what turns a $5,000 girl into a $25,000 one?

[Paul Markham]

Over the years I must of shot a 1,000 girls in way way or another. And few made it into the top ranks. Most pretty girls were worth 2-3 sets. Some attractive ones 4-6 and very very few 10 or over. I'm talking magazine sales or sales that net $5,000 profit from the day.

As I'm shredding all the old stuff we have on slides I'm coming across a few who really made money.

Helen Hanson was the first real winner I had.



Helen Hanson video

Helen Hanson video We shot content a lot softer in the 80s so the tease was very important.



Sadly I found Helen a week before I went to Thailand on holiday. When I got back a month later she had been shot to death by Joanie Alumn. But I got 3 great sets and 4 great video scenes in and they made me a lot of money.

[fallenmuffin]

Marketing.

[Davy]

Nice girl. I would really not shred the old stuff.

[Paul Markham]

I see so many threads asking if this girl or that girl is good enough for a solo girl site and wonder if she really is. Helen Hanson would of been. Her first two videos revealed a softer side of her and the last two she let rip. Must try and decode those two.

But here's a girl who would of been a blast on video. I didn't shoot any because by the time I got to shoot her the BBFC license thing had closed down my mail order business. She had sexuality in bucket loads and wasn't scared to show it. Isabelle could turn you on with just a look. Felt ten foot tall going out with her on dates.







Made it into Barely Legal and the less teen mags. And the leg ones, just for Barefootsies.

[Bryan G]

She was shot to death?

[TrashyGirl]

Originally Posted by Davy

Nice girl. I would really not shred the old stuff.

I agree w/Davy. Vintage porn photos sell at auction houses. (I know yours are on slides and aren't of a vintage collector's desired era yet but...) Your stuff may have some value years from now. Why not sell it to someone to archive it for you.

[minicivan]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

When I got back a month later she had been shot to death by Joanie Alumn. But I got 3 great sets and 4 great video scenes in and they made me a lot of money.

[mafia_man]

Originally Posted by Bryan G

She was shot to death?

With a camera, very bad phrasing.

[AzteK]

Originally Posted by mafia_man

With a camera, very bad phrasing.

no shit, shot to death means killed...

[ottopottomouse]

Originally Posted by Bryan G

She was shot to death?

Something 'to death' is English for completely overdone.

[Cyandin]

$20,000

[dirtybaker1331]

Very interesting choice of words. Shot to death. Wait, was she shot though? seriously? Is everybody ok?

[chronig]

This guy is such a fucking kook...can you please give it a rest already old man markham???

You were going over some shit? BULLSHIT! You post that same picture you took in the 80s which holds no relevance in today's market WEEKLY. YES EVERY WEEK. You post it as EXGF material, you post it as whatever the fuck you can think of.

PAUL - YOU'RE LOSING IT!!! Too much LSD or Acid, seriously, your brain is fucking wired.

You post that same dumb cunt that no one gives a shit about because you probably haven't shot a successful model since shooting her back in the 80s. Now STFU already.

[thickcash_amo]

damn those wardrobes crack me up!

[Jakez]

Getting deja vu ITT.

[mOrrI]

Sales pitch?

[Vick!]

wrong thread. nvm

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by TrashyGirl

I agree w/Davy. Vintage porn photos sell at auction houses. (I know yours are on slides and aren't of a vintage collector's desired era yet but...) Your stuff may have some value years from now. Why not sell it to someone to archive it for you.

I've tried many many places to sell this stuff and no takers. As for archive it for the future, well if this stuff ever becomes sought after there are millions of slides out there to satisfy any demand. Content of better quality than mine.

All the slides have been digitised so we still have the images.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

Something 'to death' is English for completely overdone.

Yes it means other photographers had taken all the cream off the top. My job was always about finding new girls. Sometimes great and sometimes just good. Following other photographers in shooting a girl could cost a lot of money.

Hence the saying "Shot to Death."

Some girls did go on to become stars and many quit the business after the initial spell. One of those was Claire Graham. Whose content will follow soon.

[Paul Markham]

Claire Graham had good looks, personality and a lot of sexuality she could convey to the camera. Claire did everything from soft solo to hardcore boy girl and loved it all. She was shot by quite a few photographers before I found her, so "Shot to Death".

But I did get some great videos out of her and went on a very memorable trip with her and a few other girls to Portugal.

