Studio lighting!

CousinWayne · 31-07-06 17:33:27

Enough, already, with the cutesy-poo studio lighting! Sidelighting from both sides in the Premium series is too much, and too clever by half. I like to watch the ladies masturbate, and watch their beautiful bodies and faces as they apprach orgasm, and as they experience it. I like to see their chest and face turn a bit red, I like to see the muscle tension and little spasms that they have. With this bold side lighting, all I see is shadows. Their ears are brightly lit, but their faces are dark. Their shoulders and hips are well illuminated, but their breasts and tummies are in shadow. Their hands manipulating their wonderful and interesting little "girl parts" are in shadow. If they move an arm or a leg that is not in the scene, there is a shadow moving across their body, which is not immediately explained by a body movement; it looks like a sinister stranger in the room, like in an old and third-rate movie. All this contrived lighting and deep shadow work is distrascting, and adds nothing to the presentation. The girls who perform in natural light outside are much more interesting, because the viewer actually sees them. I'd like to see some more outside scenes, or studio lighting that is designed to light the model, rather than hide her. Once in a while for the shadow work is okay, but not every video! Please.

gala · 31-07-06 21:30:30

maybe you should head to ishotmyself.com for more outdoor video scenes and less production control. this site seems to be more for those who appreicate subtlely and mystery. if you look around on the site before joining, you can pretty much tell what you're going to get. if you want to see "girl parts" in explicit detail, you can always head to www.pussiesinfloodlightsforthelessadventurous.com.

The_Elfman · 31-07-06 22:33:10

gala wrote:

maybe you should head to ishotmyself.com for more outdoor video scenes and less production control. this site seems to be more for those who appreicate subtlely and mystery. if you look around on the site before joining, you can pretty much tell what you're going to get. if you want to see "girl parts" in explicit detail, you can always head to www.pussiesinfloodlightsforthelessadventurous.com.

I'm sure I subscribed to that one once gala, but couldn't get used to having to wear a welding mask to watch the vids .

Elfman.

monkey13 · 21-10-06 07:46:40

jamesgrant wrote:

All this contrived lighting and deep shadow work is distrascting, and adds nothing to the presentation. The girls who perform in natural light outside are much more interesting, because the viewer actually sees them. I'd like to see some more outside scenes, or studio lighting that is designed to light the model, rather than hide her. Once in a while for the shadow work is okay, but not every video! Please.

I wholeheartedly agree with james. Shadows are OK (artistic?) if used sparingly and only occasionally, but the way they have been used--they just seem overused--tacky and just annoying.

Shira (10/19) was so nice, and I thought the editor(s) finally listened to james and others like me, but I was quite dissapointed by Coco (10/20) as far as the lighting goes. Everything else with Coco was superb. It's a shame.

Gavinrad · 21-10-06 14:12:30

if you guys want generic porn, go the hell somewhere else. It's not like theres a shortage of it.

Burlesque · 21-10-06 14:58:38

Gavinrad wrote:

if you guys want generic porn, go the hell somewhere else. It's not like theres a shortage of it.

Ah, a fellow after my own heart and level of dyspepsia. I share your opinion and chuckle wheezily at your frankness.

Burlesque.

dyslexius · 21-10-06 21:26:23

I've often wondered what it is in the nature of certain people that leaves them unmoved in the presence of beauty.

--dyslexius

Adagio · 21-10-06 21:44:44

Burlesque wrote:

Gavinrad wrote:
if you guys want generic porn, go the hell somewhere else. It's not like theres a shortage of it.
Ah, a fellow after my own heart and level of dyspepsia. I share your opinion and chuckle wheezily at your frankness.
Burlesque.

ditto.

msnevil · 22-10-06 06:14:35

"Brightness" adjustment works wonders.

monkey13 · 23-10-06 20:55:43

msnevil wrote:

"Brightness" adjustment works wonders.

If you mean that of the monitor screen, I have tried it. My screen is now adjusted to its maximum brightness, but to my chagrin, i see very little difference!!

The shadow issue is the same with agony but since agony is only face, its not too bad. This one is often very bad. Dinner in candlelight may be romantic and may increase ones appetite, but that idea doesn't work here.

