Have you never heard of a "Closed Shoot"?

Most of the shooters I've know over the years preferred to work alone, especially when shooting solo girl. The reasons are obvious and many to those who think about.

Having a fat, ugly person sitting watching isn't something they would normally allow. The girl is going to ask "Who is this person?" While thinking "WTF is this guy doing here?". To explain you away as the marketing man for the site, is going to get her worried right away. While shooting unless you know exactly how to act, the odds are you will put her off. Even if you don't you might drag her attention away from the work onto you.

What ever the outcome having someone like you in watching a shoot is a lose, lose situation. You bring zero to the table. Just problems. Go read the thread about model's escorts in on the shoot for verification.

When shooting a days work the costs are something like this when shoot film.

Model 200 GBP
Film 100-200 GBP
Make up 100 GBP
Location, props, equipment, model's agent, refreshments, travel, equipment all go on top of the budget. Sometimes more than others, but all have to be paid.

Then there's postage or courier costs to send the sets to clients over seas, or fule to get you to local clients.

A solo girl shoot can easily cost 500 GBP ($800). The only thing that saves today is digital and the cameras are far more expensive. And from this thread it seems digital needs to be constantly upgraded, my film cameras lasted 5 years. Eva and I budgeted a solo girl shoot at $1,000. To cover everything.

Now to have someone like you sitting in the corner on that shoot will take you giving me $1,000. Or anyone else. Even when on trips shooting with other pro shooters like Colby and Mason, if we were shooting solo girl we had a closed set in or outside the villa. It was the best way to make money.

As for your jibes about hitting on the model?

Don't you see $1,000 to upset a model in anyway, is financial suicide? From a shoot costing $1,000 a shooter needs to pull a profit out, not get laid. Models understood that and went along with the scenario.

The time to be business like is on a casting, when the model turns up, when setting the lights, when shooting the IDs. The time to start flirting is when you want the best out of the model. Then when the sets finished it's "Well Done, you're a real breeze to shoot. Want a tea and snack?" And walk out offering her the door from the studio and throwing a robe to cover up her nakedness.

Here endeth the lesson in shooting. :1orglaugh

Can you name these decent shooters who allow you in on shoots and risk the chance of ruining the shoot?

This post is all about today and the last 10 years.

Todays problems in online porn are many. Free content is just one. The other that has effected us all is saturation. Not saturation of a single scene, for me that's great. :)

It's saturation of sites and affiliates. And now the lack of customers to sustain the saturation.

10 years ago there was very few sites compared with today and a lot less affiliates. Less traffic, but sign ups were a lot easier to get by the few sites for many reasons. One was the lack of selection.

For the last 5 years it's got to be more saturated. More sites and more affiliates trying to sign up less customers. And yet few have tried a different approach. Most carry on playing the numbers game, if a site doesn't convert, get more traffic. If an affiliates doesn't make enough, get more traffic.

Yet it's obvious some sites stand out. MILF Hunter, Alsscans, Hegre are just some. Why, because the content is good. It gets good views, it gets good traffic, it gets good conversions, it gets good retention. All because of the content.

Sites who compete with every other low to middle range content site don't do so well. Because we're not selling to idiots, we're selling to clued up guys who know if a scene is good, know how to separate a good site from a bad one. And when they make a mistake, get wiser and know how to cancel a recurring membership.

Many add more than enough content, exactly the same as what the site is already full of and none compelling enough to make a lot of members stay longer.

As an example. By improving retention 1% a site adds 50% of that money to it's turn over. Because the other costs are paid for. The affiliates earnings also improve. What's the only thing that controls retention? Content.

If a sites content is no better than 100 other sites, the member knows this and will wander off sooner to one of those sites.

Now tell me what that has to do with yesterday? :1orglaugh

Yes, of course. What has that got to do with you being an unprofessional letch?

Have you heard of sexual harassment in the workplace?

Where did I suggest I wanted to watch you shoot, love? I'd prefer to suck off DVTimes.

You make me feel sick. Really you do.

The thought that having any shooter making sexual advances on them would in some way make them aroused is astonishing. It's amazing you can still suspend your disbelief.