Still today for a solo girl site she would rival the very best girls. And that's what this thread is about. Besides marketing what makes a girl good enough to carry a solo girl site beyond the marketing stage. Makes her content good enough to convert and retain? Claire would of no problem.



And on video absolutely no problem getting a massive orgasm from her.

Claire Graham video

Claire Graham video. That was how Claire orgasmed. With or without the machine. She loved that machine, still got it and Eva's not selling.



Except for fashion, quality of the image and technology porn has changed little in the last 30 years. Even Ex Gf is just a twist on Readers Wives we were shooting in the 80s.

[Major (Tom)]

1st set of pics looks like jon bennet-ramsey if she were alive, and 30.
ds

[ottopottomouse]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Even Ex Gf is just a twist on Readers Wives we were shooting in the 80s.

Pretty fucking twisty twist.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

Pretty fucking twisty twist.

Twistys. Now there's a site making $$$ from 80s style. Someone should tell Shap he's doing it all wrong. LOL

[Randy West]

Originally Posted by chronig

This guy is such a fucking kook...can you please give it a rest already old man markham???

You were going over some shit? BULLSHIT! You post that same picture you took in the 80s which holds no relevance in today's market WEEKLY. YES EVERY WEEK. You post it as EXGF material, you post it as whatever the fuck you can think of.

PAUL - YOU'RE LOSING IT!!! Too much LSD or Acid, seriously, your brain is fucking wired.

You post that same dumb cunt that no one gives a shit about because you probably haven't shot a successful model since shooting her back in the 80s. Now STFU already.

Man, show some respect for a veteran of this industry. If it wasn't for "kooks" like this, the industry wouldn't even be close to where it is today. You are talking to a guy that has shot for Mayfair magazine, as well as a host of others.

This guy did more in the 90's and 00's during a 2 minute shit on the toilet than you have done in your entire life.

[fris]

what year was the first pics taken in

[SurfDog]

TrashyGirl is C-U-T-E !

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Randy West

Man, show some respect for a veteran of this industry. If it wasn't for "kooks" like this, the industry wouldn't even be close to where it is today. You are talking to a guy that has shot for Mayfair magazine, as well as a host of others.

This guy did more in the 90's and 00's during a 2 minute shit on the toilet than you have done in your entire life.

Thanks for sticking up for an old timer.

No worries about being accused of producing 80s content. People over 35 do buy porn on the Internet and some of them might not be interested in stuff that appeals to 18 year olds. It's a compliment that I was doing this in the 80s and still might in the 10s.

Originally Posted by fris

what year was the first pics taken in

1988 without checking the model release. I had been doing stuff before then but a raid by the police wiped out a lot of the stuff prior to 1988.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by mOrrI

Sales pitch?

Not really a lot of this stuff is not on the content stores and it's more about all the threads asking if a girl is worth a solo girl site. Without a few videos it's impossible to tell.

All the marketing in the world won't make a site with an average girl retain. Even converting requires something on the tour to make the surfer think the girl is really worth a membership. Unless affiliates want to throw traffic at a site that doesn't convert. Conversions ratios are the key to $$$

[Paul Markham]

Susane is on the content stores, so maybe a bit spammy. LOL

We shot a lot of her and only a couple of years ago. Happy doing Solo and 2 girl. We even persuaded her to do boy girl with her boyfriend. She had a great personality, bundles of tease and loves sex. The only thing which held her back was her command of English on camera. Off it was good, on she didn't feel confident enough to talk. But a couple of sites did shoot her for solo girl sites.







Susane loved the girls.

But not talking on camera.

And DP or anal sex.



She had all the tease, knew how to work. But that lack of English was always a factor that stopped a lot of her personality coming over and a problem with all girls who don't speak English as a first Language or can't talk to camera. They just become a pretty girl in the end.

Not helping conversions or retention.

[Paul Markham]

Here's some girls who did make it into the top of their trade. They all had something that separated them from the 100s of other girls trying to make it in the business. Today I see tons of pretty girls spammed, rarely any videos of them and that's what sells today. A girl who can make a surfer become a member on pure performance and personality.

These I was lucky enough to get at the beginning of their careers in orn.

Andrea Spinks was one of the last girls I shot in the UK. By the time she got to me Eva and I had made the decision to move to Czech and only shot a handful of sets.





Claire Margarson I did shoot and did video. She went on to be quite a sensation on porn videos. No surprise really.

