended for commercial use, including mass-produced calendars, posters, and magazines such as Maxim, but amateur subjects are also sometimes used, and sometimes the photographs are intended for private or personal use only.


please hold my hand and help this newbie create the best page possible for his love and profession. thank you

TheWalker1812 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

TheWalker1812, you need to be using WP:Reliable sources for any significant changes. This article is poor enough already. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Small ratio of men in photos"[edit]

With regard to this edit, the ratio of men to women is not a valid reason for either removal, or insertion into an article.

What value does the re-inserted image add to the article that is not already provided by the almost identical image by the same person, and by the looks of things is in fact the same model?

If both images had been removed you would have a good point, but the two are so similar there is no benefit to having them both present.

Also, in your haste to revert, you deleted a valid Wikilink and worsened grammar. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's been three days, and no input from the other editor, so I have reverted again, removing the duplicate image. My arguments are above, but to reiterate in better detail:
  1. The model pose is almost the same - naked with hand covering genitals and head chopped off from view.
  2. It's the same model, the same person - to use the removing editors own argument, this introduces a bias in the ratio of specific models in the article. There is not even the argument that this is a famous or notable male model in the image.
  3. The ratio of men to women is not a valid argument - the criteria to be included is "what does this image offer to improve the article", not "is the image of a man or a woman?" - which leads me to the next argument:
  4. The image offers nothing that isn't covered by the remaining image. I have left the slightly higher resolution image in the article, and this is sufficient.

The revert also improves the grammar slightly, and introduces a Wikilink to Boudoir photography both of which were taken out by the previous editors change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)