50 telltale signs :glugglug

The model either has it or she doesn't....I've been on both sides of the lens :)

http://ivyfaulkner.com/portfolio/test1copya.jpg
http://ivyfaulkner.com/portfolio/babyseta.jpg
http://www.privateivy.com/pix/Forums/BlackKini.jpg
http://www.privateivy.com/pix/Forums/Studio.jpg

And my 2 cents, having shot with over 200 photographers in the last 3 years is that many so called "photographers" could make even the VS models look bad

Thats why I have a staff photographer to shoot consistent quality images.


Ivy

ok Mutt, i've seen your sample stuff before from wanton girls.

some very nice stuff.

the last image you had of the girl's face was exquisite, and you took it down.

but it does not matter what you or i like, or even that we agree. what matters, as someone here already said, is will it interest the surfer enough to join a website?

and i will stand by my original statement that maybe 80% of the stuff currently shot by so-called "content producers" will not entice a surfer to join a website.

surfers are getting bored.

its always good when they show up with something other than a polaroid camera.:glugglug

Brian does some beautiful portraits of these girls. I think they are important. Lot of guys who join these sites are not just guys trying to whack off quick, when Brian hears from a fan it's usually an older guy, professional and well to do, lawyer, doctor.

here are some faces.

<img src=http://www.wanton.com/babes/img1/index03.jpg>
<img src=http://www.wanton.com/babes/img1/lil1.jpg>
http://www.wantongirls.com/008.jpg
http://www.wantongirls.com/006.jpg
http://www.wantongirls.com/001.jpg

bravo Mutt, every single one of these images will stop a surfer in his tracks and get a signup in today's market.

we do not see images like this everyday, but when we do everyone is stopped in their tracks.

quality is always better than quantity.

superb.

i'll pass on your compliments to Brian. thanks.

here's a girl shot on Monday, dunno what's up with my customers, only one sale on her - I think she's above average. maybe not teenie enough.

http://www.wantongirls.com/ashley.jpg

I hear you, and you know I'm a huge fan of your pics Ivy...... but I just don't know if I can agree with that statement fully. I've recruited and worked with many hundred's of models over the past 5 years myself, have photographed most of them for one thing or another, everything from test shots for producers to custom web content for sale. I can tell you this much... there are a damn lot of girls out there who are not supermodels, not even in the realm of being described as what most people would call "hot"..... but most of them had some quality, some attribute of beauty that was worth shooting...... IF you're a good enough photographer to draw it out of her and capture it. A certain look when she smiles, a certain quirk to her face when she laughs, or maybe the way her breasts look in a certain pose... whatever. Just about every average girl has something.

I keep telling the hord of fools on this board over and over..... average girl-next-door plain-jane amateur models are valuable, they can be hot to some surfers, and it doesn't matter if *I* think she's got it, it doesn't matter if the dipshit posting a "puke" smiley below her pic thinks she's not hot.... what matters is if the surfer whipping out his CC thinks she's hot. Obviously the sheer number of plain-girl amateur sites out there suggests that even if a model doesn't noticeably have "it".... a good photog can still make her look good to some, make use of her and give her work.

The "she either has it or she don't" theory only works in a very limited way.... because it's usually not quite that cut & dried unless you're shooting hi-quality hi-res highly glamorous glossy shots and nothing else.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CDSmith
[B]average girl-next-door plain-jane amateur models are valuable, they can be hot to some surfers, and it doesn't matter if *I* think she's got it, it doesn't matter if the dipshit posting a "puke" smiley below her pic thinks she's not hot.... what matters is if the surfer whipping out his CC thinks she's hot.



yes, been my experience that an "average girl" photographed nicely does better business than the "glamour types", especially for hardcore.

and they are so much easier to deal with (and less expensive to hire) than the prima donnas.

give me an average girl with a good body and a good complexion and a good attitude any day.

I was JUST going to say that. Hard when you are cutting them out of the picture and it looks like they are missing a foot heh.

Anyone who can talk a girl into getting naked can sell his work once. When the customer comes back and wants more (and more and more ...), that's a successful photograqpher. And I'd much rather be successful then good :glugglug

Beautiful picture but she has a "Vacant" look and on a girl just pretty it will not sell.

Tell Brian from me he shoots some greats photographs, the ones of the girls pussy is stunning, now she me one where she looks like she wants to stick my dick in it, thats the difference between a photo and porno. Porno stimulates the sexual imagination a photo reproduces an object.