Claire Margarson Video

Claire Margarson. In the first one she appears quite innocent and in this one she loses all that and shows how she changed during the day.





More to follow. Need to go eat breakfast. Or is it lunch time yet?

[CaptainHowdy]

Looks like "shaving" it's the answer on those cases...

[seeandsee]

that second is winner!

by shreading the old stuff do you mean. . . . oh forget it, bad age joke about paul markham :P

[Chosen]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Over the years I must of shot a 1,000 girls in way way or another. And few made it into the top ranks. Most pretty girls were worth 2-3 sets. Some attractive ones 4-6 and very very few 10 or over. I'm talking magazine sales or sales that net $5,000 profit from the day.

As I'm shredding all the old stuff we have on slides I'm coming across a few who really made money.

Helen Hanson was the first real winner I had.



Helen Hanson video

Helen Hanson video We shot content a lot softer in the 80s so the tease was very important.



Sadly I found Helen a week before I went to Thailand on holiday. When I got back a month later she had been shot to death by Joanie Alumn. But I got 3 great sets and 4 great video scenes in and they made me a lot of money.

She's a Hottie

[ArsewithClass]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Both have fab pussies. The hairy pussy has got some braun that makes you wants to touch & stroke her all over, but those puffy lips on the second girl. Wouldnt you want to get your mouth or dick wrapped inside


Nice girls. Just wondering Paul. What kind of lighting do you use? These are older shots, so I suppose there wasnt halogen or metal halide... Im interested to know as I still find I havent got my photos perfect using halogen, metal halide & fluorescent bulbs.

Give me some tips please including the wattage of the bulbs

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

that second is winner!

They were all winners. Some didn't last long and some did. Like Andrea Spinks and Susane. All made the guys who shot and promoted them a lot of money. Few shooters can make $5,000 from a days shoot today.

I had it easy, once I crossed the line of learning how to do it and making a profit from shooting content. All I needed to do was find a fresh pretty face. Today you need so much more. Yet;

Today content is churned out on a conveyor belt and much of it is pretty mediocre. And some of the girls have nothing to offer other than a pretty face. Yet when traffic hits a site nothing matters but that sites ability to convert traffic. Our income depends on it, unless you like throwing traffic at a site that doesn't convert.

Marketing is often telling the customer horse meat tastes like prime steak. After a while the consumer gets wise and depends on the strength of the content and not the words. Then a special girl comes into her own.

Think about a site that converted 50% better and retained 50% longer. Special content does that.

[Grapesoda]

johns.... there are no $100 whores, only $100 johns..

[Paul Markham]

Now here's a girl who just turned up ready to fuck the world and thank them for it. Donna Warner had something very special, not looks for sure. But an ability to get a guys dick hard by just enjoying herself.



Donna Warner and Claire Graham. It's the only sample I can find for now, but shows her eagerness.



Kway was the prettier one but only did a bit of work. When she climaxed she cooed like a pigeon. Crazy sound.

Yes the girls didn't all shave themselves those days.

[Paul Markham]

I suppose Nici Sterling of all the girls I shot made it to the top most. With an upper crust voice, an appetite for sex, pretty good looks and squirted on orgasm. All it took was brains to make it and she had that.



Nici Sterling video. She squirted on orgasm and put her hand over her pussy. Didn't realise what a bonus that would of been.

[ArsewithClass]

Originally Posted by ArsewithClass

Nice girls. Just wondering Paul. What kind of lighting do you use? These are older shots, so I suppose there wasnt halogen or metal halide... Im interested to know as I still find I havent got my photos perfect using halogen, metal halide & fluorescent bulbs.

Give me some tips please including the wattage of the bulbs

All these photos & still no answer to your lighting Paul... Im serious that I am interested in knowing what you use?

[garce]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Thanks for sticking up for an old timer.

No worries about being accused of producing 80s content. People over 35 do buy porn on the Internet and some of them might not be interested in stuff that appeals to 18 year olds. It's a compliment that I was doing this in the 80s and still might in the 10s.

Paul, I'm 47 and I'd rather look at the old stuff you post here than the generic plastic clone shit that passes for porn these days. 90% of today's "modern" websites might as well just have one scene - because every video they have is identical to the one I just watched a minute ago. Different faces and different bodies perhaps, but its still the same scene over and over and over. And if you watch enough, the bodies and faces don't even change.

Unfortunately for old guys like me, there is no way to find the great original smut that I grew up with in the late '70s and '80s and early '90s That old crap wouldn't sell, anyways...

