Photographer
JSouthworth
Posts: 1830
Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom
JQuest wrote:
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. It's the thread topic. The title of this thread is "What is the modern equivalent of Playboy". That's what it says, just above this post. Maybe you should consider enrolling in Derek Zoolander's school for kids who can't read good. They may even do photography courses, I don't know..
Photographer
JQuest
Posts: 2477
Syracuse, New York, US
JSouthworth wrote:
It's the thread topic. The title of this thread is "What is the modern equivalent of Playboy". Maybe you should consider enrolling in Derek Zoolander's school for kids who can't read good. Key Word; EQUIVALENT
So why do you keep trying to tell us all what Playboy is, instead of what the OP has has asked which is what is the equivalent?
As an aside, it wouldn't be "read good" it should be "read well", like I said I actually do feel sorry for your inability to understand what you read and then having to resort to the continued intellectual dishonesty, logical fallacies, substituting your opinion as fact, and the general level of bloviating discourse you prefer.
My reading comprehension is not in question here, I actually provided an answer to the OP previously in this thread as have many others. You sir have done nothing more than regurgitate what "Playboy is" all over, while clearly not understanding or being able to answer the original question of what is the equivalent.
Instead of continuing to attempt to hang your hat on the title of the thread, why don't you try answering the question asked by the OP which is the actual topic? You know the one you have avoided and/or been unable to comprehend now for four plus pages.
When I was younger, people wanted to pose for Playboy, Maxim, FHM, Penthouse, King and Hustler. What is the modern day equivalent of these magazines.
And when you're done please post in the critique forum we're waiting.
Photographer
LightDreams
Posts: 4593
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Let's be clear. While JSouthworth is busy insulting everyone under the sun including the quality of Playboy's photography, all while bragging about his ability to "emphasize the integration of the various elements which together make up the picture, the model, the the lighting, outfits, props and backdrops”...
He will NEVER, EVER, DARE to submit himself to ANY FORM of critique.
A reminder that in the past I posted a financial reward for any past MM post where JSouthworth demonstrated that he was capable of modifying his thinking, or accepting that anything he claimed was wrong. Without success.
So how could he possibly come up with the courage to prove that he's not incredibly thin-skinned and insecure about his "achievements" and "expertise"? That's the kind of move that takes someone with confidence and a lack of cowardice. Someone that really can take the good with the bad, and is able to grow as a result.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2858
Los Angeles, California, US
JSouthworth wrote:
It's the thread topic. The title of this thread is "What is the modern equivalent of Playboy". That's what it says, just above this post.. Not so simple, because in THE FIRST SENTENCE, the OP contradicts the title and says, "When I was younger, people wanted to pose for Playboy, Maxim, FHM, Penthouse, King and Hustler. What is the modern day equivalent of these magazines." MAGAZINES. Plural. Which directly contradicts the "title," specifying Playboy. The OP goes on to say, " I wonder what the top fap fuel magazines are," further confusing what exactly she is asking. which seems to be, "What magazines do men today like to masturbate to?"
Photographer
P R E S T O N
Posts: 2602
Birmingham, England, United Kingdom
LightDreams wrote:
He will NEVER, EVER, DARE to submit himself to ANY FORM of critique. I doubt that he would. But I think that's best as nothing good would come from it.
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 3580
Kerhonkson, New York, US
Focuspuller wrote:
Which directly contradicts the "title," specifying Playboy. The OP goes on to say, " I wonder what the top fap fuel magazines are," further confusing what exactly she is asking. which seems to be, "What magazines do men today like to masturbate to?" I don't necessarily see the whole message as a contradiction to the title. The title is a part of the whole. I read the query as to what do models aspire though the list of titles that had/has a broader interest than purely stimulation.
Southworth's pedantic contributions are just a distraction.
Photographer
JSouthworth
Posts: 1830
Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom
JSouthworth wrote:
"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. Now what is it that rhymes with Playboy and would make a good title for a magazine? There was Playgirl of course.
Photographer
JQuest
Posts: 2477
Syracuse, New York, US
It's natural to feel afraid or apprehensive about learning the truth, especially if it could be uncomfortable or challenging to accept. However, the truth is always better than living in ignorance or denial.
Still waiting for you to request a portfolio review in the critique forum.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2858
Los Angeles, California, US
JSouthworth wrote:
Now what is it that rhymes with Playboy and would make a good title for a magazine? There was Playgirl of course. Maybe in your quantum parallel universe "Playgirl" rhymes with "Playboy", but not in this plane of existence.
