Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Forum Our new user message board where users talk porn!
Porn Users Forum » User Ranks » User Post History

Post History: Claypaws (44)

Filtering Options Select Option
Keyword Search
     Find within...  
View Options All Posts (144)  |   Threads Started (2)

1-50 of 144 Posts Page 1 2 3 Next Page >

04-12-13  10:19am - 373 days Have you noticed .. or panty lovers lament?! (22 Posts) - #5
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by messmer:


what I crave to see most: a couple of pictures per set that are full frontal, standing, with panties (hopefully sexy) still up around the hips.


I am happy to include this in all photo sets where the models wear panties. I already have in some sets but by no means all.

I do not think there is any photographer conspiracy to avoid these shots. Photographers can only use a mixture of their own judgement and members' requests if they are shooting for a site that has them. I have built many requests into my own photo shoots.

In videos, it is somewhat more difficult because there is only so much direction you can give a model and she might not remember all of it. Indeed, the photographer might not remember all of it (speaking for myself). There is not much scope for doing several takes either. Shoots have to be done incredibly fast.

01-15-13  12:36pm - 460 days In defense of Tube sites (36 Posts) - #9
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by hodayathink:


Well, ignoring the argument about what "rights" are, which is an interesting one, there's the simple fact that what you're doing is illegal. It's copyright infringement....

The companies pay to produce/acquire the content, so they get to control how the content is sold. You don't like it, either find someone you do like or create your own content. Anything else, in my opinion, shows a sense of entitlement.


I'm with you on this one.

Morality, feasibility and legality are separate concepts.

If one does not like the law, one should campain to change it, not break it because one can or because one believes that one is morally justified.

01-06-13  04:44pm - 469 days Question for all the Photography fans (54 Posts) - #51
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
A few comments here. I have honestly tried to force more shots into a landscape orientation but it does not really work.

Consider a model who is standing. You put her head at the top and her feet at the bottom. Her body occupies the screen height regardless of the orientation. Her body then necessarily occupies the same screen width regardless of the orientation. The only thing that differs between the portrait and landscape versions of this standing shot is what occupies the space on either side of the model. In the portrait format, it is blank screen; in landscape format, it is the furniture or background or scenery next to the model.

So to insist on landscape in this instance is to insist on more of the image being devoted to something other than the model.

This is even more strange when you consider the pixel area devoted to the model in each case, assuming a 3000x2000 pixel image. In the portrait format, if the body's width is half its height, the model's body occupies an area which is, say, 3000 pixels high and perhaps 1500 pixels wide. In the landscape format, her body is 2000 pixels high and 1000 pixels wide.

In fact, the portrait format provides more resolution for zooming in with a standing model than does the landscape format, for any given value of the image dimensions.

We could argue that the better fit of landscape format to the monitor aspect ratio should constrain the shots towards a greater dominance of lying down full length images and also mid range crops which show the model from waist up or other poses which fill the landscape orientation. And we would reduce the number of standing shots.

However, standing shots are very popular with members and these offer the maximum available resolution when shot in portrait orientation.

I have found that trying to reduce the proportion of portrait oriented shots is not consistent with also maintaining in each set a variety of poses to cater for all tastes.

Try viewing portrait format images in a viewer such as ACDSee, set to "fit image width". It provides a good increase in resolution when compared to the landscape version of the same standing pose.

The only compromise I can come up with is to mix landscape and portrait orientation within each set but where the format is driven by the pose, rather than driving the pose by the format. Edited on Jan 06, 2013, 04:47pm

01-04-13  03:55pm - 471 days Question for all the Photography fans (54 Posts) - #39
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Drooler:


This was one of the most interesting reads about nude photography I've ever come across. You explain well.


Thank you.

01-01-13  05:43am - 475 days Question for all the Photography fans (54 Posts) - #24
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by bibo:


@Claypaws
Thank you very much for your detailed and well informed explanations! Really appreciated! I'm very curious about the physical limitations of the camera sensors you're talking about. Can you maybe recommend me a site where this is explained in an undersstandable way for someone who is familiar with physics but lacking all experience with photography and the technology behind it?


I shall have to see if I can find a site that explains it but it will take me a good few days to find the time to do that. I can do a brief explanation here though.

It comes down to the size of the pixels and quantum mechanics. If you take a sensor of a given size, say 36x24mm and try to fit more pixels onto it, the pixels obviously have to be smaller.

The pixels are made of a light sensitive silicon that emits electrical signals when stimulated by light. They also emit random electrical signals due to quantum mechanical effects within the atoms of the silicon crystal structure. So you get a signal to noise ratio. The signal to noise ratio is inversely proportional to the area of the pixel. So, as you reduce the pixel size, you get hugely more random signals swamping out the image data. This gets rapidly worse as temperature increases and only becomes unproblematic at temperatures close to absolute zero.

On 36x24mm sensors, it is not possible to fit more than about 24 million pixels without having everything swamped by the quantum mechanical noise. Cameras have sophisticated noise redction algorithms to try to filter out the random noise but even those cannot invent data which has been completely nuked.

To get more pixels, you need larger sensors. And those are incredibly expensive to make, requiring very high tech factories that cost billions of dollars so there are very few of them in the world.