While I feel Im very lucky to have stumbled on this site, one of the very few, yet a serious frustration, I have with it is "its too dark."

I think the editor/administrator has his/her own philosophy on editing, and I understand that its rather difficult to change one's values and philosophy, but it would be nice if he/she could increase the ratio of brighter (or rather, normal) clips more in the future.

I think he/she can do it. "I feel" has been created; at first it appeared as if she/he wouldn't listen to those who were frustrated with "neck-up only."

drinksun · 23-10-06 22:17:31

Not sure that the unmitigated desire to maintain a clear view to said girl parts should be held quite so derisively. After all, boys will be boys, and is that necessarily such a bad thing? Just because one likes a bit of explicitness does not necessarily cancel out an appreciation for subtlety as well. Fortunately for me, my view has been three-dimensionally clear on countless occasions throughout my life and I'm here to tell you that the mystery never fades. Actually, just as rough sex can sometimes lead to a greater and more intense trust and intimacy, I say that explicitness (is that even a word?) can actually contribute to the mystery.

monkey13 · 24-10-06 06:15:43

drinksun wrote:

Not sure that the unmitigated desire to maintain a clear view to said girl parts should be held quite so derisively. After all, boys will be boys, and is that necessarily such a bad thing? Just because one likes a bit of explicitness does not necessarily cancel out an appreciation for subtlety as well.

I appreciate drinksun's supportive opinions. "After all, boys will be boys." Yea!! Men are generally highly visual when it comes to sex. Subtle (sparing) shadowing is welcome, but overdone shadowing kills mystery and eroticism.

dyslexius · 24-10-06 08:04:00

monkey13 wrote:

drinksun wrote:
Not sure that the unmitigated desire to maintain a clear view to said girl parts should be held quite so derisively. After all, boys will be boys, and is that necessarily such a bad thing? Just because one likes a bit of explicitness does not necessarily cancel out an appreciation for subtlety as well.
I appreciate drinksun's supportive opinions. "After all, boys will be boys." Yea!! Men are generally highly visual when it comes to sex. Subtle (sparing) shadowing is welcome, but overdone shadowing kills mystery and eroticism.

Well, I'm a man and believe me, I understand, via experience (both live experience and Memorex), how arousal works in males. IFM and BA are intended to work (and are successful in so doing) psychologically by drawing us into the world of the contributors. IFM invite us to empathise, to imagine what the subject might be experiencing. We are invited to be right there with every feelette. We are invited to be aware of how distinctive each one of those beauties is -- how they differ from one another, and by extension, how differently we, as the viewer, can feel from movie-to-movie as a result.

Many IFM movies do have "a bit of explicitness." Except for one recent notable exception, just a bit, just enough!

--dyslexius

monkey13 · 25-10-06 05:02:57

>IFM and BA are intended to work (and are successful in so doing) psychologically by drawing us into the world of the contributors.

Other porno sites do the same, i think. Only one does it well or badly.

>IFM invite us to empathise, to imagine what the subject might be experiencing. We are invited to be right there with every feelette. We are invited to be aware of how distinctive each one of those beauties is -- how they differ from one another, and by extension, how differently we, as the viewer, can feel from movie-to-movie as a result.

Well, this may be so. But that does not change the frustration of dark shadow.

>Many IFM movies do have "a bit of explicitness." Except for one recent notable exception, just a bit, just enough!

i don't know exactly what you mean by "a bit of explicitness," but I think some (or many?) of them (over-)act and pretend, particulary those who from the very beginning make "nasal sounds." That's not good. No need to orgasm dramatically. Just be yourself, just like you masturbate alone in your bedroom. and if your orgasm is genuinely explosive, the viewer's counterpart will be the same.

