Glamour or Pornagraphic ?

[D-rock]

There is no such thing as hard glamour. That is just pure and simple hardcore pictures. Which would come under pornagraphic if you read my first post on this thread.

There is now. That must be why BNF copyrighted it.

Hard Glamour (©BNF 2007) :1orglaugh

 

[Member2019]

Too easy ...

Glamour, without a doubt.

I will even take an erotic, non-nude shot over most penetration.
The anticipation and fantasy can be their own drivers of a whole, new level.

Of course, you can have very erotic, hardcore stills or even action.
Unfortunately, there is not much of that in porn.

But you can find it with some of the married couples.
I really used to love Eric Price with Paula Price on film.

 

[ThomasJenkins]

No that would be pornagraphic.


There is no such thing as hard glamour. That is just pure and simple hardcore pictures. Which would come under pornagraphic if you read my first post on this thread.

I guess I understood BNF's "Hard Glamour" to describe the combination of glamour with pornography. A guy and girl fucking on a website such as Milfhunter is strait no frills porn... but the two of them fucking for a Suze Randall shoot where they have complete make-overs, elaborate sets, flattering lighting, etc... that's glamourus porn... hence BNF's term "Hard Glamour".

 

[EricaWorshipper]

It depends on the woman. There are a lot of women who do pornographic pics that don't look good, and vice-versa for the glamour scene. I do find that a woman that features a beautiful face and lovely body, and willingly poses nude and/or doing pornographic stills, to be a bit more attractive because they are comfortable with themselves. Of course, it all goes back to how she looks, so it's always different.

 

[poggy]

I guess I understood BNF's "Hard Glamour" to describe the combination of glamour with pornography. A guy and girl fucking on a website such as Milfhunter is strait no frills porn... but the two of them fucking for a Suze Randall shoot where they have complete make-overs, elaborate sets, flattering lighting, etc... that's glamourus porn... hence BNF's term "Hard Glamour".

What BNF meant with Hard Glamour is the top of the range. You know the set and clothing are a money no limit job. Only the best will do. But in the end it is just a posing with no penetration. No dildo's or such like either.

The reason there is no penetration in glamour is simple. The question would soon come to the fore front of where do you draw the line. As someone will always make a case for what should be included. Which means you'd soon have abusive stuff like Max Hardcore in there and such like.

Then you come to amateur pictures that are all over the net. These can't be glamour either. Glamour is only professional shoots with all the top equipment that is needed. Then and only then will you get the best results such as this.

 

[jk666]

For still photos I want Glamour.

For video I want Pornograhic.

 

[calpoon]

If I wanted romance i'd read a book with Fabio on the cover.

I just want to see a cock that I could imagine is mine doing things to a hottie that I can't or otherwise aren't able to.

but there is a select few that I like browsing "artistic nudes" from time to time, but I don't really see that as porn, or rather I don't stroke it to that, I can appreciate it on different levels. so i'm not a complete slob. and also with those things the more they make your imagination fill in the blanks, the more seductive they are. But I don't usually go out of my way to find that sort.

 

[Orthocyclen]

What BNF meant with Hard Glamour is the top of the range. You know the set and clothing are a money no limit job. Only the best will do. But in the end it is just a posing with no penetration. No dildo's or such like either.

The reason there is no penetration in glamour is simple. The question would soon come to the fore front of where do you draw the line. As someone will always make a case for what should be included. Which means you'd soon have abusive stuff like Max Hardcore in there and such like.

Then you come to amateur pictures that are all over the net. These can't be glamour either. Glamour is only professional shoots with all the top equipment that is needed. Then and only then will you get the best results such as this.

If you really want to make that distinction.....then glamour I guess.

 

[knobs]

Surely Glamour

 

[BNF]

Hard Glamour © is about the setting, the lighting, the make-up, the outfits and the whole shoot/taping being carefully prepared and shot - by a photo/crew that knows what they are doing. I think, it also has to do a lot with the intention and attitude of the photog. He wants to maintain a degree of fantasy and even beauty, at the expense of raw honesty (like stubble, zits, stretch marks, cellulite, street clothes, peeling paint).

It does include penetration, cum shots as much as solo girl pink and vibrators. (This Pier999 stuff is extremely over processed stuff to the point of looking like mannequins, but it still shows hard glamour, imo.)

http://img43.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50977_verde06-028_123_1022lo.jpg
http://img146.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50983_verbg02-063_123_893lo.jpg

---

It's all porn really, but the differences are there. To me, these following are an example of a harder, rougher (technically) style, one that is still not full gonzo, but I think you should immediately see the differences in presentation.

These (seem to me) are more about showing a hot Amy Reid doing hardcore, than it is about making her perfect and flawless (with dedicated lighting, and processing to start, zero halo/fill lighting for her hair in #1 or her face in #2 being overexposed). It looks more honest and more "real" to me.

http://img182.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=51159_004_123_459lo.jpg
http://img184.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=51160_145_123_421lo.jpg

I could have put up two really amateur shots, like the ones shot in a van or whatever. I like splitting hairs on this stuff!

 

[poggy]

Hard Glamour © is about the setting, the lighting, the make-up, the outfits and the whole shoot/taping being carefully prepared and shot - by a photo/crew that knows what they are doing. I think, it also has to do a lot with the intention and attitude of the photog. He wants to maintain a degree of fantasy and even beauty, at the expense of raw honesty (like stubble, zits, stretch marks, cellulite, street clothes, peeling paint).

It does include penetration, cum shots as much as solo girl pink and vibrators. (This Pier999 stuff is extremely over processed stuff to the point of looking like mannequins, but it still shows hard glamour, imo.)

http://img43.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50977_verde06-028_123_1022lo.jpg
http://img146.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50983_verbg02-063_123_893lo.jpg

---

It's all porn really, but the differences are there. To me, these following are an example of a harder, rougher (technically) style, one that is still not full gonzo, but I think you should immediately see the differences in presentation.

These (seem to me) are more about showing a hot Amy Reid doing hardcore, than it is about making her perfect and flawless (with dedicated lighting, and processing to start, zero halo/fill lighting for her hair in #1 or her face in #2 being overexposed). It looks more honest and more "real" to me.

http://img182.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=51159_004_123_459lo.jpg
http://img184.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=51160_145_123_421lo.jpg

I could have put up two really amateur shots, like the ones shot in a van or whatever. I like splitting hairs on this stuff!

To me BNF they are both the same porn. As they are both set to put the same thing into your mind. Although one is do a lot better than the other, they still equal the same.


My own way of seeing glamour is without penetration of any type. Then there is the picture difference in quality...

Glamour 1 2 as you can see can either be wearing clothes, lingerie. topless or nude. It all come down to the quality of the shoot and the setting it's done in. Glamour has no hardcore in it. Glamour is about the beauty of the shot, not the sexual image so much.


Amateur 1 2 it's all about the quality of the shoot, the setting and lighting. Even the style of the posing could come into it. None of this in these two are of anywhere near the quality of the glamour pictures. Even though Kacey Cox has on a fairly nice set of lingerie. (It's the shoot I'm getting at, not the ladies that are in them. Before I get lots of abuse for the ladies pictures I've used.)

 

[satrap]

All in one Gina Lynn

http://www.yourdaddy.net/ydsgirls/Gent_Gina_Lynn/sexcentertgp.html