I've just figured out why you continue to think you're always right and everyone else continues to think you're always wrong. It's because the bulk of your career took place in an era where the consumer had little to no say of what was made available to them and where 'quality' was defined by whatever it was the publishers deemed to be quality. By and large, the industry as functioning as a market with fixed prices. When the internet caused the market to open up and the laws of supply and demand kicked in, wages were eventually driven down to the level that they would have been at for years had there been a more free market.

Compounding those issues was a lack of fluidity, a lack competition and a lack of communication. How did you know what your competition was doing ? Copy deadlines were probably further out from publication than they are now, so looking at a two month old Penthouse spread would only tell you what Michael Ancher or Suze Randall was doing 6 months prior. They were probably keeping their work fresh by incorporating previously unrelated elements and in doing so they were able to push their craft and the industry as a whole forward. Not having access to the same information and or the same networks made it difficult to keep up and even though publishers didn't necessarily know what it was that their consumers liked about their products, they just continued to pay the fixed rate because they didn't know any better. In a such a situation, it's easy to see why you think the way you do.

Plus the fact that the editors of magazines were pornographers not photographers and only wanted the product that fulfilled the tech requirements of color printing at the time.
Also the mags were regulated by the government, and wholesalers.

Also professional photographers were working in the mainstream media with well paid jobs. Fashion photography with much better skills, budgets and editors with an eye for culture.

The readers had no choice. Porn was as dull then as Paul Markham's pictures are today.

Today? His style hasn't changed at all.

Get girl. Grope her. Tell her she's given you an erection. (Paul thinks this is "flirting"). Then give her book of 20 standard poses and get her to do the poses. Cookie cutter, emotionless and as sexy as vomit.

interesting how i offered to show everyone here the solution and all you had to do was agree that if you used any of the techniques you would have too put your shit in the public domain.

You back peddled like a little bitch.

You might want to think about that

if it didn't work you would never use it

if it worked only marginally you could keep doing what your currently doing an still be a great success

if it worked only as well as what you were doing you would now have tons of competition but you could still do what you were doing.

The only way you could be hurt is by that offer was if what i showed you was so much a better than the best you could do that adopting it was the only way you could survive.


Your scared of taking a penalty that would NEVER apply UNLESS what i would showcase is so astronomically great that it put everything your doing to shame.

may make me look like a cock but at least i don't have to repeat myself as often

when i do i simply quote the bigger text an ask the moron

what exactly about ... do you not understand

you might want to think about that when your repeatedly arguing with AWC

that you said

"Same level as twisty" not better as he accused you of claiming.

All you do is repeat yourself.

You are absolutely 100% correct and what's funny is that I had planned on mentioning that I previous post. It's Petter Hegre's wife in those photos above. He published a book titled Luba.

http://www.amazon.com/Luba-Petter-Hegre/dp/3283004471

On that page you'll see that Hegre worked for Richard Avedon. I'm familiar with Richard Avedon, you're familiar with Richard Avedon, Richard Avery mentions Richard Avedon on his bio page (see here) and I imagine that most top glamour/babe photographers are familiar with his work. And even though Paul probably hasn't even heard of Richard Avedon, he was more than likely emulating the work of Suze Randall and Michael Ancher at a time when both were more than likely incorporating elements Richard Avedon into their work. Crossover goes both ways. You can't really blame Paul either because without the internet and without having the same networks as Ancher and Randall, Richard Avedon existed in a world that was largely inaccessible to Paul at that time. He just knew that the checks kept coming. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that so long as he knows that those who are able to successfully 'earn a living' at something are not necessarily 'experts'.

