Focuspuller wrote:
In fact "Playboy photography" became a style of its own.

Really? In that case it's a little surprising that you're the first person to point that out in this thread. It's possible that someone might use the phrase "Playboy photography" as a euphemism for glamor photography, although I have never heard anyone do that in conversation.

Playboy became the leading publication of it's kind, so it attracted professional photographers and models who wanted to get their names and pictures into it's pages. Consequently Hugh Hefner was able to maintain a high standard, at least until ridiculously large breast augmentations turned glamor photography into a descending spiral of retarded uselessness.

JSouthworth wrote:

Really? In that case it's a little surprising that you're the first person to point that out in this thread. It's possible that someone might use the phrase "Playboy photography" as a euphemism for glamor photography, although I have never heard anyone do that in conversation.

Playboy became the leading publication of it's kind, so it attracted professional photographers and models who wanted to get their names and pictures into it's pages. Consequently Hugh Hefner was able to maintain a high standard, at least until ridiculously large breast augmentations turned glamor photography into a descending spiral of retarded uselessness.

Thanks for pointing out the difference between actual knowledge and experience and 'researching' on Wikipedia. Several (actual) photographers here are the former and clearly you are the latter. Playboy, especially in it's centerfold layouts, established and maintained a particular style. I am sure that you can 'research' several articles that discuss this fairly rigorous style and the techniques it employed. It was probably not pointed out in this thread because it is a well established fact.

My observation is that it was developed in the 70s and further refined in the 80s and 90s. The problem with it was that it persisted with little substantive change while the evolution of photography in general and glamour photography of women in particular moved at a faster pace. I can't say if the Playboy style of the 70s was groundbreaking since my observation and evolution as a photographer began in the 80s, but I can say that consistently lagged the progress and evolution of fashion, beauty and glamour photography in the 90s. It was laughable out of date in the early 2000s when they attempted to update their style without losing their (aging) core audience. It was a losing battle even before the crushing effect of the web.

Their highest circulation period was in the early 70s and declined from there. There were many critiques that Playboy had long lost the leading edge in both circulation and visual impact due to the aging of both it's owner and core audience. That's probably something else you can do your armchair researching and discover.

Dan Howell wrote:
Thanks for pointing out the difference between actual knowledge and experience and 'researching' on Wikipedia. Several (actual) photographers here are the former and clearly you are the latter. Playboy, especially in it's centerfold layouts, established and maintained a particular style. I am sure that you can 'research' several articles that discuss this fairly rigorous style and the techniques it employed. It was probably not pointed out in this thread because it is a well established fact.

Actually I was basing my observations on direct comparison between the photography in Playboy and that in other contemporary magazines. There is not really very much difference, the overall artistic and technical standard in Playboy was generally as high or higher than the others. Playboy set a standard that others sought to emulate.

Taking the February 1978 issue of Playboy as an example, the photo set of Janis Schmitt by Ken Marcus is of a high standard technically, but entirely conventional in approach. Marcus appears to have done about four sessions with Schmitt, photographing her in indoor and outdoor settings in color and b/w.

Penthouse was a magazine that had a distinctive photographic style in it's early years, as a result of most of it being done by Bob Guccione, who preferred to use available lighting, sometimes with impressive results although he would apparently often re-shoot with the same model three or four times before he was satisfied with the pictures. Numerous photographers worked for Playboy over the years, so it would have been difficult to maintain a consistent and distinctive single style of photography.

JSouthworth wrote:
"Playboy set a standard that others sought to emulate."

"Numerous photographers worked for Playboy over the years, so it would have been difficult to maintain a consistent and distinctive single style of photography"

Got it.

Oh, and Ken Marcus is a member here. He might like to comment on your critique.

Focuspuller wrote:

Got it.

Oh, and Ken Marcus is a member here. He might like to comment on your critique.

If so, he's very welcome.

Focuspuller wrote:
Got it.

Oh, and Ken Marcus is a member here. He might like to comment on your critique.

Whilst it would be great to hear commentary from Ken about his time with Playboy, any attempt at debate or discussion with Southy about it will turn the whole thing sour. Perhaps a separate thread which Southy is prevented, in some way, from contributing to.