Originally Posted by bibo:


And to enhance messmer's question: Are you currently running a site?


Please see this thread
http://www.pornusers.com/forum/forum_thr...d.html?threadid=3283

01-01-13  05:27am - 475 days Question for all the Photography fans (54 Posts) - #23
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by messmer:


Fascinating behind the scenes glimpse. Thanks, Claypaws. Just a couple of questions. Who whittles those 1500 images down to about 150? Is it the photographer or the site?


Thanks messmer. I mean 1500 images for all sets combined, not for just one set. I shoot about 170 images per set and I whittle that down to between 120 and 150. If I submit more than about 150 per set, the site prunes it down.

Originally Posted by messmer:


Number two, if it is the photographer, could you please keep some of the pictures where the models wear panties and bras!


I include lots and lots of shots with panties, bras and other lingerie. I am finding that, to get high ratings, there are specific body parts that must be shown in a very specific way. Bras and panties do not guarantee high ratings. The body parts do. But I do not have to sacrifice the lingerie to get them.

12-31-12  03:24pm - 475 days Question for all the Photography fans (54 Posts) - #16
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by luv lickn clit:


One thing I have noticed over the years is that a good number of photographers could improve their lighting. I hate shadows that obscure what I want to see. I guess some of them may not be full-time pro photographers, and so they can't afford a bunch of pro-level studio lighting gear. But even a lot of outdoor sets suffer from harsh shadows. I'm not a pro photographer, but it doesn't seem that difficult to go out at the right time of day, and orient the model in the right direction with respect to the sun, and maybe use a longer lens so your own shadow doesn't get in the way.


Studio lighting that has strong shadows is regarded as an artistic advantage. Photographers who come from an "art nude", fashion or portrait background have been educated by teachers and peer pressure to produce images with strong shadows. There is actually something called a "lighting ratio" which is a number used to define the ratio between lighting strengths of main and fill light.

This is actually technically more difficult to do than "flat lighting" in which everything is lit without shadows. I shoot with flat lighting. Most "art" photographers would ridicule flat lighting. "Skilled" photographers gain admiration from their peers by having shadows! Models love shadows because it makes them look moody and sophisticated.

Models especially like being lit by just one main light but with another light set to cast a very narrow beam just onto their hair.

Shooting outdoors is HUGELY more difficult than shooting in a studio. Shooting when the sun is not obscured by cloud is the most difficult lighting to shoot people. The shadow is not caused by the photographer's own shadow. It is caused by the model's shadow, or even by the shadow of parts of the model's body or face.

The sun is effectively a point light source. The part of the body or face which is directed towards the sun is in full light. The part which is shaded by the model's own face or body is almost in darkness as far as the camera is concerned.

Again, many "art" photographers like this very large lighting ratio. It can be reduced by using reflectors but these need an assistant to hold them to stop them blowing away in the wind and they greatly slow down the process of shooting. Or you can use studio flash outdoors, powered by large heavy battery backs, as fill lighting. Again this is cumbersome, difficult and slow.

It is easier to shoot under a grey overcast sky because this is a large soft light source but it is still coming from above so you can get shadows below the model.

Studio lighting is easier to control because it uses diffusers on the lights and you can completely control it. It stays at the intensity you set it at. Whereas sunlight under partial cloud cover varies greatly in intensity from one moment to the next. So not only do you get light and dark on the one shot but you are constantly having to alter the exposure.

It is true that studio lighting is not cheap but I doubt that anyone shoots for websites using on-camera flash.

Even in the studio, or in an indoor non-studio location, you can still get problems lighting the underneath "interesting" areas of a model. You can use more than two lights and some photographers do this. I have shot sets using three lights but this all adds time and complexity and may be impossible in small rooms which, sometimes, can only accommodate one light.

Shooting models for sites is carried out under huge pressure of time. You have to set up and shoot incredibly fast. You have a model for a finite time. She has to catch a train home. You do the best you can with the simplest lighting you can get away with.

I can add one more thing to this. It used to be that a photographer would do a shoot on film and perhaps shoot ten rolls of film to get two or three good images. Nowadays, for a porn shoot, you are expected to produce 1500 images in the same amount of time. Edited on Dec 31, 2012, 03:36pm

12-31-12  02:56pm - 475 days Question for all the Photography fans (54 Posts) - #15
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by RustyJ:


What do you really mean when you mention 10000 pixel images? 10000 pixel wide?


Yes. I used the term that way because bibo did in his post that I was replying to. Terminology in images has become rather ambiguous because "pixels" now is as often used for the maximum image dimension as for the number of pixels contained in the image. I.e. it can be a linear or a square measure.

Originally Posted by RustyJ:


That's a lot and as you say, more than I can imagine anyone needs in porn. I think the modern camera stuff from Canon and Nikon produces 20+ megapixel images with maybe 6000 pixel image width.

Personally I think 3000x2000 is more than enough for me although some sites like 21Sextury offer four times as many pixels if I remember correctly. Most of it is wasted anyway as you need to resize them down for any screens available today.


