Is that a real woman?

Author	Post
Gof Member United Kingdom 151 Posts 4/03	Posted - Oct 29 2005 : 2:59PM I'm sure this issue has been discussed on this forum before but I just find having a good rant on the forum particularly cathartic. It really annoys me when I see a scene with a beautiful woman and the camera is so tight to the action that you never have a full body shot of the woman. This kind of 'in your face camerawork' has been present in a couple of Digital Sin films I've recently watched and its really started to annoy me. The final straw however, came today during a DP scene with the gorgeous Dillan Lauren. Now anyone who has had the good fortune to meet Dillan could not help but be wowed by those beautiful long legs of hers, and so you would think that any director worth his or her salt would focus on these 'assets' of hers. In Anal Trainer 10 however, the action is filmed so tightly that Dillan might as well have had stumps below her knees as the camera never pans out to show those shapely legs or, good forbid her high heels. My own point of view is that while the viewer wants to see a beautiful woman having sex, the emphasis should always be on the woman and not the penetration. Otherwise, we might as well get rid of the women completely and use Realdolls instead and just show the guys dick going in and out. Well, at least I feel better now. What do other people think? [Link]
Assanova Member balls deep 296 Posts 1/04	Posted - Oct 29 2005 : 3:24PM I totally agree. Porn is in dire need of more full body shots. Too many close up penatration shots ruin scenes. I hate the looking-up-at-a-guys-balls shot that has ruined almost every doggie style scene. I remember Tianna's only anal was shot like this. I couldn't even tell if it was her. What a waste. [Link]
ellroy Member I love the smell of Gottlieb in the morning. 67 Posts 9/04	Posted - Oct 29 2005 : 4:06PM Assanova wrote: I totally agree. Porn is in dire need of more full body shots. Too many close up penatration shots ruin scenes. I hate the looking-up-at-a-guys-balls shot that has ruined almost every doggie style scene. I remember Tianna's only anal was shot like this. I couldn't even tell if it was her. What a waste. Click to expand +1 There's nothing worse when there's too much close ups. I wanna see the whole picture! [Link]
Ramsey Senior Member Trina Michaels fan 10332 Posts 10/02	Posted - Oct 29 2005 : 4:28PM I agree also, it's very very hard to find a cameraman who knows how to shoot the sex the right meaning not all close-ups all the time. [Link]
loz Member UK 134 Posts 1/05	Posted - Oct 29 2005 : 5:05PM What you ideally need is a continual combination of both full body shots and extreme close ups. In my opinion a scene that stays on either shot for for more than a couple of minutes gets boring - the close up because its just a piece of meat, and the full body shot becuase its too far away to see all the juicy action. Just keep the camera moving and put in some decent editing. Most companies these days are OK, but those endless static shots still crop up from time to time. [Link]

Miha Member Oliver Everhardy 86 Posts 10/05	Posted - Oct 29 2005 : 6:38PM Good point. At least those long legs need to be in the picture, preferably with sexy feet up in the air, if not the whole sexy body. And seeing just the penetration is too technical for me, I need to see the expressions and emotions. Focusing on penetration alone does little for me, it's appreciated when kept at minimum. [Link]
Pagoda Senior Member Thread Killer 1747 Posts 10/05	Posted - Oct 30 2005 : 1:14AM +1 I'm pasting my own rant from a different topic here, where it's more appropriate. * Note to pornographers wanting female dollars: EVERY woman I know wants to see more wide shots. We want to see both performers from head to toe. We want to see what their hands are doing at all times. We want to see their faces. We want to see her face when she cums, and we want to see him watching her face. THAT is where the connection is made. Pure heat is what we want, and you can't see it if the camera's trained an inch from the talents' genitals the whole time. Back it up. Change the angle a bit, too. Shoot RCG at 45 degrees, so we can see both partners. We're sick of seeing a woman's body splayed out in all its beautiful glory and seeing nothing but the guy's knees and balls. He could be taking a nap back behind her for all we can see of him. Let your performers laugh together. Show their transitions from position to position. Let us see them having sex with each other . Don't just show us anonymous cock A stroking in and out of anonymous ass B. Don't focus strictly on her mouth during the BJ. Pull back and let me see his whole body and his face. Let me see her fingering herself while she blows him. Let me see him watch her do it. Lastly, women are very aural. We love to hear every hot breath. Turn down the porno music and turn up the boom. And let us hear them communicate to each other. Don't worry about spoiling the fantasy. We know we're watching 2 porn stars at work. But it sure is hot to hear two porn stars have a great time at work together. I guess, regardless of the activity, be it anal, oral, whatever, and be it gentle or rough, women get off on the big picture. We like the little details. We like to see her knit her brow with concentration just before she comes, see her gripping the sheet in her fist, and see him gritting his teeth while she's clamping down on him. And we like to see that all in the same shot. That's lightning in a bottle, baby. *** Maybe we could put some recs of some stuff shot the way we like it here in this thread? [Link]
MASAMUNE Senior Member 1452 Posts 12/04	Posted - Oct 30 2005 : 1:25AM what i find particularly bizarre is how many girl/girl movies are shot with mostly closeups. they try and shoot girl/girl the same exact way they shoot boy/girl [Link]
