Studio lighting!

Nowaysis · 26-10-06 08:55:54

monkey13 wrote:

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."

If you'd care to read again, I said nothing about the lighting being the thing that's unique to this site. What I said was that "psychological immersion" is "something quite unique to this network of sites."

As far as cots go, it seems wuite obvious that there are production costs involved even in a project such as this. Servers, bandwidth, cameras and tapes (or whatever kidn of recording media they use), paymen to the contributors. The only way a site such as this could be completely free, is if it was all "amateur", in which case there would be some seriously crappy lighting, and the video quality would probably be somewhere in the realm of 1975.

Also, I think we would do well in differentiating between the producers of the site, who are the ones receiving our payments for the service they provide (hosting and providing access to these lovely videos), and the people contributing, who are, as I said, inviting us into their lives.

polarchill · 26-10-06 21:35:32

Gavinrad wrote:

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.

For me part of the fun here is logging in and not knowing what I'm going to find. Take Liandra's contributions, for example. From her submissions over at ISM we all know she has a beautiful body. Over here, by contrast, she has shown relatively little skin. Does that mean her videos have not been erotic? Hell no. In fact, for me personally her most exciting moment came (no pun intended) in the Perfect Day 2 video, when she was "helping out" Ruby, who suddenly slid a hand over for a quick reachover. In that instance, Liandra remained COMPLETELY clothed, yet I found it one of her sexiest "scenes" ever, simply because she and her partner (interviewee, actually) had unexpectedly slipped into a moment, giving themselves over completely. Not to be crude, but you could check out a gynecological study of Liandra, and not see as much of her as you did in that one video, because she was exposing MORE than flesh.

I'll admit to being a guy. I'm a breast man, myself. But I've had a few years to grow up. When I see a lovely lady's breasts around here, I think to myself, "Well, now I've seen hers. Cool." It's just a little checkmark on a notebook somewhere in my libido. For the most part, I'm focusing on how wonderful it is to watch the lady rocking her own (or her friend's) world.

After all, the site is called ifeelmyself.com, not ijigglemyself.com.

--
Polarchill

monkey13 · 22-11-06 04:23:46

Nowaysis wrote:

As far as cots go, it seems wuite obvious that there are production costs involved even in a project such as this. Servers, bandwidth, cameras and tapes (or whatever kidn of recording media they use), paymen to the contributors. The only way a site such as this could be completely free, is if it was all "amateur", in which case there would be some seriously crappy lighting, and the video quality would probably be somewhere in the realm of 1975.
Also, I think we would do well in differentiating between the producers of the site, who are the ones receiving our payments for the service they provide (hosting and providing access to these lovely videos), and the people contributing, who are, as I said, inviting us into their lives.

>As far as cots go, it seems wuite obvious that there are production costs involved even in a project such as this. Servers, bandwidth, cameras and tapes (or whatever kidn of recording media they use), paymen to the contributors.

Does that mean that the other regular porn sites do no make profit? They charge the same as "I feel." Does that mean that the contributors (the models) are doing what hey are doing only for the sake of "doing it"? Sure, they seem to like it. Many of them seem to be some kind of exhibitionists. (Mind you, I am not making any value judgement here.) But is that the only motivation? I doubt it.

aven frey · 22-11-06 05:10:26

Oh Monkey I admit you've totally confused me (mind you my ego, being the editor doesn't usually allow me to say that!)
So let me get this straight, you want to have access to these "clean" girls at half the price of other sites because, um why?. And then you deduct that yes we must pay the contributors (well I'll be damned), so how does this support what ever argument you were trying to make?
Oh I know, you've just come here to make me laugh! Oh that clears everything up!!

polarchill · 22-11-06 10:11:30

max wrote:

Oh Monkey I admit you've totally confused me (mind you my ego, being the editor doesn't usually allow me to say that!)
So let me get this straight, you want to have access to these "clean" girls at half the price of other sites because, um why?. And then you deduct that yes we must pay the contributors (well I'll be damned), so how does this support what ever argument you were trying to make?
Oh I know, you've just come here to make me laugh! Oh that clears everything up!!

Apparently his point is that if you're allowed to have self-respect, you can't expect to be paid. I had a boss once who lived by the same philosophy. Mind you, he wasn't my boss for LONG . . .

Egnops · 22-11-06 10:36:08

Personally, although I happen to enjoy the videos as well as the conversations amongst fellow viewers, I come to the same conclusion.

