Hello Everyone, Vertigo the film, will release tomorrow September 1st. It's a great one!
We are slowly implementing the process of releasing the movies pictorial the night before the film release. We will still include photos shot during filming with the movie.
Im a little worried. Does this mean that updates of standalone photosets will slow?
I have to concur with hayley13 on this, I certainly don't want to see SexArt follow in the tired format of pictorial one day, video the next which seems to be a feature of some of its competitors, it's the fresh content each day that I love so much about this site and if a pictorial doesn't work for me I know I will have no anticipation for the next days viewing.
I'm onside with Hayley and Bobblehat on this.
Watching Vertigo the movie - brilliant though it is - was less exciting knowing what (who?) was coming next.
Why not post the second set of pictures a day later?
And I share Hayley's concern about fewer non-film-related photosets ...
Please clarify, are you saying there'll be 2-separate sets of photos per movie? And will the pictorial 'announce' the movie release - in other words, how will it be made known that a movie has a pictorial in addition to the movie set?
Hello AchillesX-- The images that are released with the movie is an added bonus to our members. We have a staff photographer behind the cameras that takes still images of the action of the movie as it unfolds. This is not optimum because the movie set is lite for what the movie requires. It is not lite for still photography.
The gallery of images that will release a day before SOME of the movies is a standalone photo-set that was lite for still photography, and not the movie.
Models are great, Eufrat and Dido are very sexy, but images in this set are a bit grainy and lighting seems a bit weak, also colours are a bit faded. I also don't like the distorted proportions caused by the wideangle used in some shots, it makes proportions of the models look not nice. It seems a backstage shoot from a video, not a specific photoshoot.
Well, without knowing anything about wide-angle lenses, I thought all of the proportions looked great!
Snowfall, Wide angle lenses tend to exaggerate (if not distort) perspective more, so, eg, the background may look farther away, and objects may look larger/wider than they are. Obviously this means that if you shoot a close-up on, say, an ass it may look wider, or if you do a close-up on breasts they may seem bigger because they appear farther away from the body. Long lenses are the opposite of wide angles in that they compress background/foreground to give the image a more 2D look. This is usually seen as more flattering in fashion/glamor photography, but a lot of photographers who want to "enhance" parts like breasts and ass may opt for a wide-angle. Obviously there are also "normal" lenses that are less extreme than both. A rough guide would be (assuming a 35mm or equivalent digital camera):
135mm = super telephoto
You rarely see anything over 135mm in fashion/glamor I suspect, because one other aspect of telephotos is that they show camera shake more, which means it's harder to get sharp, non-blurry images. You typically need a tripod with anything over about 85mm, unless you have A LOT of light and can get a really fast shutter speed.
One more feature of wide VS long lenses is that the former tends to give you better depth-of-field, which means it's easier to get all of the objects in an image in focus. So if you want your subject plus background in focus, wide lenses makes that easier to do with the available light. Long lenses, on the other hand, give you a very shallow depth-of-field and make it easier to get out-of-focus backgrounds ("bokeh" in the world of photography). If you're doing, eg, a head shot, it's usually preferable to blur the background so to put the emphasis on model's face rather than anything else. The depth-of-field is also dependent on the focal distance. The closer to the camera the focus is, the less depth-of-field; the farther from the camera, the more. If you notice in many of the videos, the closer the shot is, the more it tends to go in and out of focus.
You missed aperture :) Most porn is shot with the brightest possible light, minimum aperture, to give the maximum depth of field so everything is in focus from the photographer's toes to the back wall - that way he just has to blast away without thinking about it which, when they have to produce photo sets in less than an hour, is the only way to do it. The shallow depth of field which marks out quality photogaphy is much more time consuming - not only does the right stuff have to be in focus, but the stuff you want out of focus has to be far enough out for the effect to work, otherwise it just gives the viewer a headache. Few photographers have the time or the talent to nail it, especially for 100 or more photos required in a set these days.
I did miss aperture, but my post was getting a bit long! One more thing you could bring up is film/digital sensor size. The larger the film/sensor, the longer the equivalent focal length (ie, a 50mm lens is "wider" on a 2 megapixel camera than a 24 megapixel camera), though depth of field remains the same.
Regarding the challenge of wide angles VS telephotos, I just consider them different. Wide angles do make it easier to shoot faster and not worry as much about focus/aperture, but they also make it harder to compose well because you're getting so much more into the frame. Plus, if you want extreme depth of field then you need A LOT of light. In the days of classic Hollywood, filmmakers like Orson Welles took it as a challenge to get everything in a frame in focus from extreme close-up to extreme background, going so far as to put lights under the floors in the background. One can only imagine how hot those sets were! In fact, wide angles were kind of seen as the challenging lens to work with until the late 50s/early 60s when directors like Kurosawa, Antonioni, and Bergman started doing interesting experiments with telephotos, like the battle scenes in The Seven Samurai that look almost like a painting come to life because of the two-dimensionality of the long lenses.
Very nice tutorial, Solrage.
Thank you, and you're welcome Dave and horsemaster. :)
Well, the post cut off my "rough guide" for some reason. Here, I found one online: http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/optical/focal-length
Thank you for all of the time and effort on these explanations. Perhaps it explains why I only chaired the trustees of a photographic gallery for 10 years, and never had pictures on the walls ...
You're very welcome, Snowfall. Although, knowing about something and knowing how to do that something are two different things. ;)
After all the "hoo ha" my critical comments engendered on the last Paula Shy still set, I am not going to comment here, other than to note that the major concern with anyone using a wide-angle lens when shooting a model, especially from from the rear, is the, uh, obvious possibility of making her rear appear larger than it actually is. This is a potential problem totally avoided here by Alis, who is a consummate professional.
Amazed to realise that this is Eufrat Mai's first photoset on SA...
More... soon... please...!
I'm not sure how you define a photo set but her two movies have photo sets. Granted usually the photo sets that go with the movies are not the best. But hey, with Eufrat I'll take what I can get!
Wow. What a gorgeous set. And with two of my favourite models. They're both immensely beautiful and talented. I noticed this was photographed by Alis Locanta... Is this a pictorial from an upcoming film? I REALLY hope so.
You took (all) the words off my fingertips ...
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2017 SEXART.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.