It's harder to shoot porn today than it was back in the old days.

30 pages of excuses and me getting paid well for doing a half day of work. LOL

So let's take this conversation further.

I just want to see a great example of how porn should be produced in order to convert and retain.

What are you prepared to pay for it?

Is the answer.

Because better content is going to cost more. Let's assume all other costs are fixed or lowered to their minimum and there's nothing else to save money on. Something in the budget has to be cut. Hosting, well that's for nothing today. Processors, fat chance. Office/admin costs, well that's minimum or should be. Profit, fat chance.

So what's left? The marketing budget. Fire the marketing support staff, no more free content, tools, etc? Yes affiliates would go for that in a big way and it might cut the budget by 5%.

Affiliates payouts? Instead of 50%+ what would be needed to get great shooters to shoot great content at what ever end of the market the site is?

A decent magazine content shooter isn't working for $300 a scene. Not whether he can it's whether he will. And this applies to every level and niche of porn.

A good shooter can make $200,000 a year shooting for other markets as a freelancer. Well he could. Some earned a lot more. And they didn't need to work 5 days a week either. This is close to $4,000 a week, clear profit. You don't earn that as a shooter working for $300 a solo girl scene.

The money to buy good content has to be found and the only place to find it is in the money spent on traffic. So I will ask again.

What are you prepared to pay for it? Because it's not cheap.

And in fact at $3000 for an "average" scene, bad content is expensive too !!!!

wheres the scene?!

shooters conned the industry for years overcharging for stuff like the garbage paul created.

people wised up and started paying more realistic prices for content.

paul is just mad because the bullshit is over.

Paul, you just got paid top dollar for a job, yet you've been making excuses for weeks now about how utterly average your Mofos scene is going to be in advance of anyone even seeing it. So clearly, better content isn't always going to cost more if self-admitted mediocre producers like yourself are creating it. For all your endless complaints and erroneous conclusions about what's wrong with buyers, the industry, the affiliate model, other producers and everyone else, the one person you forget to look at for blame is yourself. Maybe the qualitry your work, while looking good for the 1990's or 2000s and selling well enough to afford you a decent living at the time, is just no longer good enough to compete in a tougher marketplace?

If I can send bad traffic to a guy who will pay me $3,000 and return it when finished.

Why send the same traffic to a guy who will pay $300 and keep the traffic?

If I can sell my content to a guy who ...........................

You get the picture. It's called business.

You have no clue what the scene is like.

To Jim. Read the above reply.

I'm either a better shooter or a better businessman. If you could shoot similar to me, then you shouldn't of been working for people paying you less than me.

We were selling our content for better prices well into the 2000s. Today the market has been cut to shreds and shooters are happy to get whet ever they can. Which was the same in 1990 and 2000s, the only difference is the price.

What am I to blame myself for? Seriously answer the question, what am I to blame myself for?

For earning great money when this business was paying great money?

For not shooting custom scenes for peanuts?

As for not being able to shoot what I see around today.

I would of just needed to buy a HD camera.

That's about the only difference I see.

Back to Holly.

Yes we all want better conversions, better retention and earn more money. The hard truth is the real solution is what's inside the members area. And that will cost a lot more money. It's not about shooters working for peanuts, it's about enticing the best to shoot for online. And they didn't and still don't.

Some got out and went to other fields of shooting, some retired and some still work for top DVD companies. It will cost money to bring these guys back to porn or to bring them to online porn. That money has to be found and the only place it can be found is in the "traffic" budget.

It's not what Jim is saying, he's trying to keep it personal. Because he knows that's his only ammunition. To my knowledge no top porn shooter works as a content provider, custom or otherwise. I'm no top porn shooter and never claimed to be.

Today is the 30th...two days overdue or did I miss the post?

The video is on Mofos. Only problem was the noise off the camera.

Sandra is a bit cheesey, but that's how she is when working like all porn stars. Still the orgasms are real and I captured them.

The edit left out the start intro and the end close, which hurts the video. The BTS isn't anywhere to be seen.

Over all a good days work and up to my average.