I've read different opinions they put in the "testimonials" regarding the site of how it's "different" than porn sites, how it's "much more" blah...blah...blah.

But when it comes down to it........it's porn in a cheap tuxedo.

We have the same debate here in the states regarding Creation vs Intelligent Design. Bible thumpers pleading that ID is not really creation.....when no matter how you romanticize it, just like the rants have been about this site, how much you try to convince yourself it's much more...........it's not. Same with this site. Really the only difference I see with this site and other sites is, the layout is much cooler. Kudos to the designers.

I mean......an analogy that could be equated metaphorically would be......oh.....say you have a prostitute. Society, for the most part would consider her a "whore" due to the quantity of sex that she may have. However, is the woman who has sex with multipartners and doesn't get paid for it any less a "whore"? (Not associating these girls on the videos as "whores", mind you, that was just one example that came to mind with PolarChill's "self respect" analogy)

The bottom line is, these girls are engaging in sexual activity. Whether it be alone or with someone else. There are paying members just like other porn sites. No less charged than other porn sites, at that. Someone is making a profit, if not, then you can't really say that other porn sites have "paid actors/actresses" on them either, for they don't seem to make anymore from membership than this site.

Happy viewing, all of you.

Last edited by Egnops (22-11-06 10:39:13)

msnevil · 22-11-06 11:57:02

1)Some might call it Erotica, others "porn". But they would state the swimsuit edition is "porn" as well. Along with the JC penney catalog.

2)If its Porn, It 500 year old wine versus your Stinky socks in Vinegar.

3)There is a big difference between Normative Porn and this website. How many sites focus on female orgasms alone. With the emphasis on letting the ladies do it in a comfortable setting. With out the emphasis on "money shot's, gyno shots, or other explotive methods." Here they are a person, not a object to be used, and forgotton.

4)By thier logic, a Nudist would be a whore as well. All they are doing is expressing themselves. As a pervert, I paid to watch them. They perform only for themselves. They do no "Sexual Favors" for me at all.

Egnops wrote:

I mean......an analogy that could be equated metaphorically would be......oh.....say you have a prostitute. Society, for the most part would consider her a "whore" due to the quantity of sex that she may have. However, is the woman who has sex with multipartners and doesn't get paid for it any less a "whore"? (Not associating these girls on the videos as "whores", mind you, that was just one example that came to mind with PolarChill's "self respect" analogy)

Egnops · 22-11-06 12:08:10

I think it would be quite arrogant on your part to assume that you know whether or not ladies on other porn sites are not comfortable with their positions as displayed.

But to each his/her own opinion and I suppose we all need to believe what we will to justify them.

No matter how you slice it, strip down the melodrama of romanticism.......it's still no less porn than any other site.

On to other subjects!

Is there any chance of older women submitting videos?

I wouldn't mind seeing a range in age. Women with a bit more experience in their sexuality. It's interesting to see such diversity.

Egnops · 22-11-06 12:09:36

Oh by the way..........it would be more effective to stick with realistic analogies. Nudists can not in any way be compared with whores. Not all nudity has sex involved.

Last edited by Egnops (22-11-06 12:10:21)

msnevil · 22-11-06 12:23:55

Masturbation to me is not sex. Hence Nudism is a realistic analogy.

And I take it, you think female's love to have some man tower over them, and spray "jism" all over thier face. Most female's I ever heard talk about this, call it degrading. (No it's not arrogence, Its called experience from listening.)

Of course, Turn around is Fair Play. Perhaps we could have some woman Towering over a man and spraying g-spot "jism" all over his face. Wait there is no mainstream "porn" site with this as a emphasis.

Egnops · 22-11-06 12:33:09

There again, not all nudists involves any form of sexual activity. The few nudist colonies or camps I've interiewed members, some even being close friends, will even state, sexual activity or sexual gestures towards other members is prohibited. Many of which have children as well.

Maybe some just have more control over their urges when naked then others. That's a different study which I'm not involved in at the moment.

"And I take it you think females love to have some man tower over them..............."

I think it wise not to try and manufacture things that are not there or imply that I think something I don't.

I have interviewed numbers of women who have had that experience......the men voiding on them or what have you. For some it was a turn on......for some it was just a thing to do....for some it wasn't as fulfilling as they once thought.