Photographer
JSouthworth
Posts: 1830
Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom
Taking the question, "What is the modern equivalent of Playboy" at face value, the simplest answer would be "Playboy", because it still exists. Playboy = Playboy.
Photographer
JSouthworth
Posts: 1830
Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom
Photographer
P R E S T O N
Posts: 2602
Birmingham, England, United Kingdom
Focuspuller wrote:
Maybe in your quantum parallel universe "Playgirl" rhymes with "Playboy", but not in this plane of existence. It was actually a homophobic slur directed at JQuest, due to his use of the word 'ass' when referencing Southy. The rhyming title being Gayboy.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2858
Los Angeles, California, US
Photographer
LightDreams
Posts: 4593
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Disgusting. I should know by now to never underestimate the ability of JSouthworth to reach ever lower depths.
What are those Shakespeare lines again? "Thine backward voice is to utter foul speeches and to detract", or better still "you are as a candle, the better burnt out".
And those are the NICER ones...
I know, I know. Southworth doesn't think that Shakespeare was very good either. At least compared to JSouthworth's "words of wisdom".
Artist/Painter
Hunter GWPB
Posts: 8259
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US
JSouthworth wrote:
Now what is it that rhymes with Playboy and would make a good title for a magazine? There was Playgirl of course. Focuspuller wrote:
Maybe in your quantum parallel universe "Playgirl" rhymes with "Playboy", but not in this plane of existence. JSouthworth wrote:
It does, but in beginning rhyme, or head rhyme as opposed to end rhyme.
https://english.stackexchange.com/quest … sive-words While you could use the same first word or syllable in a head rhyme, to create a two word head rhyme is literally a cheap assed excuse for literature and creativity. If you used Playboy and Weigh (or whey or way) Nude, perhaps you could have had a point. You could have displayed a tiny bit of creativity, too. But Playboy, Playgirl is not a rhyme because there is no rhythm. It is a list of two defunct periodicals and does not address the thread topic in any form.
You are merely using a cheap assed short cut to continue to highjack a thread and perpetuate the uselessness of the forums.
Why do you persist,
displaying yourself in this way?
It is as if you insist,
On the ruining for all, their day!
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2858
Los Angeles, California, US
P R E S T O N wrote:
It was actually a homophobic slur directed at JQuest, due to his use of the word 'ass' when referencing Southy. The rhyming title being Gayboy. Which, at least, would rhyme.
Photographer
LightDreams
Posts: 4593
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
I can't help thinking of other great writers. You know, the classics. Where they knew how to fully express their most heart-felt desires. Something like...
---
Listen, you English pig-dog. Go and boil your bottom, son of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, Thppppt. I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal.
I FART IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
NOW GO AWAY or I shall taunt you a second time...
---
Such a great way of expressing how they truly felt.
Photographer
JQuest
Posts: 2477
Syracuse, New York, US
Sticks and stones... Still waiting for JSouthworthless to post for a review in critique. The checks he writes just keep on bouncing.
Artist/Painter
Hunter GWPB
Posts: 8259
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US
JSouthworth wrote:
Taking the question, "What is the modern equivalent of Playboy" at face value, the simplest answer would be "Playboy", because it still exists. Playboy = Playboy. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE TITLE OF A THREAD HAS A LIMITED NUMBER OF CHARACTERS? That the title of a thread is much like the headline of a news story or short story, and it is not meant to convey the entirety of the original post? It took you over 3 pages to get to the fact that there is an online version of playboy, since 2020. But that still disregards the question because the question wasn't about playboy- it was about multiple genres.
Photographer
Parks Photo
Posts: 13
Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Photographer
Fred Gerhart
Posts: 747
San Antonio, Texas, US
Playboy started dying when they started going cheap cheap on the photography. The photography from the 90's on is pure junk.
Magazines still have a place but not in the glamor genre.
Photographer
JSouthworth
Posts: 1830
Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom
Parks Photo wrote:
If your indication is that there are many publication there that can be used I agree. I have submitted to several of these magazines just to get some of my work out. They may not be the most popular but at least they still give you a creative outlet to your work. It seems like those are becoming smaller and smaller. The magazines that Dan Howell posted links to, are fashion magazines not girlie magazines. Which is not to say that fashion and glamour are incompatible, one of the things that distinguished Playboy and Mayfair from cheaper publications was the models' fashionable attire. It's a question of emphasis in the photography.