Surely the video has to be on a tube by now, somebody post a link.

http://www.mofos.com/tour/scene/prag...of-bation/896/

http://www.hardsextube.com/video/611503/

In all of the babbling you do you finally got at least one thing correct...it is certainly up to your average. That is to say a typical boring...phony porn scene...worse than some and certainly no better than hundreds of thousands of others.

Of course anyone who has checked out your porn was already aware of what it would be.

http://www.hardsextube.com/video/611503/ i believe this is the video. .

ohh already posted my mistake!!

That's it, sorry I've not been here. Been out all day.

You looking for reviews, Paul? I watched the first seven minutes or so and skimmed through the rest briefly. Like you yourself said, that's an average scene. Better than some, certanly not better than most, and definitely not better than the other solo scenes on Mofos.

The lighting was not great but it was fair other than the shadow's of the couch and body shadows in the background. You did walk in front of the lights and create your own additional shadow at least once early on in the scene when you moved in for a closeup. Your worst technical mistake is the poor audio with that continual annoying camera handling noise. That's a beginner's mistake that costs nothing to fix- just better grip technique as well as making sure your mic is mounted either off camera or at least in a shock mount on top of the camera to isolate the sensitive mic from internal camera noise and handling on the camera body. Plus headphones to monitor audio as you shoot.

I personally would have added a little color and some illusion of depth to the very white fireplace background- a dark red rose in a vase on the mantle to match her outfit & shoes would have been a nice touch. I bring fake flowers of every color to every shoot I do for that reason. Also, showing the toys sitting on a paper towel on the side of the couch while she is still dressed is kind of lame in my opinion. I prefer to surprise than viewer with a from-behind-the-pillow or drawer reveal. The scene also went on way too long- almost thirty minutes for one solo mastubation scene can get pretty boring after a certain point no matter how hot the girl is. Maybe that was part of the spec and not your fault.

In any case, if your only goals were to earn $2500 and see if you were well enough to shoot again, well then you can consider this a success. On any level level, as far as showcasing your superior talent or trying to do better than the other Mofos scenes, I doubt that you'll find anyone else to agree that it worked.

Are you sure you were wearing your black socks Paul, seemed like too much light deflection in that video.

Hmmm...

That should be put to music... and entered as next years Eurovision Song Contest... great lyrics... "ohhhh so you like my body"... "im so horny"... "sure we'll have a lot of fun today" serious throw a boom banga bang in there and it's guaranteed to win...

Would love to know what the spec was to shoot the video...

Here's what I tried to do. Present Sandra as a person rather than another naked girl going through the motions. Why?

We know solo girl sites sell, the more personality the girl has the more they sell. The harder the girl works, the more they sell, the better she works the more they sell. And a lot more reasons for a better selling solo girl site. Members don't exactly fall in love with her, but they love what she does enough to buy a membership and keep buying it.

However it's a narrow appeal, the member has to attracted to this girl and stay attracted to her. Plus as we see with Lolly Badcock, she can retire, get offered a better deal or just go off the boil.

We know members like loads of new scenes, varied scenes and varied girls.

So the lure of Tubes is great. No site can compete with their quantity or variation. Whether legal or not they exist. However most of them are just varied sex scenes. No real identity or style unique to them.

For this I'm assuming Sandra is a popular girl.

My idea for solving the problem is to create scenes where the girls become real. Not just a girl on a couch like so much Mofos content. But Sandra sharing another sex scene with her fans. Film an intro of her going to work as a model, every member of this kind of site knows these girls are professionals. The line up at conventions to get their autographs. Then for BTS show some footage of her getting ready, keep it amateur and real. Then as she does the scene she talks to the cameraman, because he's in the room and real, so it appears she's talking to her fans. Then at the end show her sweating, breathless and obviously has just had a great time.

The next scene, after she's got the wind back in her sails, would of been Sandra in the bath washing off the sweat and going for another orgasm. A real one. Another full scene.

The last one would of been her on the bed.

Finally film her talking to the camera, getting dressed and telling everyone what a great day she had. Even film her going home.

Then if Sandra is a popular girl we get her back. And she gets another days work. And another and another.

And we do this with as many girls as we feel have the quality and ability to carry themselves across into the mind of the members. Not all girls can, some have little personality, some appear dumb, some are so clearly just motivated by money their performance loses something. This is a problem only the shooter can solve. It's his job to know the girls he can get the best out of and the girls who will just do an automated scene.

