This is a little niggle that has been bothering me for some time. In fact after many years. I thought I would finally get it off my chest
There are quite a lot of wam producers out there who insist that when taking photographs or filming, only concentrate on the top half of the model. (Head shoulders, or down to the waist). Sometimes never going down to the legs and feet.
I feel that this is such a waste, especially if the victim is wearing nice clothing or shoes. Its as if you are only seeing half the story.
Why or why, do they not just step back a few feet to get the full picture.
I bet I am not the only person out here that likes to see coverage of legs, heels, feet and it baffles me that so many good sets have been spoiled by this shortcoming, and how much potential business may have been lost by this.

That's a good question and I believe there's actually a technical reason for this as well as an artistic one.

Pie producers have a tendency to concentrate on the head and shoulders and - if they only have one camera - prefer to get a detailed close up of the action rather than a grainy distant one.

An issue that has confounded this matter in the last decade is the aspect ratio of video and TV cameras widening. So, if you are looking through the viewfinder of your modern camera. A long shot encompassing the whole body of the performer results in a massive amount of wasted space in the picture on either side.

Further to this, cheaper cameras don't tend to have a very good wide angle lens and quite often there simply isn't enough space in the room to take the camera back far enough.

I attempt to capture both long and medium/close up on two cameras (some others have 3) and switch between the two as appropriate. I shoot in 4k and release in 1080 so I can actually zoom in up to 170% on a good, well lit, medium shot at the editing stage with not too much quality loss.

One of my favorite shots to get when shooting wam is using an ultra wide 10mm to catch an extreme perspective of the feet up. I also shoot a lot of the scene switching between 18mm and 35mm primes. I try to cover nearly every range and perspective.

At WLP, we ALWAYS alternated the "long shots" with the close ups. We didn't go down to the feet in the long shot, but included those shots at the end. In a perfect WAM world we would have used a 3 camera set up...close up, mid shot, long shot....but alas..... Again, our "solution" to that was to show a longer shot and then add the "extreme" long shots at the end for feet fans and fshoe fans.

In fact in some of the new vids I'm helping Jayce produce, we don't get down to the feet..but you do see more of the outfits.

Robby

I'm glad Robby touched on this, because there are other producers like Rich(SStuff) and Leon who go out of their way to shoot with multiple cameras and/or angles.

Trouso also makes an excellent point on pie producers too. It's very rare to see someone take a pie too the feet for instance. That said, there are videos dedicated to "crushing" either with feet or butts. Many of those you may not get to see a face.

Ultimately this comes down to practicality and artistic choice.

I've never understood the "upper half only" school of wam shooting, to me the most fundamental basic rule of filming wam is that the area that is getting messy must be in shot. Our dungeon scenes will almost always show the model(s) from head to knees if standing or head to feet if sitting. And when the girls are having their feet messed up we make sure they are in shot too.

My own personal main interest is from the waist down - basically I love trouser filling, fully clothed cake sitting, stuff poured into laps, and girls playing with wellies. But I appreciate most of the audience want to see heads and faces and upper bodies being messed up too, so we arrange our scenes so the viewer can see everything. When we do a hand held scene the camera will focus on wherever the mess is going at any particular moment - so if a girl is getting a pie in the face her head will be in shot, but if she's having a can of custard poured into her yoga pants, the view will be from thighs to just above the waistband, so we can enjoy the filling.

As someone who's shot with 3 angles for more than a decade, I have offered the "full body shot" (AKA Wide angle) in practically every release since SS31 or so. That's close to 200 volumes and something like 700+ scenes. I also offer the closeup angle and the "medium," which usually goes waist to head when sitting, upper thigh to head when standing.

The wide angle is always priced cheaper than the other 2 angles, and still sells less... every single time. Make of that what you will.

(In fairness, to get head-to-toe in the shot, you have to pull back quite a bit. So you won't get the quality of a tightly-focused closeup in 1080p HD for instance. And especially with HD widescreen, you'll see beyond the backdrop and wreck the "illusion." All reasons why it's not an effective of an angle as the other two. I've never thought about shooting from the waist down for a whole scene.... Sorry, just seems like a waste never to see the face, especially as I'm pieing and sliming the face and head, not the knees or thighs. Post-hit, I will occasionally pan down sometimes to get good messy legs and feet, then pan back to the face. But I've never had customers express a preference for these shots.)

I've always been a fan of horizontal wam. Maybe now is the time for more of it to be produced. I'm talking about a girl on a bed, or full-length in a wading pool, or an air mattress, or even on the beach. The wide-angle world we live in would be perfect for this. We'd get the pie-in-the-face fans happy, the messy boobs fans, the torso fans, ass fans, legs and finally feet. Horizontal wam also provides the benefit of the mess staying on the model better, as it's not just running off to the floor.

One of my own niggles is when the model has a low-cut top on, and has a bucket of slime poured over her head. All good so far. But you see at the bottom of the screen that a TON of slime is going down her top. She seems to wiggle and squirm around somewhat, as she feels the mess run over her stomach under her clothing, eventually either pooling up or running out of a skirt or whatever. The 'niggle' part is that you don't see any of that happening - only the aftermath. You know that it took place, but it took place off-camera. Worst yet, is a stunning girl in a tiny bikini, and you know she's getting plastered all over, but the camera is from shoulder-height up. She might as well be wearing scuba gear.

Anyhow, everyone has their own preferences, but with high-definition and wider screens, I think horizontal wam's time may have come. Many producers have done horizontal wam without specifically trying to. It depends on the setting, the scenario and the model. (and the videographer's preferences)

Thanks for the input on this. As I am not a photographer and without technical knowledge I hadn't thought about any implications or equipment restrictions. As Richard puts it,- ( I believe there's actually a
technical reason for this as well
as an artistic one. )
Then Bob adds. -
(Anyhow, everyone has their own
preferences, but with high-
definition and wider screens)

I personally think High Def is the solution as images can always be zoomed in, now matter how much 'wasted space, even frame freeze nowdays produces a decent image most of the time. I also agree with potatoman that Leonmoomin seems to get the right balance. I cannot fault his productions...