Personally, I agree with this. 24mp (square measure) is the largest image size offered by the big two manufacturers and, as I said, this is really a limit of physics on a 35mm sensor rather than technology.

I am certainly not about to go out and buy a 70mp medium format camera. Edited on Dec 31, 2012, 03:28pm

12-30-12  07:20am - 477 days Question for all the Photography fans (54 Posts) - #10
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by bibo:


Thanks for the replies so far, guys! Appreciated!
@Claypaws:
I just find it interesting how close/large you can get. It's part of the fun for me. The 10000px shots by hegre are all far from blurry. Ironically, when I was browsing sample pics from sites that are offering a maximum of 3000px, I found many of them to be blurry and lacking colour depth.


The blurry issue is mainly because of shooting at larger apertures, which places less demand on the studio lighting.

But as for those 10000 pixel images - well, there is no digital SLR that can produce that size. He shoots a medium format with a digital back - Hasselblad I seem to remember. You will find almost no site photographers use those because they cost about $50k each. I am not exaggerating.

There has been a trend for ever larger images on the niche photo sites but it has topped out at the largest sizes delivered by the top end Canon and Nikon DLSRs. DSLRs have really reached the limits imposed by physics on the number of pixels in a standard sensor size and that is around 6k pixels on the long side.

I do not think you will find much content above 6k pixels apart from the place you have already mentioned.

12-27-12  01:44pm - 479 days Question for all the Photography fans (54 Posts) - #6
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by bibo:


XL pictures (6000p and more).


I am curious as to why you want such large pictures. That size excludes virtually every camera on the market and hence also excludes the huge majority of quality images which are shot with cameras that cannot deliver such a high pixel count.

Personally, I would rather have fewer pixels and an in-focus shot than a large number of blurry pixels. Edited on Dec 27, 2012, 01:48pm

12-20-12  04:59pm - 486 days Another on tats (42 Posts) - #18
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
As I'm getting to see more and more girls for shooting, I find that they almost always have tattoos. (Not sure that the word "almost" is necessary). I would say that the chance of finding a US mag level model without tattoos is about 1 in 100.

Extreme tattoos like bonnie rotten are uncommon. But so are models with none at all. We simply have to accept that this is what young women do.

12-14-12  03:37pm - 492 days Horrified! (80 Posts) - #2
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Of course it is terrible that such things happen.

But we should take it in context. Private cars kill far more children than gun crime does - many hundreds of times more.

If we really want to save our children, we should be far more punitive to drivers who kill them, confiscating vehicles, imprisoning the drivers and banning them for life from owning or driving another motor vehicle.

It is also probably easier to enforce traffic laws than to prevent lunatic use of weapons.

There have been similar calls for tougher action against knife crime in the UK, which is also eclipsed by the mayhem inflicted by car drivers.

And I believe that more deaths actually occur from the legitimate use of prescription drugs.

One reason that gun attacks attract so much attention is that they are comparatively rare. Road deaths occur every day and hence are not newsworthy.

You know the old adage about "Dog bites man" and "Man bites dog".

12-12-12  02:10pm - 494 days Manwin Boss Arrested (10 Posts) - #7
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by RustyJ:


By no means am I against people making money and succeeding in business but don't you just love it when someone considered skilled and ruthless turns out to be someone who simply made it by breaking laws?


I think that the border between illegality and prodigious success is tenuous and easily crossed. I also believe that many who are considered successful have only succeeded because their legal infringements have not been detected or proved.

Laws exist to limit activities and prevent the extreme exploitation on which prodigious success depends. The very successful are either extremely lucky or have made some fairly careful calculations regarding where they can make use of legally questionable activities.

Normal, decent people do not make huge sums of money. Not all of the conspicuously successful break laws but I do not think we should be surprised when some are found to have done so.

And we ordinary folk should not too quickly condemn those who have broken laws. Many of us commit minor infringements, particularly with regard to financial laws, though usually not on a scale which makes it worthwhile for the authorities to prosecute. Or, to put it another way, it would not be cost effective for authorities to bring 100 million prosecutions per year against minor offenders who have insufficient funds to cover the cost of prosecution.

Occasionally, a high profile prosecution is brought against an extreme offender, largely to make the rest of us feel that the authorities are on top of their act. Edited on Dec 12, 2012, 02:15pm

12-07-12  03:55pm - 499 days Stranger In A Strange Land! (33 Posts) - #3
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
I heartily agree with the two of you. The other place I do not feel unclean is when I am shooting the girls And when you meet other photographers and studio owners, you can have a civilised and open conversation too.

I have told the girls I have shot that I will not shoot for any site that calls them sluts, bitches or whores and they will be respected anywhere that I sell my shoots, as I myself respect them.

I love them all too. As I have said before, the shoots would be mighty boring without them

12-03-12  03:11pm - 503 days A glimpse behind the scenes! (27 Posts) - #25
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
The girls I have eaten with just talk about normal everyday things like the offices they work in or what they had for breakfast.

12-03-12  03:07pm - 503 days Idea for a new niche site, would it interest you? (8 Posts) - #9
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
The main problem I can see with this is the very strict copyright laws on music. I have no idea how sites that include dancing to music stand in relation to copyright.