pinc_noiz Deactivated User 758 Posts 6/05	Posted - Oct 30 2005 : 2:10AM Absolutely right: more complete-body-shots, please. In almost all movies I've to un-edit what I see, to become a picture of the '100%-girl'. And than still, I've no idea what the reaction on her face is in connection to what happens somewere else on her body. p_n [Link]
Pagoda Senior Member Thread Killer 1747 Posts 10/05	Posted - Oct 30 2005 : 2:19AM Good points, all. What's the point of performers switching positions if all you're going to see is the same cock and pussy (or ass)? For that matter, what's the point of ever using cowgirl or mish (any position where the boy and girl face each other) if you're not going to shoot them actually looking at one another? There are a few gonzo movies that I've really liked that seemed to be shot mostly handheld, but from further back. A lot of it has to do with where they place the performers. Couches absolutely suck for viewers with our kind of taste. For good, wide camera work, the performers need to be either on a bed or on the floor, so that the operator can circle constantly and capture them at every angle and from every distance. Why anybody ever shoots their talent on a sofa or futon is beyond me. It's just too limiting. [Link]
matchmaker Senior Member 24912 Posts 4/05	Posted - Oct 30 2005 : 2:29AM +1 for showing full body shots [Link]
Pagoda Senior Member Thread Killer 1747 Posts 10/05	Posted - Oct 30 2005 : 2:36AM MASAMUNE wrote: what i find particularly bizarre is how many girl/girl movies are shot with mostly closeups. they try and shoot girl/girl the same exact way they shoot boy/girl Click to expand Do you think it might have something to do with the sheer quantity of product being shot nowadays? I'm sure it takes a certain level of experience and skill to capture sex properly, and as such there are probably a handful of really good camera operators working their asses off. And the other 95% of the product is shot by everybody else. The thing with close-ups of penetration is, you can't really go wrong. If nothing else is working out right, at least you'll capture the actual fucking. You'll have something you can put on a disc. If you back the camera up, you open yourself up to all kinds of problems. The girl could rub her nose. The boy could stare off into space looking bored. Her calf could slip off his shoulder, or she could knock him in the head with one of her clunky platform heels. They could absolutely care less for each other and touch nowhere but their naughty bits, or they could be such good friends that you've got a bunch of footage of them making funny faces at each other the whole time. To back the camera up, you have to be 100% confident in your performers, and 100% confident in your camera operator because you're editing inside the camera, so to speak. In a prior post, loz said that the ideal would be a continual combo of both close and wide shots. Ideally, you'd have two cameras operating at once to capture those, which is probably more expensive. But that would be awesome. When you have that wide master, you have so many opportunities to capture those little mistakes and goofs that make the sex real and the talent human. I actually love to see the boy and girl in the process of switching positions; to hear them negotiate the logistics about who's going to lay where, and how to place her leg, etc. That's what makes it personal, and to me, it's the personal touch that's sexy. If the chemistry is good, this stuff is gold. If the chemistry is bad or flat, then your wide shots will be total shit. That's why it'd be good to have that up-close back-up. Can that even be done? How can you get wide and close coverage without getting a camera operator in the shot? We need a camera person to post on this thread. [Link]
XrickyromaX Member 449 Posts 2/05	Posted - Oct 30 2005 : 7:51AM Pagoda wrote: How can you get wide and close coverage without getting a camera operator in the shot? Click to expand By shooting the same action multiple times with different camera placement each time. You cut and put it together in the editing room and create the illusion of continuity. The reason this is not done more often in gonzo porn is because it is time consuming, and thus costly. [Link]
XrickyromaX Member 449 Posts 2/05	Posted - Oct 30 2005 : 7:55AM Oh yeah, and I agree with you, I'd like to see mostly wide shots combined with occasional close ups. [Link]
AztecGold11 Member 514 Posts 8/05	Posted - Oct 30 2005 : 9:12AM Pagoda wrote: Let your performers laugh together. Show their transitions from position to position. Let us see them having sex with each other . Don't just show us anonymous cock A stroking in and out of anonymous ass B. Don't focus strictly on her mouth during the BJ. Pull back and let me see his whole body and his face. Let me see her fingering herself while she blows him. Let me see him watch her do it. Lastly, women are very aural. We love to hear every hot breath. Turn down the porno music and turn up the boom. And let us hear them communicate to each other. Don't worry about spoiling the fantasy. We know we're watching 2 porn stars at work. But it sure is hot to hear two porn stars have a great time at work together. Click to expand I'm a woman and I agree 100% I want to see transition!! Both will be fully clothed then boom they are naked--they will be in mish position then like magic they are doing anal (no penetration showed). Some of the editing is so choppy that the movie is ruined. I like to see and hear the male --a "turned on " male will moan and show it on his face. That makes for a hot scene. [Link]

