Now then, let's also consider that Porn has it's own ideology, it's own art. I don't think it does personally, because the people involved are usually not very well equiped to understand photography. If they were savvy, why would they be engaged in something so tacky?
So yes, I think photography is essentially the same accross the board, but it's what context the images fit into that matters. If it's Porn as we know it now, then it won't last 5 minutes.
Hope that helps.
Jack Lo ... T-O , Mar 23, 2005; 09:20 p.m.
A lot of these guys are quite talented. They can use lighting, colour, lingerie, background and the pose in a way that brings out a specific fantasy very effectively. If the model looks Lolita-ish,or wicked, or older and experienced, these photogs can identify the "look" and create images that convey exactly that.
Because I've spent so many years at poring over and studying photographs of all kinds, when I run up against the poorly made pictures you describe, I'll just say something like "he didn't get it" and move along. When the good ones come before me: first I have the usual male "ZOWIE!" reaction, and then admire the model and the photographer for having been able to get me to do that.
Marco Francardi , Mar 24, 2005; 07:19 a.m.
to cut a long story short, market is the answer. what or who is your target? I don't mean any harm, but if it is low class audience, than it's called porn, and don't need any particular attention to the tecniques. If it is higher educated class, than it is called artisc nudity and you need to work on it and add a touch of... something that will make it palatable to them. (no offence to the anybody, but IMHO that's the way it goes nowadays).