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 3580
Kerhonkson, New York, US
JSouthworth wrote:
The magazines that Dan Howell posted links to, are fashion magazines not girlie magazines. Which is not to say that fashion and glamour are incompatible, one of the things that distinguished Playboy and Mayfair from cheaper publications was the models' fashionable attire. It's a question of emphasis in the photography. At this point I don't think there is anyone involved with this thread that is surprised that you spout off on topics that you really have a deficit in understanding. The magazines I linked all have regular glamour/nude/sensual editions. They are not hard to find. You actually just have to click and scroll down maybe 1-2". It is further not surprising that you were too lazy to do that.
What is surprising is you not noticing the last link in the list is for a publication called Boudoir Inspirations. I really didn't think you were as dense as to not understand it's meaning and understand the scope of that particular publication when it is in its very title. But trust me, I will not over-estimate your intelligence again.
Photographer
JSouthworth
Posts: 1830
Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom
Dan Howell wrote:
At this point I don't think there is anyone involved with this thread that is surprised that you spout off on topics that you really have a deficit in understanding. The magazines I linked all have regular glamour/nude/sensual editions. They may have glamour editions but they're primarily fashion magazines, even the covers are designed to look as much like Vogue as possible.
Photographer
Adventure Photos
Posts: 125
Palos Park, Illinois, US
I guess we need to define what the original content of 'Playboy' was all about It was meant to be a 'gentlemans' magazine with great interviews, and with writers like Hunter S. Thompson to add some quality. Then of course was the titular models in the nude. Intent at first was to get famous or upcoming actresses and such, to at least go topless or nude for their first time. Over the years they got more daring. Yet in a 'quality' way compared to the Hustler style models or mags. They went to colleges and did 'Girls of the Big 10' issues, etc. They moved on to showing pubic hair, which most girls still had throughout the early 70's. And finally they showed shaved women. Pushing the envelope' as they say, in erotic arts covered.
So the comparative for today, has to be non print, and on to the Internet. I'd guess that a girl who wants to be seen, and to make money out of it, without doing flat our porn vids, would get a Patreon or OnlyFans page up and going to cash in on their body while young and in shape. Plus doing so, you could retain some amount of secrecy In Playboy, as a centerfold you had that those biography pages that told what little town you grew up in, your measurements and all that stuff. You were public and infamous, and surprised relatives saw you out there on the newstand.
Does anybody recall the front covers, with the bunny figure hidden somewhere, AND sometimes there were little stars' inside of the letters of the word Playboy. Do you recall the rumor of what those stars stood for? Love to hear back on that one.
Photographer
LightDreams
Posts: 4593
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Adventure Photos wrote:
Does anybody recall the front covers, with the bunny figure hidden somewhere, AND sometimes there were little stars' inside of the letters of the word Playboy. Do you recall the rumor of what those stars stood for? Love to hear back on that one. Sadly the truth can be pretty boring...
"The small stars that appeared on Playboy magazine covers were a distribution code used to designate the advertising regions for different editions of the magazine."
As I said, sometimes the truth can be (almost painfully) boring. UNLIKE all the rumors!
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
LightDreams wrote:
Sadly the truth can be pretty boring...
"The small stars that appeared on Playboy magazine covers were a distribution code used to designate the advertising regions for different editions of the magazine."
As I said, sometimes the truth can be (almost painfully) boring. UNLIKE all the rumors! ^^ THIS ^^
Photographer
LightDreams
Posts: 4593
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
If somebody has an actual question for me, I'd be happy to answer . . .
I was with Playboy from 1974 - 1985 Question for Ken:
An area that I've always been curious about was the process surrounding the "perfecting" of the final centerfold images (for lack of a better word) long before Photoshop existed.
Now if I'm not mistaken, I believe that you mentioned at one point using more than 15 lights (or something like that) and working with a team for days to take the final shot...
Were a lot of those lights used with the purpose of "sculpting" (beyond the posing) the body shape (between the bright and darker shadow areas) and/or to brightly "soften" certain problem skin areas, etc? I.E. To use lots of carefully positioned smaller lights (or lack of lights) to replace much of what we'd now do in Photoshop? Over and above using lights to effectively "dodge and burn" key parts of the set?