Fixed your typo, big guy. Thank me later.

So people the situation so far as i understand it:
Pauls ACCEPTED the challenge
Paul has or will be given access to the sites to compare quality
Now its a case of wether paul flops or surprises everyone!!
Im routing for you markham!!

You're one of the few.

Not 100% right.

Fabian accepted my challenge of someone paying me.
I have another login and pass to a different site, yet to go there. Too late.
Flopping or surprising is in the air.
The only person I'm doing this for is me. And the $3,000. :1orglaugh

Don't really care about what trolls think. It's pointless trying to please them.
Ultimately my out of date, old style, lousy quality pictures earned me enough not to have to care about what they think. Which I shot and crafted to fit a market that out paid this one by up to a factor of 10. Now I'm being flamed for not shooting content that wouldn't of sold to that market. Marketing genius of the Internet. :upsidedow

$3,000 for an afternoon in front of a naked female and the pleasure of finding out how well I am is all that counts.

I wonder if this old flirt still has the ability to show a girl it's all in fun to help her achieve her best? :1orglaugh

This is the last man a pro would let in on a shoot. http://vimeo.com/user2552989/videos
Nor his BF, Gary would get let in. Might make the girl throw up.

Paul. jeez... It's a network!!! SAF, the site you are shooting for, IS A PART OF MOFOS.COM

Btw, it matters little to me for why you do this.. I do it because you are being a complete asshole towards every other producer out there by the crap you post...

Your uneducated comments you post all over just make you look silly. You base your opinion on the data you have, about how the industry is smaller, how only few sites make any decent money, on your very limited experience in the adult online world.

Also, you keep still posting hue nobody pays enough, yet you are getting 3000, our contract producers make far more than that because we pay around 4500 for hardcore scenes on mofos and we pay even more for brazzers! Get it in your head that you are WRONG with how much producers make online..

HAHAHAHA Paul doesn't even understand the most simple concepts!

Fabian-Dude. This is painstaking man, where oh where is Paul's script you keep promising every day?

Must we now wait until MONDAY? Or do you have screenwriters who work on the weekend??? Hopefully the latter!!!:pimp

Monday, and it won't be a full script I am told... but its more the legal side I am waiting on... we are very busy currently...

Interior, student dorm room. Scared and vulnerable looking girl is sitting on the bed. Teddy bears and lollypops are scattered around.

Girl: Oh, I am so fucked for cash. I'm going to have to do SOMETHING to pay my rent. I'm desperate.

KNOCK AT DOOR

Girl: I wonder who that could possibly be?

WAH WAH GUITAR IN BACKGROUND, POSSIBLY FUNKADELIC

GIRL WALKS TO DOOR AND OPENS IT, TENTATIVELY. STANDING THERE IS A DIRTY MAN IN HIS 70s. HE HAS A TSHIRT ON SAYING "I HAVE CANCER, PLEASE FUCK ME LOL". HE LOOKS LIKE HE SMELLS OF HIS OWN URINE.

Paul Markham: Hi there. I'm a photographer in the area looking for teens to shoot for non-exclusive magazine porn. I'll pay you 50 bucks.

Girl: Oh. Right. I *do* need some cash. What do I have to do?

Paul: Nothing much. Just a little strip and maybe, if you feel comfy, you could whack this dildo up your self?

Girl: BLUSHES

Paul: 50 bucks....

PAUL WAVES THE CASH UNDER HER NOSE, SHE STARTS CRYING

Paul: Oh come on, no need to cry. It's a quick fifty bucks. Come on, I have my camera here, let's go.

Girl: Well I suppose, if you say it will be quick...

PAUL GRINS LASCIVIOUSLY TO THE CAMERA FADE TO BLACK.

Scene 2

GIRL IS IN HER UNDERWEAR ON THE BED LOOKING SCARED AND UNCOMFORTABLE. PAUL IS ABOVE HER ON A CHAIR AND GETS OUT HIS BOOK OF 24 POSES THAT ARE IN EVERY SET HE SHOOTS.

