|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Photos V Videos"
Love you, too
Am I wasting time uploading photo sets over videos
It takes a lot of setting up to do both photos and videos but I'm wondering if photos are still necessary as I have a few sets up on my store but they are ether going unnoticed or are not so much in demand as they used to be anymore
https://wam-chantelle.umd.net/download_info/chantelles-messy-bath
https://wam-chantelle.umd.net/download_info/cream-dress-photo-set
https://wam-chantelle.umd.net/download_info/chantelles-first-mud-photo-set
It takes a lot of setting up to do both photos and videos but I'm wondering if photos are still necessary as I have a few sets up on my store but they are ether going unnoticed or are not so much in demand as they used to be anymore
https://wam-chantelle.umd.net/download_info/chantelles-messy-bath
https://wam-chantelle.umd.net/download_info/cream-dress-photo-set
https://wam-chantelle.umd.net/download_info/chantelles-first-mud-photo-set
I wanna be messy
Really hard to say!
If I have to choose, I prefer memberships.
And if this is not possible, normally I brought another video instead of video and photos from same set separate. Only if it is really amazing content... .
A lot of producers put both parts in one download.
Btw: I'm still interested in your "old" stuff from your first website
Pics and vids.
Maybe more minds via PN
Greets S.F.
If I have to choose, I prefer memberships.
And if this is not possible, normally I brought another video instead of video and photos from same set separate. Only if it is really amazing content... .
A lot of producers put both parts in one download.
Btw: I'm still interested in your "old" stuff from your first website
Pics and vids. Maybe more minds via PN
Greets S.F.
I avoid the need to differentiate by offering the videos and a zip of high res stills in the single purchase. I have always been a photographer first videographer second so I find still photos is where my creativity shines best.
Snowsuit said: Really hard to say!
If I have to choose, I prefer memberships.
And if this is not possible, normally I brought another video instead of video and photos from same set separate. Only if it is really amazing content... .
A lot of producers put both parts in one download.
Btw: I'm still interested in your "old" stuff from your first website Pics and vids.
Maybe more minds via PN
Greets S.F.
If I have to choose, I prefer memberships.
And if this is not possible, normally I brought another video instead of video and photos from same set separate. Only if it is really amazing content... .
A lot of producers put both parts in one download.
Btw: I'm still interested in your "old" stuff from your first website
Pics and vids. Maybe more minds via PN
Greets S.F.
Im not sure a memership site will work for me as it would mean i would be commited to regular updates, This could be a problem working round our work and social life as we have very little oppertunity to do the shoots and often on a free day do up to 5 shoots in one day thats cleaning up and grtting messy travel to and from the site can add up to at 10 hour day.
as the results show i may put less time into the photo side of things unless like yoursefe they are part of a custom order
Hopr you are still enjoying the package i did for you and concider my services again soon
Kisses
Chantelle
I wanna be messy
messyhot said: I avoid the need to differentiate by offering the videos and a zip of high res stills in the single purchase. I have always been a photographer first videographer second so I find still photos is where my creativity shines best.
This ^ You can see the difference in certain people's work. Wetfoto, MPV Duncan, Leon are stunning photographers. The stills they produce are incredible quality. Having a photographer take stills WHILE doing a video I feel is the best route to go. I have always liked both. Videos are great, but there is something magical about a specific moment in time being captured.
He's more potato now than man. Twisted and evil.
I am really surprised with the results so far as I thought photos would have been a lot more popular especially large photo sets
I wanna be messy
In the early days, the only way you could see any decent detail was from a photo. Videos were generally smaller windows and blurry by comparison. Today's hi-def videos are usually crystal-clear, and pausing it is almost as high a resolution as an image. I think the high quality of videos has nearly eliminated the need (or desire) for photos.
Emi said: In the early days, the only way you could see any decent detail was from a photo. Videos were generally smaller windows and blurry by comparison. Today's hi-def videos are usually crystal-clear, and pausing it is almost as high a resolution as an image. I think the high quality of videos has nearly eliminated the need (or desire) for photos.
(All this is in the spirit of discussion and certainly not meant to marginalize any work of any producer)
I would second this sentiment. It was not too long ago 640 x 480 'DVD' quality videos were all the rage. Now it seems HD 1080p is almost 'expected' and 4K UHD is a real treat. Once you hit these HD / UHD level, you essentially have photo quality on a 65" screen you can set 6 feet from and enjoy. So I almost suspect, to the casual observer looking at a typical laptop / TV screen, the difference between an HD video and a somewhat compressed .jpg photo is pretty minimal. Obviously, if I wanted to print out a life size poster or cardboard cut-out, the photo might win, but who does that in real life... besides Regis?
This is not to say there is not room for photos, too - but in my opinion (which may not even be worth 0.02
) - the photos need to have some artistic flair or show something the video can't or doesn't. Extreme detail, lighting, a specific moment which may have motion blur in the video, lens flair, bokeh, vignetting, etc. Duncan...Emi... you obviously know what I am talking about here!mud_adventures said:
(All this is in the spirit of discussion and certainly not meant to marginalize any work of any producer)
I would second this sentiment. It was not too long ago 640 x 480 'DVD' quality videos were all the rage. Now it seems HD 1080p is almost 'expected' and 4K UHD is a real treat. Once you hit these HD / UHD level, you essentially have photo quality on a 65" screen you can set 6 feet from and enjoy. So I almost suspect, to the casual observer looking at a typical laptop / TV screen, the difference between an HD video and a somewhat compressed .jpg photo is pretty minimal. Obviously, if I wanted to print out a life size poster or cardboard cut-out, the photo might win, but who does that in real life... besides Regis?