Keep posting your old stuff. I appreciate your work.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by ArsewithClass

Nice girls. Just wondering Paul. What kind of lighting do you use? These are older shots, so I suppose there wasnt halogen or metal halide... Im interested to know as I still find I havent got my photos perfect using halogen, metal halide & fluorescent bulbs.

Give me some tips please including the wattage of the bulbs

Didn't see your post because I have you on ignore. But did open up one so here goes.

For stills I used strobe lights. Usually 1 @ 6 o'clock and 1 @ 2:30 o'clock to the girl. The front light was my key light and with an exposure meter set the aperture of the camera. The side light was usually half a stop higher than the key light and filled in the background and lifted the girl off of the background. Front light had a soft box and higher than 6 foot the side light same hight and through a shoot through umbrella.

For video I used cheap lights they use to illuminate buildings, builder use them and great for small rooms. Used a similar set up with both on shoot through umbrellas. Again using a light meter to get exposure right. You need to balance the video camera to get the color right. Easy today with digital video.

I see lots of posts from photographers saying they don't need or use a light meter. Without it your relying on knowledge you might not of built up and hit and miss. Using a digital camera and taking a series of test shots still leaves a photographer the task of taking level readings from lots of different areas to see if the light is doing exactly what he requires.

I see shots for top glamor sites where the exposure on the face is too high or the exposure on the feet too low. The over all lighting is uneven. All this can be found out by using a light meter and taking readings from all points of the model, head to toe. And points of the location. A goof light meter will also read reflected light. This is light that hits the lens and cases this effect.



Near the top on the left is flare coming off a back light. Also the picture is soft, not the effect I wanted. If I want soft I use a diffuser filter so I can control it. That mistake cost me money.

And made me more aware of the benefits of using a light meter.

You can't shoot good pictures using lights that are meant for video. Buy some strobe lights, books on lighting and experiment to get the lighting set up you like.

All rooms and locations will set their own problems and demands. Shooting into a white wall is going to give a totally different lighting to shooting into a black wall or no wall at all, like a large room of outside. Shooting in the forest is different from shooting in a wheat field.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by garce

Paul, I'm 47 and I'd rather look at the old stuff you post here than the generic plastic clone shit that passes for porn these days. 90% of today's "modern" websites might as well just have one scene - because every video they have is identical to the one I just watched a minute ago. Different faces and different bodies perhaps, but its still the same scene over and over and over. And if you watch enough, the bodies and faces don't even change.

Unfortunately for old guys like me, there is no way to find the great original smut that I grew up with in the late '70s and '80s and early '90s That old crap wouldn't sell, anyways...

Keep posting your old stuff. I appreciate your work.

Good post.

Even the greatest idea for a porn scene gets boring after it's repeated 20 times. Yet sites still think churning out the same old scene, shot by the same shooter time after time is the key. Once you've seen a girl fucked in the back of a van 20 times it start to get boring.

Had an interesting chat with a custom shooter a little while ago. And a custom buyer more recently. The shooter doesn't send a girl home who isn't doing her job right. He keeps going trying to get something out of her.

The buyer still accepts content that isn't coming up to the standard he needs. After repeatedly telling the shooters what's needed.

The shooter is encouraging a bad attitude from models. The buyer is doing the same with shooters.

When I shot for magazines the amount of content sent to an editor was 10 times what he needed. Competition for the sales was high. If your work was not spot on it didn't sell. If the girl didn't do the work the way I needed she went home with no money.

Because I wasn't shooting for the fun of it and to lose money.

[ArsewithClass]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Didn't see your post because I have you on ignore. But did open up one so here goes.

For stills I used strobe lights. Usually 1 @ 6 o'clock and 1 @ 2:30 o'clock to the girl. The front light was my key light and with an exposure meter set the aperture of the camera. The side light was usually half a stop higher than the key light and filled in the background and lifted the girl off of the background. Front light had a soft box and higher than 6 foot the side light same hight and through a shoot through umbrella.

For video I used cheap lights they use to illuminate buildings, builder use them and great for small rooms. Used a similar set up with both on shoot through umbrellas. Again using a light meter to get exposure right. You need to balance the video camera to get the color right. Easy today with digital video.

