Quote:
Originally Posted by xholly
"It was average for me. It was average for what we made $3,000 a scene from."
In your own words your kinda talking it down a bit, saying it is just an average scene. Well thats ok but I must admit after page 29 and reading your posts pointing out other shooters flaws I have been expecting something showing some brilliance. Maybe it will be still.
Dont really care what shooters used to make or even what they do make now, I just want to see a great example of how porn should be produced in order to convert and retain. Because what porn shooters used to earn 20 years ago has as much relevance as how much a blacksmith used to make 300 years ago..none.
Just hoping for a good scene thats all.
|
What shooters do today is often governed by sponsors, a few site owners do a great job like Alsscan and others. So blaming shooters isn't fair.
When you're given a budget of $1500 and told to shoot 5 solo girl scenes in a day, the results will be poor. When you consider that a good shooter can earn more than $1,500 on one set non exclusive, it has to be realised good shooters might be elsewhere. Not the fault of the shooters who are working for this price, it's the best they could get. And often the best sponsors would pay.
Some did pay more, but not enough. This thread started off pointing why it's hard to shoot porn today, I should of said
good porn for online sites. My mistake.
Some of the mistakes I see are glaring. People with wide angle shooting the girl standing up or sitting up, so it becomes a shot of the room or sofa or bed. Just downright bad framing over and over again. Stills with the same pose over and over and over again. Brazzers was terrible for this, the shooters were just going for the right numbers and to hell with getting it right.
The biggest mistake is the presentation of the girls, the scene and the the faking. And this is what you need to convert and retain better. The scenes are often just a collection of the same scenes, different girl doing the same thing on a different sofa. No personality, character or identity and no reason to join this site or that site and no reason to stay in the site.
What I shot for Mofos was just one way to construct the first scene, the next scene would of been a little different and would of tied into the first scene, the last would of wrapped up the day. They would of been like a mini series, Sandra would of been presented exactly as who she is, a very sexual attractive girl who loves what she does.
If she had done a good days work we would of gone on from there.
Too many sites present girls as nothing more than a piece of meat. Some shoot so much gynecological shots it could be a film for doctors. Pussies all look the same, models if allowed will all trot out the same performance. After a while the girl gets repetitive, the girls get boring and the site loses interest. And you lose recurring members.
When trying to sell a product, you need to grab a person's interest in the model first, her looks, personality, character or identity and a good reason to join the site. not just present a clip of another girl banging her pussy. It's not a traffic game, adding more traffic is wasting the traffic you have. It's about separating the girl and site from the 1,000s of others girls and sites available.
And yes what was being shot 20 years ago is relevant to what's being shot today. Because the age group that's the best target for a porn membership is the over 40s.
If you think me saying it was average for me was talking it down a bit. Then why? Because that brings me back to the fundamental point. If we could earn $3,000 shooting that why were so many online companies paying $300?
Would you send traffic to a site that paid 5% and didn't convert any better than those paying 50%? Same goes for shooters.
For some reason online never got that.