Masamune Productions wrote:
My stance was that it was overdone without taste.

True. But it's also a fetish/niche market. The style, through the process of being defined, became self-limiting.

Masamune Productions wrote:
This is just my opinion and in no way meant to be rude but I feel that in-light of so many woman posing freely half naked on most social sites it makes a possible consumer beg the question why pay for what I can enjoy for free.

The same can be said for any sales-oriented "skin" mag/site. There is very little content that can't be found free somewhere on the Internet.

Masamune Productions wrote:
One could argue that the quality of the work put into these magazines is the main problem. What do yall feel?

True... but those who find the material appealing, will view it regardless of quality.

QuietAsKept wrote:
the models have other features that make them attractive other than their breasts and backsides.

I'm not sure why, but i'm reminded of a quote from an episode of the British show Black Books.

"Fran: "What about you? Have you ever had one?" [a date with someone with a nice ass]
Bernard: "There was one girl, Janine. Well, I don't know if it was nice, but it was . . . huge! So there was this tremendous sense of value.""

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
Good think I'm rural.

Rural too.  Maybe nows our opportunity to bring in hillbilly eye candy if urban eye candy is on its way out.  I'm envisioning toothless, shallow end of the gene pool, beauties with cascading celulite booty.

Sad Movie Photography wrote:

Rural too.  Maybe nows our opportunity to bring in hillbilly eye candy if urban eye candy is on its way out.  I'm envisioning toothless, shallow end of the gene pool, beauties with cascading celulite booty.

I think I do better than a stereotype..

Mark C Smith wrote:
What's urban eyecandy?

EDIT: Googled and it's mostly pictures of Keith Urban lol

+1

QuietAsKept wrote:
If you look at the mainstream glamour magazines (such as Playboy), the models have other features that make them attractive other than their breasts and backsides.

You don't exactly see Playboy models with flat chests.

Sure, women in Playboy are all-around "pretty" women, but so are a lot of the models featured in urban glamor.

Glamour publications are primarily about showing women's physiques in a way that is sexually appealing to a consumer. Playboy models appeal to "boob guys," whereas urban glam models appeal to "butt men." Still all about the body.

Mark C Smith wrote:
What's urban eyecandy?

EDIT: Googled and it's mostly pictures of Keith Urban lol

Glamour for black people, basically.

And it's not a fad.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
Good think I'm rural.

Agreed, urban/rural fusions are always a bit on the weird side.

Masamune Productions wrote:
I guess this is really a big debate I'm seeing alot of both sides, some people seem to be saying its dead, while others like its still very much alive then its interesting that when compared to playboy the models are deemed pretty but the models of King, or XXL are seemingly not. I hope this isn't a race issue. But Im wondering if it has roots there and thus an underlying issue with the medium. So is it safe to first say that its not that the images where/are of lower quality? Also in my eyes large asses shouldn't be any different then over sized officially fake breasts.

No, it's not a race issue. I'm referring to low-class urban glamour magazines that have lower quality images than King, Smooth, Black Men's Magazine and Show. These low-class magazines don't give a crap about lighting, composition or anything else that will make images look good. As far as the models in these low grade magazines, a lot of these folks are under the impression that the ONLY requirement for urban glamour IS to have a big behind and nothing else. Ask any mainstream glamour photographer(who's published) if there are other requirements to become a mainstream glamour model. I'm betting that he'll say yes.
I have to disagree. Most of the urban glam models have REAL asses. There's no way to compare something real with something fake.

QuietAsKept wrote:
Also, there is too much emphasis on derriere. If you look at the mainstream glamour magazines (such as Playboy), the models have other features that make them attractive other than their breasts and backsides.

You don't think the girls in urban mags have pretty faces, or nice hair?

QuietAsKept wrote:
Most of the urban glam models have REAL asses.

Who?

And where'd you get that information from?

dave phoenix wrote:

Who?

And where'd you get that information from?

ok now this is something you just need to hang out around more black people for

QuietAsKept wrote:
No, it's not a race issue. I'm referring to low-class urban glamour magazines that have lower quality images than King, Smooth, Black Men's Magazine and Show. These low-class magazines don't give a crap about lighting, composition or anything else that will make images look good. As far as the models in these low grade magazines, a lot of these folks are under the impression that the ONLY requirement for urban glamour IS to have a big behind and nothing else. Ask any mainstream glamour photographer(who's published) if there are other requirements to become a mainstream glamour model. I'm betting that he'll say yes.
I have to disagree. Most of the urban glam models have REAL asses. There's no way to compare something real with something fake.

exactly, and Jet magazine for instance, features black women that don't have those exaggerated features. Its target audience is black america

"urban glamour butt mags" are one genre, a lot of black people value the things in that genre, but its just a subset and niche market

dave phoenix wrote:

You don't think the girls in urban mags have pretty faces, or nice hair?

I wasn't implying that they were ugly.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:

ok now this is something you just need to hang out around more black people for

+1

KonstantKarma wrote:
I'd never heard of it either, but learned something new today.

There's always a market for everyone and everything.

There is tentacle porn. Build it and they will come.

Is there a mega store to buy tentacles from ? 

Art of CIP wrote:
Urban didn't die, it just went out of style.  Don't worry though, it will he back when the next generation revives it.  So in the meantime just innovate and operate within what's in style.

I'm pretty sure Robert Crumb created the "Urban model" in the 70's except his versions just weren't usually black or Hispanic.

http://artnews.org/files/0000056000/000 … _Crumb.jpg  (18+ for butt crack)

Art of CIP wrote:
Urban didn't die, it just went out of style.  Don't worry though, it will he back when the next generation revives it.  So in the meantime just innovate and operate within what's in style.

I was thinking the same thing, but I wouldn't want to focus on a pointless style either. It might have been over done but I think it still has a place, as someone mentioned about I do see the quality difference between the lower end magazines versus King, XXL, Source, ect but isn't that the case in any field that the lower end look nothing like the high end. My concern was more that the high end was pointless to shoot for and no money could be made via that route.

Art of CIP wrote:
Urban didn't die, it just went out of style.  Don't worry though, it will he back when the next generation revives it.  So in the meantime just innovate and operate within what's in style.

how do you figure it went out of style? smooth girl magazine is on the shelf at the walgreen's by my place. if it wasn't in style they probably wouldn't stock it.

i'd be interested to see some revenue numbers, or some kind of actual fact.