And don't doubt that Southy's critique of Ken was made for no other reason than to antagonise Ken and those who are acquainted with him - Southy is well aware that Ken is active here.

P R E S T O N wrote:

Whilst it would be great to hear commentary from Ken about his time with Playboy, any attempt at debate or discussion with Southy about it will turn the whole thing sour. Perhaps a separate thread which Southy is prevented, in some way, from contributing to.

And don't doubt that Southy's critique of Ken was made for no other reason other than to antagonise Ken and those who are acquainted with him - Southy is well aware that Ken is active here.

More evidence of your continuing, unhealthy preoccupation with yours truly.

Focuspuller wrote:

Got it.

Oh, and Ken Marcus is a member here. He might like to comment on your critique.

You seem to be implying negative citicism of Ken Marcus' work on my part, but I don't think you have any basis for that. Obviously, when a number of photographers worked for Playboy over the years, there was some variety in the style of the photography.

Focuspuller wrote:
Oh, and Ken Marcus is a member here. He might like to comment on your critique.

JSouthworth wrote:
If so, he's very welcome.

More of JSouthworth's desperate attempts to try and make people pay attention to him / take him seriously.

He'd LOVE to get into an argument with Ken Marcus about Playboy Photography.   Where we could all compare their two portfolios, expertise and direct experience levels, etc.

Then again, I seem to recall Ken posting something about the folly of arguing with fools.

Just ignore the constant hijacking and stream of bullsh*t.   And when in doubt, just consider the demonstrated level, in thread after thread, of "informed, intelligent debate" that he keeps spewing.

JSouthworth wrote:

You seem to be implying negative citicism of Ken Marcus' work on my part, but I don't think you have any basis for that. Obviously, when a number of photographers worked for Playboy over the years, there was some variety in the style of the photography.

Your paranoia is showing. I "imply" nothing of the kind.

You, however imply ignorance of how a photographic style is maintained across a publication like Playboy, especially with Hefner himself enforcing a standard, otherwise known as "Playboy style."

JSouthworth wrote:

Really? In that case it's a little surprising that you're the first person to point that out in this thread. It's possible that someone might use the phrase "Playboy photography" as a euphemism for glamor photography, although I have never heard anyone do that in conversation.

Playboy became the leading publication of it's kind, so it attracted professional photographers and models who wanted to get their names and pictures into it's pages. Consequently Hugh Hefner was able to maintain a high standard, at least until ridiculously large breast augmentations turned glamor photography into a descending spiral of retarded uselessness.

Always amazed at how blatant ignorance never prevents some people from bloviating anyway. 😂

"It's possible that someone might use the phrase "Playboy photography" as a euphemism for glamor photography, although I have never heard anyone do that in conversation."

Really?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post/980375

Really?

https://www.modelsociety.academy/playboy-glamour-style

Really?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63154168

Really?

https://www.thephotoforum.com/threads/p … ot.206704/

Really?

https://shootthecenterfold.com/building … -set-nsfw/

Really?

https://www.dreamstime.com/photos-image … style.html

Really?

https://people.com/tv/playboy-magazine- … nd-photos/

Really?

https://robertcrumphotography.com/tampa … to-studio/

Really?

https://www.pinterest.com/syrynesong/playboy-style/

Google is useful. You should try it sometime, but then you would have to find support for your phantasy world.

"Hugh Hefner was able to maintain a high standard,"

Yeah, otherwise known as "Playboy style", a SUBSET of "Glamour photography", which, BTW, despite your false definition, does NOT require nudity.

Focuspuller wrote:
Yeah, otherwise known as "Playboy style", a SUBSET of "Glamour photography", which, BTW, despite your false definition, does NOT require nudity.

There is a fundamental disconnect between Southy's understanding of UK glamour and what you guys in the states term glamour.

US glamour is characterised by good styling, great models and accomplished photography, resulting in a level of refinement which is immediately obvious to most of us over here.

In the UK, glamour photography is characterised by topless or nude modelling (or tacky non-nude styles), very often shot in an amateur style even if the photographer is commercial (eg girl next door, readers' wives).

There's a gulf of difference in the use of the term which Southy fails to appreciate. Southy is most accustomed to a subset of UK glamour photography commonly referred to over here as BLBP - Badly Lit Bedroom Porn (although equally applicable to alternative venues).