Paul: Just do these poses and we'll be done.
Girl: I'm nervous
Paul: Here, have a toke on this doobie and a hit of this Jack. That'll sort you out.
Girl: But I don't really do drugs or drink.
Paul: Get it down you, bitch.

FADE TO BLACK

Scene 3

PAUL IS MASTURBATING OVER A NAKED GIRL WHO IS CRYING

Paul: Yeah yeah baby, you fucking love this don't you. I AM FUCKING THE MIGHTY PAUL MARKHAM! YOU ARE NAKED AND I AM WANKING! I am the best pornographer in the world. You are getting well wet aren't you?

Girl: No I am scared and I want you to stop.

Paul: I AM PAUL FUCKING MARKHAM! I NEVER STOP. TIGER'S BLOOD IS IN MY VEINS. WINNING!

Girl: STOP.

Paul: NEVER. Now, look more scared. Really show the camera you are just doing it for the money

GIRL WHIMPERS.

Paul YEAH BABY

PAUL CUMS ALL OVER HER FLOOR IN LITTLE OLD MAN SPURTS.

PAUL THROWS 50 BUCKS AT THE GIRL

Paul: (laughing) There isn't even any film in the fucking camera, you retard.

PAUL RUNS OUT OF THE ROOM CACKLING!

FADE TO BLACK.

Negativity all over this shit.

Hey this is AWESOME!

It sounds like Paul's really going to do this!!!

..and I'm sorry Fabian, but I'm going to have to disagree with you about this:
"Regarding the remark about shooters.. I said we DO NOT use big DVD shooters, it is completely wrong for online. But you seem to ignore that and go on with how I should name names of the big boys we work with..."

...What does the initial release platform really have to do with anything nowadays anyway? Truly talented shooters should be able to emulate any style, whether it's "internet" or "DVD"...
Am I wrong?

...I think the reason you don't name big names is that names (other than the talents' names) have historically never mattered at all to Brazzers (Who is Stephane again? I googled him but couldn't find any porn relation)...

Anyway, Roy Karch?
Great big directing name at one point in time...

The industry does not even have a hint of a speccle (which is not a word) of a microbe of dust of a resemblance to what the industry was then.

Paul, however, unlike Roy, has been given a BIG chance here... The question on everyone's mind is HOW WILL THE SCENE TURN OUT???

Also, Paul, I think it is time that you FINALLY acknowledge and accept my offer to fly myself out and be your free 2nd BTS cam... please acknowledge this offer immediately.

ReggieDurango.. a 250k budget DVD feature film is best released on DVD first and then online... that's all I am saying.

Last time I looked a lot of shooters fuck the people they employ. Flirting is flirting. :2 cents:

Seriously...How hard is a sologirl masturbation script to write?...I could write one off the top of my head....And since folks are throwing money, I ain't writing one unless someone offers me money to write one....

But unlike Paul, I'll have a script posted in 24 hours.

Absolutely

I for one was very surprised to find out that all Brazzers' scenes (or most of Brazzers' scenes) have scripts! I think it's cool. I doubt bangbros has many screenwriters these days ;-)

Huh? We're not waiting on Paul to write a script...

...or best just not made in the first place:winkwink:

I am the one that has not yet delivered the info to Paul, I am keeping it limited though so he has no excuses.

He also has a login to mofos now so can take a look at the type he has to shoot...

The holdup right now is just my legal department that needs to get me a contract, and they are rather busy currently...

"I am keeping it limited though so he has no excuses." - Wise!

Can you give a hint about the script's story and/or genre???

This was my issue with Paul.

I can attest to this. I know all of the LA directors and Photogs, they are all paid very well and are all very happy.


I would have to say as a shooter Brazzers is the very best online company to shoot for. They will pay whatever is needed to get the scene shot to match the scripts/stories they want shot. That induces but not limited to renting out shops, various business locations, multi million dollar homes, buses, Cars, high dollar talent, etc.


This is the best company to get contracted with if you have the skill sets.:2 cents:

"I do it because you are being a complete asshole towards every other producer out there by the crap you post..."

-All very true.
But, Fabian, isn't there some small part of you that deep down wants to see Paul succeed with this scene?

