Backgrounds / setings

[Abby]

Hi guys

After an enforced absence, I am back, and I have a few issues I'd like to raise. The first is, the importance of backgrounds and settings.

While it may not appear so to Joe Avergae member on abbywinters.com, we spend a fair bit of money on settings. We usually hire a nice house, and shoot lotsa models in it. Currently, that's an effective way for us to spend our time - shoot lotsa models in a few weeks, then take a few months off - I have a full time job that I hope to quit soon.

However, we could significantly reduce costs by shooting every model in the same room with a (say) blue back drop draped over a bed or a sofa.

Sound absurd? perhaps, but a lot of sites do that. The photographer darchives.com shoots pretty much every model in his own house. It's large, and he has a large and varied backyard, so there are a lot of opportunities, but still - it's obviously the one place.

if you have been looking at net porn for a month or more, you have prolly bumped into pics from ATK (Amateur and Teen Kingdom), shot by a "company" called DRS - Dorm Room Studios - what appears to be a solitary black dude with a crap camera who pics up college girls and has sex with them - and photographs it all in his apartment.

Same bed, covers, room; same kitchen, appliances, bench; same den, sofa, desk. Every single shoot he does is like that.

When I quit my real job, I plan to set up a small studio to shoot people in, for this site. An obvious problem is going to be variation of settings. There's a big risk of having shoots looking like all those shoots in Hustler's Barely Legal / Lolipop / Tight / Just Eighteen / etc mags. Obviously a set with a few different curtains, bedheads, sheets, and so on.

I am not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing - or even if it is a Thing at all. Doesit matter? Obviously, we're all here to look at the models, not the background, but I for one, have always found the backgrounds interesting. Maybe that's cos I am looking with a photographer's eye, wondering, how did they light that? Where's that furniture from? Is that REALLY a window, or just a set piece? And so on.

Those of you who have been members for a while will remember that the first 15 or so shoots were all done on a sofa with that cursed white sheet draped over it? We ended up getting some good lookin' stuff, sure, but to my mind, it was a little bland.

So, the question is, how much value do you put into the background? Do you even care? Is it worth going to exotic locales? What about just plan "different" places, say, an auto wreckers? A theatre? Sure, these'd be good, but are they worth the extra effort, time and money?

Let me know what you think. When we have had a chat, I'll put up a survey, as well, if it appears there's enough confusion to make it relevant. http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

abby

[arsby]

Chalk me up for not caring.
I'm pretty sure I don't notice at all.

I remember a site -- was it something like DDG? -- where all the models were photographed in a sparse setting with only a chair in the middle. Even their shot and lighting setup was pretty similar from shoot to shoot, model to model. I thought it looked great, since I'm primarily interested looking at the women in all of their lovely variation, not where they are. Compare and contrast, ya know.

[zean]

I am all in favor of varying the settings. I've noticed the repetition of certain sets across various websites from the same studio. The variety does make it a little more interesting and makes each series of pictures more of a "package" than a cookie-cutter product.

I've seen way too many photos taken in bedrooms and cars for them to be that interesting anymore. The girls in the pictures become as much a part of the scenery as the seatbelts or headboard.

Having varied and *creative* sites is one of the things that sets apart the little guys from the big guys on the Internet. Anyone can trick/pay a few girls for posing in their apartment and get some web space, but taking the initiative (and the financial risk) for bigger and better proves you're serious about your work.

I can't say that I can come up with any ideas for locations that haven't been done before, though... http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[Vid Dude]

My room. Nobody's done a shoot in my room before. Especially a multi-girl shoot. That'd be good. In fact, we wouldn't even need any camera equipment!

http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[Abby]

Hi Zean,

The repetition across sites you see are because many sites buy their material from a few photographers. The way the world works, unfortunately. As you may know, all the stuff on this site is shot my me personally, with the sole exception of Lux, who was shot by a friend of mine. It's easy to start a site and buy material from a range different photographers, and have the variation you are requesting. Dead easy.

While I acknowledge your opinion, I totally disagree with you when you say "Having varied and *creative* sites is one of the things that sets apart the little guys from the big guys on the Internet".

It's a fact that creative shoots cost a lot of money. There's no getting away from that.

You are not clear on the significance of being a "big guy" or a "little guy". If www.suzenet.com, or www.amkingdom.com is an example of what happens when you become a "big guy", I'll be happy being a little guy, thanks all the same.

