|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » GOOD AND BAD PORN PHOTOGRAPHY |
| 1-14 of 14 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 12-28-08 06:42pm - 5837 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
ramscrota (0)
Suspended  Posts: 54 Registered: Jul 04, '07 Location: Geelong Vic Australia |
GOOD AND BAD PORN PHOTOGRAPHY Good and Bad Photography I tend to prefer photography to vids. And my favourite niche is the simple undressing scene. I also enjoy girl/girl as well as HC. I want to submit my thoughts on what works and what doesn't. I accept that we are all different, and have varied tastes, but it seems to me that many porn photgraphers regularly make such shocking blunders - things which are not rocket science, but which should be pretty obvious. I'm not talking about such things as subtle lighting or clever make-up, but things like posture, setting, etc. I'll say my bit, and these things will become clearer. First, a solo shoot is fundamentally different to a sex scene shoot (either BG or GG). Mostly, In the solo shoot, the model is relating to the viewer - you! The exception would be a toy / masterbation shoot, in which she is relating to herself. In that case, she should seem to be oblivious to the viewer (cameraman, viewer, etc), as she creates the impression that she absorbed in pleasuring herself (the occasional look at the camera and knowing smile doesn't go astray, however) In a sex scene, the two participants should be totally absorbed in each other. That's what annoys be about these 'posed' so-called lesbian scenes, where the two models not only look at the camera and smile, but the pussy licking is posed and staged, and isn;t really happenng. Why some sites persist with this is beyond me. If the girls can't do a real scene, then why do they offer for a fake one? And when the girls are looking at the camera, instead of being absorbed in each other, this can only come from bad directing from behind the lense. In BG shoots, most of the scenes make 2 continual blunders. 1. The guy usually jacks his crank, instead of the girl. To me, is it far better erotic value if the girl does the jacking off. 2. The continual ommision of snapping the moment the guy cums. Too often, we see 10-15 shots of the guy pumping his pud (looking like hard work), then the next shot is 'post-cum' - the magic moment has been missed. For me, the moment is seeing the load halfway to her face, or just landing. Why it's so hard to snap this moment I don't know - David Lace could do it, 1by day does it (a really excellent site!), so I don't know why other sites can't do it. But now to the meat of my discussion: solo shoots. I'll do this in headings with remarks, to make reading easier. TYPE OF MODEL: I prefer amateurs, because there is a far greater sense of fresh innocence with them. Often it is their first time, and the sense of nervous excitement on their smiles as they undress has great erotic appeal. CLOTHING: Should have some sense of colour, style and appeal. T shirt and jeans are OK, if they follow this rule. Same with underwear / lingerie. Should be sexy and colour-co-ordinated. Nothing is a bigger turn-off that a model in a daggy T shirt, with underwear which looks like it came out of great grandmothers (or great-grandather's!) wardrobe. Big heavy bras are also a turn-off, as are hob-nailed boots, heavy socks, etc. An exception might be a stunning model who has built a series of sets, and where the appeal is to see her get out of a daggy outfit to reveal her lovelynakedness. SEQUENCE OF UNDRESSING: should follow a normal pattern, a point lost on many photographers. How often do we see the model leave her shoes on, or a full pussy spread at about pic 5? The erotic tease and build-up has been ruined when this happens. The undressing also needs to be done in a way which is sensual and erotic. The key moments are also when she is removing items of clothing -especially knickers. Yet so many photograhers simply jump past this. Posture is also important with the overall erotic effect POSTURE: One of the biggest blunders by photographers is their poor attention to posture. Good posture is the key to genuine erotic photography. The best posture for an undressing scene is standing up, or variations of this (eg bending half-forward to remove knickers, and she looks at the camera and smiles). Also, slight bending forward allows the boobs to hand down. When a model is standing, or moving about on her feet, you can see her full naked glory and her natural stance. Another great stance is having the model on all fours, as it brings the but in prominence, and allows the boobs to hang free. Also, posture works best if it is slightly uneven - eg one leg in front of the other, hips, tilted, etc. On all fours, a shot from behind, 45 degrees, with the cloers leg slightly forward is a great angle. One reason I hate stiletoes is that they bugger up a girl's posture. Stiletoes should only be used is a secretary-type shoot, and even then they should be ditched quickly in the undressing. Photography angles also play a role here. PHOTOGRAPHY ANGLES: An aspect which many porn photographers seem unaware of. The most common blunders are front-on shots, shots from above the model; that sort of thing. Far greater erotic effect is achieved shooting at a 45 degree angle (from both in front and behind). Even with close-ups (zeroing in on pussy, etc), the angled shot works far better. SHAVED / NATURAL This is secondary to photography as such. Personally, I prefer the natural look, because pubic hair tells me that this is an adult, sexual being. But I also don;t like wild jungles - I prefer some trim. Fully shaved pussies look to me like little girls pussies. But that's my preference, and not the core of my argument. The REAL core of my argument is that many photographers have no idea of how to photograph a pussy, shaved or not. The cameraperson needs to take into account how much stuff the model has - pubic hair, size of labia (outer & inner), etc. Once again, the angled shot usually works far better. Having the labia together (with legs together - what is now called 'cameltoe' - a look I really like, but the guy who thought up that ugly name should be roasting in hell) make for good erotic effect. The worst type of pussy shot is as follows: shaved pussy, non-existent labia (not the photographers fault), but then the dipstick cameraperson snaps her from straight in front, butt arched back, and leg apart, so the pussy lips have disappeared. Net result: pussy looks like a naked mole-rat. CLOSE-UPS - Best placed after full undressing has occured. Should be used sparingly through the latter part of he shoot. 