Let's take a poll! Who wants to see Paul fail? Who wants to see him succeed?
In all honesty, despite all his ridiculousness, I think I want to see him make a passable scene! I think Paul is not as crazy as he seems, and probably even somewhat intelligent in reality. I think he thinks this forum is just a big platform for digital performance art. And he's right, right?
That being said, Paul, if you do not take me up on my offer to come shoot 2nd BTS camera for free, you are a huge douche.

or if you don't have skills but start a 350+ post thread about how everybody else sucks.

For years the line about what is right or wrong for online was ruled by what produced could produce or publishers could pay for. The idea that people of only one taste log on it silly.

However if right what is the difference between online and offline porn? Amateur has been shot ever since video tape was used inside cameras. I was shooting amateur 30 years ago. Gonzo dates back to Ugly George in NY. Reality also is an old style. Even Ex GF was being shot, except we called it Readers Wives. A lot was shot on Polaroid or if you looked in the back of a Photography magazine there were processors who would process more racy pictures. Amateur, Ex GF, Wives was a big niche ask Far-L.

As you sat good shooters can and do switch styles. Steve Perry who shot for Private is also Ben Dover. Or under his real name Lindsay Honey.

The porn industry WAS far bigger back then. The problem as I pointed out is people think it stopped at the doors of the producers of the product. They refuse to calculate in the retail value. The Adult Internet is the retail value only. Sadly there's no accurate figures for either so it's all guesswork. From my side and the other side.

I have no idea. To my knowledge all I said was I would come back and shoot for $3,000 and I think I can shoot a better set than what they have. To be very honest haven't seen any of their sets, so I'm guessing.

No. I cannot have some unknown person in on the shoot or even behind the scenes. Shooting solo girl is all about the relationship between the shooter and the model. Having you or even Eva in there changes the dynamics. In all honesty do I care if people believe if I shot it? Not in the slightest. It's what I know that counts. I'm doing this for my benefit and the $3,000. Not to prove to trolls on GFY anything.

As for the jibe about having a go at todays shooters. Well that's BS. I'm sympathetic about them having to pay for the money they do. JustDave posted that Brazzers are probably the best online payers today. Which could back up my point that offline often pays better.

Sponsors control the product everyone is trying to sell. Not shooters. Sponsors control budgets not shooters. And $700 is from what I've heard good money for an online company. I know a lot offered $300 and Mutt has said the price is $500. Will good offline porn shooters work for that?

I think as Nathan points out a $250k budget DVD HAD to be sold offline first and then online. Is he saying that to return that investment offline is the best way?

It tok ages for Nathan to produce a password. Then when it was wrong to get a new one. He obviously doesn't have the ability to sit down and write one in 15 minutes which is how long it should take. Also how many ways are there to shoot a solo girl scene? His site must have some very varied scenes if a new one is written for each scene.

And the contract? So not a normal one with just the names changed then. So what is this one about?

I suspect Nathan is having to constantly run back and forth with this to other people. Not being able to issue a password is bad. IMO. Even if he has people who normally do that, not being able to do this himself is bad.

Especially if it's a small script with noting too involved. From what I'm seeing on the site it's a 15 minute job.

I didn't say that. I said that if they were as good as I was, they should of been working in the market I worked in. Because it paid better.

The shooter shooting the stills for the golf isn't that good. Yes he got 362 images. but in reality it's only 100 tops as most of the poses are repeated over and over again.

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/mofos1.jpg

70 frames and only 15-16 shots. He just shot the same thing over and over. The other problem is he seems to have shot a lot of landscape frames of portrait poses. The Dl is telling me it's going to take longer than the video. A waste of time to get 100 shots. Each 1 repeated 1-4 times.

The quality of the images looks fine for the Internet, will download a full image and see if it will print up. Magazines paid for $1,000 to $2,000 for a set like this non exclusive, so obviously had a lot of top shooters submitting for approval. An editor wouldn't look past the first few frames to reject. Because he didn't have the time.

It is 2 scenes not one, both the video and the set. On a quick look the quality of the images is great. The model is good and attractive. The quality of the shooting isn't, some bad framing.

