GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - It's harder to shoot porn today than it was back in the old days.

Mutt · 03-06-2011, 08:14 AM

Paul why do you keep beating the dead horse of the magazine business? It's dead, even if a photog can shoot magazine caliber sets the magazines that still buy are paying 800 dollars a set when they used to pay $1500-2000 and it takes them a year to pay. The only magazine company still paying decent money is Flynt and they don't need new photographers.

And let's go back 10 years ago when the magazine business was still good, you were scoffing at guys who were shooting for ATK and Karups. The magazinrs already had their contributing photographers, you were one of them. Magazines only need a certain amount of new sets a month/year - no need to buy from a new photographer shooting girls in Czech, Hungary or the US, the magazines already had enough shooters in those places they were satisfied with. And the guys in smaller cities - they might get one model a year that the magazines would want considering they're competing to get models accepted against guys in places with lots of agencies recruiting new girls.

Shooting for magazines made sense for established photographers who were already regular contributors to magazines long before the Internet - you, Suze Randall, Stephen Hicks, Earl Miller. Suze and Stephen used the magazine sales to cover the high production costs of their shoots and overhead of their studios - they stocked their paysites with the content from those shoots essentially for 'free'. And they both made millions. You did the same, but instead of a paysite you created a licensed content business that did well for you. That opportunity wasnt really available to guys like AaronM, Brian Bradley, and the rest who have shot for ATK and other paysites. AaronM was in Portland, no matter how good his photography is or isn't, at most he'd find two or three girls a year who BarelyLegal, Hawk, Tight, etc would want. Brian is in LA, the magazines already had 10 photogs in LA shooting the same girls.

The Internet brought democracy and variety to porn - before then when it came to adult photography consumers were offered what the magazine publishers gave them, and that was your style of photography. When MikeAI from Amateur Index and ATK and Karups started shooting real amateur girls next door and coeds, real girls from every state and province not just LA and Prague the surfers flocked to those sites by the millions. Hustler's paysites never have come close to the number of members those companies had. And don't even try to use your old argument against affiliates - MikeAI never even had an affiliate program and ATK and Karups never put much emphasis on theirs, they didn't need to. The surfers found their own way to those sites - they wanted that kind of content not your magazine style content.

Your path worked for you, be happy for that, it wouldn't have worked for others.

03-06-2011, 08:14 AM
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	Paul why do you keep beating the dead horse of the magazine business? It's dead, even if a photog can shoot magazine caliber sets the magazines that still buy are paying 800 dollars a set when they used to pay $1500-2000 and it takes them a year to pay. The only magazine company still paying decent money is Flynt and they don't need new photographers. And let's go back 10 years ago when the magazine business was still good, you were scoffing at guys who were shooting for ATK and Karups. The magazinrs already had their contributing photographers, you were one of them. Magazines only need a certain amount of new sets a month/year - no need to buy from a new photographer shooting girls in Czech, Hungary or the US, the magazines already had enough shooters in those places they were satisfied with. And the guys in smaller cities - they might get one model a year that the magazines would want considering they're competing to get models accepted against guys in places with lots of agencies recruiting new girls. Shooting for magazines made sense for established photographers who were already regular contributors to magazines long before the Internet - you, Suze Randall, Stephen Hicks, Earl Miller. Suze and Stephen used the magazine sales to cover the high production costs of their shoots and overhead of their studios - they stocked their paysites with the content from those shoots essentially for 'free'. And they both made millions. You did the same, but instead of a paysite you created a licensed content business that did well for you. That opportunity wasnt really available to guys like AaronM, Brian Bradley, and the rest who have shot for ATK and other paysites. AaronM was in Portland, no matter how good his photography is or isn't, at most he'd find two or three girls a year who BarelyLegal, Hawk, Tight, etc would want. Brian is in LA, the magazines already had 10 photogs in LA shooting the same girls. The Internet brought democracy and variety to porn - before then when it came to adult photography consumers were offered what the magazine publishers gave them, and that was your style of photography. When MikeAI from Amateur Index and ATK and Karups started shooting real amateur girls next door and coeds, real girls from every state and province not just LA and Prague the surfers flocked to those sites by the millions. Hustler's paysites never have come close to the number of members those companies had. And don't even try to use your old argument against affiliates - MikeAI never even had an affiliate program and ATK and Karups never put much emphasis on theirs, they didn't need to. The surfers found their own way to those sites - they wanted that kind of content not your magazine style content. Your path worked for you, be happy for that, it wouldn't have worked for others. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly! Last edited by Mutt; 03-06-2011 at 08:16 AM..