Nowaysis · 25-10-06 08:48:34

monkey13 wrote:

>IFM and BA are intended to work (and are successful in so doing) psychologically by drawing us into the world of the contributors.
Other porno sites do the same, i think. Only one does it well or badly.
>IFM invite us to empathise, to imagine what the subject might be experiencing. We are invited to be right there with every feelette. We are invited to be aware of how distinctive each one of those beauties is -- how they differ from one another, and by extension, how differently we, as the viewer, can feel from movie-to-movie as a result.
Well, this may be so. But that does not change the frustration of dark shadow.
>Many IFM movies do have "a bit of explicitness." Except for one recent notable exception, just a bit, just enough!
i don't know exactly what you mean by "a bit of explicitness," but I think some (or many?) of them (over-)act and pretend, particulary those who from the very beginning make "nasal sounds." That's not good. No need to orgasm dramatically. Just be yourself, just like you masturbate alone in your bedroom. and if your orgasm is genuinely explosive, the viewer's counterpart will be the same.

A word of warning, grumpy Rich is gonna be all over this post (probably replying in a single line), so I'll say it gently, and in far more words:

1. Regarding psychological immersion, I'd say that's something quite unique to this network of sites. "Other" porn sites are nowhere near it. They usually work with one single philosophy in mind - maximum visibility - which mostly works physically, so to speak. There is no act of the mind required to enjoy traditional porn, i.e. naked pussy=erection.

2. I think the explicitness refered to is the graphic kind (which as previously stated is the only virtue(?) of traditional porn). I haven't personally watched all of the recent contributions, since I was absent for a few months, so I'm not sure which video Dyslexius is refering to here though. But as far as your comments about theatricality go, I'm tempted to just tell you to shut it, but that would be rude. I will say, rather bluntly, though, that you seem to have IFM confused with those "other" porn sites. The way in which the women here orgasm is natural, make no mistake about this. However, if there seems to be some smudgeon (or bludgeon for that matter) of acting involved, then it's because the woman in question wishes it, not because some director is telling her to be "louder!", "dirtier!", or what have you. This may or may not actually show up on film, but it is an important difference, if not the most important.

And as always, when commenting on the content of these sites, we are not buying a service as such, in which transaction we would be entitled to make demands on the product received. No, we are graciously invited into these wonderful people's lives, and offered to take part in their expression of their sexuiality. Try to think about that the next time you don't appreciate someone's breathing.

I hope this has been somewhat enlightening (pardon my choice of words), and I hope I haven't scared you away from our beautiful site and most wonderful community with my declaration of why 'we rule and "other" porn sucks'.

Journeyfan · 25-10-06 10:01:46

Nowaysis wrote:

I haven't personally watched all of the recent contributions, since I was absent for a few months, so I'm not sure which video Dyslexius is refering to here though.

I believe Dyslexius is probably referring to "Hard Yakka" by Ainslee, which led to some varied opinions with regard to the video's more explicit camera angles.

There were a couple of threads recently dedicated to Ainslee's submission; e.g. http://www.ifeelmyself.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=770

Nowaysis wrote:

But as far as your comments about theatricality go, I'm tempted to just tell you to shut it, but that would be rude. I will say, rather bluntly, though, that you seem to have IFM confused with those "other" porn sites. The way in which the women here orgasm is natural, make no mistake about this. (emphasis by JF).
However, if there seems to be some smudgeon (or bludgeon for that matter) of acting involved, then it's because the woman in question wishes it, not because some director is telling her to be "louder!", "dirtier!", or what have you. This may or may not actually show up on film, but it is an important difference, if not the most important.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Nowaysis .... and I believe that is the number one reason that this site is so unique and wonderful!

Nowaysis wrote:

And as always, when commenting on the content of these sites, we are not buying a service as such, in which transaction we would be entitled to make demands on the product received. No, we are graciously invited into these wonderful people's lives, and offered to take part in their expression of their sexuiality. Try to think about that the next time you don't appreciate someone's breathing.

Absolutely!

As I understand it from previous posts by Max and Richard, the contributors themselves have the final say over what is or isn't acceptable to them before their submission is filmed. I'm sure Max, as the undeniable expert in these matters, has considerable input into all matters including camera angles, lighting etc., but the end decision lies with the contributor being entirely comfortable with the "set up". (I'm sure Richard or Max will correct me if I'm wrong).