Actually, there are porn sites that do emphasize the female as being the more dominant partner, including activities as you described. Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

But, you may refer to masturbation as sex or not........that is your opinion, only and your right as well.

Egnops · 22-11-06 12:35:42

"As a pervert, I pay to watch them. They only perform for themselves. They do no "sexual favors" for me at all."

Um....isn't this a bit contradictory? If they don't do any "sexual favors" for you at all...........why would you pay to watch them?

richard · 22-11-06 12:58:18

Egnops wrote:

But when it comes down to it........it's porn in a cheap tuxedo.

Uh-huh.

Egnops wrote:

Same with this site. Really the only difference I see with this site and other sites is, the layout is much cooler. Kudos to the designers.

Yes, nobody can design a cheap tuxedo like our girls. And you should see their cummerbunds.

ashmedi · 22-11-06 13:01:57

msnevil wrote:

Masturbation to me is not sex.

Is your real name Bill Clinton? He used a similar line about Monica "I did not have sex with that woman"

nihpuad · 22-11-06 18:22:13

richard wrote:

Egnops wrote:
But when it comes down to it........it's porn in a cheap tuxedo.
Uh-huh.
Egnops wrote:
Same with this site. Really the only difference I see with this site and other sites is, the layout is much cooler. Kudos to the designers.
Yes, nobody can design a cheap tuxedo like our girls. And you should see their cummerbunds.

Richard, I don't suppose you know of any prospective feelers who'd be willing to do their thing in cheap cummerbunds? Might be kinda' hot...

But seriously, folks... I think this is it or isn't it conversation is based on a false dichotomy between "porn" and "erotica" (or maybe a false trichotomy between "porn," "erotica," and "art"). I have no problem calling it porn (but keep in mind, I don't think of that as a bad thing) -- it's sexually explicit and intended, at least in part, to sexually arouse its audience -- but that doesn't mean it's the same as typical porn. A fast food joint is very different from a fine French bistro, but they're both described by the word "restaurant."

The real distinction to be made here is between artistic, contributor-driven, self-expression-focused porn and generic commercial porn.

aven frey · 23-11-06 01:30:03

Egnops wrote:

I mean......an analogy that could be equated metaphorically would be......oh.....say you have a prostitute. Society, for the most part would consider her a "whore" due to the quantity of sex that she may have. However, is the woman who has sex with multipartners and doesn't get paid for it any less a "whore"? (Not associating these girls on the videos as "whores", mind you, that was just one example that came to mind with PolarChill's "self respect" analogy)

Blissed we URGENTLY need a sticker and it needs to be pink and sparkly, you know the one!

aven frey · 23-11-06 01:59:00

Egnops wrote:

But when it comes down to it........it's porn in a cheap tuxedo.
The bottom line is, these girls are engaging in sexual activity. Whether it be alone or with someone else. There are paying members just like other porn sites. No less charged than other porn sites, at that. Someone is making a profit, if not, then you can't really say that other porn sites have "paid actors/actresses" on them either, for they don't seem to make anymore from membership than this site.

The only reason I don't call IFM porn is because so much other porn out there is shitful and I happen to think IFM is not shitful. I feel really good about the way we represent sexuality and I doubt I'd feel like that if I worked/contributed at say pussyinfloodlights.com (quote Gala) Fundamentally I agree with you IFM is porn, I disagree with you if your saying that porn can't also be erotica and art and political and empowering and feminist and other things. Is that what your saying? Most people I come into contact outside of the IFM world don't consider porn to be any of these things and so whenever I get asked what I do for a living I say I make erotica not porn. Do you somehow feel that the transaction of money somehow deminishes something about IFM?

blissed · 23-11-06 02:18:08

max wrote:

Blissed we URGENTLY need a sticker and it needs to be pink and sparkly, you know the one!

I'm not sure....is it this one

.

blissed · 23-11-06 02:19:10

max wrote:

Do you somehow feel that the transaction of money somehow deminishes something about IFM?

When you buy a CD of your favourite band it doesn't diminish the artist. They give people a great deal of pleasure and so do people who create arousing images and art, I don't really distinguish between the different types of pleasure, if someone gives me pleasure, I like them

.

Last edited by blissed (23-11-06 02:33:03)

aven frey · 23-11-06 02:20:34

Yes thats the one, you and Gala are the bestest!

gala · 23-11-06 02:21:19

i love facials.

so there.

polarchill · 23-11-06 03:15:02

gala wrote:

i love facials.
so there.