The problem with so many sites today is the content doesn't compete with Tubes. forget about the free aspect. The actual content of a Tube site is far superior to that of most paysites. If all you have to sell is HD quality. Today you fail.

The benefits of what I describe is girls are encouraged and rewarded for putting on a great performance, those who don't get a day and that's it. Those who are crap don't get booked of dare I say it sent home early.

The members vote on the girls they like. They get the same number of updates, yet they also get updates from their favorite girls. It has some of the appeal of a solo girl site, without the limitations of it being one girl. Members hang on waiting for the next scene of a girl they like, they get to associate with her and to know more about her. They stay members longer. Yet it's not based on one girl.

The site builds an identity based on popular girls and variety.

Anyone who thinks this is worse then just adding another girl doing a days work who is the same as the girl who was added yesterday, doesn't understand porn. Porn consumers love certain girls, certain performances and above all reality. Whether it's Penthouse or Exgf they love to feel the emotion coming off the screen is real.

Models can't act. They get paid a lot more than they would working in a normal job. Tell them an automated performance isn't acceptable. Tell them they will enjoy cumming, tell them that they will go home feeling good and richer and will come back again soon if it's good enough for your members. Or they will go home home early without any money or less if they can't do the job to your satisfaction.

*******************************

Jim all your comments were technical and I thank you for them. Shooting on location was a problem, there was only so much kit we could of taken. And YES, I forgot the over head mike. I made a beginners mistake, I was using an overhead and floor placed mike, decades ago. One to get the models noise, the other to pick up slurping sounds from the models pussy.

The lighting was a problem, should of had more lights. Filming the toys on the floor was stupid and I put my hands up to this.

30 minutes was the clients brief, I agree with you, it's too long. Tell Manwin when the give you work.

What you missed out on was framing, construction, performance. relationship with the viewer, porn and the other porn related items.

If I'm a superior shooter to those on Mofos, we have to consider in what aspect. Technical or porn ability?

I never had to work for the money the online sites paid, so I'm a better businessman.

I repeat...and add this from Gunn..."On any level level, as far as showcasing your superior talent or trying to do better than the other Mofos scenes, I doubt that you'll find anyone else to agree that it worked."

Didn't someone do that already and put it on Youtube. It was all the dumb things porn models come out with while fucking.

Fuck my pussy, Fuck my pussy, Fuck my pussy, Fuck my pussy,
In my tight teen cunt.
Fuck my ass, Fuck my ass, Fuck my ass,
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHH
You're so big, You're so big, You're so big, You're so big, You're so big,
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH HHHH

Bee bop a loo la!!!

Criticizing this scene is like kicking a cripple.

If Paul Markham did not put himself forward as a guru, I would not waste my time.

Maybe it represents the level of porn production at the moment, I don't know. and if it does it would explain why people do not want to pay for it.

The clip is sub standard in every way. It would not get on to any TV station, and would not get the shooter into any film school.

The film is shot in a way that would defy the best editor. There are no properly framed shots to cut with.

The scene is illuminated but not lit, the shooter has made no attempt to create any atmosphere with the lighting, or to bring out the modeling on the performer. The shooter even walks in front of his own lights to cast a shadow on the model.

No sound recordest was used and would be consider NG by any professional. Mic noise, shrill sound, over recording, street noise. Like a text book of sound mistakes in one shot.

Nothing interesting in the clothes, model or performance and no ideas except was she using a Czech food mixer as a vibrator?

As for the directing, no drama, no change from shy girl to nymph, no hesitation, no story ideas at all, just a model going through the motions.

The shot lasted 30 minutes, not bad for $2500 .

Watch any TV program to see how a scene should be shot. Would you be happy to see something this bad on your new HDTV after paying $30 ?

Paul Markham, has never studied, has learnt nothing from experience, and refuses to learn.

It is there now for all to see.

Just posing by ...

Worked out great for me!!!


Great job Paul.

this thread is where stiffies come to die

30 pages and growing.

Wrong socks ! Have you not read the e-book ?

