Nigel,
....as it moved the picture from glamor to human interest and art.
Asher
Asher,
Perception is a funny thing...I never really consider any of my photos to be glamour as that is not what I am attempting to do. For me glamour suggests deliberate titilation which is all about the girl and revealing her sexuality...I never try to do that as I just see images in graphic shapes and compositions that are pleasing to the eye....more like fashion shots... my intention is never to titilate, or do soft pseudo porn, even when I am showing glimpses of my 'private' world.
For me it is all about observation, documenting of a slice of time, capturing a moment, and of course showing the lady in the best possible way without trying to get the viewer aroused. I think there are enough historical references of photographic 'masters' sharing their private moments with their muses or showing glimpses of a world most never see (even to people like Robert Mapplethorpe) and still being considered high art to back up my view of the world.
Although if glamour simply means making a woman look good and appealing, then guilty as charged.