So do I, but I don't really have any reason to feel threatened by them.

Desertgirl44 · 23-11-06 08:16:19

We need to flood the world with those pink sparkly stickers. Do you think we can we get them distributed by Christmas?

max wrote:

The only reason I don't call IFM porn is because so much other porn out there is shitful and I happen to think IFM is not shitful. I feel really good about the way we represent sexuality and I doubt I'd feel like that if I worked/contributed at say pussyinfloodlights.com (quote Gala) Fundamentally I agree with you IFM is porn, I disagree with you if your saying that porn can't also be erotica and art and political and empowering and feminist and other things. Is that what your saying? Most people I come into contact outside of the IFM world don't consider porn to be any of these things and so whenever I get asked what I do for a living I say I make erotica not porn.

I'm with Max in that I believe porn CAN be erotica and art and political and empowering and feminist and other good things. For me, the terms porn and erotica are interchangeable, however I think erotica is a nicer sounding word. And then there's the rest of the world, many of whom regard porn and erotica to be different. So I understand why Max chooses to use the word erotica to describe her work to others. It's interesting, I find it is often difficult to try and explain the goodness about sites such as IFM to people who just have this mental picture that all porn is the same, that it's all tacky and crappy and not at all artistic or nice. It frustrates me that some people think porn/erotica is threatening (society/morals/relationships).

Yes, we definitely need those sparkly stickers.

(I like the lighting, I like the shadows, I like the camera angles. I like accepting what the IFM team (contributors, camera operators, editors, lighting etc) present me - it's a whole artistic package that is beautiful and stimulating. How erotic is that!)

msnevil · 23-11-06 08:40:09

Your not from the midwest either.

I'm from the land of the "White Trash" (hoosier) and your from the "land of the fruit and nuts."

So there?

gala wrote:

i love facials.
so there.

Egnops · 23-11-06 09:03:32

Actually, no. I'm not saying it isn't possible to be artful and such.

You can enjoy a site for what it is without feeling the need to glorify it with hype and such as if it were over the top compared to others. Actually, from the sites........and there are many.....of which my firm has been researching, the one thing that does make this a bit more "unusual" (and not exclusively that from other sites) is the forums, themselves. Not the videos.

There have been other sites that had as good quality videos that just didn't have the forum format available. But it's the forums that we seek as well as the videos for our project. Human sexuality. What we're looking for is not just performance. But the mindset of people regarding sexuality, what motivates them, what stimulates them, etc. The forums help us in what we're looking for more than anything.

On a side note....I love facial expressions, too. Off the record........I do enjoy looking at my mate's face when they have an orgasm.

#26 26-10-06 08:55:54

Re: Studio lighting!

#27 26-10-06 21:35:32

Re: Studio lighting!

#28 22-11-06 04:23:46

Re: Studio lighting!

#29 22-11-06 05:10:26

Re: Studio lighting!

#30 22-11-06 10:11:30

Re: Studio lighting!

#31 22-11-06 10:36:08

Re: Studio lighting!

#32 22-11-06 11:57:02

Re: Studio lighting!

#33 22-11-06 12:08:10

Re: Studio lighting!

#34 22-11-06 12:09:36

Re: Studio lighting!

#35 22-11-06 12:23:55

Re: Studio lighting!

#36 22-11-06 12:33:09

Re: Studio lighting!

#37 22-11-06 12:35:42

Re: Studio lighting!

#38 22-11-06 12:58:18

Re: Studio lighting!

#39 22-11-06 13:01:57

Re: Studio lighting!

#40 22-11-06 18:22:13

Re: Studio lighting!

#41 23-11-06 01:30:03

Re: Studio lighting!

#42 23-11-06 01:59:00

Re: Studio lighting!

#43 23-11-06 02:18:08

Re: Studio lighting!

#44 23-11-06 02:19:10

Re: Studio lighting!

#45 23-11-06 02:20:34

Re: Studio lighting!

#46 23-11-06 02:21:19

Re: Studio lighting!

#47 23-11-06 03:15:02

Re: Studio lighting!

#48 23-11-06 08:16:19

Re: Studio lighting!

#49 23-11-06 08:40:09

Re: Studio lighting!

#50 23-11-06 09:03:32

Re: Studio lighting!

Board footer