Alluring Exposures wrote: I'd shoot g/g porn. Why? Because I like it. I like women, their bodies, and I can get easily inspired by their beauty and sexuality.
I have no interest in seeing a guy naked and I especially have no desire to see him using his equipment. I would find that anticlimactic and unerotic as I don't find guys bodies even remotely attractive... sometimes their faces, but not their bodies.
AG Media 13
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
Porn would put up barriers between me and what I'm looking for from the subject matter and imaging in general - so no I'd never do it. I'm not a prude - some of the great erotic work I've seen I wouldn't consider porn. So what the difference between erotica and porn? Porn, in my view, exploits, if not the talent - then the target audience.
Rita Lovely wrote: Why or why not? The money is good. What would keep you from shooting porn, softcore or hardcore?
Does it go against your morals? Would it take too much of your artistic expression out of photography? Family reasons? Already successful in commerical or fashion?
Some may call what I shoot porn, but I don't wish to shoot what I would call porn.
It would have to be legal and on the up and up and for a reputable company like Penthouse. I don't see anything wrong with it, it's a job. If it's not you it's someone else making that money. Sure beats being unemployed.
How many years' gap does it take to be a ghost thread?
Maybe the OP was more interested in a theoretical/moral question (though she is actively in the industry), but the implication that is something so easy to break into and one more recent response:
"Dont think i would like to be a refular (sic) porn shooter as its not what i wanna do, but i wudnt mind doing once in a while if pay is alright"
It seems like one of the ideas in this thread is that there is a pot of gold in shooting porn and that people who are greedy or desperate are digging into it. Or that it is easy to get into once you put your morals on hold. The industry, like any other, doesn't work like that. To be successful (ie. profitable) you have to take a serious business approach and consistent results.
The pot of gold has been constantly shrinking even before the OP started this thread in 2008. Most notably for still photographers since that time several publishing companies have either gone under or been absorbed by others. For emphasis, that's whole companies, not just magazine titles. In the US there are now only 3 significant publishers and a few minor ones and there are probably 50% fewer titles and/or issues published per year. Fees paid for photosets/layouts have reduced by more than 20% since 2008 (a greater percentage decline if you look over 10yrs). So that's fewer photos being bought and at a lower price.
Additionally, fees for website sales have either stayed the same or started to decline with the introduction/competition of content aggregators, especially from Central and Eastern Europe who distribute completed content for less than it is even possible to produce here in the US. It is no longer something you can simply cash-in on and run--if it ever was.