Nowaysis wrote:

I hope this has been somewhat enlightening (pardon my choice of words), and I hope I haven't scared you away from our beautiful site and most wonderful community with my declaration of why 'we rule and "other" porn sucks'.

I'm sorry Monkey 13, I again find myself agreeing with Nowaysis and I hope I am not speaking out of turn by saying that I think you will find that the opinions shared by Nowaysis are to a greater or lesser degree the opinions of the vast majority of members of this site, certainly, from what I have read over the last six months, the majority of the regular contributors to this Forum.

Of course, that is not to say that differing opinions should not be aired, as long as such opinions are always respectful, especially where comments relate to any one (or all) of the wonderful ladies who allow us to share such intimacies.

Just my humble opinion.

JF

Nowaysis · 25-10-06 12:32:20

All that said, I can agree that the ominous lighting sometimes can be frustrating, there are a number of contributors I wouldn't mind seeing in a bit more detail even in the full body shot. But given the premises of the site, its production and its content, I don't see that any good could come out of whining simply because the naughty bits aren't floodlighted.

monkey13 · 26-10-06 03:14:17

Nowaysis wrote:

All that said, I can agree that the ominous lighting sometimes can be frustrating, there are a number of contributors I wouldn't mind seeing in a bit more detail even in the full body shot.

Well, after all.

monkey13 · 26-10-06 03:29:00

Nowaysis wrote:

1. Regarding psychological immersion, I'd say that's something quite unique to this network of sites. "Other" porn sites are nowhere near it. They usually work with one single philosophy in mind - maximum visibility - which mostly works physically, so to speak. There is no act of the mind required to enjoy traditional porn, i.e. naked pussy=erection.
And as always, when commenting on the content of these sites, we are not buying a service as such, in which transaction we would be entitled to make demands on the product received. No, we are graciously invited into these wonderful people's lives, and offered to take part in their expression of their sexuiality. Try to think about that the next time you don't appreciate someone's breathing.

The uniqueness of this site does not lie in lighting (it verges on tackiness to me); rather, it lies in the freshness (i.e. "cleanliness") and the "naturalness" of the models.

>we are not buying a service as such, in which transaction we would be entitled to make demands on the product received. No, we are graciously invited into these wonderful people's lives,

then how come it charges about the same as other porn sites? Should they charge half the other sites, you may be able to say that. I know very few porn sites where the customors are "entitled to make demands."

aven frey · 26-10-06 03:50:06

monkey13 wrote:

The uniqueness of this site does not lie in lighting (it verges on tackiness to me); rather, it lies in the freshness (i.e. "cleanliness") and the "naturalness" of the models.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason these women choose to contribute to our site is because they trust we wont show close ups of their vagina in floodlights. And um what is "cleanliness" supposed to mean?

aven frey · 26-10-06 03:54:08

monkey13 wrote:

but I think some (or many?) of them (over-)act and pretend, particulary those who from the very beginning make "nasal sounds." That's not good. No need to orgasm dramatically. Just be yourself, just like you masturbate alone in your bedroom. and if your orgasm is genuinely explosive, the viewer's counterpart will be the same.

Oh yes and on behalf of all the contributors thanks for your advise, we always appretiate it when men take the time to tell us how to be sexy.

polarchill · 26-10-06 04:42:35

max wrote:

monkey13 wrote:
but I think some (or many?) of them (over-)act and pretend, particulary those who from the very beginning make "nasal sounds." That's not good. No need to orgasm dramatically. Just be yourself, just like you masturbate alone in your bedroom. and if your orgasm is genuinely explosive, the viewer's counterpart will be the same.
Oh yes and on behalf of all the contributors thanks for your advise, we always appretiate it when men take the time to tell us how to be sexy.

*cough* I feel like I need to apologize, and I haven't even BEEN in this thread.

Personally . . . *cracks open a beer* . . . what I think we need here is halogen lights, probably about three of 'em, about, oh, say, four inches away from that there pooter. There's gonna be a little sweatin', mind ya, so ya might wanna give the little philly some extra towels . . .

--
Polarchill "satire in times of crisis since 1967"

Addendum: I told the girlfriend to stop being so nasal when she orgasms, since apparently she's been faking all these years. If I can just figure out how she's faking the heavy ejaculation I'll have her little game shut down. After all, no one likes a drama queen.

