Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherry7
I think that all porn photography is pretty poor and always was...
The photos for mags although having a minimum technical standards the photography was routine, done to a formula, and pretty boring...same photos different girl....repeat....
The internet and digital cameras has led to fall in standards...but most of all the lack of ambition of photographers and webdesigners, also the piss poor attitude of review sites that live in a porn world where they have never seen a mainstrean photograph or movie.
The fact that a major photo site earns a shit load of cash - the photography is ok but just ok. Quantity over originaliy or creativity. and yet gets top marks from review sites....
If porn now exists in a legal state in many countries and in cyberspace why is it not evolving in to a high quality, customer friendly and artistic venture ?
Its roots of criminals filming prostitutes is long gone, is it not time porn grew up and entered mainstream culture ?
|
Very few of us porn shooters are good photographers. It's not the required skill. We're pornographers not photographers.
Some like Suze, Joanie Alumn, Jack Harrison, Steve Hicks, Hank London, etc. Could turn their hand to being creative sometimes. But the wankability often suffered and men buy porn to wank over.
The governing factor is it has to sell to the end user. He wants to jerk off to it not sit back and admire the photography.
The difference the porn Internet made was Site Owners ability to know the difference between porn and naked people, budgets and their acceptance level.
I posted a thread a long time ago about the failing of Site Owners to buy or create good content. I never made that kind of post during my time shooting. Why is obvious, the last thing I wanted were Site Owners realising they could make their content free by selling it outside the Internet.
If some of ATK's content had been good enough to sell to magazines they could of swamped the magazine market and made it very hard for those in that field. Especially us who they would of directed competed with.
Think about it, for their $1500 to $2,000 a day shoot they could of sold 1 set that paid for the entire days work. It would of been tough for them to sell 365 sets every year, but we managed to sell over 200 every year.
The harsh truth isn't that they couldn't be bothered. Because I know the truth.
They did try to sell to magazines. And got turned down.
Does it apply to DVD sales? Well try and name a few Internet sites who sell or market INTO the DVD market.
So the product webmasters were trying their hardest to sell wasn't acceptable in a better paying market. Imagine what that did to customer loyalty.
You asked a very good question, to which there is only one answer.
"If porn now exists in a legal state in many countries and in cyberspace why is it not evolving in to a high quality, customer friendly and artistic venture ?"
Michelangelo couldn't paint the Sistine Chapel on a house painters budget.
Internet sites pay poorly for content, so webmasters get poor content to sell. 10 years ago the myth was the surfer wanted more and more amateur content, the more amateur the better. As companies started to get more money and shooter got more skill. It all changed, Then Twistys, Only Tease, etc. Were producing what the surfers wanted. I don't suppose it had anything to do with the ability to pay or create better content.