I do know that I have been given a very strict rule never to allow any music whatsoever into videos I shoot. That means no radios or TVs in the background, no CDs etc.

So I could probably shoot a girl dancing but it would be in silence.

12-02-12  04:50pm - 504 days A glimpse behind the scenes! (27 Posts) - #23
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by pat362:


We are still talking about you taking pictures and making videos? The ingredient comment made me think of Hannibal Lecter. I really don't want to read about you eating one or more of your models.....At least not unless it's the more common use of eating a model and not the Hannibal one where it involves fava beans and a nice chianti.

Yes! I have a twisted sense of humour. Too many years of watching British comedies.


That's funny! I've eaten with a couple of models but not actually tried eating one yet.

12-02-12  04:43pm - 504 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #53
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by PinkPanther:


Good job, Claypaws - Chloe's hot and so are your photos of her.

Your work is a bit more glam than many photogs on the ATK site, but not overly glossy. It's quite good.

Congrats!


Thank you, Pink Panther. Yes, the glam was more than I wanted, really. I've just done a shoot with another model with no makeup at all. My decor is still colourful though. I have always been something of a colour junkie!

12-02-12  04:39pm - 504 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #52
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Hi Melissa and thank you. It's nice for people to know that folks like you and me are actually real and can even meet outside cyber-space. Yes, it would be lovely to meet again

11-22-12  03:47pm - 514 days Happy Thanksgiving (9 Posts) - #7
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Thank you friends, and same to all, US and otherwise.

11-22-12  03:44pm - 514 days A glimpse behind the scenes! (27 Posts) - #21
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by messmer:


LOL .. again! I felt guilty about laughing in connection with the sentence that preceded it because I felt your frustration!! It sounded a bit like gallows humour.


No need to feel guilty. I would make clear if I really were upset about something.

The last sentence was not funny, unlike this one.

11-22-12  03:38pm - 514 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #48
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by messmer:


I am starting to really appreciate your sense of humour, Claypaws. May you never leave this forum!




Thank you, messmer. I use it on models too. It's really fun when they start falling about, laughing. Well, laughing anyway. I'll stick around the forum too.

11-21-12  03:41pm - 515 days Why won't some mp4 files play on my TV? (16 Posts) - #2
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
No doubt someone who knows about TVs will chip in. My guess is that it depends on whether the mp4 video is 1080/50p or 1080/60p and whether you are on a PAL or NTSC TV set respectively.

11-21-12  03:37pm - 515 days A glimpse behind the scenes! (27 Posts) - #19
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by messmer:


I shouldn't laugh but that WAS funny!


You SHOULD and it was MEANT to be

I tried doing a shoot without a model but I got bored and fell asleep.

11-21-12  03:34pm - 515 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #46
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


Can you drop by your local police station and get an affidavit from them that you are an upstanding citizen without any current arrest warrants?


Probably not. If you tried, they would probably arrest you on suspicion of being suspicious. If you succeeded, models would probably be more suspicious of why you could not get references from models instead of the police.

Ah, now if could do a photoshoot with a policewoman....

11-21-12  12:06pm - 515 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #44
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Capn:


Also the attitude displayed by some/most gonzoid hardcore sites hasn't helped any either!

Cap'n.


How very true!

11-21-12  12:04pm - 515 days A glimpse behind the scenes! (27 Posts) - #16
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Thank you very much messmer for the sympathy on difficulty and the congrats as well as saying what you are looking for.

I simply will not shoot a model who does not do spreading. I am actually casting for models who do continental level. In each shoot, I want to include one toys set and one with finger insertion. For all the rest, I am shooting US mag level. That way, site members who like toys get something and I can do most of the shoot at my preferred US mag level.

If necessary, I would do a shoot entirely at US mag level. But if they will only go to UK mag level, I will not shoot them at all.

The difficulty of getting enough models even at this level is the only thing that would make me give up. After all, the model is a fairly essential ingredient of the process!

11-21-12  04:55am - 516 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #42
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Thanks Squirrel.

11-21-12  04:38am - 516 days A glimpse behind the scenes! (27 Posts) - #12
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Capn:


In this context I would define 'explicit' as softcore clear full body nudity.
If a model was prepared to do 'art nude' I would say that was a sufficient level.


Your whole answer is very well put and very interesting. I agree entirely with the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 concept and that is what I personally prefer too. (In fact, I think I expressed that preference elsewhere).

But there is something in the terminology of the quoted passage that needs clarifying.

"Art nude" means (i.e. all models use the term to mean) nude but with legs kept together. It is clear that the model has genitals (!) but they are hardly more than hinted at and definitely not clearly seen.

"Explicit" nude covers all the nude levels that are more explicit than art nude. "Explicit", "open leg" and "adult" are synonymous terms. "Adult" is the most used term for such levels.

"Adult" has three softcore levels:

1) UK Magazine, also known as femjoy level. This is open leg, legs parted to expose the genitals clearly. Hands can be contacting the body and can be close to the genitals but the hands are not spreading the genitals. Most so called "art nude" sites go to this level. In other words, most "art nude" sites exceed art nude level and models who only model to "art nude level" would consider "art nude" sites to be "explicit" or "adult" rather than "art nude".

