Constructive Feedback for Abigail

[koan]

Just joined a few days ago - I think the women on this site are very beautiful
but am a bit dissapointed that too many sets end up in a series of close
ups so you can't really see the woman performing the action. The latest
Stacy set is a perfect example - there are loads of closeups of the dildo
inserted but not one showing Stacy getting off on it - I would prefer to
see her whole body and not have too much focus on one part (however nice)
for too long. It's not that I dislike closeups per se, but I would prefer to see
the whole person as well - for me it is the look of genuine excitement and
enjoyment in the woman's eyes and expression that is the ultimate turn on,
not the dildo (or whatever) in an anonymous pussy.

Hope you don't mind the criticism - it is meant to be constructive. It's just that I joined
your (on the whole) lovely site because you seemed to be saying you wanted
to do things differently to the majority of the smut on the web. I admired
that and like the natural, real people look of the models. It's because of
this I felt that the zoom in closeups kind of spoil it - too many sites
treat women as sets of parts - legs, boobs, pussys - you know what I mean -
so I hoped your site would be different. Again, it's not that I dislike a
good close look at a beautiful vagina (one of god's gifts to humanity) or
erect nipple - its just that I would also like it to then be
recontextualised as a part of a whole, real human being who is having fun
and getting off on it. By all means zoom in for a while but then zoom back
out again and end with a lovely person with an authentic, big horny smile
on her face and in her eyes.

[anonymous]

If you could see Stacy's eyes you would see that size does matter ( that is rather a large dildo )
I think Abby was just trying to protect us lesser mortals from the awful truth http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[Vid Dude]

Koan, I have to totally agree with you here. Abby loves the close ups, I love to see facial expression or whole body shots so that I can see the body parts are attached to a real person with real reactions.

Abby acknowledges that when I bring it up, and has tried to accommodate when she remembers. Most models have plenty of shots like that, indeed, and they're increasing. But every so often she gets caught up in her own ideals I think http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/wink.gif

[Abby]

Hiya

The Stacy shoot is a bad example cos it's incomplete. There are a bunch more pics to come, and they do feature her full body, tho perhaps not as much as I could.

What do you think of the material of Julia on her page 8 (http://www.abbywinters.com/members/julia/julia0008.htm) - I do a series shots closeup doing the action, and then a wider shot of her whole body - is that more to your taste?

Basically, I get just as many emails requesting closeups as I do wide shots, so I tend to shoot more of both, which makes the sets long (there's a thread on this length issue already on the 'boards, (http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/7/427.html?1016249063), but ensures coverage.

Thanks for your feedback. I'll chalk you up as someone who likes both, with a leaning towards longer shots, and adjust my shooting accordingly. This might even be worth a survey!

Abby

[koan]

Thanks for responding. I think I was trying to raise some questions about the nature of an alternative porn ethic as well as saying what I would prefer to see. I'd like to know a bit more about your design ethics/aesthetic. I can empathise with your dislike of the style over substance sites like DD girls, Penthouse etc. I share that - I joined Suze for a month because I knew there were some genuinely beautiful women that she has shot (especially Jezebelle Bond and Kelly Havel) but quickly got bored because most of the shoots were too posed and sterile and I couldn't really feel much of a connection with the models despite their beauty.

What does "doing things differently" really mean though, to you? I can see that you want models to be natural, be themselves but how far does that go before it gets invasive - isn't there a case for maintaining some distance and barriers to preserve the model's boundaries? I can see that some sites have taken the posed thing too far but I can also see where a desire to be artistic and professional may be important for many models to enable them to separate off their professional and private lives. So where do you draw the line?

Personally I do prefer seeing genuine women, and particularly feeling that the girls are enjoying what they are doing and have some power and autonomy - maybe for me thats what turns me off about the posy sites, but isn't it also possible to go too far in the other direction. After all, if what you are showing is the real you (warts an all) all the time, then where do you go when you want to be yourself? Isn't it sometimes safer not to have to be yourself?

Maybe its about balance - if you distance yourself too much then you lose the personal touch, but if you get too up close and personal you lose site of the whole person just as easily? I'm sure that's too simplistic though - I would love to hear from some of your models about how they see it. Would they like to be able to be someone else for a while in a shoot - put on a style, put on a mask, play a role, play a game...

Difficult questions...

[Talking Figleaf]

I was checking out the Susie & Nikki videos in the Gold section this afternoon. I really enjoyed the cuts between their fingers, labia, nipples, lips, clits, and tongues, and then the looks on their faces while it was going on.

One without the other wouldn’t be as lovely, as sweet, as sexy.

As far as spreads go they’re nicer on video than in a sequence of stills. Or put another way, I think it's more interesting to photograph (or gaze endlessly into) someone’s cunt in real time than it is to download and browse the photos because even though the motion is enchanting the difference from one moment to the next is slight. Please don't stop. Please! But please mix those with pictures of the rest of the person -- she's there too and generally the rest of her is just as sexy.

figleaf

[dogman]

Hi - new to the boards, here's my 2cents on two topics (hope they've not been talked out already):

On close-ups: I've always loved Abby's close-ups! When you see them in the context of the whole shoot - a mix of close and full-body shots - they're not anonymous. And the great lighting and high-res lets you see such fine detail - even the skin texture. Compare with all of those (like Suze R) where the (makeup-covered) skin looks like porcelain, washed clean of any realism. The key I suppose is making sure at least *some* full-body shots are included in the published sets for EACH pose...

And on series-pics: Yes! Clicking through a sequence of shots as she's doing something interesting (spreading, inserting...;-)) - adds a whole new dimension to the photos. It's as if you had a super-high quality video with perfect frame control (stop/fwd/back), which we won't get over the web for many years to come.

-dogman

[Talking Figleaf]

There's a nice example of what you get when you mix closeup and whole person images in Emma's gallery Page 10 (http://www.abbywinters.com/members/emma/emma0010.htm).

figleaf

[humperdink]

I couldn't agree more with Koan on this issue. Closeups are great and all, but there is so much more to a woman that makes her beatiful than her breasts and vagina. For example, her hair, legs, her smile... I like pictures that emphasize and focus on the models best qualities...

For example, the Jasmin set was AWESOME! Those pix with her on all fours in her panties just made me melt. She has such great legs, beatiful hair and a lovely smile..I'm glad those qualities were emphasized rather than her nipples or vagina...not that I didn't like them either.

I think a lot of the appeal or erotica is in fantasy. It's hard to fantasize about a dis-embodied vagina or nipple.

peace

Humperdink