I have seen very few girl/boy magazine sex layouts that are boring. It seems they capture the perfect angles. Given, the shots are done while posing, the way they're shot is wonderful and could easily be done on film. Yet, Why am I seeing so many no talent, untrained idiots directing with the same stupid angles shot from the floor with no change of angles whatsoever. Too many directors fascinated with the butt closeups and nothing else. Yet, the magazine shots always seem perfect. The biggest joke is seeing these porn actresses and actors directing movies. Give me a break. What the hell kind of film school did they go to or for that matter, most porn directors. In the 80's and 90's, we could at least see the girl's faces and bodies on a regular basis. This just baffles me.
I agree that there's a fixation on close-ups of all kinds, and certainly the viewer wants more variety. But not all directors are inept and not all performers who direct are inept. Case in point is porn star Lola's directorial role in Tiny's Black Adventures. The angles are fantastic.
The magazine photographer can shoot 500 pictures to get the perfect fifty. I doubt many people shooting porn movies are willing to go five hours in order to get thirty minutes of perfect footage.
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Aug 10 2007 : 12:59AM
In some of the Private Castings series they actually show the process of a hardcore still photo shoot which is obviously done at the same time as filming a hardcore movie. The photographers seem pretty demanding and it is probably tough to keep wood with all the starting and stopping to get good still photos. Most of these movies are not in english but I'm sure you'll get the gist. I am not sure which american XXX video companies even put out print mags anymore. I have a few old issues of Buttman magazine but they were of course comprised of stills shot during Buttman movies. And there is something nice about the glossy feel of some of the higher end mags (not the stuff you find in 7-11). Does Color Climax still exist? WHen I was working at an adult shop I remember seeing a few Seymore Butts magazines but they looked pretty chintzy and short. For some bizarre reason the list prices for hardcore magazines is tremendous. I think Private magazines cost us around 12-14 bucks a piece wholesale. I think our customers were better off just investing in a DVD player. My
[Link]
dvd4dvd Deactivated User
292 Posts 6/07
Posted - Aug 10 2007 : 1:00AM
no offense what so ever my friend, but you seriously need to rent more porn. some porns are better than others. some make your cock snore, while others make you scream..Look out! it's gonna blow!!!! Kaboom!!! and leave you with one hell of a cum blast that would make you grab the mop! I agree that in the past mags have gotten better than the mags in the past. but mags will never EVER be better than movies. and that's a big no way, ever!
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Aug 10 2007 : 1:07AM
You just disagreed with someone about their *own* opinion of their *own* tastes. You must be a close friend indeed to know someone better then they know themselves.
You are totally right but In porn movies what can one director do because i think their main aim is to show sex scenes either they take this way or that way.I think they are right at their place and they gets coached from good school.this is site for coaching job in usa
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Aug 10 2007 : 1:47AM
This link goes to a site for people who want to learn to coach HIGH SCHOOL kids. This is an adult board and linking to anything having to do with young people is totally out of line. Go away.
While comparisons may be a thing of conjecture, I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Mag layouts should be judged within their own realm and the same for film footage. Mag shots are lit and posed specifically for an instant moment while film scenes are lit and dressed and have to relate with a preceding scene or a succeeding scene. Some mag layouts I will like if they're lit well. Don't like pictorials that are too dark. Another thing Im increasingly not liking with mags is stars or starlets using dildos or vibrators in the shoot. Take a recent layout I saw of beautiful Katja Kassin. I just want to see and admire her wonderful round form but she had a dildo in every picture. I saw Katja in another layout that featured her camel toe while wearing white shorts. This was magnificent as im crazy about gilrs wearing white shorts and especially a girl with the derriere of Katja Kassin. With a movie scene it's the action in it that can cause it to succeed or fail along with the way the scene looks. Michael Ninn for instance is a prolific film director and shoots the majority of his stuff in a misty kind of photography. His work is distinctive by their box covers when you go to a well stocked video store. But to me that dreamy kind of porn photography has to be matched by some great fucking. But whether or not you think the work of a director like Ninn is good or bad you can't deny that he has a sort of trademark as a porn maker.
IMO magazine stills are shot better than most porn movies for the simple reason that stills are usually shot by "trained" photographers, whereas anybody who can talk a girl into sucking a dick can "direct" a sexvid. Also, with still photograph it's easier to get the lighting right, because people aren't moving. And, IMO, since most sexvid product is Gonzo, the focus of the shoot is to shock, be extreme, etc. So, having the scene look "good" is not really a consideration.
that's how standards have fallen in the last number of years. For instance I think Playboy layouts of the 60s & up to the mid 70s are vastly superior to modern layouts of the magazine. It's all gone down hill IMHO. A one-day-wonder porn film like 1977's Cherry Hustlers was very well shot and photographed with the director & cameraman being innovative in shooting dialogue in a small airplane. Modern prints of that movie don't do it justice. Quality varies from film production to film production. The early to mid 90s saw some of the worst(photographically) amateur/gonzo coming from many different avenues. Nevertheless in these flicks the sex was often hot, not always but more often than not. Then gonzo people like Buttman & Seymore came along and their shit was looking good as well as being hot. I think today the visual quality of gonzo is better than ever and improved itself from the mid 90s period. Alas the technology has picked up too.
[Link]
MikeSouth Deactivated User
511 Posts 11/02
Posted - Aug 10 2007 : 2:10PM
The real truth is to get a layout in a magazine you have to be a real photographer. It requires skill. To shoot a movie these days you dont have to know the first thing about even photography and that is evidenced by the poor quality that you noted. There arent a handfull of director or cameramen in porn who know even the basics of what they should, but they can hold a camera and produce porn for dirt cheap, which explains why the product is shit. Cant do that with a camera and get published….
Mike South hits it to a core. My point is that the angles shot and used in magazines (usually taken from the side and the front) are fabulous but I rarely see these same angles used in video, yet they easily could be. Instead, we always have rear shots and closeups and everything taken as if we're an ant on the floor looking up all the time. I don't mind this if there's some variety. Some directors (not enough) offer that. Most book an incredible hotty but ruin the scene with crappy filming and I'm tired of throwing my money away to these idiot directors.
Last person please turn off the lights 85 Posts 7/07
Posted - Aug 10 2007 : 8:49PM
maccer look up the tommy kaye threads..... he has some of the most professional camera work out there. really good variety of shots. he obviously is one of the directors with training.... i urge you to check out his dvds.... if your tired of shit. he is pro all the way:) how the f--k did top companies miss this guy is a wonder? he's been around a while...
yeah, dvd4dvd seems a bit special, which can be seen in any of his posts. the only reason i read them is because they're stupid and it's fun to find fault with them.
You've expressed porn's biggest problem very nicely here:Getting back to your video/magazine comparison, people have been taking stills of nude women for well over 100 years, while gonzo video is a relatively new art form. Also, with most magazines you get to inspect the actual content before buying; most videos are bought based on the box cover, so there is less financial incentive to shooting them well.
[Link]
MikeSouth Deactivated User
511 Posts 11/02
Posted - Aug 11 2007 : 2:49PM
^A NEW ART FORM? Are you insane? The basic rules of lighting, composition and simple camerawork is the same for film and video. The bottom line is morons with cameras. I will bet there arent 5 directors in porn valley who know what the aperture ring on the camera is, what it does and why. I bet there are even fewer who understand the rules of composition. all they want is cheap product, so they give the flavor of the week a camera and tell her she is a director....what a bunch of fucking morons
Chloe Temple Interview
Posted - Aug 9 2007 : 11:06PM
