Originally Posted by Robbie

Jimmy...From what I read Paul say, he merely asked why a photographer that good wasn't shooting for Playboy.

Looks like they are at magazine level.

As for why a semi-retired guy in Europe didn't "recognize" that photographers work...I have to admit I've never heard of Holly Randall either. I just don't make it my life's work to find out who is shooting magazine stuff in 2011.

Originally Posted by Robbie

But Paul's point that most still photography these days is the "photographer" snapping 300 pics so fast that it's just the girl moving one millimeter at a time from photo to photo is dead right.

I personally won't do that. I REFUSE to take the same pic over and over and over. I try to compose a different picture each time that tells a story.
And I'm just a a piss-ant.

Paul is correct to say WHY would major sites have those kinds of sets of photography (the cameraman just snapping as fast as he can) instead of carefully composed shots?
It's like you could print them out on index card size photo paper, and flip them with your hands and you'd have animation! lol

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The magazines more started to really decline in 2005. After 2008 shooters had little options, work for what online paid or don't work very much. Today it's more or less all that's left. If Holly played in both camps then good for her, she's one of the bright ones.

I played in both camps. Holly looks like an offline shooter who came to online to increase or slow the decrease in her earning.



Had never heard of her.



Most sponsors paid so little that getting the quantity right was paramount to getting the quality right. Even Dean said his biggest pressure was getting it all done in the time and for the money. Magazine shooters never had that problem. We had to get it right to get paid.



That's how my training was based.



Same goes for video. Churn them out and fill the site and keep it in budget.



So did you pay the price to compete with others sectors of porn consistently. Or not?

$3,000 a scene would be a fair price.

As Robbie says, this isn't about me or Twistys. It's about the amount of importance we put on the product. And the effect that had on earnings. Today it's screwed and the good days are long gone. You and I had a good innings and walked away with something. Most didn't and a lot more won't.

Looking at Holly's site she's definitely one of the good ones. The stuff I saw on that site, basing an opinion n the tour it's above Twistys.

http://girls.twistys.com/preview/du/...Tg4ODEwOjE0OjE

BG stuff, well over exposed and on a pale girls.

Comparing http://girls.twistys.com/preview/du/...alexisford.wmv and http://girls.twistys.com/preview/du/...alexisford.wmv

To the solo girl and BG here. Well it hammers home my point.
Different level entirely. http://www.hollyrandall.com/free2/to...0,2449#updates

One site is churning it out. The other is producing a quality product. Where would you prefer to be sending traffic Jimmy?

And that's why content is King, if you can produce that level. If you can't then you need tons of traffic to get a sale. After the affiliates have worked sending traffic their best paying sites.

This is just top level stuff, still the same rule applies right the way down to amateur. To convert it has to knock the viewer off his chair enough to make him get out his CC. He doesn't give a shit if you paid $3000 or $300. He needs an erection. And that's why so many times, the surfer moved onto the next gallery. He wasn't impressed enough by the content.