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.
Hardware writes: "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."
Mike South says: "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."
James DiGiorgio emails:
A) I’d like to echo what the hillbilly said. His comments are spot on.
B) I’d also like to add a few personal observations regarding what "Hardware" said: While it’s true a photographer has certain luxuries that aren’t always available to videographers, his or her statement should not be construed to mean there might only be 50 good images in a set of 500. Certainly (and hopefully) the fifty best will be chosen for publication. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t many, many more great images in those 500. Also, as a long-time videographer myself, I’ve worked countless times where 4 or 5 hours were spent shooting one scene only to get 30 minutes (more or less) of great footage. Of course, I’ve also worked where 30 minutes was spent recording 30 minutes of (so-called) useable footage. Depends on the project. Depends on the director, the PM, the company, and other variables.
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….
I like magazine layouts more than movies. By far.
Another fact is that you have to use more the imagination. In movies if the girl does not like the sex and is faking it it shows. Same if the stud is not interested. The lack of chemistry is easier to hide in layouts.
Gosh I agree with Mike South. When you know something about the subject, its really laughable to see just how bad these “productions” really are. When you make hard copy prints, magazine or other wise you have to have a degree of technical knowledge beyond most. And that includes digital, colour management/profiling is not easy stuff.
I don’t think there’s any still glamour photographer who spends five hours shooting. Also, while we might receive 200-300 shots to edit from, we are restricted as to how many shots we can fit in the available pages for the pictorial/layout. We might choose one shot over another, not because of bad quality, but because of a preference such as something as simple as a better (in the editor’s opinion) facial expression or slightly different angle. The shot’s layout (whether it’s horizontal or vertical) might also come into play.
There’s an endless list of “directors” in adult, and while many are more than qualified, there’s a reason while there are only maybe a dozen or so (if even that many) successful photographers who shoot layouts for magazines. Shots that appear in magazines have to be more spot-on as well. There’s much less room for error. Make-up, lighting, set decoration, wardrobe, positioning, color, framing, etc. has to be more accounted for as it’s a much less forgiving format.