Producing porn is not about image quality. It's about fantasy creation quality.
You can shoot the best lighting, best image, best production porn film and watch it to realise it's shit porn. Or you can shoot poor lighting, poor image, poor production film and watch to realise it's great porn. Only techies will disagree with me.
It's about the image created in the viewers brain, not the image on the screen. I like Jay's work. Not because it's good photography, it's because it's good pornography. It's good photography as well.
I'm digitising all the stuff I was shooting in the 1980s and 1990s, some of the image quality is poor. So why do members love it? They vote high for the vintage scenes over and over again. Eva is selling it on clips4sale, I know it's wrong
, and the sales and traffic are awesome. Why when the image is so poor? (Some of the girls are amateur and some professional.)
It's because the girls were usually teasing the fuck out of me behind the camera. They are getting off and enjoying themselves, the orgasms are real and the girls are real. OK some of them ham it up for the camera, but the comparison with todays models is awesome. Character and personality is what makes porn. The character and personality of the people in front and behind the camera.
The reason IMO is two fold. Girls today are more aggressive and loutish than they were 20 years ago, not a good thing for porn. Plus there is too much work for them shot by people who have lost the art of directing them. There are many exceptions but when an industry thinks the route to more sales is the image quality and not the porn quality the results are obvious.