|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Shooting Styles"
Love you, too
Hey all,
I find it really interesting that shooting styles/aesthetics are really essential to enjoyment of a wam vid.
Every producer has their own feel and shooting style, generally these remain unchanged for a long time. Take, for example, messygirl.com has similar saturation and colour levels from when I was buying it via VHS some 10 years ago and a similar framing to the shots. MPV are similar also in this regard and although you can see advancement in the subject matter - nearly all producers are identifiable by their production/framing etc. Most other producers have also been consistent over the period that they've been active.
I wonder, to what extent, that the technical aspects of shooting WAM contribute to how they are appreciated.
So, I ask - is your appreciation of a vid subject to the way it's shot or the way the vid was mastered? Or is it mostly based on the subject matter of what's being shot? What is everyone's favourite framing or production value that they value?
I find it really interesting that shooting styles/aesthetics are really essential to enjoyment of a wam vid.
Every producer has their own feel and shooting style, generally these remain unchanged for a long time. Take, for example, messygirl.com has similar saturation and colour levels from when I was buying it via VHS some 10 years ago and a similar framing to the shots. MPV are similar also in this regard and although you can see advancement in the subject matter - nearly all producers are identifiable by their production/framing etc. Most other producers have also been consistent over the period that they've been active.
I wonder, to what extent, that the technical aspects of shooting WAM contribute to how they are appreciated.
So, I ask - is your appreciation of a vid subject to the way it's shot or the way the vid was mastered? Or is it mostly based on the subject matter of what's being shot? What is everyone's favourite framing or production value that they value?
dave1987 said: Hey all,
I find it really interesting that shooting styles/aesthetics are really essential to enjoyment of a wam vid.
Every producer has their own feel and shooting style, generally these remain unchanged for a long time. Take, for example, messygirl.com has similar saturation and colour levels from when I was buying it via VHS some 10 years ago and a similar framing to the shots. MPV are similar also in this regard and although you can see advancement in the subject matter - nearly all producers are identifiable by their production/framing etc. Most other producers have also been consistent over the period that they've been active.
I wonder, to what extent, that the technical aspects of shooting WAM contribute to how they are appreciated.
So, I ask - is your appreciation of a vid subject to the way it's shot or the way the vid was mastered? Or is it mostly based on the subject matter of what's being shot? What is everyone's favourite framing or production value that they value?
I find it really interesting that shooting styles/aesthetics are really essential to enjoyment of a wam vid.
Every producer has their own feel and shooting style, generally these remain unchanged for a long time. Take, for example, messygirl.com has similar saturation and colour levels from when I was buying it via VHS some 10 years ago and a similar framing to the shots. MPV are similar also in this regard and although you can see advancement in the subject matter - nearly all producers are identifiable by their production/framing etc. Most other producers have also been consistent over the period that they've been active.
I wonder, to what extent, that the technical aspects of shooting WAM contribute to how they are appreciated.
So, I ask - is your appreciation of a vid subject to the way it's shot or the way the vid was mastered? Or is it mostly based on the subject matter of what's being shot? What is everyone's favourite framing or production value that they value?
I find the phrase "saturation levels" in a WAM video to be a redundancy.
As I just mentioned on another thread.....directing and editing can play a CRUCIAL role in whether a wam vid sells. So yes...tech is something that "counts."
Robby
WAMma Lamma Pie
www.wammalamapie.com
www.shepiestheguy.com
www.techdrek.com
betweenmy2oes said: I'm a lighting designer primarily for theatre, but many of the same techniques apply to film/TV. I find a lot of people film their content with only overhead lighting and everything looks flat and dark. Add even a desk lamp on one side and things will improve greatly. Getting a cheap full length door mirror is also a nice way to get more light where you want it.
In terms of shooting, it seems a safe thing to have at least two angles if you do not have a camera operator. A wide shot and and a medium shot will ensure you capture everything and have options to choose from if one angle is better then another. One from the front and one from the side is best. Camera operators should not have copious amounts of caffeine before shoots so they have a nice steady hand.
Artificial zooming is a bit of a turn off for me. It is nice to see things close up, but the quality tends to degrade a bit. With the VLC player I can choose to zoom in on the nice gungy bits I want to see and choose the quality control as well. I find sometimes that editors zoom in and only show the person's head. Even if there's no arousal it's nice to see guy's crotch areas, and (personal choice) feet. Love seeing toes curl or wiggle during a gunging and more often than not there's artificial zooming that hides that.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
In terms of shooting, it seems a safe thing to have at least two angles if you do not have a camera operator. A wide shot and and a medium shot will ensure you capture everything and have options to choose from if one angle is better then another. One from the front and one from the side is best. Camera operators should not have copious amounts of caffeine before shoots so they have a nice steady hand.
Artificial zooming is a bit of a turn off for me. It is nice to see things close up, but the quality tends to degrade a bit. With the VLC player I can choose to zoom in on the nice gungy bits I want to see and choose the quality control as well. I find sometimes that editors zoom in and only show the person's head. Even if there's no arousal it's nice to see guy's crotch areas, and (personal choice) feet. Love seeing toes curl or wiggle during a gunging and more often than not there's artificial zooming that hides that.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
Excellent synopsis and that makes perfect cents.
When we shot originally, we did way too much "padding" i.e....zooms...replays etc.
I would opt these days for a much shorter, tighter video with better, less flat lighting and the two shots you described with maybe a "roving" camera.
It's just that it's MUCH easier to just turn on a camera and record messy stuff without using any other additional thought, technique, lighting, writing, direction, editing, planning, etc.
Because THOSE take work AND a certain amount of talent all around.
Robby
WAMma Lamma Pie
www.wammalamapie.com
www.shepiestheguy.com
www.saturdaymorningsoapbox.com
dave1987 said: Hey all,
Every producer has their own feel and shooting style, generally these remain unchanged for a long time. Take, for example, messygirl.com has similar saturation and colour levels from when I was buying it via VHS some 10 years ago and a similar framing to the shots. MPV are similar also in this regard and although you can see advancement in the subject matter -
Every producer has their own feel and shooting style, generally these remain unchanged for a long time. Take, for example, messygirl.com has similar saturation and colour levels from when I was buying it via VHS some 10 years ago and a similar framing to the shots. MPV are similar also in this regard and although you can see advancement in the subject matter -
Consistency is no surprise with MPV because Dave has done 95% of the camera work since 1998.He's also done 99% of the editing. Over the years there's been a steady improvement in lighting and that's made a big difference. From the beginning though we always had reflectors to fill in where we could. Shooting everything outdoors and often in the wild presents some challenges. One thing I hope you notice is the consistently excellent sound quality with MPV videos. From the beginning MPV has used some very nice Sennheiser professional microphones and sound editing that is as good as any. Rarely will you hear background noise that distracts and you will never have trouble hearing what is being said or what's going on. In certain scenes you will hear the model breathing heavily, the mud bubbling in several places, but you won't hear distant trucks on the highway, me walking around clicking away with a big Nikon SLR, or even too much wind in the trees.
Yeah, that "look" is important. If you notice anything but the subject matter, it's not an MPV video.
Dirty Job but I got to do it 20+ years. Thanks.
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In