an element often underrated in porn is the camera work. A good camera work is an important part for the success of a scene. You can have the hottest actresses but if the cameraman sucks, it's probably the same for the scene. One example of this is the Score group. One of the most important companies in porn, they have always hot women but it's umbelievable how much their camera work sucks in many scenes. So, who do you think are the best and worst directors or companies for this aspect?
People tell lies my friend. Some people like publicity. I don't like publicity. 674 Posts 5/11
Posted - Apr 26 2012 : 12:53PM
I agree that the camera work is critical if the scene is going to be enjoyable or not. Among the best camera work that I recall in decades of watching porn is the director, Alex DeRenzy. None of the Alex DeRenzy scenes last that long but they often sizzle. The title Baby Face from 1977 is one title where every scene is good. An amateur series where the cast of girls are nice but the camera work is utterly horrible is the Dare Dorm series by the studio Dare Dorm. They do not even list a director, it is mostly shot by a bunch of drunken kids who are clueless how to shoot the video. I agree about Score studio that the camera work is mostly sub par but I would put them near the top of the list in recruiting attractive, energetic, young women.
problem is that in this day and age, everyone who can afford the cost of a digital camera, becomes a cameraman. Back in Derenzy's day most cameramen were from the real world, trained in the real world. They understood what they were doing. These days the all think they are MTV cameramen and need to tilt and constantly move. makes me want to puke sometimes it is so bad. Mike Adriano's camera guy is very decent.
dalars, you're right that in the 1970s and early 80's, many cinematographers shooting XXX were well trained, professional DPS who also worked on exploitation and (occasionally) Hollywood stuff. Today there aren't many talented operators working in XXX, though Jack Remy (who got his start in exploitation films in the early 70's and was one of the finest DPs of the 80s and 90s) is still active. Ralph Parfait is also a rather good lensman.
Mike Adriano and Lazlo H. Camera work is monotonous and makes the girls look ugly. The camera work is all about making Mike Adriano look good, instead of the girl, and therein lies the problem.
Yeah, if you go back to the late 80s and early 90s you'll find that a lot of the porn movies just look better, camera-wise, in terms of set-ups and lighting, and making the girls look as good as they could. It seems like a lot of contemporary pornographers are not very interested in making the girls look good, which is kind of strange, and leads to a lot of ugly looking porn that is transcended into something stroke worthy only by the mere presence of super hot girls (Mike Adriano, for example), which is a testament to how blindingly hot most of these girls really are.
The worst camera work for me is in Jonnie Darrko's movies - I don't watch them because of it. Far, far too often it is shot in a way to just show part of the girls' bodies for much of the time. I'm not talking proper closeups, which are fine, but more the use of shots where you see say just the top half of the girl but her gorgeous legs are completely ignored. If you're shooting in widescreen HD there is no excuse for this in my book.
For me, few can outdo Elegant Angel when it comes to good camera work. At the same time Digital Playground may be the worst, almost every DP scene I've seen include a number of random and weird close ups that really annoys me.
[Link]
Rubberhole Deactivated User
256 Posts 2/10
Posted - Apr 28 2012 : 7:18AM
Peoples Temple: check out the 90's series from Rosebud. The director is Rex Borsky, but its DeRenzy going by a peusedo name. The flicks are excellent. Well shot. Great lighting. Angles. Better than todays content.
People tell lies my friend. Some people like publicity. I don't like publicity. 674 Posts 5/11
Posted - Apr 28 2012 : 1:37PM
Wow, thanks. I look forward to running down some of these titles. Not sure what to make of this but Alex DeRenzy has 53 titles as Director from the period 1969-1996 while Rex Borsky has 194 titles as Director from the period 1990-1997. I know many performer have aliases but why would a director change his name like that and overlapping during the same periods too? There must be an interview somewhere conducted with Alex DeRenzy where he explains the name change.
IMO this has become an epidemic in porn. Somewhere along the line, legs have become a fetish, and most cameramen treat legs as an unwanted nuisance problematic bodypart to be avoided in the effort to show the pussy and boobs and booty and face and cock. If the movie is not categorized/promoted as leg fetish, expect legs to be chopped off most of the time. As far as widescreen HD, that makes it worse because of the wideness of the screen. The wider screen means the cameraman has to shoot from closer to the subject to avoid having emptiness on either side of the subject. I've always thought that widescreen format incompatible with porn. That's why some shooters resort to tilty/twisty camera maneuvers, in an effort to try to compensate/fix the framing problem inherent in widescreen.
People tell lies my friend. Some people like publicity. I don't like publicity. 674 Posts 5/11
Posted - Apr 28 2012 : 7:18PM
I see, thanks for the feedback. So in other words the material directed by Rex Borsky was cheap and artless compared to what the same person shot under the name of DeRenzy. I checked out the titles listed under Rex Borsky on the IAFD and just from the names they look like grade B quality or at least none are memorable.