You really also can't blame him for always talking about the same sofa. I once fucked a girl on a Le Corbusier Chaise Lounge and can tell you with utmost certainty that it would be really hot to use one for a shoot, but I only know that because I've been lucky enough to live in NYC during a minimalist design furniture renaissance and with access to dwr.com.

that right there just shows how ignorant you are.

really the explain yourself then

you argued pornhub gay section got more traffic then gaytube entire site because they dominated the search engines


why does pornhub outrank gaytube for all the gay terms they win on

remember both sites are owned by the same company,

anything that is being done for pornhub can be implemented on gaytube for the niche specific keywords

http://www.google.ca/search?gcx=w&so...F-8&q=gay+porn

why does porn hub show up number 2 while gaytube doesn't even show up on the list

if it not the length of the videos and the significantly lower bounce rate what is the "magic bullet" that can't be duplicated from one site to the next.

tell us oh wise pornojew

Are you serious or just joking?

I've changed styles more times than you imagine in the last 3 decades. One look at Astral Blue shows that. And someone was saying Michaels was dated, yet Shap said he bought this content.

Twistys and Robbies sites are poles apart.

The problem with ExGF content is any clown can shoot it, or what they call ExGF. Which is usually, a style of shooting professional models. I was shooting ExGF before your Dad fertilsed the egg in your Mum. We just called it "Readers Wives." Same stuff, different name. It's the fantasy that it's a real girl doing it for kicks and not pay. A girl you could meet or might live near you. Wasn't self shot, because we didn't have cameras that did that. We had Polaroids. Wow So cool to see online breaking new ground. :1orglaugh

OK take some advice of someone who has been involved in porn since the mid 60s. www.strictly-porn.com

Very very little has changed in porn. Fashions of clothing and shaven pussies and the technology is all that changed. And it's stronger these days, because of the diminished risk of prison. And the need to buy. 15 years ago, odds were you needed to buy it to enjoy it. Or take pot luck. That's something online porn did change. Very very little need today to buy it.

Still similar rules apply. Supply and demand.

If you can produce the level of Holly Randal at her best, you're in a very uncompetitive market. If you're selling something 1,000s can produce. You're scratching around competing with 1,000s of others. This is why Shap was successful, Met-Art very successful, Robbie to a lesser degree and ExGF sites, even though this has always been a good niche. Hard to make a lot of money in. If you compare it with other sites in markets that are not saturated with options of where to buy from.

Just seen the thumbs Jimmy posted of Hegre. Few can shoot that level and those few do well. Supply and demand. Not just demand if it's over supplied. The demand is per supplier. Very low,

yawn

what an utter failure you are

you're such a good photographer paul you sell your shit for a $1 a scene

i pay more for toilet paper

The quality of porn has little to do with the equipment. It's more often about the ability of the shooter to control and "use" the model. The rest I've answered.

Not telling him how to market. At online marketing he's great. Missing the opportunity to hire someone full time to raise his content to the level where it makes a profit offline is about business management skills. Looking at other ways to monetise the commodity he was already paying for.

Nothing wrong with arguing points in general and talking about ideas and opinions for tweaking shit. But Paul's mistake is to show the utter disrespect to people who are at a certain level in what they do.

Theonline world. There's other worlds in porn. Employing someone who could get him into those other markets isn't a good ide?

And a lot of guys tried it and succeeded. Most of them coming from offline to online porn. Online thought it ruled porn. Well doesn't mean it should ignore the possible income of other areas of porn. Could he of taken a set of Deans, that he owned full rights on, and sold it to Club US and Club UK. For more than he paid Dean. Not as a one off. But 20 times a month? For sending a few Fed Ex parcels. We did it all the time.

We sold offline and online. The same content.

And marketing and selling is what I've been doing for the last 30 years. OK shit at driving 100,000 of hits and never claimed to be good. Marketing and selling content. Well the quality of my work shows how good I was at that. :winkwink: </sarcasm>
The problem is trolls posting crap and making this only about Shap. He was one of many who never maximised his potential by selling offline. You as well. Never made a fortune with our sites, but at least I opened a couple. I saw online as a place to sell content and started selling to it in mid 90s, kept increasing these sales on top of offline sales. Then opened stores, then paysites. Most paysites stayed stuck in paysites for far too long.

Few went to DVD in the good times, very few went to magazines, Shap bought some content from Holly, Subams from Simon Davies. The rest, well they're few and far between. Look at the offline shooter and companies who came online.

