otto1219 wrote:OK, some clarification or reiteration is apparently needed.
I am NOT saying that no movement is desired. Some camera movement is necessary.
I am saying that the movement that is often there is done VERY poorly with lots of jerkiness.
And I agree, but again, how are you defining "jerkiness"? Is rapid movement considered "jerkiness" to you? I think we agree that the jerkiness of scenes could be improved, and that is an ongoing goal of mine, but we may not agree on what exactly constitutes jerkiness vs. intentional kineticism.
To claim that "gonzo" technique requires jerky sloppy camera work is a straw man response to my critique.
Gonzo is NOT defined by a moving camera, but by the balls to the wall action with no pretense of redeeming social qualities. Gonzo is porn that appeals to pretty much ONLY prurient interests with no redeeming social value. It's 100% pornographic. That gonzo experience is enhanced by good camera work.
That's not the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzo_pornographyGonzo pornography is a style of pornographic film that attempts to place the viewer directly into the scene. Jamie Gillis is considered to have started the gonzo pornography genre with his On the Prowl series of films.
That's debatable. IMO, On the Prowl was "proto-gonzo", and John Stagliano set the template for the genre more specifically, but that's a tangential point.The name is a reference to gonzo journalism, in which the reporter is part of the event taking place. By comparison, gonzo pornography puts the camera right into the action, often with one or more of the participants filming and performing sexual acts, without the usual separation between camera and performers seen in conventional porn and cinema.
Gonzo porn is influenced by amateur pornography, and it tends to use far fewer full-body/wide shots in favor of more close-ups (See: reality pornography). The loose and direct camera work often includes tight shots of the genitalia, unlike some traditional porn.
Good camera work is NOT jerky
Agreed.
I suggested a tripod with a dolly to move the camera without jerking it. Same thing with a gyroscopic gymbal (sp).
Smooth movement is fine, jerky movement is not. For that reason alone I suggested a zoom lens which would allow reframing, but without camera movement.
Not really, though. You have to think about how the camera is able to move as an object in the physical space of the studio. If you lock it down to a tripod and/or dolly, you instantly limit your vertical range of motion. All those great top-down doggy shots, or low-angle missionary shots, are not possible if you do that. Zoom lenses can sometimes be used to re-frame an image, but only to a certain extent. You have a lot more freedom to re-frame by physically moving the camera to your desired location. A zoom lens only lets you re-frame within your positional field of view.
You claim to want to be different yet you adhere to the conventional "wisdom" that "no one in porn uses a zoom." IMO GG and Gonzo(LP) and IV are not the gold standard in shooting porn, speaking solely about the camera work.
You asked for critique, that is my critique. If viewers want a "fasten your seatbelts because of turbulence" experience in camera work, well that is their loss imo.
You offered a critique. I didn't actually ask for it, although it is always welcome.
Yes, I adhere to conventional wisdom,
in this case, because I understand and agree with the reasons it has
become conventional, and in fact, I want to push it even further and introduce greater movement (although certainly not "jerkiness", as I understand that word to be defined).
The broader view of this looking down from 35,000 feet, and the reason why handheld camera is near-ubiquitous in gonzo porn, is because the point of the genre is to make the viewer feel more immersed in the action. Handheld camera has a more "raw" feeling to it that you don't get from a tripod and dolly set-up. Some would even call that style of shooting "sterile". If you want footage captured with tripods, there are studios which cater to that desire. Check out Private, Tushy, or Porn World productions. That's not something I am interested in shooting. I respect your opinion, but that's not a change I am going to make. I can't speak for other studios, but I doubt you'll see that change from Gonzo or Giorgio either.
I would point out that other studios have MUCH better camera work. HerLimit and Mike Adriano are two examples. Some may not like the content there, but I am solely referring to the camera work.
Again, you ask for critique. You claim to want to stand out, be different and better yet you argue for the status quo. If the status quo is what what y'all want, Mission Accomplished.
In this area, you are correct. I am arguing for the status quo of using handheld cameras instead of tripods and dollies. I do not see a need for such radical change and I think it would not have the "raw" feeling that I associate with gonzo porn and consider fundamental to the genre.
What is an example of well-shot porn from another producer that you would be able to cite for me? You mentioned Mike Adriano, and I found that interesting because he is renowned for his extreme close-ups of assholes and gapes, and does not feature wide shots very often in his work. I thought that was specifically what you wanted to see? Her Limit has generally smoother camera movement than LP, it's true, and I admire that director quite a bit (Alex Conte, by the way), but I would not say that they have
less movement, or that the ratio of shot types is markedly different from any of LP's studios. Conte just has really good wrist control, and I'm reasonably sure that he uses a gyro gimbal as well. I promise you he does not use a tripod, because he posts BTS videos on his Instagram from time to time and I have never seen one.