I see lots of posts from photographers saying they don't need or use a light meter. Without it your relying on knowledge you might not of built up and hit and miss. Using a digital camera and taking a series of test shots still leaves a photographer the task of taking level readings from lots of different areas to see if the light is doing exactly what he requires.

I see shots for top glamor sites where the exposure on the face is too high or the exposure on the feet too low. The over all lighting is uneven. All this can be found out by using a light meter and taking readings from all points of the model, head to toe. And points of the location. A goof light meter will also read reflected light. This is light that hits the lens and cases this effect.

Near the top on the left is flare coming off a back light. Also the picture is soft, not the effect I wanted. If I want soft I use a diffuser filter so I can control it. That mistake cost me money.

And made me more aware of the benefits of using a light meter.

You can't shoot good pictures using lights that are meant for video. Buy some strobe lights, books on lighting and experiment to get the lighting set up you like.

All rooms and locations will set their own problems and demands. Shooting into a white wall is going to give a totally different lighting to shooting into a black wall or no wall at all, like a large room of outside. Shooting in the forest is different from shooting in a wheat field.

I use my lights in a similar way, the soft box burnt out when I began using a 250watt halogen, it melted the plastic, so have movd to fluorescent. Im just getting too much white now though. Now I only use the 2 umbrellas.

What lamps are you using? & do you ever use the reflectors to bounce the light backwards to the model?

I know what you mean with shooting in forests. If you get the light right its great but otherwise, the light beaming through the trees can really give some awkward lines & shade areas you want lit.

[botfurom]

Because of affiliates who promote them.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by ArsewithClass

I use my lights in a similar way, the soft box burnt out when I began using a 250watt halogen, it melted the plastic, so have movd to fluorescent. Im just getting too much white now though. Now I only use the 2 umbrellas.

What lamps are you using? & do you ever use the reflectors to bounce the light backwards to the model?

I know what you mean with shooting in forests. If you get the light right its great but otherwise, the light beaming through the trees can really give some awkward lines & shade areas you want lit.

Never used a soft box on a tungsten light. Have seen them on fluorescent lights but those lights are diffused already and careful balancing will get it right. The problem with them is high lighting certain areas which in better end work is essential.

I use to use 1,000 and 500 watt lamps.

If you get too much white use the white balance facility.

Have used umbrellas to bounce light but it lessen the control of the light, so shoot through is the method I preferred.

Another problem of shooting in the forest is the lack of clean blue light, it's filtered through green leaves and bounces off brown leaves. Can be a bugger with film. Unless you know what filters to use. Uneven light can be used to your benefit.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by botfurom

Because of affiliates who promote them.

A girl can be successful if she gets enough traffic. But all the affiliate can do is send surfers and prepare the way. The conversions and retention are down to the shooters ability to capture her talent and her talent.

Unless you want to send traffic to a site that pays you less than other sites. Most affiliates will soon cut traffic to a girl who doesn't make the best out of their traffic.

[james_clickmemedia]

It's crazy how much magazines used to pay for photo shoots.

[ArsewithClass]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Never used a soft box on a tungsten light. Have seen them on fluorescent lights but those lights are diffused already and careful balancing will get it right. The problem with them is high lighting certain areas which in better end work is essential.

I use to use 1,000 and 500 watt lamps.

If you get too much white use the white balance facility.

Have used umbrellas to bounce light but it lessen the control of the light, so shoot through is the method I preferred.

Another problem of shooting in the forest is the lack of clean blue light, it's filtered through green leaves and bounces off brown leaves. Can be a bugger with film. Unless you know what filters to use. Uneven light can be used to your benefit.

Paul, thanks. Ill try get some brighter lamps. I do have a cpl of 500watt sodiums & metal halides that I havnt tried yet. I need to buy the starter motors & housing for them. I have a 300 metal at the moment it does pump out some nice light.

The sodium is so yellow, I thought that bouncing off the back wall with the metal hal pointing on the subjects, may create a nice light

I didnt realise that about the blue being soaked up... thats why the photos change different when lightening them on PS. I do try not to change my pics by PS but just occasionally you need to brighten one.

Its great to mess about with lighting and find the difference in photos, makes the job worth it more

[Matyko]

Originally Posted by Randy West

Man, show some respect for a veteran of this industry. If it wasn't for "kooks" like this, the industry wouldn't even be close to where it is today. You are talking to a guy that has shot for Mayfair magazine, as well as a host of others.

This guy did more in the 90's and 00's during a 2 minute shit on the toilet than you have done in your entire life.