When you say "Anyone can trick/pay a few girls for posing in their apartment and get some web space", I think you are you're missing the point. Sure, anyone can do that much, but what's really telling are these things, IMO:

set up a web _server_ (not a site), and maintain it have regular, quality updates maintain good customer relationships bill customers securely and reliably make the site easy and friendly to use, with no traffic capturing / blind links / popup consoles / pay programs make the business self-supporting run a legitimate business that pays takes, wages, insurance, accountants, and lawyers, etc

...and then do it for a year. Your "tricking a girl..."etc manoeuvre quickly looses steam in this scenario.

I like to think that aw.com meets or exceeds on most of these issues, and, more, has a pretty damn wide variety of settings (around 34 different settings for 45 models, in fact).

And you drive home my point by saying "I can't say that I can come up with any ideas for locations
that haven't been done before, though...". I never said (or thought) it was going to be easy - or cheap. Nor do you. But you realise how hard it is to come up with new ideas on the cheap?

But this is a fact: The more I spend on pretty locations, the LESS material you, as a member, will see. Other members have asked for fetish stuff that is hard (expensive, time consuming) to pull off (dungeons, boats, planes, dentist chair, and so on). Sure, I'd love to do that. Every time I look a series by Suze Randall, I think to myself, "if I had that much money behind me, my pics from that shoot would be SO much better!" (sexier, interesting).

She has obviously huge studios, the absoluet best in light gear and camera, pro hair and makeup artists, a wardrobe CREW (not a person, of course!), several assistants and flunkies, good coffee, and large infrastructure behind her (office staff, utilities, etc). *sigh* ANYway...

So, for now, I have to economise. The site has already grown faster and better than I had anticipated, and that's great... but expenses have matched (or exceeded) the income. When I set up a studio, I'll have a whole bunch of new expenses to justify (rent, tables, chairs, filing cabinet, phone lines, computer, aircon, electricity, hot water, security, insurance, on and on). Of course, that's not including the normal expenses I incur, model fees, model referrals, model liasion, drinks, computer gear, travel, photocopying...

So, my point is, do I set up a studio with a few different sets (like Lolipop / Hawk / Tight / etc), and shoot a few new models a week, while changing bits and pieces (bedclothes, ornaments, bedhead, say) or should I go out and hire better locations, and photograph one model a fortnight?

Of course it's not as clear cut as that (nor, perhaps, as dire), but there's a definite correlation between settings and expenses.

And I can say that if I had shot every model to date on a sofa with a white cloth over it, aw.com would have gone to two new models a week about two months ago, and by the end of this year, we'd be at three new models a week, or more.

Zean, please don't take this as a personal attack, for a certainly do not intend it as such. You raised some interesting issues, and I'd welcome any more you (or anyone else?) may have.

abby

[arsby]

Ya see, it takes all kinds.

Ask me if the setting of any of the last 20 sets of pictures I looked at (at AW.com or the newsgroups) made any impression on me. Nah. All I'm looking at are those creamy thighs, the sweet flushed face, the perky nipples. The variation is in the girl. She might as well be against a monotone matte background.

I'll definitely take two models/week, each on the same chair in the same room. Better, three. Because Abby takes those great closeups of her face, her breasts, her thighs.

For variation, have her do some deep knee bends, touch her toes, run in place, a split, if she can one of those cross-your-feet-behind-your-head thingies. See the muscles rippling underneath that smooth skin. Doesn't cost a thing.

BTW, I strongly dislike Suze Randall's stuff, I always bypass it. And for a totally consistent reason. All of the makeup, costumes, setting... hides the woman. You can't see her. All you can see is what's covering her and what's around her. She's usually scowling, and it's too dark.

Give me a sweet-faced youngster in tee shirt and shorts, put her in a bright empty room, and have her take her clothes off and show me all parts of her body in great detail. That does it for me.

Abby, I feel for you. Looks like Zean and I are at the opposite poles of this spectrum.

De Gustibus non Disputandum
You can't argue with taste!

[kumaraguy]

Bugger the scenery http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif ...
If a change of scenery is needed then turn the sheet over .....
I personally like them big ole close-ups where there is no room for scenery anyway http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif
So I am with Arsby on this one .....

[kumaraguy]

I was going to mention the videos ...
Would the use or non-use of different scenery make any difference to the quality of video ... any thoughts on that ?

[arsby]

Good point, K. (How are things in the jungle?)

My initial reaction is, yes, setting is important to video.

Then I'm thinking, if each woman did a strip and then played with herself (pref. with toys, oil, another woman, etc.) in the same room on the same couch, would I care?

Probably not. Just so long as Videoman gives me some tight closeups of that flushed face and those juicy thighs. (Thinking about Donna's vids.)

Also, if the choice is pictures of 2 models/week or more video, I'll go with 2 models per week.
Abby's pictures rule.
More, more, more.