You might argue that Southy is aware of the difference and is deliberately trolling you guys, but in this particular instance I believe the disconnect is real.

P R E S T O N wrote:
There is a fundamental disconnect between Southy's understanding of UK glamour and what you guys in the states term glamour.


There's a gulf of difference in the use of the term which Southy fails to appreciate. Southy is most accustomed to a subset of UK glamour photography commonly referred to over here as BLBP - Badly Lit Bedroom Porn (although equally applicable to alternative venues).

Yeah, well. In future if I ever need any critical pointers from a dirty undercover police officer, I'll ask one who actually knows something about photography.

Focuspuller wrote:
Got it.

Oh, and Ken Marcus is a member here. He might like to comment on your critique.

Thinking back a bit, I wrote that Marcus' professional approach to the set with Janis Schmitt was conventional. I didn't say it was bad. There's a big difference, unless you think that a conventional approach is bad by implication. It can be argued that lack of originality is a problem in glamour photography today.

JSouthworth wrote:
Thinking back a bit, I wrote that Marcus' professional approach to the set with Janis Schmitt was conventional. I didn't say it was bad. There's a big difference, unless you think that a conventional approach is bad by implication. It can be argued that lack of originality is a problem in glamour photography today.

LOL. Keep backpedaling, but you are past the cliff and nowhere to go but down. 😂

And BTW, that Janis Schmitt centerfold? CLASSIC, not "conventional."

https://www.vintageplayboymags.co.uk/PM/Images/1978.htm

JSouthworth wrote:

Yeah, well. In future if I ever need any critical pointers from a dirty undercover police officer, I'll ask one who actually knows something about photography.

Sounds like somebody got triggered.

Focuspuller wrote:

Sounds like somebody got triggered.

Did I say a dirty undercover cop? Ex-undercover cop might be more accurate.

JSouthworth wrote:
Thinking back a bit, I wrote that Marcus' professional approach to the set with Janis Schmitt was conventional. I didn't say it was bad. There's a big difference, unless you think that a conventional approach is bad by implication. It can be argued that lack of originality is a problem in glamour photography today.

You could consider reading the site rules, ya know. 

The question is, why did you feel compelled to critique anything?  No one asked for a critique.  This is not the critique section.  We all know you can talk nonstop about generalities and say nothing and express nothing of merit.  Singling out any art piece was not required as part of the discussion, especially since you are off topic anyway. 

We are on the third page of this. 
The OP started the thread on December 18th.  Her last log in date was January 18th.  That was about the time of the moderator's warning. 

In a month, who helped her by answering her question?   One person posted, "google."  But google is not an end all in itself.  MM is social media, so why shouldn't it be socially acceptable to ask a question even if google can answer it?  To get the insights of people and to engage in a conversation?  Why not ask people and establish relationships?    Dan is about the only person that provided any useful information to the OP.   Dan and the OP are both New Yorkers.  That seems like it could be useful to the OP.  But you did everything you could to interrupt that.

Now it is February 19th.  Two months since the OP used her first and only post to ask what could have been a source of useful and pertinent information.  Other people could have benefitted, too.  Instead, we have had a series of quips regarding what Playboy and other magazines have been.  Why?  She indicated that she was familiar with the publications that she used to frame the discussion.  She is striving to be a nude model- it would be a stretch to imagine that she has taken on this endeavor without ever having seen a variety of men's magazines, fine art and porn that depicts the human body in countless ways.  If she was interested in becoming a model for the periodicals she described, or if she wanted to purchase the modern equivalents that she asked about- why would she need one argumentative guy to go on and on about what Playboy was?  She already knows!

Despite many comments about your comments not being related to the original question, you forged ahead without any regard for the lady that asked.  Will she log in again?  Or have you convinced her that the forums are a useless wasteland and her aspiration cannot be met with the help of MM?

JSouthworth wrote:
Taking the February 1978 issue of Playboy as an example, the photo set of Janis Schmitt by Ken Marcus is of a high standard technically, but entirely conventional in approach.

Conventional by who's standards?

P R E S T O N wrote:
In the UK, glamour photography is characterised by topless or nude modelling (or tacky non-nude styles), very often shot in an amateur style even if the photographer is commercial (eg girl next door, readers' wives).