Adagio · 26-10-06 04:45:30

LOL!!!!!!!

polarchill, thank you so much for making me laugh. I needed it (and i think this thread needed it too)

Last edited by Adagio (26-10-06 04:45:51)

Gavinrad · 26-10-06 05:56:19

if any of monkey13's requests became the standard for content here, i doubt i would be the first one to immediately cancel my membership, but it would be damn quick.

Perhaps I seem a bit fervent, but this site is like a breath of fresh air to a person drowning in a sea of uninspired, unenthused, exploitive pornography. I like things more or less the way they are, and while on occasion, stuff like Ainslee's Hard Yakka is extremely welcome, I would not want it to be the standard for IFM.

I absolutely love the female orgasm, it's far and away my primary concern during sex, and some of my most memorable sexual experiences were just me going down and then us cuddling afterwards. Not having 'floodlights on the cooters' is one of the things that appeals to me very deeply about this site, and I think that it is in fact it's most unique feature.

If the site began to feature more (and I use the term for lack of a better one) explicit videos, I would desperately hope that the focus was still on the art and beauty of the female orgasm, and not on the nudity itself. What I find most enticing about a video like Ainslee's is that it's quite clear that she is enjoying herself, and doesn't seem to care very much about the camera. I think that it would have been a better video if the camera could have explored her body more than just focusing on her nono spot!

Anyway, I seem to have gotten a little off track, my point was that the site is on the right track the way it is, and the people trying to steer it towards nothing more than bright and vivid videos of a woman stuffing anything from fingers to vegetables to bottles into their pussies while screeching their fake orgasms for the world to hear, those people need to be silenced with fervour and determination.

Last edited by Gavinrad (26-10-06 05:56:45)

dyslexius · 26-10-06 07:15:49

...The uniqueness of this site does not lie in lighting (it verges on tackiness to me); rather, it lies in the freshness (i.e. "cleanliness") and the "naturalness" of the models...

Ah, okay -- this (I added some emphasis) helps me understand. Two factions have emerged in this thread: The floodlighters and the artlighters. I had heretofore understood the two factions to be differentiated by their contrasting aesthetic. Alas, I'm disappointed that I now must look elsewhere for a contrast, as aesthetic sensibility is possessed by only one of the factions.

(...all of which means I must make a clean and natural break from my earlier illogic)

--dyslexius

#1 31-07-06 17:33:27

Studio lighting!

#2 31-07-06 21:30:30

Re: Studio lighting!

#3 31-07-06 22:33:10

Re: Studio lighting!

#4 21-10-06 07:46:40

Re: Studio lighting!

#5 21-10-06 14:12:30

Re: Studio lighting!

#6 21-10-06 14:58:38

Re: Studio lighting!

#7 21-10-06 21:26:23

Re: Studio lighting!

#8 21-10-06 21:44:44

Re: Studio lighting!

#9 22-10-06 06:14:35

Re: Studio lighting!

#10 23-10-06 20:55:43

Re: Studio lighting!

#11 23-10-06 22:17:31

Re: Studio lighting!

#12 24-10-06 06:15:43

Re: Studio lighting!

#13 24-10-06 08:04:00

Re: Studio lighting!

#14 25-10-06 05:02:57

Re: Studio lighting!

#15 25-10-06 08:48:34

Re: Studio lighting!

#16 25-10-06 10:01:46

Re: Studio lighting!

#17 25-10-06 12:32:20

Re: Studio lighting!

#18 26-10-06 03:14:17

Re: Studio lighting!

#19 26-10-06 03:29:00

Re: Studio lighting!

#20 26-10-06 03:50:06

Re: Studio lighting!

#21 26-10-06 03:54:08

Re: Studio lighting!

#22 26-10-06 04:42:35

Re: Studio lighting!

#23 26-10-06 04:45:30

Re: Studio lighting!

#24 26-10-06 05:56:19

Re: Studio lighting!

#25 26-10-06 07:15:49

Re: Studio lighting!

Board footer