[Vid Dude]

Speaking as a consumer, I like varied backgrounds and settings. A different setting lends itself to varied poses. I don't just want to see nakedness, I like to see it in a context I can relate to - that's part of the thrill for me.

Having bland repetitive similarity between model sets tends to bore me fast. Take ALSScan for example, at first they had amazing stuff - but after 25 models all shaved, oiled, and with speculums up their bits, sets that have no real variety between each other, it gets boring very rapidly! And it would be a shame to fall into that kind of vapidness.

However... speaking now as one of the contributors, the expense and mental anguish of trying to come up with new stuff in new locations is challenging and also harrowing, so it's definitely a double edged sword.

I like the variety but could do without the mental challenge of it. However, the settings for video, as pointed out, are somehow more fundamentally important than for stills - and since we do both at the same time, that just adds to the quandary.

[arsby]

ALSScans kinda dropped off my radar screen when they killed the als newsgroups. I subscribed for a month or two a coupla years ago.

What made ALSscans boring for me is that over a year they only add 10 or so models, and show them over and over and over again. Also, their models all look alike -- I could swear I see the same beauty marks on several of them. Maybe they invest in wigs instead of scenery.

But their photography is good, and their models tend to be young and pretty. If they could manage 50 models a year frankly they'd be competing with Abby, in my mind.
But they can't. My guess is 1) their models are pro's who require more money in payment, 2) they absolutely require their models to use toys and specula, which limits the number of models who will agree to such things, 3) I rarely see a model there with even a hint of a tummy, which is even further limiting, and 4) their budget for oil must be astronomical.

Point is, I still don't care about scenery. I used to "steal" a bunch of their videos from the newsgroups, and if they all took place on the same bed I'd never know the difference. If Heather is masturbating on a 4-poster bed in a bedroom in one movie and on a rollout bed in a living room in another movie, it's the same movie to me. If Heather is masturbating on a bed in one movie, and Karen is masturbating on the same bed in another movie, that's two movies.

If I see one more movie or one more photo set with Sylvia Saint in it, I'll puke. Honest.

[kumaraguy]

I want to see naked girls in all their form and glory .....
Fancy complicated scenery only serves as a distraction and picture frames hanging off her head, tree branches growing out her ears, dumb arse lamp shades as an extra breast, and a chair leg up her bum are an annoyance ( to her as well I bet http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif .. )
So the only time I really care about scenery is when it gets in the way
What can also be really boring is a whole lot of models who look the same doing the same kind of stuff, tho as you know I can look at girls flashing their undies all day ....
To me there is no question that a variety of girls is better than a variety of scenery
As for props that annoy the hell out of me, it's those stupid neon coloured (colored) plastic dildos.. yuk!!!!

[arsby]

Those neon colored dildos annoy the heck out of me, too!

Except, of course, when they're deep up the twat of a beautiful young woman with a dreamy look on her face.

[johnkeats]

Given a choice, I'd prefer different backgrounds and settings. However, it was the quality of the models and the photography here caused me to purchase a membership.

The location is important because, combined with excellent lighting, it creates a mood. It also helps the model to relax and that results in better photos.

I do this kind of work so my interest is professional as well as personal and for me, it is all about the model. A good model, one that's comfortable with her body, her sexuality and the situation she's being photographed in, makes all the difference in the world. So given a choice between more exotic locales or more models in the same setting, I'd prefer more models. Especially if they're as attractive as Ally.

It's been six months now since I renewed my ALS membership because, as someone has already mentioned, the models are looking a bit road-weary. I'd much rather look at a fresh beautiful face, one that's still capable of some degree of innocence and enthusisasm, than the "rode hard and put up wet-look" of some of the ALS models.

Just my .02, for what it's worth.

[sybiandude]

Ho hum. I'd just come to the end of a detailed, well-reasoned, well-constructed, multi paragraph addition to the thread when my PC had a hiccup & I ended up losing what I'd typed.

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

Erm, well the gist of it was "more models, backgrounds not really that important to me. But use the bed more than that horrible little sofa."

[Abby]

SybianDude

Thanks for your feedback, sorry to hear about the freeze. For that reason, I write my posts to the boards (this and others) in my email program (Eudora), saving every few sentances and using the spell check, and when I am done, simply copy and paste the text here.

Abby

[captainklutz]

OK Abby, I found the thread & read it.

Whilst I can appreciate from the artists point of view there is an urge to be imaginative & creative in presenting their performance whatever medium they are working with, often the audience is either not appreciative of the effort or doesn't even notice. (Happens a lot in the theatre that!) There are a lot of elements to be rationalised & prioritised.