[Link]
Midnight Max Deactivated User
And put an end to the Chicago-style Thuggery 678 Posts 3/08
Posted - Apr 28 2012 : 7:44PM
Great Camera Work- 1. William H- the crispness of his video quality and the elaborate editing involved with his tease segments are unparalleled. The vast majority of the time, his scenes feel well thought out. 2. Jules Jordan- still my favorite 3. Mike John- though Mike's doing way too much of the "Totally Unprofessional" type of setups with his scenes lately (they've crossed over into some of his other series). Many of his most recent POV releases (MJ gets the nod for best POV camerawork) are split up with scenes filmed with Erik Everhard (who's very good, but not Mikey) and Tim Von Swine (who's very good, but not Mikey). 4. JaySin- Super clear and sharp, well framed, his stuff is pretty much unwatchable as far as the gape and milk fetish content is concerned- that's a personal taste issue, of course. When he does stuff like Anal Beach Buns 1 and 2 it's like fuckin Christmas for me- sadly it's waaay too infrequently... Edited by - midnight max on 4/28/2012 8:12:04 PM
the biggest issue I have with todays camera person is they are all midgets! Well, based on the camera angles, they have to be about 3 ft tall , IF that. What are these guys thinking? TOO much is shot from these low angles. rediculous. I certainly do know whats up a girls nose, or the under side of her boobs look like.
The best camera work: William H. / Mason John Stagliano John Leslie Christoph Clark - great camera man but his movies suck. Alex DeRenzy Belladonna / Kid Corruption Gabriel Zero
this is so true. Probably when they started using widescreen it was seen like the "big innovation" while instead it's just idiotic. The problem is that they are not shooting panoramas or something like that.
It is all very subjective, different folks want to see different things. For me, the greatest camera work is about creating the illusion that there is no camera in the room at all. Minimal camera movement and minimal cuts between multiple cameras, all help me forget the camera is there. Likewise with performers "opening it up" for the camera, instead of just fucking naturally. A good camera operator for me finds a good view of the whole woman, and sticks with it. A slow steady panning around is all the movement I need, if that. I don't care whether penetration is visible or not. William H from Elegant Angel is the best I've found for L.A. porn. Better can be found in censored JAV. The recent "Hartcore" coming from europe might prove better still if the editors don't mess it up. For g/g porn, Dan O'Connel and his lesbian friends from Girlfriends Films are my favourite. Edited by - jfarley on 4/29/2012 6:59:31 AM
The worst for me is whoever does most of the BWB scenes scenes for Brazzers.Constantly switch from close-up of girls face to close-up of penetration,makes me feel fucking nauseous at times.
William H, Mason, and Ivan are some of my faves. They can all shoot/edit well and know how to make a flowing narrative out of a porn scene. Their lighting and mise en scène is unmatched to me. Some of the art porn coming out of Europe now is amazing as well, but I haven't followed through on the directors and checked out their other work yet. I also agree that lighting was given more importance in the 90's and before, BUT, with the advent of the latest generation of digital cameras, relatively inexpensive fast lenses, and massively expandable ISO ranges, you don't NEED lighting like you used to. Film requires a lot of light unless you have a higher ISO/ASA stock of film, which then is very grainy. Hell, 5D Mk II's go up to ISO 25,600 and the 5D Mk III's go up to ISO 102,400. While you wouldn't want to use that high of an ISO in video by a LONGSHOT, it's there and it gives the illusion that extra lighting isn't needed, which can in turn kill the scene of a movie if you just use ambient light. Ambient light is good and natural and CAN work, but it's often flat and uninspired. Going back to using lights in older films as a necessity, I shot some sample footage in my bedroom right under 4 CLF bulbs at the following settings and i was able to get exposure: f/2.8 1/50s ISO 1250 24fps (all on a Canon 5D Mk II with a 24mm f/2.8 lens) Imagine using an 8mm camera (or even a 16mm) with a much smaller size film frame (the 5D Mk II's sensor is a tad bigger than a 35mm film frame, which means it captures more light at once) to capture a scene in a bedroom or a studio with 100 speed film (or 400, 800, or 1600) with no lights. It's impossible. If you look back at the old porns from the 70s, they basically had floodlights/worklights being used to light the scene. I had to do that in an 8mm film shot in my living room for school under the same basic lighting conditions listed above for my 5D test footage in my bedroom. You could put faster lenses on the older film cameras but that still wouldn't make up for the slow film ISO/ASA, PLUS you'd still run into the same flat lighting conundrum that you'd get if you shot, say, inside of a house without contrasting tones of light and dark (via sunlight or another bright light source like a candle or fire). My whole point with this ramble is that people now don't think they need lighting to make a film, when you actually do, even though digital cameras are much more sensitive to light now. Sure they still get noise like old film would get grain if you pushed the ISO or use a higher ISO/ASA film, but that can be minimized in post if absolutely necessary. Much like Prometheus stole fire from Zeus, filmmakers today have stolen light that was once unusable and unrecognizable to slow film and are able to actually use it to make films. This, like the use of fire, can be both a good and a bad thing, and it's up to each filmmaker to do the best they can with what they have while still maintaining their vision of what their work should be like. The three filmmakers I mentioned above do all of that and don't become a slave to their technology, but rather use it to reify their visions into the films we love and enjoy. [Hopefully I didn't come off like an avant-garde snob or anything with the technical mumbo jumbo, I just wanted to point out why a lot of people don't use lighting today, other than the fact that they might be a little lazy and don't want to deal with the extra work needed to have good, non-natural lighting. [:P)]]