2) US Magazine. At this level, there is open leg and the hands are spreading the genitals but without insertion of fingers or toys.

3) Continental. Hands, fingers or toys are inserted in the genitals, with or without spreading.

The term "genitals" can include both holes that are below waist level.

Those are the meanings of the levels as used universally in all model recruitment resources.

Some adult websites classify continental as a subcategory of hardcore but most models would classify continental as a subcategory of adult softcore and so would I.

In the UK, the great majority of models will not do any "Adult" levels. That is, they will not model at any of the three numbered subcategories of "adult" that I have described.

Within model resources, the most common sentence in portfolios is "No adult. I will not do any open leg so please do not ask". This is frequently in block capitals. Edited on Nov 21, 2012, 04:45am

11-20-12  04:02pm - 516 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #40
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Thanks Capn. Yes, I know those two. Purestorm has a requirement for minimum number of models shot before you can join it and I haven't reached that yet. That's what I meant when I said some doors take time to unlock.

I'm a member of a couple of other model sites too. The problem there is that 99% of the registered models will not do adult. Of the 1% who do, more than half will not go beyond UK Magazine level (open leg without spreading). Of those that will, many will not do it for publication. Of those that are left, most will not do video.

Also, a lot of models will only shoot with photographers who have a lot of references from models, which you can only get by shooting the models who won't work with you because you haven't got enough references. This is why it is much easier for photographers who began 10 or more years ago, before there was the current atmosphere of suspecting every male of being a lunatic. High profile sex abuse cases make things even more difficult for decent folk who treat women with respect.

11-20-12  06:07am - 517 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #38
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by TheSquirrel:


First of all congratulations to Claypaws. I am both pleased for you, and at the same time very disappointed. You have become one of the best reviewers in a very short time, your integrity appears sound, and you have great enthusiasm for the subject.


Thank you. Throughout life, I have always followed the principle that my work can be bought but I cannot.

But we also need to be beyond any possibility of anyone thinking there might be a bias. Therefore, I chose not to write reviews as soon as I began discussions regarding publishing my work. If I contribute to one site and give an unfavourable review to another, the receiver of the poor review might think I am trying to get business for my host. That would never be the case but I do not want there to be any scope for anyone to think it might be.

Also, I would feel uncomfortable now about criticising the work of any other photographer unless they privately ask for criticism, as many have done in the past. It is usually bad form to criticise when one is exposed to counter attacks.

Originally Posted by TheSquirrel:

Claypaws, I hope you both enjoy your hobby and make some money. No one can ask more than that. As someone who makes money out of a hobby, I hope you never descend into some interminable black cloud of despair containing no hope, from which there seems to be no escape. I hope you don't start to hate that hobby with an intense passion like I did, and still do to a certain extent. That hobby can become a job and a chore.

I started out with the intention of making money out of it in the first place, and certainly knew what I was getting into. I am not disillusioned, and have always been realistic. I have always been money oriented and always will be.


Thank you. Was your "hobby" shooting models or something completely unrelated?

Originally Posted by TheSquirrel:


I am sure there will come a time when the whole thing drives you round the bend and leaves you feeling tired and jaded,


That has already happened, to some extent, because of the sheer difficulty of model recruitment. It takes about 20 times the time to recruit a model as to shoot her. If somebody would just give me a list of models and arrange the dates and venues, so I could spend my time shooting them, it would be easy. Shooting is by far the simplest part of the whole thing.

Originally Posted by TheSquirrel:


but the main thing is you are living that dream, so you get a big thumbs up from me. I think sometimes you just have to do what you want, because life is too short not to. If you are competitive and want success, I think it's good to have other hobbies and other interests, to keep things in perspective, and in case it doesn't all live up to expectations. I wish you much luck with your endeavours.


That is all well said. I just felt I had to give this a go because I passionately want to do it and I think I can be good at it, if I can get the models. Indeed, if there are enough adult-level models over here to get. I know where to look and how to approach. But it takes time to open all the locked doors.

I have lots of other interests and activities too. Enough for several lifetimes in fact.

11-20-12  05:44am - 517 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #37
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by messmer:


Bless you, mate! May you be very successful in your endeavors


Thank you!


Originally Posted by messmer:

So I wish lots of beautiful models upon you, who wear enough clothes to make a strip worthwhile.


Wherever possible, I am doing exactly that. Some members do like the no-bra look though so I have to include some of that type of set too. Rest assured, I have a strong personal preference for a long strip. I do have to achieve some kind of balance though. Some sets are bound to have a scantier start becuase there are also members who want to imagine a girl walking into a room wearing next to nothing.

Originally Posted by messmer:

... three items of clothing taken off before the first page of the set is half done


On each of the sets I have shot so far, I have managed around two pages before anything comes off. I shall have to see if members give any feedback on that.

Originally Posted by messmer:

Do they do any editing or do they accept your work as is?


They do not edit the work. I remove duff shots before submitting and they don't delete anything.

They ask for more of one type of shot, fewer of another but those are tweaks, not wholesale changes of style. I have a lot of artistic freedom.

