PornBox.com

I reject the notion that there is one "correct" way to shoot porn. In fact, I think that notion has caught on in recent years to the detriment of the industry. The idea that all porn should strive for a singular platonic ideal of perfection has homogenized the content landscape and contributed to that creeping realization, which I am sure many of you have experienced, that porn feels too similar these days and lacks variety.

I do not like static camera work. None of the great gonzo producers of the past employed static camera work. The whole point of gonzo itself, as invented by John Stagliano, was to heighten the viewer's sensation of being present and participating in the action. Raul Cristian, Jean Yves Lecastel, Jay Sin, Rocco Siffredi in his prime... all of them had kinetic styles of shooting (and all of them highly distinct from each other too!), and I think we lost that somewhere along the way amidst the obsession with image quality and resolution. A big part of the reason I decided to do my own scenes was to find a way to bring that back - adapted for the modern world, of course, and imbued with my own personal touch - and the process of finding the best way to do that may take some trial and error, but I'm willing to invest the time and money into getting it right. Any time you try to do something new or different, there will be bumps along the way.

Your criticisms are valid. Framing can be improved. Image shakiness can be lessened. I'm certainly no expert when it comes to camera operation, so I agree with several of your points, and in many cases they are goals I am already working to achieve, but I do not agree with the core assertion that movement itself is a bad thing, or that there is one ideal style of shooting that all directors should adopt. Sometimes, I feel that we are competing with each other too directly when we should be working harder to develop our own unique styles.

I don't want to copy the work of the past, but the inspiration I draw from it can be summed up in the words of Jiang Wen, a director I greatly admire from the non-pornographic side of cinema:

"Those films affected me. They had a smell. The big studio films of today are very glamorous but they seem so aritifical, they have no smell."

It's not about replicating a particular style, but rather capturing a particular feeling.

In other words: We need to be unafraid to make porn that smells.

Or if you prefer, in the words of the great Rocco Siffredi: "Eets only smellz. Eets nuffink; only de smell."

You're never gonna believe this, but I've just moved on from XP (Symantec AV withdrawing from it shortly), & new computer. I'm staggered at the difference. Until now I just thought it a question of memory. I also got flash new TV... my long-suffering GF insisted on it (I hadn't TV for 5 years since Virgin sent me new unusable box I'd have to drill through walls to connect).... & spectacles since I ran straight through a roundabout (long story)... so its bizarre. I'm like a man used to eating porridge who's now presented with 4-course meal daily. Its bizarre. But man, XP was good.

otto1219 wrote:I believe most viewers are watching on relatively high end displays capable of 4K resolution. Thus, viewing on such a display allows the viewer to zoom in as desired, making the jerky zooming of the camera unnecessary and distracting, and diminishing the quality of the video.

See, this is curious to me because I don't know how many people actually use their TV's zoom function when they are watching porn. Maybe we will find out here in this thread, but I suspect that it isn't a lot of you.

I don't think it would be very engaging to shoot porn "for coverage" like a sitcom. It would minimize the directorial vision of the final product. What you're asking for is a series of well-framed medium shots that remain static for a long time so you can zoom in and out as you desire, and maybe that works for you and your set-up, but I don't think it would work for the wider audience who are looking for something more engaging and I don't think it's actually possible for a director to anticipate your interests well enough that they know the length of time to hold a shot such that you have enough time to zoom, but you also don't get bored with it. That's a very delicate balance that you can only control... when you are the director. The whole point of having a director is to provide a direction, unified under one person, to define the tone and feeling of a production, offer guidance to the cast and crew, and make executive decisions about what the viewer will see and how they will see it. Without a clear direction, it would just be a mess.

I find the poll options too limited. I do my porn viewing on a 27" 1440p monitor. I have never even considered the possibility of zooming in video, but for porn I often find myself wishing for wider shots. In fact, I probably want even wider shots than what otto1219 suggests, since I want to be able to see the whole girl and preferably in relation to the guys fucking her.

55" TV at 4K. Once you've seen porn at the quality, at that size, you can't really go down again. To be honest, I haven't noticed a particular recurring issue at Legal Porno concerning picture quality/direction. Occasionally you'll get something which is a bit off, but generally I've found the videos as good or better than any other porn companies material, which is why I'll continue to pay for it. It clearly pisses all over stuff produced by the likes of Evil Angel, Mike Adriano etc in terms of technical quality.

Actually the only thing that has marred my enjoyment have been those horrible big yellow squares that randomly flash on the screen as a supposed copyright measure (despite the fact all scenes still seem to be freely pirated on torrent sites) - in 4K on a big screen those can really show up and be distracting. That said, I haven't noticed them on the last couple of scenes I've bought - not sure if they've toned them down or maybe finally dropped them?