Hustler, Score, Swank, Private, Playboy, DDF, Viv Thomas, Steve Hicks, Suze Randall, PRO, Crescent (yes they fucked up) Paul Markham, Sullivan, Gold and more. Many many more. Some did well, some didn't. The traffic flow the other way wasn't so good.

All that was required was remove the blinkers and look.

who is writing these posts for you?

Damian has proved himself to be beyond help. Being ignorant is something that can be cured with knowledge. Being stupid is a lot harder to cure.

He was too stupid not too realise I was goading him into posting his shit here. Knowing who shot it and knowing the level of Michael's work. Michael is working at a level where shooters license a single picture for more than most online will pay for a whole set.

He took the bait hook line and sinker. If he had only stopped to think. :1orglaugh

So selling the same content that was in a paysite to offline areas of porn and making a huge profit on the content in offline. Is the wrong thing to do?

The rest of your post displays a complete lack of understanding of offline.

Consumers who wanted the "Twistys" niche had maybe as many as 10 magazines to choose from. The editors that got it right, got the most sales from a loyal audience. Yes it was restricted by delivery and wholesale. Ultimately the restrict ion was decided by it's sales. As you say online ever had that restriction and 10,000s of sites were opening. Which brought down the earnings.

The skills to open a paysite and market it, are not as high as they are to fill it with content of the level of Hegre, Met-Art, Holly Randall and others. Twistys got higher than most. Which made Shap's job easier. The majority were left all trying to stick their noses into a few troughs. Imagine 1,000 pigs trying to get a mouth full from a trough meant to feed 100. Now think of 10 pigs feeding in a trough made for 20. Who gets fattest fastest?

By improving what was inside the members area. You can do this. Most couldn't afford it only selling via their sites. Easy to do when you sell in other places.

Now is that good business or not?

I'm off to bed. Had a surreal day dealing with something else. Nice to get back to GFY for a spot of trolling. Now the day is out of my head. Thanks guys.

You get yourself very confused. It is quiet simple.

1) Porn photography was very conservative, rather dull and the photographers to make themselves feel like real professionals made up lots of silly rules so that they could pretend they were "pros". Some have evolved into Met Art etc, but even they produce photographs to a formula.

2) People like to feeling of amateur porn as it felt real without the plastic feel of over made up models being photographed in the same boring way. it is cheap to make and popular.


3) Original creative erotic photography is expensive to make taking a lot of skill, time and money, it has a small audience, mostly in arty circles. made by photographers earning money from other sources.

One other disconnect in Paul's theory is that he does not indicate where or what all these high dollar shooters who were allegedly to proud to settle for less money online are doing.

What was their alternative option?
Where are they now and what are they doing?
Are they still shooting?
Are they still involved porn ?

We know what Paul is doing, but what about the others?

Most online shooters are gone. Many of the offline shooters are gone.

Some are still working in adult, many are retired like me on the money made in the good years. Some have moved into other areas of photography. wedding, hotels and even wild life shooter in Africa. Surprised when I saw him on National Geographic.

I'm hoping to get a package of content soon from one of those who didn't shoot for exclusive liceses.

Not too proud. Just not going to give up higher paid work to shoot lower paying work. If we had gone the custom route it might of made us a bit more. As the money we made selling from the stores was often more for a scene than what was offered for custom, we declined.

Giving up time is the problem. We could do a casting in Prague with a good chance of shooting 10 small "Readers Wives" sets of 30-50 images for $300 non exclusive. Than many would ever earn in a day shooting exclusive. $3,000 for magazines. Then stores sales and the chance of finding a girl who was worth $3,000 a set.

This is just some of many who turned up on a casting. And the quick sets we hot of them.

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.php?id=1075

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.php?id=2159

http://www.bargainbasementcontent.co...ils.php?id=772

http://www.bargainbasementcontent.co...ils.php?id=627

Shot in a hotel room or our apartment in Prague, value of the set $3,000+ takes an hour. Give up that to shoot ATK 5 whole scenes for $1500. :1orglaugh

A shooters commodity is also his time.

Do you give up doing something that will earn you more, to do something that will earn you less? Neither do other people.

