Shoot style which is better?
 

Is an amateur style better then a pro style for a solo site? What is a good successful program that would be an example for someone just starting out. We can shoot pro style, but do we really want to? I'm looking at guys like Spunkycash and Philflash and thinking, hey, the photography isn't that spectacular, kinda average, is that the way to go? I've also heard that the cookie cutter "fake shit" doesn't sell that great. Help someone out who's trying to find the light!

Lets see some of your work

I think amateur is better.

I think that the amateur stuff works well. And have the girl actually shoot some of herself. Like in a mirror before she gets in the shower etc.

go with "quality amateur"

Agree with the last three posts.

May sometimes be harder to do as a photographer - means rule-breaking and producing content that may make you develop a twitch every time you see it.

As a clue, got a friend who edits a fairly high circulation "amateur" mag. The reason for the circulation is the grainly, rough-at-the-edges amateur look. OK.. it's digital now, but he had a preference for material shot with a $10 Instamatic camera :)

The lesson is downgrade quality and shoot full auto to make the photos look like they were taken by her giggly school girl friend.

Is it good to include some higher quality photos or not neccessary at all? Is the key really to make the girl look like she's attainable and giver her a next door look. Avoid the commercial photography, high story production type look?

It's such a hard thing to grasp as a content producer. I know someplaces its best to go for quality and some sites it will work, but I'm looking for what works in most cases and I guess it's high quality amateur. It's an interesting concept for sure.

This is our style now only with better lighting (dont have pics on me right now though). This was taken with no lighting assist. I guess camera mount flash is fine then?

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...8443_small.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...8425_ed_mm.jpg

Phil and Spunky's style is great - solo girl sites origins are in the amateur niche and that's what the fans want I think. BUT then you have a site like Lia19 - so there's no one right answer.

i'm pushing my partner to shoot more amateur. on the whole i think it's better for solo girl sites.

yer email is dead

no it's not - i just got an email from you :)

When I started my first solo girl site I had to decide which way to go. For my own taste, I don't care too much for photos of models that are unrealistic. I hate the plastic, over photochopped look. There are so many things that add to a models appeal and many of those get photochopped out.

I want my members to see my model pretty much as she is. When they look at my pictures I want them to feel like they are there. Like they are part of the picture. Keep her at a realistic level and make her seem approachable.

How can some guy relate to a plastic model on some million dollar yacht with lighting he's never seen. I try to make my pictures look like something the member would see through his own eyes as if he were standing there.

I also have a section in her members area of candid shots of her doing normal stuff and having fun. Many of them have her without makeup and the fans love it. I get a lot of emails saying how much they appreciate letting them see the REAL Julie and it helps bring her down to earth.

You should know by now that there is no one way to do it and I bet there are plenty of fans out there for every style. I made my choice based on what I like, the ease and fun of creating the content I'd have and most importantly, what I could get away with in working with the model. I'm very lucky to have found someone that can do it all. Here are a few examples of our work.

http://www.julie-clarke.com/public_h...ckedweasel.jpg

http://www.julie-clarke.com/public_h...s/sailboat.jpg

http://www.julie-clarke.com/public_h...ges/crush2.jpg

http://www.julie-clarke.com/public_h...udekitchen.jpg

I personally prefer amatuer looking stuff. At least for the Internet anyways.

depends on the customer and the girl . I have to say the second girl has a amazing ass.

Yeah, he does a great job. How about posting a few recent pics?

I think you are using a very old defination of amateur photos, not a current one.
Amateur shots does not have to be lower quality or grainy, little $200 cameras can take some really good photos now days.
See, most guys who try to shoot amateur stuff screw it up because they are trying to do it, amateurs when they take a picture try to do their best but because they only have a 200$ camera and a built in flash, no studio and did not rent out a nice place for the shoot, they get "stuff" in the background, sometimes a little darker then what a light meter would say and so on.

Here is what I think a good amateur photo is... this one is of me.


http://www.landofvenus.com/dance/Pic000016z.jpg

and one more good amateur photo of me


http://www.landofvenus.com/dance/PIC00021.JPG

Always remove the lens cap before shooting...

ADG Webmaster

Dude...

Shoot what YOU would jack off to. Master that, what ever it is, and your audience will find you.

If you don't like it or think it's hot, you can't expect others to pay for it.

Trust me on this one.

Personally i like amateur, more vivid for me.

They both work.

Sure.. sack the lighting help - also makeup/stylist is not needed.

Only my :2 cents: , but you see a very "ordinary" cute girl arrive at the studio in her "real" clothes and being her "real" self. She disappears into the makeup room and emerges as a totally different girl ready for a shoot - often hardly recognisable - and looking like some perfectly-formed goddess ready for a calendar shoot. That is not "amateur" :winkwink:

Dunno Chris.. just a thought... a keyword may be "candid".