From a personal point of view I am afraid backgrounds count for little with me. Variety as & when it is needed is supplied by differing models & outfits. Maybe even the occasional themed sequence.

You did ask ;0)

Cap'n.

[Abby]

Hi

The idea of a pure-colour background (usually white) appeals to me a lot, cos then you're dealing with JUST the model, and nothing else. I plan to do some of that stuff when I set up my studio early next year.

This is not stuff that looks like "Digital Desires" (that Arsby describes below), tho I guess it could be in a way. I was more thinking of DDG (digital dream girls (www.digitaldreamgirls.com)), who do sets of models stripping in this "pure white" environment. White backdrop, shiny white floor, the model, and her clothes - nothing else.

When you say that the kinda stuff we're talking about is not noticed, you're right. But there's an important flip side: if it was NOT there, you'd notice it for sure.

Try watching an action sequence from any kinda movie, with no music, and it's very eerie. Try watching a theatre show with no lighting, sets, sound, band, costumes or props - just actors. Sure, there's a place for it, but as a "norm", it can become boring fast.

I happen to work in musical theatre for a full time job. When I tell people I am responsible for the lighting, they are politely interested, but a little bemused. They don't really notice the lighting (what? someone's PAID to do that?!), and an in-joke with us is, the last thing you want the punters doing is to leave the show "humming the lights".

Nevertheless, hire of lighting gear is often the single largest weekly expense after cast and crew wages. PA hire is close (or may be more, depending on the show). They don't spend that much money to waste it, they spend it cos it makes a HUGE difference.

Lighting, just like settings in porn, _reinforces_ the action (or the subject). It does not create it. It can be used to reinforce a mood, or suggest things like the time of day, or the historical period, or the place, but in and of itself, it's kinda boring. Lighting, like settings, should focus the viewer's attention on the performers, not themselves.

When you go and see a musical, it's in a big theatre. You're a fair way from the action. It's the lighting and scenic designer's jobs to ensure that every single person in the house is looking where they are supposed to be looking (with the help of other departments, as well, of course).

And it's the same in photography. It's my job, as a photographer, to ensure you, as a paying customer, are looking directly at the "right" place, and that you're "getting" what I am meaning. The methods I use to do this include focus, depth of field, lighting, posing, settings, and exposure. The TOOLS are the model. The Camera. The setting. The lighting.

Effectively removing one element (setting) is a big thing to do. When I get the chance, I am very keen to shoot one or two sets, just to get your reactions.

Abby

[kumaraguy]

Some of the pics with the biggest "WOW!!!" factor for me have been of just the girl and a completely white background.. http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[Vid Dude]

Melissa's sister did a shoot with us, her name was Emily, and we shot her on a completely white background in white clothes. She didn't smile much, the pictures aren't that great for that reason, but the imagery I think is really striking. I think Abby's idea would work really well with the right model and clothing.

[captainklutz]

Just a passing thought....White background could be a little harsh....How about a softer colour...blues or browns?

Cap'n.

[Abby]

That Emily shoot was ok, but nothing special. We made do with what we had, I guess.

I wish I still had sample pics of the type of pic I mean, but I deleted all that stuff a few months back. Does ANYONE know what I mean (with the DDG stuff?)

Abby

[Abby]

Cap

I had planned to use all sortsa colours - pink, blue, red, orange, brown, green, etc. I canna wait to sink my teeth into this! :D

Abby

[Abby]

At last! I found one of the kinda pics I mean. Not the style of model, but the style of photography. LMK what you think.

Abby

http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/7/190.jpg

[sybianman]

Using different colours for backdrops is fine, the only thing I would add though is that I feel they should generally be 'softer' shades, e.g. no dazzling bright yellows or greens!

Personally speaking, I've always quite liked this type of picture (as per example below), no distractions, just a pretty gal doing her thing. Plus, a white background best accentuates the figure of a model.

[kumaraguy]

As I said, I like em like that too !! http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[arsby]

Yeah, me, too. I like the monotone backdrops.

Of all of those thousands of jpgs in my collection, I only have a couple of dozen of those DDG pics. They have a lot of potential in terms of size of pic and production standards, but the models... eeeuuuuwwww. In your example you found one of the few attractive ones. Most either have hideously oversized breasts (the HTR series) or too much makeup (the DRM series). Some of the "amateurs" (AMA series) and the "just 19's" (J19 series) are okay, but most are pro who you've seen at other sites. The photo sets are short and seem to miss the models personalities. Not my cuppa.

Only a few have that stark white background like in Abby's example. I have a couple of other examples, but showing them wouldn't add much to Abby's. Most of my DDG stuff look like they were shot in apartments and dorm rooms, a couple outdoors.