Here We Go Again... One Year In Asia 2014-2015

[Mike Farley]

Lingerie/fashion. Glamour, as per the wikipedia link you so handily provided, implies a focus on "bits" that are deliberately covered up in my shots

For example, the adverts of women in their undies in M&S are not glamour and are in a very similar vein to what I shot. This was basically the same as that really and the full length shots I've posted on my site (so as not to spam Flickr or the forum) look like adverts for American Apparel

Glamour is page 3 & lads mags IMO. I've got nothing against it and will probably try it at some stage but as with the other long term plans I'd do it when I have a sufficiently good idea to warrant paying for the shoot Boudoir is different again and my understanding (since reinforced by wikipedia) is where the scene is set in a bedroom/dressing room. She could be sitting in a full-on Victorian frock in a bedroom and it'd be boudoir, it's not necessary for even boudoir to be in lingerie etc.

Probably splitting hairs. But given the shoots I could have attended are advertised differently - and included lingerie, studio portrait, boudoir, glamour, nude and art nude all in separate sessions - I think the distinction is probably valid. Maybe if I do one of each shoot we can sit and analyse the results in detail

I am not sure why you are so concerned about the definition of the genre for your images. If you re-read the Wikipedia definition, you will see that glamour can refer to the model being clothed or unclothed and the example shown is very reminiscent of a number of your shots. As one example I suggest that you take a closer look at 52 in your set, as the model is depicted in a manner which I would not expect to see in a M & S underwear advert. Most lingerie shots are shot in a glamour style, which after all is the whole point about lingerie, and there will always be crossover between the different styles.

[Mike Farley]

That last sentence sounded inadvertantly pervy. You know what I meant, I hope!

Fortunately I did.

[davidc]

I am not sure why you are so concerned about the definition of the genre for your images. If you re-read the Wikipedia definition, you will see that glamour can refer to the model being clothed or unclothed and the example shown is very reminiscent of a number of your shots. As one example I suggest that you take a closer look at 52 in your set, as the model is depicted in a manner which I would not expect to see in a M & S underwear advert. Most lingerie shots are shot in a glamour style, which after all is the whole point about lingerie, and there will always be crossover between the different styles.

This is the underwear page on M&S - http://www.marksandspencer.com/l/lingerie/lingerie-sets

The Rosie Hungtinton-Whiteley sets in particular were exactly what I had in mind during PP. Though M&S can afford better backgrounds for her, the vast majority are plain white like what I was presented with. Interesting to see that M&S haven't changed their approach in the last 5 months though and my memory served me well The genre classification isn't a huge deal to ME though, I was just surprised you'd assumed immediately it was a glamour shoot. All I was trying to show was the distinction between lingerie & glamour - if you still want to call it glamour that's entirely your privilege

There are photos on the CCC members gallery, though I can't remember where exactly, which show for me acutely show the distinction between lingerie & glamour.

Anyway, as I said it's not that important & just splitting hairs to worry to much how everyone in the world might classify it. I'm just pleased with the practice & the results Perhaps I needed to add links to the underpants set she's wearing and stick a price tag on it to make it clear what the artist's intent was next time

[Mike Farley]

In my initial comment, I removed my opening remark about some of the shots lacking subtlety and I think that this is partly what this conversation is about - some differences in approach between varying styles which might seem minor, but can have a significant effect. I suspect that you will find that some manipulation has taken place with the M&S shots to make a certain area of the model's body not so obvious and the end result less contentious.

What this conversation does highlight are the unexpected pitfalls which can occur when the model is an attractive young woman who is only partially clothed. The various nuances which arise are not something which I had previously considered, so the topic has been useful for me. You are happy with the results, which is fine, and you have gained experience in a different area of photography. It would be interesting to see what you produce if presented with a similar situation in the future.

[davidc]

Ta Prohm, Cambodia.


Tree Imp by cedarsphoto, on Flickr

[davidc]

This is the state of the sensor on my 6D. Needless to say it's going in for a checkup & a clean.

[Mike Farley]

Good grief. The sensor is the weakest link of a digital camera, despite surfaces which are supposed to repel the crud and vibrating units which are meant to shake off anything which does accumulate.

[davidc]

I'm worried it's shutter oil, the problem that plagues nikons.

[Mike Farley]

I'm worried it's shutter oil, the problem that plagues nikons.

Only the Nikon D600 has had a specific problem with oil being deposited on the sensor from the shutter. I have not heard of other brands or even other Nikon models experiencing similar issues. Have you tried using a blower to see if the muck can be shifted?

[davidc]

Yes, I tried my own rocket blower and then borrowed a HEPA filtered one - the only difference was that it blew the muck further around the sensor. I'm wondering about trying a wet clean myself on the basis that I can't make it worse. Then again it looks pretty horrific and is still in warranty so I'm tempted to just send it in.