But it's better than many sites I've seen. :thumbsup

Was it $700 for the 2 scenes?

This is towards the end of the scene, a different scene in my book

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/mofos2.jpg

ya i'll definitely give u that. an unedited set is a turnoff - for those people that still look at photos. i doubt there's too many of them under age 50 these days, other than people on dial-up connections, but they dont buy porn.

most of my comments here are simply sarcasm made in disgust, except the ones about you being rude to Fabian. but i guess that's your problem if you want this to be a one shot (or canceled) contract.

I can shoot 300 frames and get every single one of them different. It takes skill, knowledge and above all experience. To shoot a set like that one takes me back to the days of film.

When a good girl walked in and had never been shot before. We knew she would work with us and then be off to work with every other shooter she could find. So we shot around 10-30 sets of her. Each set we shot 3 versions of, US, UK and EU/Overs. So we could send the sets out to our 3 main markets, get a set in every magazine and then any shooter following had an uphill climb. It wasn't just us it was every decent shooter.

Keeping a girl motivated for the length of time it took to shoot this was hard work. You had to keep her moving, if you shot EXACTLY the same frame. So you learned to alter each frame by keeping yourself moving or the girl. Then the set had far more to edit the 3 sets out of. Few editors would accept a set of over 150 frames. If you can't nail it in 150, you can't nail it.

I explain this to show the problems of shooting 300 + frames and the dangers.

Same as the 30 minute videos, if you can't get a guy off in 20, you don't have much chance of getting him off in 30. So far the videos on the site are over long. It seems the shooter is stretching them out to fill the clients requirements rather than the viewers needs. :upsidedow

The viewer paying the membership IS the client. IMO.

As for being rude to Fabian. It's mutual and we're being honest about it.

As for the set, it's nearly finished.

sig spot

OK looked at the set in detail now and this set would never of been used by an editor. He simply wouldn't take it. To many cheesy smiles all the same, badly framed images, repeated images and lack of poses. Also some out of focus shots and the girl with her eyes half closed.

This is an unedited set straight off the chip and should of been edited.

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/0141.jpg

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/0142.jpg

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/0143.jpg

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/0144.jpg

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/0145.jpg

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/0146.jpg

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/0147.jpg

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/0149.jpg

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/0150.jpg

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/0151.jpg

She brings her own outdoor shoes to a shoot or the shooter lends her his girlfriends!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/0212.jpg

The mistakes are many and the BS about online being different to offline is show to be BS. Any number of magazines have this style, just shot a lot better.

Off to watch the video.

I have no doubt Manwin are the best online only company to shoot for. What does that say about the rest?

As for the skills, this shooter doesn't have the necessary skills to shoot stills for magazines. I'm surprised they didn't use a better shooter. He's either brand new or wasn't around 3 years ago. Not a top level.

There's absolutely no point in spending all that money on everything around the model and scree it up by getting a shooter with these limited stills technique to shoot it. The girl does "pink" with the golf clup in front of her pussy hiding it!! :Oh crap

Shoots the same shot over and over again!! :1orglaugh

The same cheesy smile?

Let's her pose to show a midriff?

Uses scuffed shoes and gets them half in and out of focus?

These are basic skills and not the skill level of the top online site, or shouldn't be.

im outta the loop here. . .
Nathan are all the scenes shot as 2 scenes in 1 and do you pay $700 per each scene or $700 for the 2?

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've had a good look at the site and it seems every "scene" is 2 scenes. Not sure if they got paid twice or paid once for both scenes. Nathan might know.

What I want to know is why did he want me to shoot 3 scenes as 1 and told us that was how they worked.

The sets haven't got any better.

This set, which is 2 sets, of 468 frames has again got the shooter repeating the same pose over and over again. The worse thing is one of the lights must of blown or he screwed up with the exposure. Because the light changes dramatically and gets worse.

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/mofos3.jpg

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/mofos4.jpg

He then corrects it and keeps going. A good shooter would of gone back to where it went wrong and picked it up from there. A shooter who knows his client will demand the best has to. A shooter who knows his client will take crap won't bother.