You haven't answered me.

So selling the same content that was in a paysite to offline areas of porn and making a huge profit on the content in offline. Is the wrong thing to do?

Can you please.

More nonsense. So these great shooters go off to shoot ...... Weddings !!!


No wonder people prefer amateur material, better amateur than tired shit shot in the same way it was 30 years ago.

Why didn't they go off to work in advertising, newspapers, cinema and TV ?

Because they were crap. They knew nothing about real professional photography.

300 compete with Twistys.

You really are stupid aren't you. Not a question.

Do you know what a decent wedding shooter charges for the day?

The skill of shooting people is your level of "People Skills." The photography part is very easy compared with that.

And how do you know some of the shooters were not trained in photography?

Many were. Take your stupidity to an amateur board.

And let's see proof you were trained in photography. your work shows decent amateur level. Nice but not going to make you any money. Let's have some proof you're not all talk.

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...us_Trailer.wmv

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...al_extract.wmv shot in your home

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/CEaffi...low/index.html

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/CEaffi...Log/index.html

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/CEaffi...NEW/index.html

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/CEaffi...ood/index.html

And the height of your talent.

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/angel.jpg

You have less talent than me on this content.

This will get some laughs. :thumbsup

who could compete with this work of genius?

http://www.youjizz.com/videos/paul-m...me-183889.html

Guess I'm not on the ignore list anymore. ( is the ignore thing like 24 hours? )

Does not matter how much a wedding photographer earns it bears no relation to his photographic skills. A whore may earn more than a doctor but I know who I ask for medical advice.

Maybe some were trained in photography, you were not.

My qualification and experience would be relevant if I set myself up as an expert. Telling others how to do things, like you do.

I am just pointing out, for the benefit of the young and naive, that you are not a photographer, have never trained as a photographer, have never won any awards for your photography, do not think reading books is good, etc etc, so not the best person to take photographic advice from.

Thank you for publicizing our material AGAIN, even you go through our site trying to find the worse pics to show, but thats fair game.

Does this look like it was shot in our home?

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/musical/Musical6S.jpg


This thread started with you refusing a challenge by Damian, that he could shoot a better scene than you. My monies still on Damian.

I never said I was a photographer. Never give anything but basic advice on photography. You dreamed that I did. like you dream you're an erotic photographer.

The pics are samples on your FHGs. The idea is to show people your best work. I assumed this was your best work. :1orglaugh

Your material shows your level and you claim you were trained. It looks like your training hasn't made you able to shoot anything above basic amateur.

This is what you should have on your site.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...136 0&bih=811

This is what a trained shooter can do.

http://www.thaicatwalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3888

http://www.thaicatwalk.com/forum/att...1&d=1230103266

This is what you do.

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/CEaffi...Erotique05.jpg

So stop trying to tell people that you have a clue. Your work says it all. You're not even bright enough to put a watermark on an images.

Paul Markham Quotes..

My job is "Photographer and Managing Director" from that I'm officially invalided


The problem of doing a master class is the first thing people have to learn is you can't shoot GOOD porn on a shoestring budget and if you could,...blah blah blah


My job is photographer and managing director.

I expect even if I produce the most outstanding porn scene ever most will flame me.

END

And that just after wading through a few of your postings...

Just go away, you may have made a few bucks in this business years ago but you're all washed up and one of those PM types that wishes shit didn't change. What's the large tube you run? Yeah fuck you.

Truthfully this is different niche photography, ones nude art ones nude porn, both glamour niche but both for different presentation

And you have?

Given I find that both dwelling on the past and dwelling on present/ future hypotheticals are both usually a waste of time, I think it's safe to say that dwelling on past hypotheticals is a huge waste of time. When compounded by the fact that debating anything with you is a almost always a huge waste time, I think it's reasonable to assume that I won't be touching that question.

But more importantly, why are you not only continuing to use 'could of' instead of 'could have', but increasing it's rate of use? You have the correct information. I handed it to you on a platter. Yet you choose to be wrong. Continuing to use 'could of' is infinitely more likely to drive others crazy than to result in it ever being correct. The whole thing is really just a microcosm of your gfy existence. lol

Just goes to show that you can take a tosser out of Staines, but you can never take the Staines out of a tosser.