And/or was there any advanced retouching work (as difficult as that would have been) beyond the basic darkroom dodging and burning, contrast, etc? I.E. Was the vast majority of the really serious "retouching" work done (in camera), before taking the final "capture" image? Or...?
I'm interested in that whole process of "perfecting" those wonderful final images, when that was SO much more difficult to pull off...
Photographer
Adventure Photos
Posts: 125
Palos Park, Illinois, US
Yes and yes above. I was always told the little stars were for how many times the centerfold model had sex with Hef' at his mansion. So easy to believe back then, and thus perpetuate the myth of the 'great lover' that Hefner was. I remember watching 'Playboy After Dark' on late night TV on weekends. Seems it was on a network channel , or maybe hidden on then unexplored or much known UHF' channels of the late 60's era.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2858
Los Angeles, California, US
Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
If somebody has an actual question for me, I'd be happy to answer . . .
I was with Playboy from 1974 - 1985 Hi Ken, I was wondering what you thought about the Showtime documentary "Secrets of Playboy." Assuming you watched it.
Also, did you photograph Dorothy Stratten? Did you know her at all?
Thanks,. Loved your work since forever.
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
LightDreams wrote:
Question for Ken:
An area that I've always been curious about was the process surrounding the "perfecting" of the final centerfold images (for lack of a better word) long before Photoshop existed.
Now if I'm not mistaken, I believe that you mentioned at one point using more than 15 lights (or something like that) and working with a team for days to take the final shot...
Were a lot of those lights used with the purpose of "sculpting" (beyond the posing) the body shape (between the bright and darker shadow areas) and/or to brightly "soften" certain problem skin areas, etc? I.E. To use lots of carefully positioned smaller lights (or lack of lights) to replace much of what we'd now do in Photoshop? Over and above using lights to effectively "dodge and burn" key parts of the set?
. . . . . . . . . Yes, there were many lights (strobes) on a typical centerfold set. And, for a lot of reasons. It's important to remember that Playboy centerfold shots (technically they are referred to as 'gatefolds' due to the fact that there is an extra page that swings out like a gate) were all shot on 8x10 film with an iso of 25 (later on, Kodak came out with iso 50, and then Ektachrome 100 in 8x10). These were extremely slow film that required a lot of light to get any reasonable exposure.
For a 3/4 length shot, in order to get enough depth of field to cover from the model's ears to her breasts would require at least f.22. That would be the equivalent of f.5.6 on a 6x7, or like f.4 on 35mm. In order to achieve f.22 on iso 50 film, we needed a ton of strobes. The cost of that much light ended up being about 10k for each f. stop above f.11
And/or was there any advanced retouching work (as difficult as that would have been) beyond the basic darkroom dodging and burning, contrast, etc? I.E. Was the vast majority of the really serious "retouching" work done (in camera), before taking the final "capture" image? Or...?
. . . . . . . . . No Retouching . . . except for the Covers, which were always retouched because you never know what text the art department may have to lay in on the photo. The cover and the gatefolds were printed on different presses at different companies and used Gravure process and the rest of the magazine was standard lithography.
There were a few special, rare exceptions, like an older movie star who includes in her contract the right to approve any images that get published (and that didn't happen very often). In those days, in order to retouch a photo, a 16x20 dye-transfer print had to first be made (expensive) and then air-brushed by an artist who specialized in beauty and nudes (more expensive) and then finally re-copied on the printing companies copy-camera that burns separation plates for printing presses (really expensive). If you retouched one photo out of a series, it was almost impossible to match the color and contrast of the rest of the series. The philosophy at the time was to ReShoot rather than ReTouch !
Our goal was: PreTouch, rather than ReTouch . . .
Have everything looking perfect in front of the camera at the moment of exposure!
A typical gatefold shoot would last anywhere from a week to over a month (and some even longer).
Each day, we would shoot anywhere from 50 - 100 sheets of 8x10 film (at about $20 per sheet including processing) and dozens of 8x10 polaroids . . . all to get just one perfect 8x10 transparency.
After that image was accepted for publication by the editorial department and Mr. Hefner, then shooting would continue with the rest of the layout that might take an additional months work, shooting both in the studio and locations around the US and sometimes abroad.
Hope this answers some of your questions . . .
KM
I'm interested in that whole process of "perfecting" those wonderful final images, when that was SO much more difficult to pull off...
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Focuspuller wrote:
Hi Ken, I was wondering what you thought about the Showtime documentary "Secrets of Playboy." Assuming you watched it.