I just saw the solo video that Mr Markham says he was paid to shoot, \
I have shot 93 scenes for shesafreak.com in the past year and would put my worst film up against that piece of crap. First of all the girl is old, secondly the set is not at all attractive or reality. the couch looks like it came from the street. The makeup is non-existent and there is nothing that wants to make me even interested in going past the 1 minute trailer... I can't believe so many people would even participate in a conversation with this meddium level work.... Very disappointing. Exposed,,,,

You severely lack humbleness good sir. This seems to get you in trouble around these parts.

I've only skimmed this thread, and I don't know what the argument is, but I do know that Paul Markham has forgotten more about shooting porn than most of the wannabe's on here ever knew. Maybe he hasn't adapted to the times, and he could use an attitude adjustment, but there are a lot of shit shooters in this thread that shouldn't criticize...

I seemed to have forgotten a lot in the last few years, like to take a mike and mike stand on locations and more lights.

It's true we didn't adapt with the times, because to do so would of cost us money. We weren't going to start shooting custom for the money offered. Going from shooting a set non exclusive that at the lowest level would make $1,000 to shooting a set and video exclusive for $300, would of been a disaster for us.

Could of opened another paysite of Czech models who couldn't speak English, but never fancied that option. It's not what I'm into. Dumb models start to all look the same to me after a while. I'm sure they do to members as well.

The problem with many is they are very choosy about what they flame. They keep it personal to me when they talk about raising the standard of online content. Because they know to include other offline shooters would defeat them in a second. They ignore the fact that the paysite was a sideline, because we had a full time job looking for new models to shoot for magazines, even the content stores was a spin off.

Attitude adjustment, we could all do with that.

Nickey, can you tell me some of the scenes you shot for SAF please, let me see how good you are. So I can see what I'm up against today.

your shit sucks.

My shit does smell a bit. If I had known you liked poo, I could send you some.

So I watched the whole thing again today and here's my criticism of my work.

The framing is horrible, it's too loose in so many places. not sure if this is the viewer or more likely me. This is why I filmed the toys on the floor and being silly enough not too hide them. Sometimes I had in frame a chair leg in the back ground or too much of the back ground. I should of cropped tighter. There were times I could of twisted the camera slightly to frame Sandra better.

Also some of my movement is a bit too shaky. Out of practice and physical condition is my only excuse, should of shot it using a mono-pod. Another mistake. The camera noise is down to not having off camera mikes. Just heard me breathing hard.

My God it's far too long, 10 minutes in and it really hasn't got going yet.Take this up with Fabian. Solo girl IMO should be max 20 mins unless the scene is complex.

Going to get a coffee brewed.

So back again and still think I could of framed it better. Could just be tighter by a bit. Still not as loose as some.

By the end I was shaking and close to collapsing. So got some camera shake. Couldn't stop as it would of harmed Sandra's flow.

Could of been harder for Mofos, they seem to like dirty great big dildos shoved in every orifice. I'm sure I could of found one here, but would she speak English, did I know her and was she any good? Rock and hard place.

The climax at the end should of been with the massage and a dildo, sorry. Slipped up there, as just trying to stay stood up.

The biggest problem IMO is the lack of an intro and exit. The intro set Sandra up and was only a few seconds, the exit clearly displayed what a good time she had.

I did shoot it.

Good points.

I kept as much of Sandra in the wide frame as possible, kept her laying or on all 4s. So many shoot scenes that are just scenarios of the location, it's easy to see why some need to stick roses in the background. </sarcasm>

The rapport between me and Sandra is good, she's having fun teasing me and this is carried across to all the viewers. Yes she's a little bit over the top for me with the porn star talk, but that's what I wanted. Eastern European, loves sex and shares it. She smiles a lot which is nice.

As I zoom in for close ups I still keep her face in the frame, so it's not a scene mostly about her pussy or gynecological. She's showing her enjoyment to me. Hard to do that with a room full of people.

Also Sandra's starting to sweat, the pleasure is hotting her up.

The orgasms at the end are real and Sandra shares them.

Sorry I didn't get a florist in, or a lighting guy, sound technician, make up artist, or rent a suite with a better sofa. Not sure if anyone jerks off to any of those things.

Yes Sandra's no Spring Chicken. However being out of it for 3 years I needed a girl I knew could do it right. Looks good, speaks English, would let go and share it and take directions. Not time to be trying out a new model.