OMGGGG I remember when Jordan was a new thing, and her Peter Andrew.. what a pair...

I never thought any reasonable woman could look like that, and now, almost 20 years later and living in the US since 2010, I almost look like that myself 



As for the OP, it may have been a nice little stunt to drive some traffic to her profile.
If so, then Well done, I am sure the OP got inundated with salacious offers immediately.
If  not, still well done, this thread is hugely fucking entertaining, I'm learning so much, as usual, boys.

Dea and the Beast wrote:
. . . this thread is hugely fucking entertaining . . .

I totally agree !

KM

Dea and the Beast wrote:
Conventional by who's standards?

Conventional by my standards, in the sense that it's glamour photography (and of a high standard).

JSouthworth wrote:

Conventional by my standards, in the sense that it's glamour photography (and of a high standard).

LOL!! Keep flapping your arms, but you aint gonna fly. 😂

Focuspuller wrote:

LOL!! Keep flapping your arms, but you aint gonna fly. 😂

Oh, dear. Bitter, very bitter.

JSouthworth wrote:
Conventional by my standards, in the sense that it's glamour photography (and of a high standard).

The mainstream, commercial men's magazine glamour photography today has become retarded and predictable, whereas "fine art nude" photography trends towards pretension, conservatism and tedium. In my own work, I emphasise the integration of the various elements which together make up the picture, the model, the lighting, outfits, props and backdrops.

JSouthworth wrote:

The mainstream, commercial men's magazine glamour photography today has become retarded and predictable, whereas "fine art nude" photography trends towards pretension, conservatism and tedium. In my own work, I emphasise the integration of the various elements which together make up the picture, the model, the lighting, outfits, props and backdrops.

Kindly place all that info where we can say what we really think about it.

JSouthworth wrote:
In my own work, I emphasise the integration of the various elements which together make up the picture, the model, the lighting, outfits, props and backdrops.

The Critique forum is beckoning. Kindly put up or shut up, or has your mouth written another check your ass can't cash?

JSouthworth wrote:

The mainstream, commercial men's magazine glamour photography today has become retarded and predictable, whereas "fine art nude" photography trends towards pretension, conservatism and tedium. In my own work, I emphasise the integration of the various elements which together make up the picture, the model, the lighting, outfits, props and backdrops.

WOW.

Focuspuller wrote:

WOW.

We've been screaming at a mediocre bot all this time, haven't we. 

Dea and the Beast wrote:

We've been screaming at a mediocre bot all this time, haven't we. 

And the joke's on us.

JQuest wrote:

The Critique forum is beckoning. Kindly put up or shut up, or has your mouth written another check your ass can't cash?

"Don't write a check your ass can't cash". Maybe you should have that tattooed backwards on your backside, then you can use a mirror to remind yourself when you forget.

JSouthworth wrote:
The mainstream, commercial men's magazine glamour photography today has become retarded and predictable, whereas "fine art nude" photography trends towards pretension, conservatism and tedium. In my own work, I emphasise the integration of the various elements which together make up the picture, the model, the lighting, outfits, props and backdrops.

Your personal attack and petty insult  aside, certainly  someone who pretends to be such an accomplished photographer and that boasts of their ability to ”emphasize the integration of the various elements which together make up the picture, the model, the the lighting, outfits, props and backdrops” shouldn’t be afraid to have their work critiqued by the membership. Yet it seems you are, afraid, most likely because you know in your heart that what you wrote above is a complete fiction.

Your fear of having your work reviewed after telling us all how amazing your work is shows us exactly who you are. I think we can absolutely say that the check you wrote just bounced.

JSouthworth wrote:
The question "What is the modern equivalent of Playboy"

That wasn’t the question, that never was the question, you have failed at every opportunity to even come close to answering the original question. You’ve even failed to answer the question you made up! There is a huge difference between “what is the modern equivalent”, and the question (also that no one asked) that you keep trying to answer and failing “what’s Playboy”

It has become comically painful to watch you struggle with trying to answer even the simplest forum questions without veering wildly off topic and creating your own intellectually dishonest answers. I actually feel sorry for your inability to comprehend what people have written and that you have read. Let alone offer up any type of useful reply. It’s actually quite sad.