11-19-12  07:20am - 518 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #33
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by pat362:


My suggestion is that you avoid at all cost starting your own site. You are almost guaranted to lose all of your money and that is never a good thing.


Exactly!And people should be in no doubt. You can lose a life-changing amount of money.

11-19-12  07:11am - 518 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #32
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Capn:


If that were truly the situation, we would have a few megasites catering to mass ( midcore-hardcore ) market & very little niche material available...


Oh wait......

Cap'n.



11-18-12  03:13pm - 518 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #26
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by jberryl69:


Well, I wasn't exactly suggesting offering the ride to models as much as offering a ride to females in general. One might think that part of the negotiation for the ride is that you get to take photos and publish them, though you are correct, video would seem more appropriate.


Ah, I see what you mean.

As I said, to my great frustration, of the small proportion of models who will do adult at all, many will only do it if it is not for publication.

I think you would get a greater takeup on the Sybian if you were going to photograph them for your own use than for publication.

Most models are not full time. They are females in general who do a bit of modelling on the side. They usually have other jobs and a lot are worried they would be sacked if they were published. And very many of them will not allow video.

If you care to try out your Sybian idea, I will be interested to know how you get on.

11-18-12  03:06pm - 518 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #25
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Thank you Cap'n.

Starting one's own website is a daunting task and very risky. I know several photographers who have been shooting adult for websites and/or print magazines for over 10 years and are only just embarking on their own sites; or who have their own sites that are not profitable.

With your own site, you have to keep a large enough member base to cover the huge costs of shooting models and you have to produce enough content up front to get members to sign up when you launch. There is a strong possibility of making a very substantial loss. Much then depends on marketing. I have found in my other artistic endeavours that I heartily detest marketing.

Selling content to an existing site at least enables you to budget and the compromise is the price you pay for the reduced risk.

11-17-12  03:21pm - 519 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #22
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by jberryl69:


Models - I had fantasies of getting a Sybian and then posting ads in my local paper (or Craig's List)offering it for a ride.


If buying a Sybian would get me models, I would buy one. You would be amazed at how many models either won't do adult stuff at all or won't do it for publication.

I would guess that a Sybian would not increase model takeup.

It would be fun though

11-17-12  03:17pm - 519 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #21
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
I can now reveal the site where my work has debuted, since the first set has now been uploaded.

It is ATK Galleria and the model is Chloe Westland.

The reason I settled on ATK Galleria is that this is the site which is closest to my own style. Or to put it another way, I have to make fewer compromises to meet their requirements than to meet the requirements of most other sites.

I am making all sets fully clothed to fully nude and with plenty of tease on the way. That has always been my preference. There are occasions on which it is appropriate to start in lingerie though.

I am making some concession to toys of course. I need to shoot for a site, not just cater to my own preferences. But toys form a minority of stills content, at least. And I have less of a problem with toys in videos, where they seem to me to make much more sense. Edited on Nov 17, 2012, 03:23pm (Claypaws: edited to make site not a link.)

11-17-12  03:01pm - 519 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #20
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Thanks for the suggestions and sympathy, pat362.

I will not allow bf/husbands to be present during a shoot. A chaperone may accompany a model to the start of a shoot, check they are happy with everything and then leave. If he won't leave, I won't do the shoot. This is pretty standard for photographers. Chaperones are just not allowed to be present during shooting for exactly the reaons you mention. They simply ruin any chance of getting a shoot to work.

Professional or semi pro models are not actually more expensive than amateur ones. Or to put it another way, amateur ones are not cheaper. They are all expensive. I might well try working with more pro type models but the pro adult models have all appeared on gazillions of sites and might be less useful to me for that reason. If I can get prior approval to shoot them, and can manage to book them, it would be a way to get a few models, true.

11-16-12  03:18pm - 520 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #17
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Thank you for coming back into the thread, Khan. Thank you too for allowing me to reveal the site of my work shortly, when I feel the time is right. I knew you would of course keep confidence.

I greatly appreciate your congratulations. The one thing I am reasonably sure about is the quality of my work. If I could manage to get a steady supply of models, I would be well set. It is amazing how boring pictures look without a model

It is some consolation that you also found the amateur model procurement and management process difficult. It helps me to know that the problem is not my fault. I have not yet worked with strippers but I feel that anyone who is in it purely for the money will not be much fun to work with. Fortunately, I have not encountered an upset boyfriend or husband. The possibility of this prospect is one reason why I will not shoot from home though I would consider this with a model I had already worked with and had published.

I am well aware of the preferences of many users here and one reason for wanting to shoot is to be able to do so in a way consistent with my preferences, though some compromise to the wishes of a site must always be made. When I indicate where my first work has been published, I will say something about my intended style.

Yes I am doing video too. Much though I might like to concentrate on photos, it is not viable to do so. All sites require at least some video.

Thank you for the good luck wishes and for extending the welcome. Edited on Nov 16, 2012, 03:26pm (Claypaws: Because I never get it right first time!)

11-16-12  02:34pm - 520 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #16
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Thank you Denner. That is kind and great praise indeed from a respected PU member. I will continue to answer whatever I can to the best of my ability.