Also, did you photograph Dorothy Stratten? Did you know her at all?
Thanks,. Loved your work since forever. No . . . I didn't watch the series . . . My makeup artist was the social secretary at the Mansion, so each day for 11 years I would hear all the latest Playboy gossip. I know that some of my favorite models had bad experiences at some parties, but I never saw anything personally.
I did know Dorothy Stratton, a really sweet girl . . . I shot her several times and was one of the last people to see here alive that day she went to see her ex for the last time. We did several Playboy promotional ads where Dorothy posed with Mr. Hefner.
Photographer
LightDreams
Posts: 4593
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Yes, there were many lights (strobes) on a typical centerfold set. And, for a lot of reasons....
[...]
. . . . . . . . No Retouching . . . except for the Covers...
[...]
Our goal was: PreTouch, rather than ReTouch . . .
Have everything looking perfect in front of the camera at the moment of exposure!
A typical gatefold shoot would last anywhere from a week to over a month (and some even longer).
[...]
. . . all to get just one perfect 8x10 transparency.
After that image was accepted for publication by the editorial department and Mr. Hefner, then shooting would continue with the rest of the layout that might take an additional months work, shooting both in the studio and locations around the US and sometimes abroad.
Hope this answers some of your questions . . .
KM Absolutely fascinating. And far more involved than I could possibly imagine (and I imagined a LOT of detail work to "perfect" those images!).
Thanks for that!
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2858
Los Angeles, California, US
Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
No . . . I didn't watch the series . . . My makeup artist was the social secretary at the Mansion, so each day for 11 years I would hear all the latest Playboy gossip. I know that some of my favorite models had bad experiences at some parties, but I never saw anything personally.
I did know Dorothy Stratton, a really sweet girl . . . I shot her several times and was one of the last people to see here alive that day she went to see her ex for the last time. We did several Playboy promotional ads where Dorothy posed with Mr. Hefner. Thanks for the reply.
The Showtime series is pretty horrific, if you can bear to watch.
I remember Dorothy Strattton's pictorials when they were published. World class. What a shame.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2858
Los Angeles, California, US
Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
I may be mistaken, but Playboy could very well have represented the pinnacle of pre-digital glamour photography and publication, as far as magazines were concerned. Hats off!
Pre-digital, photography was pro-active. You really had to know what you were doing, lighting and exposure-wise. And shooting 8x10 TRANSPARENCIES? Holy shit, man. I remember shooting 35mm Kodachrome and Ektachrome and not knowing if I "got it" it until the next day. Now, in the age of digital, photography has become re-active, chasing the image on the screen. Less skill, but way more peace of mind.
Photographer
Tim Summa
Posts: 2514
San Antonio, Texas, US
greysquireel wrote:
When I was younger, people wanted to pose for Playboy, Maxim, FHM, Penthouse, King and Hustler. What is the modern day equivalent of these magazines. There were also car focused magazines like Low Rider that feature some semi nude models. An aspiring rapper I knew was trying to start a magazine that mixed glamour models, cars and rap music reviews but it folded when the building it was located in burned down. Post Covid I wonder what the top fap fuel magazines are. I know what you are asking BUT, Playboy is not a magazine, it is a journal. You can quote from Playboy in a dissertation. Playboy as a journal is in the same category as Scientific American. Jist a little heads up. You can find copies of Playboy at any decent US Library.
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 3580
Kerhonkson, New York, US
Tim Summa wrote:
I know what you are asking BUT, Playboy is not a magazine, it is a journal. You can quote from Playboy in a dissertation. Playboy as a journal is in the same category as Scientific American. Jist a little heads up. You can find copies of Playboy at any decent US Library. yes, it is/was a magazine. and there's nothing wrong with that. it would be more accurate to call it a media company than the restrictive label of journal.
Photographer
JSouthworth
Posts: 1830
Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom
Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Very interesting. In the UK it would have been unusual to use 10 X 8 for glamour magazine photography, 35mm and 120 were standard equipment for this. $2000 a day for film and processing alone, for a month (ie, $60,000) for a single set of pictures for one issue, is well beyond what any UK men's magazine could have afforded. If absolute quality is what you need then 10 X 8 is the film format to go for. In product and architectural photography the movements available in a 10 X 8 monorail camera can also be employed to good effect.
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 11735
Olney, Maryland, US
A thread without JSouthworth is like a cloud without rain.
|