Mutt the answer is so obvious. BECAUSE IT TAUGHT US STANDARDS. It taught us how to work. Clearly those standards aren't being met by the shooters I'm seeing on Mofos. These guys wouldn't even hold onto customers in a content store.

Even $800 a set is better than $500 for a set and a video. Is that exclusive or non exclusive?

Mutt you know I like you and never flamed you but are you serious about this?

Seriously can't you see the flaws in this post.

SAF is a solo girl site, sometimes lesbian... It is the only site where our shooters produce more than one scene with the same model on the same day, since all it requires a change of cloths and shooting in a diff room in the same studio or house. We do 3 scenes in one shoot then.

For the shoot itself, including the model, we pay 2000 to our contract producers.

some sexy pics

no, what are the flaws in what I wrote?

that's a fair price for 3 solo scenes - 400-500 for model/agency fee, location 300-500, 200 makeup - half day shoot, photographer makes ~$750-900

This is wrong. Magazines loved new girls and would listen to a new shooter over the phone. He then had to visit them to prove he was serious. Sending a set in the post or Fed Ex wasn't the best way. This was even more relevant in the Teen market. OK Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse and that end aren't going to see you. Naughty Neighbors, Hometown Girls, Barely Legal and the rest of the teen mags would.

But what you're implying is the Internet had lower standards.

Yes few could compete at that level and no site does unless it's a feed off the magazine business. Like the shooters you named. Yes the magazines did fund far higher shooting budgets than the Internet ever did and ever will.

Our style matched what ATK and Karups were trying to do. They bought enough from us.

Aaron did have a content store and closed it.

Here you are saying the Internet accepted a lower standard. The Internet accepted girls from shooters who couldn't find enough good ones or could only find them after everyone else?????

To say Steve and Suzies content didn't sell on the Internet and then say they made millions, and we made a few $$$ along the way, means their and our style sold on the Internet.

No it didn't bring democracy and variety to porn. Except it accepts a lower standard. Even today with a site trying to aim high it's accepting low standards.

We shot first timers all the time, in fact more first timers of a higher standard than most. To my knowledge at one time there were 10 shooters here in CZ and HU shooting for ATK.

So when sites could afford to move up in quality, all of a sudden they want magazine style. :upsidedow

What governed what they had on their sites was what they could afford and had little to do with what the surfer wanted. 99.9% of surfers wanted it for free. As the stats on a TGP views, not banner clicks, proves.

If they could of followed us on our path it would of worked. You are wrong about it being a closed shop. Very wrong.

So the site only shows 2 scenes, 1 more must be coming soon then. So you wanted me to do 3 scenes instead of 1 from the very beginning. You just wanted to pay me for 1. :1orglaugh

Can you explain the bad stills shooting?

They are pretty poor, for the reasons I stated and why does Mofos put up low quality content?

For 3 scenes set and video it requires a full day to do it properly. Getting the lights set up (stills and video), balancing, hi liting, checking, etc. Then shooting the set and then the video. Getting 15 different poses frames right can't be done for this style in 30 minutes.

Then moving everything, giving the model a break, taking a break for the shooter, resetting lights, M/U, dressing and away we go again.

It's a days work. If you rush it, the risk is it gets fucked, like with the lighting in the GG. The same pose gets shot over and over again, the video is framed badly, the girl faking it.

you are absolutely wrong here. there is no gray area where you could be right.

a farmer sells chickens to a restaurant owner. who is the farmer's client? the restaurant patron? no.

a magazine sells an ad to a car dealer. who is the magazine's client? the car buyer? no.

a photographer sells a photo set to a publisher. who is the photographer's client? :thumbsup

A very poor view of how business works. Ultimately the end buyer is the customer.

If the chicken isn't good enough the restaurants customer doesn't return.

The buyer of a magazine dictates whether the magazine sells and the rate of the advert and the car dealers ability to pay.

Ultimately the people who buy the porn mag dictate how much, if and how often the mag buys.

To think it's all fine once it's published is BS. Retention and returning customer dictate a lot of a site's and an affiliates earnings. Also conversion depends often on content. Unless the site owner takes small snippets from a video or set and leads the viewer to think the site is better than it is.