11-16-12  01:48am - 521 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #13
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by pat362:


^Not being familair with the laws in the UK. Do you have to follow something like 2257 when it comes to hiring of models?


UK law does not require this. However, most sites, whether UK, European or US are hosted and registered in the US and therefore require 2257 to be followed. Most sites registered outside the US will anyway require 2257 compliance. For all practical purposes, 2257 compliance is a de facto requirement regardless of whether it is legally required.

You stand little chance of selling any content without 2257 compliance.

Even within the UK itself, where 2257 compliance as such is not required, it is still illegal to shoot models who do not meet minimum age requirements. Edited on Nov 16, 2012, 02:00am (Claypaws: Edited for clarity)

11-15-12  04:10pm - 521 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - #10
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
RA - Thank you. It still feels like a bit of a dream to me. Mind you, sometimes it feels like a nightmare. I will try to post from time to time with outlines of my experiences.

Pat - Thank you. I alternate between wishing I had done this years ago and wondering why I have suddenly become mad enough to do it now. On the whole, I wish had started years ago.

Micha - what you say re van cruising the streets to meet models is ROFL funny. It is a great difference between CA and the UK. In CA it will get you models. In the UK, it will get you arrested or beaten up or your house set on fire or all of those. California has the most liberal and porn sympathetic laws and conventions in the USA. The UK is not at all tolerant to a public presence of anything relating to adult work. I have spoken to models who have been assaulted in the street when neighbours discovered they were adult modelling.

In the UK, it is not regarded as a mainstream activity whereas the majority of US models live in CA. There are of course red light districts here but it is a criminal offence to cruise in them.

I have no need of male models as I will only do softcore. I would consider GG at some stage but that multiplies the difficulties of model recruitment and management and I am not yet ready for that extra hassle.

lk2f - thank you for the congrats and also for the generous remark about my previous reviews and my comments on others' reviews. Ironically, I have joined five or six sites in the period between posting my last review and now. And I would expect to join more rather than fewer sites because they are a source of ideas on techniques to inspire and to avoid. Moreover, the cost of subscriptions is trivial compared to the costs of props, equipment and fees. However, I cannot of course review any sites or comment on reviews from now on. But I can continue to share technical knowledge where this helps discussions.

I am pleased so many fellow PU members are keen to know where my work will appear and wish to see it. Now that Khan has approved this, I shall do so.

Khan - thank you for permitting me to indicate the site. I took great trouble to give no clue whatsoever in my original post so as not to infringe any PU rules but I am pleased to be allowed to reveal it. In fairness to the site that has accepted my work, I will update this thread when the first content has actually been uploaded and I will then say what the site is and what the model's stage name is. I expect this to be in about a week but as I do not control the site's schedules and they do not publish previews or a release calendar, I feel I should wait until the first content is online.

BTW, I have told Khan what site it is.

Denner - That is funny! Eastern Europe is so very different from the UK. Probably, so is Scandinavia. Here in the UK, models are interested in two things - one is being paid on time as promised. The other is their personal safety. Unless a model has been employed for hardcore, she will expect not to be touched and not to be asked for any physical contact at all. Photographers who infringe either of those aspects will find it impossible to obtain models. I would love to photograph some of the Russian and Ukrainian models but I can hardly imagine how difficult communication would be.

Capn - thank you too, my friend. As I said in reply to Khan, I will indeed say where my work is published but I shall wait until some has actually gone online as the site might not take too kindly to having its schedule revealed in advance.

CT - thank you. Will do, thanks to Khan's permission.

In conclusion for now, I will just say that the act of working with a model is delightful, or so I have found with the models I have worked with already. They are lovely beyond words. But the recruitment and management process is one of the most frustrating experiences of my life. It is one obstacle after another. When the model is in front of the camera, it all seems worthwhile but it requires an inordinate amount of sheer hassle and blind alleys to get to that point. I hope it gets easier because otherwise I will have to try something more straightforward, such as becoming Prime Minister.

11-14-12  04:44pm - 522 days No more reviews from me (52 Posts) - Original Post - #1
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
No more reviews from me

You may notice that I have not posted a review since early August. You may also notice that my status has changed to "Webmaster". I have not actually become a webmaster - I do not run a site - so I would like to explain what has happened.

In the middle of August, I finally decided I would like to have a go at shooting softcore content for publication. That entailed potentially approaching one or more websites. I must make it clear that I made no approaches anywhere before completion of my last review and I felt it appropriate to stop writing reviews of any sites thereafter.

I am pleased to say that I have now had some work accepted for publication but I am not not directly employed by any site. I will not say where the work is to be published since I do not want to appear to be promoting the site or my own work. I expect it to go online in a week or so and I decided to alert Khan to this before it occurs.

Khan is allowing me to continue participating in forums but I shall not take part in any other aspects of PU or TBP and my forum participation will be self-limited to topics in which I am disinterested.

At this stage, I do not know if I will be able to continue producing content although it is currently my intention to do so. I expected and have found that it is very difficult and time consuming to obtain models and I may find this to be more of a burden than I want to bear. I have also discovered that only a small part of a shoot consists of shooting. The bulk of the time is taken up with shifting furniture and completing legal documents.

