Quote:
Originally Posted by xholly
Why would making better videos have cost far more? A little imagination and thinking outside the box could have helped you produce something better at no extra cost. Good excuse tho.
Whatever happened to nathans review? I recall something about not up to usual quality.
|
When people are shooting solo girl scenes for $300 a day. The shooter needs to push out 5 a day to make a living.
So yes more money is required.
Given $3,000 I'm sure a better job can be done. But online never paid $3,000 a solo girl scene. Well I never heard of it.
So those who could get that money didn't bother to even look at online porn. So if they had the imagination. They had the sense to sell to markets that paid them.
You can shoot a great solo scene for a lot less than $3,000. The question is
"why?"
I could sell loads of solo girl sets for $3,000 and still own them today. It's pointless talking about whose the better shooter because it's will alway be challenged. Who besides me was shooting consistently solo girl sets worth $3,000?
Dean, Dave, Jim, Brian, Aaron?
Quote:
So true, imagination can add such a lot.
Also if you are shooting a movie to make a point about quality and are given $3000 to do it, it would have been a good idea to use the money to the video look good...eg
Hire a sound person
Hire a cameraman
Let Paul do his "magic" with the girl
Spend some money on some sexy clothes nice location.....
Get an editor to mix the sound and cut it.
It seems a bit cynical just to take the $2500 money and brag.
|
Why?
Would the trolls be impressed?
Would I get a contract to shoot lots of solo girl scenes for $3,000?
Would I of been able to take the contract?
Business is very cynical. Live with it.
I shot the scene partly because I was challenged to, then it became me wanting to see where I was in my recovery. I was never out to prove to anyone who was the better shooter. If I'm not, I'm a good business man.
However I have seen many members areas and can tell you none, yes none of the shooters who get praised here showing a single shot. Could of ever of got those sets accepted by a magazine. They simply didn't have the poses, angles, shots, lighting and sometimes focus and depth of field good enough. Far too many portrait poses, over and over again shooters who couldn't turn a camera 90 degrees
Maybe they were churning out the set fast to get it over with and move onto the video. Lousy excuse it takes little time to shoot 100 different shots right, as it does to shoot 200 wrong.
As for video. Saw many sites with wide screen video shooting girls in a standing and sitting position. Nice shot of the background, girl fills 25% of the screen.
Hiring all the people you suggest isn't possible on a $500 budget, getting a scene shot properly might be. But why the fuck bother when theres better places to earn money?
Think of it like this. Why send top quality traffic to a site that pays 5% and converts like crap?