Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
Paul, I don't agree with your overall assessment of porn.
I think that you're missing the fact that the people who buy porn are what really move the market and how it's shot.
|
No you misunderstand me. That's exactly my point. The site owners buying and shooting totally move the market. Vivid, Wicked, Evil Angel and more set their standards high. Generally speaking the Adult Internet set their standards low.
Quote:
|
As for models faking it...I agree. But I had a lot of videos that I used to watch in the late 1970's and early 1980's, and even though Seka was/is my favorite porn whore of all times...She and Christy Canyon, and Vanessa Del Rio were HORRIBLE at faking it. And they were the biggest stars of that time.
|
Yes models have always faked it, but now it seems the vast majority do and do it very badly. Where as in the past fewer did and more did it better. Part of this is due to buyers pushing producers to over produce in a day. Many solo girl sites, ATK, Karups, Mayer wanted shooter to do 5 sets and videos in a day. Very, very few girls can or will climax 5 times in front of a camera in one day. Even on BG some wanted 3 scenes in a day, not possible to shoot it right. So the controlling factor was get it done and move onto the next scene.
Quote:
Having said all that...I wish you were here in the states. Your photography skills are awesome. And I'd love to sit under the learning tree and watch you shoot. Matter of fact I'd love to have you shoot a scene of Claudia-Marie for me and let me watch you work.
I always learn something from people.
For instance...the stuff I shoot well is what I love. I'm the worst at shooting "glam". But my friend Charlie Biggs specializes in it. He just has an eye for that kind of thing. He composes and frames a pic in a completely different way than I would. And vice-versa.
|
If you give me a pass into your site I will take a look and offer some tips from a different aspect. Done this for a few sites and the only one I went public about was Brazzers. Because Manwin have no problem going public with other peoples content and so many were screaming it was good. I gave Nathan some tips on how to improve his content. Which he agreed was good and said he would forward to his shooters.
Maybe that's one of the problems with this side of the industry. Instead of going to see what the DVD industry is doing, going to the shows, buying and studying the product, it remains very insular and feeling superior that driving traffic is some sort of art.
Quote:
Anyway, just wanted to throw in a tip of the hat to your abilities. Again, I think you might not be taking some things into account in your analysis of the business. But I respect your abilities from the photos you posted and the magazines that are part of your resume.
Looks to me like you were one of a handful of shooters at that level during that time period. And no matter the joking around by everybody...that's pretty damn impressive. Very few guys reach that level no matter what sector of the industry they work in.
|
My analysis of the business is very plain. We spend too much time, money and attention to driving traffic as if it's the solution to all problems. And too little time to the actual product, as if so long as we throw enough traffic at it something will stick.
The truth is the more traffic we got the more traffic we needed to achieve the same result. Yet today the answer is still
more traffic.
We should not ignore traffic completely, but bring some balance to the difference.
The old business was very different. You were not paid until a set was
published.Or on a video until a very wary and experienced buy bought it. Except with commissioned work and even then if it was wrong you might get it given back to you.
During my reviewing of sites I have yet to find a set that would of been published. The mistakes are very basic and an editor would just give the set back and if you didn't improve stop looking at your work. If you didn't improve you went bankrupt. A similar situation occurred in the video industry.
The retention of buyers to a magazine or video title was awesome. Because buyers knew next months edition would be as good as last months.
Today the situation is very different on the Adult Internet will take nearly anything in the belief that quantity is better of quality and the result is sites full of low quality filler content.
Brazzers would be better off IMO adding 2 scenes a day instead of 3 and spending the same money to get the scenes right. And that goes for a lot of sites. Adding more of the same low quality cloned scenes isn't really a great reason to stay. The next site has the same niche, similar style. Yet shot a different way so more appealing.