I'm not saying these are not good photographs they are, just that's all some of them are. Brians pictures of the coloured girl and the one in the black yop do it for me in both sides, good photos and girls asking for it, in fact the black top one is begging to be kissed. Good porn. :thumbsup

Contact me if you want to sell to us.

thanks charly, for me I want the girl looking as natural as possible, if she does have that look that says she wants to suck my cock that's the best, but if it's faked and remember the girls you and Brian shoot are far from professional models, some have just started having sex in the last few months, actually one of the girls i've posted here is a virgin, so i'd rather have them looking natural then trying to act. I always tell Brian, the photography is of secondary importance to customers and surfers, it's the models who sell. Some are great, some not so great. Girls in L.A. won't test shoot, most are not co-operative, so it's hell for Brian some days getting good stuff out of them. Some days he says he feels like he's been beaten up.

can't sell to resellers, the decision that's been made is to keep it to shooting custom exclusive. while many of the girls aren't exclusive, the customer gets semi-exclusivity on the photographer and his style, whatever that is worth.

Except that at 80% I think you are being kind, I agree 100%. I HATE buying content. And my main problem isn't usually with technical issues or with poorly chosen models (although both occur). It's that it all blurs together.

IMO photographers working for the online porn business ignore two things

• "quality" magazines like Pl*yb*y and P*nth*use vastly outsell the crap sold in sleazy adult stores. Partly that is because soft-porn mags are able to market themselves more widely, but the main reason is that most guys want to look at naked women to be titillated, not because they are driven to look at them. A girl clothed in frame one, naked in frame sixty, posing in between on a bed or a sofa or whatever, under plain lighting, isn't all it takes: leastways not if you want them to keep coming back at $20-$50 a month.
• Unlike magazines that appear once a month with a couple of dozen pics, web sites are there 24/7 with thousands of pics. We don't have just a few competitors, there are thousands of sites out there. Sure we can put money and effort into our designs and our sales pitches, but ultimately it's content that sells and keeps members. And content can be the most costly aspect of building a site, so shouldn't it be more than just the same-old, same-old?

These days, if possible I avoid projects that require me to buy content. But every month I used to start out looking for content, genuinely willing to pay high prices, not for exclusivity (which I don't believe really matters a damn), but for content that would make me sit up and take notice and hopefully have the same effect on my visitors. A few hours later I would end up choosing sets from someone's bargain basement because if a dollar picture (for example, I'm not saying that is all I would spend) doesn't say any more to me than a 20 cent picture, why waste 80 cents?

Imagination. That's one of the most valuable things a good photographer has.

weak...without those backgrounds...he has nothing

Perfcetion Girls - no offence, but most of your samples are out of focus and the lighting is bad...i may be wrong

i'm minoring in photography and fine art with a major in graphic design.... and i've noticed at first glance, you can tell whose got it (skills/talent) and who doesnt

OK, CDSmith... did I fuck her? Or you need to see more of her?

http://www.nichefetish.com/samples/SDSC06906.jpg

Abyss_al, I don't think it's a good idea to pass judgement on fellow photographers, let the pictures speak for themselves.

I don't think ANY of us content providers shoot content for the art crowd (or those majoring in graphic design). We shoot for surfers who would hopefully forget about KaZaa for a minute (much bigger threat than Playboy) and join the site that ordered the content. Our clients are happy with our style and the conversion ratios they got. Otherwise they won't be paying for custom, exclusive content, right?

true true....im sorry
you guys are right

Hehe, don't take it too hard, I was just putting things into perspective... :winkwink:

I am sorry to say but you are funny:glugglug

Very nice..... I know at a glance the quality of an image...and this one is quality! Kudos to the photographer and the model.

Regardless of what anyone says, I stick to my experience as a model and as a photographer to say that no matter how skilled the photographer, if a model does not have that certain quality that makes her come alive in front of the camera - expression and eyes....surfers know it. It comes through in the end product and regardless of photographer skill, that does matter.

And I'm not saying that because I'm a model...I don't shoot for anyone other than myself anymore and I shoot both glamour and amateur content for my site. It's an unbiased opinion about this biz after 3 years on both sides of the fence:)

Ivy

great, here's another guy that understands how to light a shot.

nice!

The thing of it is, there isn't a demand for only one style of content on the web. The company that bought up all my stuff, for example, specifically stated that they want true amateur-style content, but wanted shots that had some quality and skill put in them at the same time. A tall order for some, because obviously a lot of the shots on many content sites that say they are "amateur" are simply too glossy and air-brushed and professional-looking to qualify.