loz Member UK 134 Posts 1/05	Posted - Oct 30 2005 : 2:54PM Ideally, you'd have two cameras operating at once to capture those, which is probably more expensive. Click to expand Ideally yes - but if theres only one camera as long as the operator keeps mobile, panning in and out etc it should be OK - it's those horrible static close ups that last for 10 minutes that get boring to me. Personally my favourite position is the piledriver (I hope thats the correct term for it), where the girl is resting on her shoulders up against a couch - that way not only do you get a great view of any anal plowing but also you get to see the face and boobs of the girl in question. Best of both worlds! [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Oct 30 2005 : 3:50PM loz wrote: (...) it's those horrible static close ups that last for 10 minutes that get boring to me. Click to expand Where have you seen one of those? MLyons said: “The need to avoid conflict, and the need I have for other people (even complete strangers that I'll likely only ever have a single passing contact with) to at least not be angry with me is one of my most debilitating faults as a human being, and at the same time, it's one of my greatest assets.” Edited by - Walter Burns on 10/30/2005 3:50:46 PM [Link]
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Oct 30 2005 : 5:09PM Pagoda wrote: How can you get wide and close coverage without getting a camera operator in the shot? We need a camera person to post on this thread. Click to expand And Xrickyroma wrote: By shooting the same action multiple times with different camera placement each time. You cut and put it together in the editing room and create the illusion of continuity. The reason this is not done more often in gonzo porn is because it is time consuming, and thus costly. Click to expand Sports, sitcoms, and dance performance are usually shot multi-cam; and it's my belief that most sex should be shot this way, two operators, two cameras, and good communication between all parties, whether in front of the camera or behind it. But even if you get perfect raw footage from a multi-cam shoot, the process of reducing the raw footage to a cogent, flowing sequence of shots, including masters, close-up, reaction, inserts (insertions) take more time than most gonzo productions can afford while remaining profitable. (If you can cut 2-3 minutes/day, day after day, you're blazing place. It will be a cold day in hell before the average gonzo DVD can afford 40 days of editing.) The only real option for 99% of porn is for the camera to become a human steadicam rig – flowing as naturally as possible in and around his/her subject, moving in and out, up and around to give the viewer a variety of angles on the action. This need to be a human steadicam is a huge part of why wide-angle lenses are used almost exclusively in gonzo. The wide-angle reduced the effect of errant camera movement, allowing the cameraman to produce long, relatively bobble and jitter free takes. The last gonzo video I saw had fewer cuts in the entire 120 minutes of running time than an average 30 second television commercial. [Link]
Loraine Senior Member 1559 Posts 3/04	Posted - Oct 31 2005 : 8:30AM I like a mix of shots too, if you have enough dollars and time to edit, to edit with some sensitivity, the balance of shots should be lively but feel natural. (I watched a scene from a feature the other day, I swear watching a young woman suck some guy was like watching a yoyo - face shot, quick shot of her ass, back to the face, another shot of her ass, back forth, back forth - tennis!) Pagoda is right, there is a lot less that can go "wrong" with a close up - I wrote a post at my blog a week or more ago about this idea of the close up and it if arouses me to watch. As far as my viewing close ups, the not very scientific or startling result of watching another DVD with this in mind, is that for me, if I can pick up that there is something genuinely (or well acted) hot going on between the performers, then the close up is certainly exciting to watch. But in this particular scene the pretense of hotness kind of got ruined for me when the wider shot picked a disengaged look on the woman's face. Would the spell have been broken if the shooter had kept to the close up and not panned up her body to her face and shown me her slightly bored look, could a more attentive editor have seen what I saw and worked around it to keep the heat of the scene? Who knows? Maybe it is easier to stick with capturing pistoning flesh? (...not that there's anything wrong with pistoning flesh..) Given budget and time constraints of editing, as TonyC mentions a single cameraperson needs the skill and wherewithall to kind of take us on a tour of the action without getting stuck someplace for too long. [Link]
Mike Quasar Zero Tolerance Reluctant pornographer 1765 Posts 7/01	Posted - Oct 31 2005 : 9:09AM Too many close-ups is like filming a sports car in action and only showing the floor mats. [Link]
BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04	Posted - Oct 31 2005 : 9:47AM For some good examples of Directors/Camera giving some thought to what they are going to shoot and how they are going to frame the scenes, watch any of Mike Quasar's behind-the-scenes footage from ZT's Strip Tease Then Fuck series. Then, go back and watch the scenes themselves and see how it has all been edited together. Proof positive that it is possible to shoot gonzo (or all-sex) creatively... and in a way that can be affordably edited to final form within the monetary constraints of the porn industry. Bonus... Quaze is frequently hilarious in his behind-the-scenes and interview stuff! [Link]
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Oct 31 2005 : 9:59AM One other thing: I fucking love love love close ups! I love seeing big fat enthusiastics cocks pumping in and out of hot wet eager cunts! I love the raw, fleshy mechanics of sex, I love it love it love it! If you don't love it, you should shoot something else! [Link]