Sandra's performance is far more real than a lot of porn valley models. For a girl whose second language is English, her porn speak vocabulary is far better than many. She delivers her lines with some feeling, because I don't give girls lines. They're not actors and giving them lines makes the whole performance even more fake. They seem to like me enough to be able to share their feelings. Which I capture in the lens.

Her faked orgasms are convincing, her real ones very much so.

After a 3 year layoff, physical condition and being primarily a stills shooter for the last 14 years a good job. If I came back fully fit the few points I missed out on I would get right. They're technical and easy to fix.

Is it better than some SAF content? In my opinion yes. Porn Valley girls have a way of delivering a scene that's just plastic. No matter how good the lighting, sound, rose in the back ground or expensive the sofa is. The girl is often just going through the motions.

It's far superior to the golf club scene in the garden and the follow up scene on the sofa. And a lot of other scenes. Getting all the technical stuff right isn't hard. Getting a model whose working for money to deliver a really good scene is.

As for framing, well some shooters would be better off if they dropped wide screen format, they shoot porn locations more than porn scenes. We see the whole couch and it's L shape and would seat 6 people, the models fucking are reduced to 1/4 or less of the screen, people frame the guy standing head to toe. Pounding away on a girl whose thinking about what to cook for dinner. Then a faked orgasm or 2 and a climax that's just the same old thing seen a 1,000 times before.

Forget to turn off the air conditioner, with the over head mike positioned over a machine whirring.

Or shooting in a location, which seemed to be at the end of a runway.

Is it better than the $500 scenes I see everywhere? Yes bloody sight better.

30 pages of people talking to a brick wall...

paul, youre a pervert.

Pigshit. It is not one bit better than hundreds of other scenes.

Paul you have bashed enough of them to see the pattern of my work, just take all the videos of just Layla Rose that I shot for shesafreak.com, and compare it to yours. Please no comparison, When I take a job it is never about the money, it is about the quality, if I am payed $300 or $3000 I do the same for it. I shoot every frame of video and every still image, I do not blame anyone for mistakes but myself. There is a reason I work for clients that demand quality and I have been shooting a long , long time,,,

...

how much did the model get paid?

Wow, that's seriously shocking.
If I'd shot a video for $2500-$3000 with that many mistakes, bad framing, forgotten mics, lights and everything else I'd can it and start again, at my expense.
You had plenty of time to plan the whole thing so there really aren't any excuses.
I've had far better videos submitted by amateurs.
After so much hype that's just embarrassing

$500 and she did all the work.....

Damian not pipped up yet?!

Nathan too is very quiet. He mentioned a review. Is that to be seen any where?

So after reading your recent flame, I will go back and view the 2 scenes of the golf girl and post the review here. Can even post the videos here.

However you marked me like others on points no one jerks off to.

Sandra is fast approachig MILF and I explained why I used her.

The set or sofa isn't usually something that inspires an erection. Even Make Up, isn't a sperm squirter for most men.

So if you're looking at that to mark the quality of porn it's time you retired.

Men get erections on a mental connection to the girl, action, sometimes speech and above all the reality. It you're concentrating on set, sofa, make up. Why is the only question.

Try concentrating on getting the girl to deliver a real horny performance and the other things become nothing.

No wonder so many are going for amateur, the pro end of the market is more worried about the sofa.

OK let's look at a Layla Rose scene. It's a 2 girl with them starting off in robes.

Pictures. 365 pics and again the same poses over and over again. In essence it's a set of 50 pics. Some shots were repeated 9 times, with little to no variation.

Video.

Starts nicely, girls are hot and one seems very chatty.

On camera mike, seems more than me make that mistake.

Your problem is cropping too tight and moving in and out all the time. This scene could definitely use better lighting. Shadows between the girls legs.

Great start, the brunette is carrying the scene. Who gives a fuck about the room, props and sofa, whoops bed.

Will resume tomorrow. I should be watching TV. Over all nothing really wrong so far, you need to move in and out less and get an over head mike.

5.25 in and only another 27 minutes to go, bit drawn out but we know why.

paul your stuff is so shitty as proven by your latest terrible vid stop giving advice and talking down to people.

1500 good old days Those were the days my friend, we thought they never end .................