2-3 three close-ups with model in a particular pose, then next pose, etc. I HATE runs of 10-15 closeups, because in that time you loose contact with the model's face, and hence her persona. LENGTH OF SHOOT: An undressing shoot should be no longer than 100 pics (150 pics for a sex scene). Anything longer than this is too long, unless it's fucken' good (whot most of them are not) My rule is that a shoot is better to be a bit shorter, and leave the viewer wanting more, instead of too long, and leaving the viewer wondering when it will end. OUTDOOR SETTINGS Setting should be private. I'm not a fan of public 'flashing' shoots, as I want to see the model freed up from any inhibitary settings, so she is free to undress totally. Outdoor shoots can be really good, but they should be in a secluded setting (forest, garden, etc). Care needs to be taken with the light - uneven light can fuck up a shoot. A sunny day sounds good, but it takes a really good photographer to capture this, without it being ruined by glare or uneven light. One site which does really good outdoor shoots is Girls Out West. INDOOR SETTINGS: Decor should be attractive, open, light and spacious. Yet in so many shoots we see dingy decor, dirty carpet, and mess eveywhere. I'm not advocating top-class Hilton-style settings, but clean, bright and attractive surroundings give a shoot a real lift. The model also needs to be given space to move around, and the photpgrapher also needs space to snap model within the whole setting. Shooting in a corner is a no-no - it reduces shooting to one angle. POSES: Similar to posture. Needs to be some common sense here. Fully clothed poses (eg head back, one arm at the back of head, etc) can signal the model is about to do something outrageous. One of the most annoying poses is the finger-in-the-mouth. Makes the model look like a bogon. These are some of my thoughts. I know some will thing I'm unreasonably fussy, but I don't believe so. I believe the things I've talked about are not rocket science, but should be bloody obvious, even allowing for variations of taste. | |
|
||
| 12-28-08 06:54pm - 5837 days | #2 | |
|
ramscrota (0)
Suspended Posts: 54 Registered: Jul 04, '07 Location: Geelong Vic Australia |
PS I have to add that I think most porn photographers are as dumb as dogshit. | |
|
||
| 12-29-08 06:55am - 5837 days | #3 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Great ideas for a post. Enjoyed reading your thoughts. I've always thought that it was much easier to find good pix than good vids, for many reasons. You would think that it would be easy to find good vids, but in addition to personal taste, there are a multitude of reasons good vids are hard to find. Also, pix take less space to store on a hard drive and are much easier and cheaper to view. As a side note: Your icon pig looks like a nasty brute. Pigs are intelligent, which fits the sense of your post. But could you change your pig to something friendlier/more accessible? | |
|
||
| 12-29-08 07:59am - 5837 days | #4 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Its also easy to photoshop pix, videos other then some settings you are going to see mistakes easier. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 12-29-08 10:42am - 5836 days | #5 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Wow, thorough post with a lot of specific and great points! I do often prefer photography to video because of its focus -- literally and figuratively -- on the subject at hand. Oh, the number of videos have I seen with great ceiling and floor shots combined with a Blair Witch-approach to capturing the action or the model(s)! Is it so hard to get the cameraman/director/whoever to calm down and just shoot the goods? In photography, however, I like how you can just hit 'Delete' and keep what shots you want. But how many of us really want to sit and edit a video down to a watchable, tolerable piece? I find myself watching compilations, because they often cut out the fluff, and just leave a few minutes of action. I know they are probably made to just get me to buy the source DVD, but still, the pacing can make them really enjoyable. (Sorry, I just don't like "epic" porn.) One great point I really agree with:
I love it when a performer just loses herself in the shoot -- no glances at the crew, no ridiculous poses, just focused on herself. I think the one problem is that in solo shoots the models do not focus on "us" the viewers (audience), but the "him/her" viewer (cameraman). You can tell because she is relating to whoever is operating the camera, not who may be watching in the future, or just simply taking too much direction. I thank the filthy perverts for making the material we love, but I don't need to hear them talking or panting in the background. Sex scenes are a little bit better about this, I suppose because there is a second actor/actress with whom to interact and make a good shoot. It does not always seem as natural in girl-girl shoots, where a girl is truly more totally absorbed in the action as in girl-boy shoots. Girl-girl scenes do seem to be the most comfortable for girls, but seem to lack the raw passion of girl-boy. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 12-29-08 10:49am - 5836 days | #6 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