Why is the business doing so badly. The members ain't buying into sites like that used to. Maybe because they're sick of looking at sets with the same pose over and over and over again, bad posing, bad lighting and cheesy smiles that shows the models face is frozen.

If only business was as easy as some think.

you are absolutely wrong here. there is no gray area where you could be right.

Guess where this came from?

It's never been easier. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Paul it was a closed shop for all intents and purposes - there is limited shelf space for magazines, plus the cost barrier for anybody wanted to start up a new adult magazine. Unlike the Internet, which has infinite 'shelf space' and a much much lower cost barrier to get started. There were/are only so many photographers who could make magazine shooting their primary business. Yes I'm sure the magazines want those fresh never seen before faces but as I said a photographer in Portland,Oregon or Omaha,Nebraska might find 2 girls a year who BarelyLegal would buy. Not worth his time to worry about selling to magazines when he can make a decent living shooting all kinds of girls for Internet paysites.

Lower standards? For models? For photography? That's subjective, I know from your point of view it's lower standards. It's DIFFERENT standards. 'Readers Wives' style as you call it was immensely more popular on the Internet than glossy pro photography. As for models being lower standard - in terms of pure beauty/cuteness, yes - what made sites like Abby Winters and ATK so popular is that they offered porn consumers girls who look just like the girl who lives down the block, the girl in their classes at college, who serves them at Starbucks etc - you don't get those girls in BarelyLegal magazine - what you get in BarelyLegal are perfectly cute 18-24 year olds in pigtails dressed and styled to look 14 years old. That appeals to some men but there are millions who prefer the more unique more real and attainable, in their minds, girls.

Porn surfers have an almost unlimited choice of niches, models, fetishes, photography styles - your definition of quality is pretty narrow when it comes to content.

I think this Mofos solo site is mediocre, Brazzers does great vignette story hardcore movies - waste of time this site. She's A Freak is Bangbros/RK territory - they know how to shoot that.

ugh you think you are just so right all the time. i hope i have enough wisdom at your age to not believe i know absolutely everything. because i wont. just as you dont.

the buyer of the porn mag is the MAGAZINE'S CUSTOMER, not the photographers.

i cant believe you are this old and you dont understand commerce and vendor hierarchy.

i dont get it. how does attacking my business make you right? besides being against the board rules.

PornCMS is very easy to use. someone can have a working paysite live and making money in a few days - or a few hours if they already have a billing account.

what does that have to do with you being an outdated know-it-all fuck?

ps. thanks for helping me promote my business. copy all of my site text to this thread and we can both watch my sales skyrocket.

INT. SUBTERRANEAN CAVE - NIGHT

Paul is writing in the notebook by the light of a single candle. He has to finish this one QUICK because his dungeon gimp is about to make another trip to the "surface" tonight - during this trip he will transcribe Paul's ramblings into (these) posts on gfy at the farmer's cell block. The farmer (who farms people) has the only internet-connected computer within a 30-mile radius.

PAUL
No. I cannot have some unknown person in on the shoot or even behind the scenes. Shooting solo girl is all about the relationship between the shooter and the model. Having you or even Eva in there changes the dynamics. In all honesty do I care if people believe if I shot it? Not in the slightest. It's what I know that counts. I'm doing this for my benefit and the $3,000. Not to prove to trolls on GFY anything.

REGGIE DURANGO
Shut up Paul. Don't make excuses AGAIN. I am a professional documentarian, among other things. Check out this documentary I did a few years back on good ole Nick Manning!:
http://vimeo.com/3682489
I'll be a fly on the wall, Paul... there to document you giving it your all!
I will not affect your relationship with the model. Not in the least.
I am currently working on a new industry documentary and if you don't want to be a part of it you are missing out.

PAUL
SHIT! I don't have any candles left!

AND PAUL! With all your health problems, I'm sure you'll be the first to admit you are not going to live forever!

Why wouldn't you want as MUCH quality media of you recorded as possible before you die? You can leave a better legacy to the world than this garbage you write here. The REAL Paul!