I have enjoyed taking part here and have had the pleasure of interacting with thoughtful and friendly fellow PU members, whose enthusiastic views have been another factor in steering me towards content production and, at least for now, away from eligibility to continue to hold a user account.

11-14-12  11:44am - 522 days View Pornstars ? (2 Posts) - #2
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
The "visit site" link from the PU page for Viewpornstars takes me to actiongirls.com instead.

11-13-12  05:15pm - 523 days Should A Bonus Site Be Rated? (13 Posts) - #5
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
My feeling is, first of all, there is a difference between a bonus site and a site which is one site within a network. A network consists of several sites from the same provider. A bonus site is just something they give you when you join the main site.

If you are considering the component sites of a network, then I think it is a good idea to give each component site its own stand-alone score, assuming that it can be joined by a stand-alone membership. The "Only" sites would be an example of this.

A network should be scored on the basis of the total content provided by all sites in the network membership.

A bonus site should not get its own score if it can only be accessed by joining the site that offers it as a bonus. In that case, the bonus site's content should instead be taken into account when scoring the main site.

When I say "should", I mean "IMHO"

I should also add that a "network" that consists of sites that cannot be joined separately is not a true network. It is merely one site that has been split to make it look like you are getting a lot of sites.

If a network consists of sites that can be joined separately but where the reason for separate sites is not clear, then I think that this should detract from the score of individual sites. In such a case, it seems that content has been withheld from one site to encourage you to join the network or one or more component sites. Edited on Nov 13, 2012, 05:28pm

11-10-12  02:44pm - 526 days Good God… I woke up this morning liking tattoos…! (22 Posts) - #5
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by rearadmiral:


And, perhaps most importantly, can anyone give me more names of heavily tattooed pornstars?


Emma Mae, Riley Jensen, Dominno. Not quite in the Rotten league but still excessively tattoed and hot.

11-08-12  04:23pm - 528 days Leaving modems on 24/7 Off Topic (9 Posts) - #7
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Here in the UK, it is a bad idea to turn your modem/router off. In a manner too complex to go into in this off-topic thread, the telecoms supplier who supplies the ISP with the internet infrastructure determines your download speed based partly on continuous uptime. If you disconnect or turn off your router frequently, your download speed will be capped.

It would take more than 10000 charas to do the detail and I shall not bore you with it. I leave my router on 24/7 and only reboot it if there is a problem. This tends to occur about once per month.

10-12-12  04:50am - 556 days More on external drives.... (92 Posts) - #54
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Originally Posted by slutty:


If it just the USB connection, you can always just get a cheap enclosure and swap out the actual drive, I assume this likely isn't a big deal unless the drive is powered from the enclosure


You can do this with Windows 7 but not with Windows XP. The 3TB drive in the Seagate enclosure is a SATA drive and it contains more sectors than can be read by Windows XP. The Seagate enclosure contains a proprietary piece of hardware, a a SATA to USB Bridge, which amalgamates the data on contiguous sectors so as to present a smaller number of larger sectors to the OS and allow it to be read by XP.

3rd party enclosures do not have this proprietary SATA to USB Bridge and will render the drive useless to Windows XP. This cannot be worked around by repartitioning the drive.

Power is not a problem. The drive has a standard SATA power connection and can be powered from any enclosure that supports SATA and has a mains adapter.

The SATA to USB bridge trick is required for all drives over 2.2TB in external USB enclosures to be read by XP.

Anyone wishing to use 3TB external drives with Windows 7 native backup utilities should be aware that the SATA to USB Bridge confuses them.

10-07-12  03:19pm - 560 days More on external drives.... (92 Posts) - #32
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
I agree with Toadsith that you should return the drive immediately. I do not agree that drives over 1TB should be avoided.

However, I do say that "external" drives over 2.2TB should be avoided. Drives over this size cannot be read by several operating systems, such as XP, though Windows 7 can read them. For this reason, the manufacturer includes some clever proprietary hardware in the drive enclosure to present the data stored on the drive in such a way as to fool the operating system into handling it. The trick is a piece of technical juggling and I would be suspicious of how good it is at recognising when the OS does not need it.

Also, the enclosure on many externals is poor, being plastic and inadequately ventilated.

I would never buy an "external" drive in an enclosure. I make my own by buying an internal hard drive and a properly ventilated, external metal USB enclosure, putting the drive into the enclosure and formatting it. Formatting always requires jumping through some hoops but eventually succeeds. I have been using several 1.5TB drives in this way for years and now also have a couple of 2TB drives. This method should also work with drives over 2.2TB on OS's that can read them natively, such as Windows 7. Of course, any drive can fail, regardless of size.

I doubt that your download problem is directly related to the external drive. If it is only occurring on one site, it is more likely to be a site problem that, by coincidence, began after your difficulty with the drive.

But it could easily have been caused by a faulty system restore. I would advise against using any Windows built in restore points and prefer to use dedicated backup and restore software. I use Acronis True Image on Windows XP and I have restored my system at least 50 times without problems. (Many of those were needed when I was beta testing some security software).

1-50 of 144 Posts Page 1 2 3 Next Page >


Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.13 seconds.