I'm also a fan more of solo photosets, especially ones without sex toys, than any other variety in porn (though some seem to think that solo posing sets aren't really porn). There have been other threads that have delved into one or more of the issues that you've discussed. Recently, one on photosets indoors or out yielded an interesting string of comments, including some from Toadsith, who has experience in photography. We also had a poll about number of pics in a photoset. 45% agreed with your number of 100. Poses, posture, angles, lighting, clothing and most of all the personal appeal of a model of course benefit or dimish the quality of a photoset. I must say that there are no sites I've ever been to that "get it right" in all of those ways very often according to my own increasingly stringent standards. By now I've gotten to be so picky that when I look through my archives of stuff collected a few years ago, I'm suprised sometimes at what I used to consider "good enough." In other words, I'm part of the problem. It's the downside of refining over the years what one likes and finds acceptable. But I least know for sure what I like! ;) All things considered, it doesn't surprise me that I'm finding less and less of it. Off the top of my head, photographers who generally -- certainly not always! -- do work I especially appreciate are Russ T, Fred, and Tim Fox. And I tend to like the outdoor EroticDestinations stuff by Martin Krake better than the indoor EuropeanGlamourGirls mostly because he doesn't often have enough light indoors. I used to be a big fan of Peter Hegre (HegreArt). Every once in a while he'll still put something out I'll score a "10" on his site. Anyway, I think again it's mostly me getting pickier. Well, we can discuss this and who knows if maybe something might improve somewhere because of it. And then maybe we could find that something. But there are so many variables involved, taste being chief among them, that the hope will at best glimmer and not glow. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. Edited on Dec 29, 2008, 10:52am | |
|
||
| 12-29-08 12:07pm - 5836 days | #7 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 02:29pm | |
|
||
| 12-29-08 03:29pm - 5836 days | #8 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Well said. These are all very common problems. One site that seemed to have a pretty good (though not perfect) solution to them is SnapGirls, with only 25 pics per set, but well-selected. But they stopped updating quite a while ago. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 12-30-08 07:15am - 5836 days | #9 | |
|
ramscrota (0)
Suspended Posts: 54 Registered: Jul 04, '07 Location: Geelong Vic Australia |
Hi lk2fireone! Thanks for your reply! I've aleays loved pigs- especially great big black ones! I'll likae your suggestion on, though, and look for a slightly more cheerful looking one! | |
|
||
| 01-03-09 03:40am - 5832 days | #10 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
You know, I've got a question while we're on the subject: What do you pic fans do with the photos of the girl giving the finger? These show up rather routinely at ALS Scan and ALS Angels, but sometimes at other sites, too. I mean, I guess it's kinda cute 'n all for the girl to give the viewer (or is it the photographer?) a little what-the-fuck FU treatment, but the only place those pics live on my hard drive is in the recycle bin, all ready to be overwritten with other sub-prime smut. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 01-03-09 04:44am - 5832 days | #11 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I thought it was cute when I first saw some photos of a model giving the finger. But that was many years ago. Now the effect is small to none. If the picture is good, it's still a keeper. If the picture is poor, then trash it. The older you get, the harder it is to enjoy the freshness of new photography, because you've seen almost all of it before. But there's still a ton of great looking girls out there, and pix are the best way of capturing their beauty and freshness. | |
|
||
| 01-03-09 12:56pm - 5831 days | #12 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
I don't have any particular "give me the finger" fetish nor any particular aversion. It's just another cute "attitude" shot and it can be a hot pic or not depending on all of the other aspects of the pic hotness of model clothing lighting posture vibrancy & clarity of pic lack of excessive pic treatment ALS Scans frequently posts behind-the-scenes stuff that they say are more to give people a feel for the reality of actual shoots than for erotic value. Now if I were a one-month member of the only site that had ever done behind-the-scenes stuff, this would be fascinating to me on that level. I've been a member there for multiple years now and there has been a lot of behind-the-scenes-of-porn-shoots stuff out there now, so to me whether I like the pics and vids or not has to do pretty entirely with "are there hot babes that are turning me on." They frequently do hotter bts shots that are never really intended for publication than other sites do with their most posed expensive shoots, for my tastes. | |
|
||
| 01-03-09 01:03pm - 5831 days | #13 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
The bad in bad porn photography - excessive pic treatment I know I've been ranting about this a lot, but I'm gonna keep going - maybe other people will join me and make similar amounts of noise and people who run sites will notice and we'll have more pics of gorgeous women that look noticeably like gorgeous women and less like 3d art. THE thing that kills pics for me, more than any other element, is excessive pic treatment - you can have the best model in the hottest outfit in the coolest location and then photoshop the shit out of it and make it so that there's no skin definition or anything else that makes humans hot and they've just wasted a bunch of money and time as far as I'm concerned, because in the end, what they've produced is crap, as far as I'm concerned. | |
|
||
| 01-03-09 06:33pm - 5831 days | #14 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I agree with everything you write. And I have been making noise in a couple of reviews and comments. See Twisty's and ATK Galleria. All the individuality has been photoshopped out of the models. Yet most PUs seem to like that type of picture because the keep rating those sites quite highly. There are folks who can't stand any sort of imperfection. | |
|
||
| 1-14 of 14 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