Mister Ananas wrote:I reject the notion that there is one "correct" way to shoot porn. In fact, I think that notion has caught on in recent years to the detriment of the industry. The idea that all porn should strive for a singular platonic ideal of perfection has homogenized the content landscape and contributed to that creeping realization, which I am sure many of you have experienced, that porn feels too similar these days and lacks variety.

[...]

I don't want to copy the work of the past, but the inspiration I draw from it can be summed up in the words of Jiang Wen, a director I greatly admire from the non-pornographic side of cinema:

"Those films affected me. They had a smell. The big studio films of today are very glamorous but they seem so aritifical, they have no smell."

It's not about replicating a particular style, but rather capturing a particular feeling.

In other words: We need to be unafraid to make porn that smells.

Or if you prefer, in the words of the great Rocco Siffredi: "Eets only smellz. Eets nuffink; only de smell."

I totally agree: it would be nice if every good director would develop his own recognizable style and porn would be more genuine and raw.

I watch in 4k on my pc. i never ever zoom in.

The thing with flat screen or even desktop, you can't watch porn on them if you're in a conventional PG14 relationship

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_pornography

Gonzo 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.

otto1219 wrote:...
Regarding the display poll: Look at it. At this point 94% of respondents view with 4k capable monitors, and most are viewing on a big screen....

This is only true for this particular poll, which does not provide a complete set of options to cover all monitors out there. The poll is poorly constructed and can not be used to draw any general conclusions whatsoever. Sorry to nitpick but I hate these types of false assertions based on poor statistics. It's a pet peeve of mine.

otto1219 wrote:To discount that as "not what you're shooting for" is a mistake. Just because some have not found the ZOOM button on their remote, or their media player, does not mean no one has. It exists. Many use it. Shoot with high end displays in mind and all viewers benefit. Don't shoot for the lowest common denominator. That is loserthink.

You have yet to demonstrate that anyone except for yourself uses the zoom function on their television while watching porn, let alone that many people do it. You're advocating for your personal preferences, and I understand that because I used to do it all the time when I was still just a fan, but it is erroneous to believe that your preferences represent all viewers.

You're really talking about large displays, not high-resolution displays, and in fact, shooting for large displays exclusively can result in all kinds of problems for smaller displays. For instance, you could be delivering a sub-optimal experience for phone users. I want my products to be satisfactory for users of any modern display.

That argument/position suggests you don't fully realize the capabilities of your recording equipment.
You do admit you're still learning.

I am, but the capabilities of the equipment alone should not dictate my approach, nor are they actually as relevant as you are saying. Technical specs will only take you so far.

That argument/position also suggests you do not realize HOW your work is being viewed.

What do you mean by that?

Those are two very important factors that any professional videographer would know backwards and forwards.
In the end it's your choice. not mine. I offer these observations in a constructive spirit.

You're actually pretty condescending, whether you realize it or not.

Let me just cool the jets for one second because I genuinely do not believe you are trying to be condescending. You know what you like and you are arguing passionately for your position. That's good and we need more of that because it is very helpful to directors as a way to understand what their viewers want. You are insinuating that we do not understand what we are doing and lack professionalism, though.

Yes, the pulsing yellow square is distracting. I'd love for them to adjust this to make it less noticeable or not at all.

I have a 65 inch LG OLED and it is spectacular. LP (Gio and Gonzo) camera work is better than most and the videos are clearer than almost all other studios except ones that have 60 fps 4k HEVC 265 (super clear and motion is perfect) but this is pretty rare. Evil Angel for comparison is only slightly better than 1080p. I have no complaints from Legal Porno. If you are having jerkiness issues maybe you can adjust the judder / de-blur settings on your display.

I'm so spoiled by 4K on a big display, I can't really go back. It is so immersive and blows away a computer monitor, tablet or phone. Plus content like tube sites, Twitter Only Fans etc filmed on a cell phone just misses the mark. Works for a minute clip for sharing but the big 4K display is where it is at for full features like the 45 min-1 hour long scenes. Just plug in a USB with the file and Boom. I use Plex for a Media Server too that has a whole catalog too.

davebowman wrote:55" TV at 4K. Once you've seen porn at the quality, at that size, you can't really go down again. To be honest, I haven't noticed a particular recurring issue at Legal Porno concerning picture quality/direction. Occasionally you'll get something which is a bit off, but generally I've found the videos as good or better than any other porn companies material, which is why I'll continue to pay for it. It clearly pisses all over stuff produced by the likes of Evil Angel, Mike Adriano etc in terms of technical quality.

Actually the only thing that has marred my enjoyment have been those horrible big yellow squares that randomly flash on the screen as a supposed copyright measure (despite the fact all scenes still seem to be freely pirated on torrent sites) - in 4K on a big screen those can really show up and be distracting. That said, I haven't noticed them on the last couple of scenes I've bought - not sure if they've toned them down or maybe finally dropped them?