MB Jen B wrote:
"Fashion look = F you."
"Glamour look = F me."

Right?
Jen

Click Hamilton wrote:
Right.

This is the traditional definition.

I would trust your instincts on the matter of glamour above ALL others!

[Thanks for all the laughs, btw. I've kept your portfolio bookmarked for the past year!]

Grit City Pinups wrote:
Eye contact

Yes...that is all

Mystic Flow Studios wrote:

Of course, and no one has argued any differently.

actually, if you read earlier posts, most who have no idea ARE in fact arguing that there MUST be nudity and or sexual interest for it to be called "Glamour"...

Giuseppe Luzio wrote:
actually, if you read earlier posts, most who have no idea ARE in fact arguing that there MUST be nudity and or sexual interest for it to be called "Glamour"...

My response was to your statement below:

Giuseppe Luzio wrote:
sex appeal is possible without nudity...

That, to me, only states the obvious. And no one HAS argued that nudity is a prerequisite for having sex appeal, while only two might be said to have argued that glamour is all about lust, etc.

[Btw, I'm only getting a question mark in place of your first glamour image(s) or link in the post immediately above this one. Any other way to get to it?]

Philipe wrote:
I disagree...
That's more of a form of pin up modeling, like playboy, Maxim, bikini posters,
Anything a guy pins up on his wall..........Most guys don't care if the girl is wearing makeup or hair done, they just want to see boobs.. Thats not glamour.

Glamour is fashion with makeup and hair done..
Like Chanel, Versace, Thierry Mugler...

Glamour is fashion.

But, the magazines you listed: Playboy, Maxim pretty much are definitive glamor (I think of glamour as 40s-50s glamour images).

Although, there is definitely overlap between glamor and fashion, just as there is overlap between portrait and fashion - glamor is not equal to fashion. It's two distinct genres that happen to intersect periodically.

Mystic Flow Studios wrote:
Thanks to all who have posted so far! It's starting to get interesting to see where the photographers (at least) differ with one another, and the variety of concepts they attach to the genre. No wonder there's no common understanding of the term anymore!

MODELS? Where are you on this?
More models' responses as to how YOU tend to think of the genre and what it comprises would be helpful to round out this little survey.

I will give you my perspective on Glamour Photography.
In the UK we have Daily Tabloids that feature Models Topless or in Bikini for the sole purpose of Titillation. There are lots of Lads Mags that feature these same models as well as celebs like Megan Fox, Nicole Schersinger, Kim Kardashian etc and they are shown in shots wearing bikinis, sexy dresses, a sheet. The look is again to titillate.
There are many Glamour Agencies in the UK.(that is how they are listed ). They have girls that are very pretty, cute, petite in frame.(usually under 5'7) and all their pictures are highlighting their body and mainly their Boobs.
Glamour has also a broader meaning in Editorial and Advertising. Tom Ford takes elements of the FHM style for his campaigns. It is all Glamour in it's sensibility, but because there is a hierarchy in Genres, he would class it as editorial or Fashion.
Hollywood Glamour is not a Genre Done anymore because Film Studios like MGM , RKO et al do not own Stars anymore, so the production of Glamourous Studio photographs are not done anymore.  But those images were all about presenting the subject as Perfect Beings to be admired.
In the context you are possibly asking about, the first genre is what I would say is Glamour Photography.

marissa charles wrote:
I will give you my perspective on Glamour Photography.
In the UK we have Daily Tabloids that feature Models Topless or in Bikini for the sole purpose of Titillation. There are lots of Lads Mags that feature these same models as well as celebs . . . shown in shots wearing bikinis, sexy dresses, a sheet. The look is again to titillate.
. . .
In the context you are possibly asking about, the first genre is what I would say is Glamour Photography.

Firstly, thanks for those perspectives and analyses. I liked learning about the "glamour agencies", and was already aware of the British "Page-3" titillation tradition. That sort of thing is *one of* the meanings that I would normally attach to my mental-image of the genre. While there were others too, I have to say that before starting this thread, I too would have never thought anyone would have associated the term "glamour photography" with the older Hollywood studio-portraits, glamorous though they were.

*The actual context that generated my opening query* was that I had just been talking a few days ago with an experienced, but new-to-me, model with whom I am about to do some testing, and had asked what genres she was most interested in doing at the moment for herself. When she surprised me with "Glamour", we discussed it briefly, and I fumbled a bit at discovering that our perceptions of the term were showing divergences even that early on.

After I got off the phone I realized that, were we ever to do anything like that, we had a lot more talking and aligning of perceptions to do first. That got me to thinking about all the different ways that term is used and can be interpreted, and thus this thread. It's been pretty fun and informative so far, so I'm glad that I asked!