So I set out to produce amateur work that looked amateur yet had very little or none of those little mistakes that so many amateur shots include..... I made sure to reduce or prevent altogether any sign of a back-shadow for one thing. Also, the fishbowl effect I mentioned and greatly reduced or nonexistant in my work. Even my backgrounds look "amateurish" yet not cluttered and distracting. I strove to choose girls that were pretty in a girl-next-doorish kind of way, and made sure to draw out their best features and catch those golden moments. No RED-EYE shots. Making sure their first shoots were fun for them and not stressful worked wonders, and the result was exactly what my client wanted. They kept buying month after month for over 3 years.

But many photographers would disect my work and criticize it heavily. It certainly doesn't have the polished look of some of the shots posted on this thread, yet it is every bit as marketable on the web..... imagine! Could the internet be the one place where different kinds of art and photography are in high demand all at the same time? Unlike adult magazines where the popular form of photographs are hi-gloss hi-definition hi-end models looking perfectly posed and flawless and glamorous...... the web seems to have opened up a whole new world, a whole other demand, for less-than-supermodel models. Girls no longer have to be 5' 10" and taller, 120 lbs and skinnier, 34C or bustier...... and photographers have much more room to play with their techniques, even make what otherwise would be called "mistakes" and still profit from it.

I think the mark of a good web photographer is when he/she has found a style and has made it their own, and has run with it and profited by it, and made a lot of people happy who want to view it. Glyn Jones (Oliver Klozov) is one such person... has a distinct style. There are textbook flaws in many of his shots, but they're there for a reason. When surfers ask for amateur shots they don't want to see Tyra fucking Banks in a Playboy-style glamour shoot.

"I think the mark of a good web photographer is when he/she has found a style and has made it their own, and has run with it and profited by it, and made a lot of people happy who want to view it."


exactly right. there is a paucity of "style" and imagination in the adult web and that is what is so frustrating to me. i can't shoot everything i need. and there is so LITTLE that i find good enough to buy.

when you are dealing with erotica you are dealing with the human form, skin, complexion etc.

we are not photographing transmission gears or pencils.

we are trying to make imperfect humans look sexy, appealing.

and this requires some small attention to detail, and this is where lighting comes in, and color balance, and just the very simple concept of knowing a great shot when we see it, and not releasing a shot that is substandard.

even an amateur photographer should be able to get WB correct before releasing a set of images. even an amateur photographer should be able to bounce light rather than use on-camera flash.

today's cameras are not that expensive, lighting is just fucking physics, why don't people give a shit? that's what's so frustrating to me. there's some REALLY beautiful women being photographed so poorly it just amazes me.

i've seen shit from so-called content producers trying to tout their stuff in threads on GFY that make me thing they are colorblind---yellow girls, green girls, i mean shit that wouldn't turn on a martian. lotsa guys just don't understand, don't have a fuckin' clue really, giving a camera to these guys is like giving a violin to a truck driver.

frustrating because many times the girl is beautiful.

Latinas, what do you use for lighting?


For me to get the amateur-style look that was needed for the work I did, I used...... don't laugh.......... I used one of those dual automotive 500 W halogen lights.... aimed them up to bounce it off the ceiling. I then positioned a regular table lamp with a 100 W bulb just behind and off to the side of the model, to reduce/remove the back-shadow. I included objects in the room (out of the camera's view) that were of certain colors, so the light would pick up on them and those hues and tones would be incorporated into the shot as well.

Of course, during daylight hours I would simply pull the curtains back a touch to allow natural light to do the back-lighting.

That's pretty much it. The halogens cost me about $45 bucks. :D



Conversely, the professional photog that the NYTimes sent over to photograph me for an article they were doing last month used electronic lighting with gel packs for colorization. Very expensive setup he had. He used a digital camera as well, and you know.... the shots he took all had that fishbowl effect, and the lighting wasn't all that great. I could have taken a better picture with my eyes closed, yet here is this guy who does work for hundreds of high-end publications. He should have stood further back from me and zoomed into the shot... he didn't. He should have been able to make better use of his lights..... he didn't. I wasn't about to sit there and tell him how to do his job, but I did notice the flaws in his technique.

http://www.graphicsbytia.com/favorite.jpg

this one is the type of thing I look for, I love the message of the finger pointing

People like to post their cheap generic photos and call is quality...

here is one of mine, no airbrushing required; straight out of the original image.
http://www.analfiona.com/busty09.jpg