My point exactly.

In saying this, you prove that improving at your craft was secondary to making money. That's fine in some cases and even the preferred mindset for some fields, but having that mindset in a creative field, especially one that evolves with a high level fluidity, will almost always come back to bite you in the ass.

Great quote. An architectural photographer friend of mine had a page on his website mentioning his availability to do weddings. It stuck out like a sore thumb. Here's his site. http://thomascummins.com/

and finally........
:banana:banana:banana:banana

"The skill of shooting people is your level of 'People Skills'.
The photography part is very easy compared with that."
- Paul Markham 10/30/2011

Thankfully, Paul was able to provide us with real, actual footage of him speaking those words and has graciously uploaded it to Youtube for our viewing pleasure.

LOL!
I do very well in this business.
Who are you again? Oh yeah..some jerk with a made up "nickname" like a little highschool bitch.
Suck my dick you pussy. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

It's a great example of the business skills of online porn. I doubt if it has got any better. Most are stuck in a rut and remain there. Yes the time to change on that level is gone. Still is illustrates that the people many regarded as gurus, weren't so bright. Weren't and aren't.

I could of given a shit.

Quoting Cherry illustrates your level of thinking. He's wrong on this point and stupidly shows it. Do you think the top glamor guys were not selling to advertising companies? That's what companies like "Picture Bank" were for. Illustrates a level of intelligence that good grammar won't hide.

Stupid statement and you need to look at my work over the last 30 years to see how wrong it it. My craft wasn't photography, don't make the mistake of following Cherry down that route.

One guy is everyone. :1orglaugh

"The skill of shooting people is your level of 'People Skills'.
The photography part is very easy compared with that."
- Paul Markham 10/30/2011

Yes getting a camera to work right is easy, knowing how to get a model to work right is much harder.

Jimmy think harder before you post.

funny coming from you :thumbsup

on the sniff again?

http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/upl...BL-231x300.jpg

ADG

Watch the master:



I can see how an octogenarian groping a teenager who can't speak english really highlights your people skills.

Did you tell her about your erection? I love that bit of advice.

In porn there are lots of different levels of revenue. Limiting it to only one is costly.

[QUOTE=Paul Markham;18526077]

My job is photographer and managing director.

I never said I was a photographer.

Yes getting a camera to work right is easy, knowing how to get a model to work right is much harder.

[QUOTE]


So on your door you have "photographer and managing director" but you are not a photographer. ?


If you think photography is easy that is because you don't know photography.


We use photography on our site "Cinema Erotique" but as the title says video is what we are selling.


http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/CE.jpg
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/CE1.jpg

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/CE2.jpg
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/CE4.jpg
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/CE12.jpg
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/CE13.jpg
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/CE9.jpg

You really work that system don't you Paul!

Some say an immigrant sponging benefits from a government when he is a millionaire is immoral. But you boast about it! Depriving people who actually need money when you have millions is a little bad, but fuck it, right, they are only fucking foreigners! LOL!

[QUOTE=Cherry7;18526147][QUOTE=Paul Markham;18526077]

My job is photographer and managing director.

I never said I was a photographer.

Yes getting a camera to work right is easy, knowing how to get a model to work right is much harder.

Sorry slip of the keyboard. My job is pornographer and managing director. With marketing and sales thrown in.

Well you're photography is amateur. And from what I've seen so are your videos.

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...us_Trailer.wmv

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...al_extract.wmv

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...l/Signal34.jpg
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...l/Signal03.jpg
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...l/Signal04.jpg
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...l/Signal05.jpg
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...l/Signal26.jpg

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...Pics/WFG01.jpg
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...Pics/WFG03.jpg
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...Pics/WFG04.jpg
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...Pics/WFG05.jpg
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...Pics/WFG06.jpg

Here's some advice. If you're selling video, put up FHGs with videos on them.

Your work says it all.