This is not to say there is not room for photos, too - but in my opinion (which may not even be worth 0.02 ) - the photos need to have some artistic flair or show something the video can't or doesn't. Extreme detail, lighting, a specific moment which may have motion blur in the video, lens flair, bokeh, vignetting, etc. Duncan...Emi... you obviously know what I am talking about here!
Emi said: In the early days, the only way you could see any decent detail was from a photo. Videos were generally smaller windows and blurry by comparison. Today's hi-def videos are usually crystal-clear, and pausing it is almost as high a resolution as an image. I think the high quality of videos has nearly eliminated the need (or desire) for photos.
(All this is in the spirit of discussion and certainly not meant to marginalize any work of any producer)
I would second this sentiment. It was not too long ago 640 x 480 'DVD' quality videos were all the rage. Now it seems HD 1080p is almost 'expected' and 4K UHD is a real treat. Once you hit these HD / UHD level, you essentially have photo quality on a 65" screen you can set 6 feet from and enjoy. So I almost suspect, to the casual observer looking at a typical laptop / TV screen, the difference between an HD video and a somewhat compressed .jpg photo is pretty minimal. Obviously, if I wanted to print out a life size poster or cardboard cut-out, the photo might win, but who does that in real life... besides Regis?
This is not to say there is not room for photos, too - but in my opinion (which may not even be worth 0.02
) - the photos need to have some artistic flair or show something the video can't or doesn't. Extreme detail, lighting, a specific moment which may have motion blur in the video, lens flair, bokeh, vignetting, etc. Duncan...Emi... you obviously know what I am talking about here! This is precisely why I include photos in addition to my videos. Often I will include shots with lenses that make for a creative image perspective but that you would not want an entir video shot in. Also with the need for compression you can't get the same level of detail from a video freeze that can be obtained from a down-scaled 24MP image. This of course doesn't matter to a lot of people but for the fan who wants a good looking wallpaper for their computer or phone, or wants a more meaningful representation of the model i provide them. That and being as cakeporn is what I dedicate a LOT of my creative time to now, I need to keep my skills sharp and evolving. I've included a few of my shots that simply wouldn't have worked as screen grabs or freeze frames.
Having been the guy taking photos next to the guy shooting video for over 20 years now I might be able to offer a little insight.Photos were originally necessary to get good resolution since you couldn't put real video over a 9600 baud dial-up. Obviously that has changed a great deal now since today we can send ridiculously high-rez video over very stable high rate internet.The technology now is awesome if you want 150 still frames that basically just record the scene like an emotionless robotic eye. At one time that was great due to technical necessity but today it's ridiculous because it's little more trouble to watch the entire scene in glorious HD video.
Dave is shooting video with 4k cameras that can produce excellent still images of what the video camera sees but that is not photography. Some of you recognize this and have commented on it. Having a photographer dedicated to silently stalking the scene like a sniper and harvesting eye-catching imagery is a lot different than what is taken from three fixed and one operated video cameras. However when all is said and done people won't pay money for photos but that's not the purpose they serve. MPV takes photos to illustrate what's going on, garner good will with the customers, record a few fun things bts that aren't on video, and most importantly of all to sell the scenes on video. Nobody is going to pay the New York Times for a still photo of something spectacular but they will put the image on the front page to sell papers. This is similar to what MPV does because you can't NOT see that photo directing you to the video. It's right there in your face and hopefully it's a great signal to most people. You don't have to watch a preview when the story is contained in one good image. That's really what photos are about now. It's not "Photos v Videos" but always should be "Photos and Videos". They both have a place. It's about using the right tool for a given job.
Dave recognized this from the first moment of his first video when everything was carefully shot on 35mm film and laboriously scanned after it returned from an Adult film processor. It was a pain but he recognized how important that was. Just as with video the technology has vastly improved and made that part of the job much easier but two things have not changed - Dave behind the video and me behind the stills. As pretentious as this might sound we aren't going to forget about the art that the technology enables. It's there even if the customer isn't aware of it.
Dave is shooting video with 4k cameras that can produce excellent still images of what the video camera sees but that is not photography. Some of you recognize this and have commented on it. Having a photographer dedicated to silently stalking the scene like a sniper and harvesting eye-catching imagery is a lot different than what is taken from three fixed and one operated video cameras. However when all is said and done people won't pay money for photos but that's not the purpose they serve. MPV takes photos to illustrate what's going on, garner good will with the customers, record a few fun things bts that aren't on video, and most importantly of all to sell the scenes on video. Nobody is going to pay the New York Times for a still photo of something spectacular but they will put the image on the front page to sell papers. This is similar to what MPV does because you can't NOT see that photo directing you to the video. It's right there in your face and hopefully it's a great signal to most people. You don't have to watch a preview when the story is contained in one good image. That's really what photos are about now. It's not "Photos v Videos" but always should be "Photos and Videos". They both have a place. It's about using the right tool for a given job.
Dave recognized this from the first moment of his first video when everything was carefully shot on 35mm film and laboriously scanned after it returned from an Adult film processor. It was a pain but he recognized how important that was. Just as with video the technology has vastly improved and made that part of the job much easier but two things have not changed - Dave behind the video and me behind the stills. As pretentious as this might sound we aren't going to forget about the art that the technology enables. It's there even if the customer isn't aware of it.
Dirty Job but I got to do it 20+ years. Thanks.
Just want to say thanks to all those who voted on this, it was a huge surprise to see such a big gap in opinion concerning my early days were more about the photos
Kisses
Chantelle
Kisses
Chantelle
I wanna be messy
