Is there anything in modern porn that you like?

[charliels531]

This thread started with the question whether there was anything good about modern porn.

I'm a fan of porn, whether it's a 23,000 year old amulet or Gianna Michaels. But recent technology, as noted above, certainly changed things:

1) Photos--High definition photography has created some wonders. With digital high def you could blow up a photo of Gianna Michaels big enough to cover the state of Wyoming, which is the most useful thing Wyoming could become; and

2) Video--The advent of homemade video porn has created miles and miles of trash, but has given us a variety of porn so wide you can pick your favorite, no matter what. I'm especially fond of the guy in Oregon who uploads videos of his big-busted Japanese girlfriend who sucks his cock in about every way imaginable.

What do I miss?

1) Porn movies with plots. They may be lame, but having the pizza guy show up sure beats the suck-my-cock/fuck-your-butt opening style of most modern porn.

2) Chemistry. A lot of the 1960s-1970s porn involved people who had known each other more than ten minutes, and it showed.

Dammit, I promised myself I wouldn't complain...

EDIT: My only connection with Gianna is that she sold me a few hamburgers in her prior job.

[KeyWestJuan]

I like the variety of women seen in today's amateur porn. All shapes and sizes, and amateurs that really LOVE sex. One of the most erotic things to me is seeing a woman enjoy herself. Professional porn seems dominated today by coked-out "stars" going through the motions, screaming and moaning through the whole thing. But all the couples (and others) creating their own content is wonderful. And there are beautiful women of all shapes and sizes, which you just won't see in modern, professional porn.

[marcuss4495]

The only one thing I like in modern porn is their openness about foot fetish....something which was seriously ignored during classic porn...

[flake56]

the fast forward button.

[bigtrain45]

What I like is that so many genuinely beautiful woman are doing porn now, especially the Eastern European women. What I don't like is all the excesses; dp, endless anal, all the gonzo. When you see a modern scene where there seems to be real passion between the two people, it's notable for its rarity.

[ultimatewarlord]

There are a few things I've discovered since joining the internet fraternity. I like the mature woman videos that are made by the likes of Rachel Steele, Jodie West and Lady Fyre. I recently discovered the shoplyfter series and there are one or two modern films with some stunning women.

[Jake Gittes]

First off, there's a few funny responses in this thread. Gave me a good chuckle.

What I love most about Vintage porn was the storytelling and more of the actors/actresses involved had natural bodies (I think you all know what I mean) and I never got to experience the 70s and 80s, so I guess I live vicariously through some of the performers.

However, what is seriously lacking in Vintage porn is made up in today's Modern porn.

Today's Modern porn offers more variety and innovation than Vintage porn. I have a sizable collection of Modern porn that features solo clips of women my age (mid-30s) that are interviewed before a shoot and then they spend 10-15 minutes enjoying themselves in solo situations.

Getting to know a model is more interesting than a made up storyline that features rushed scenes and cheesy music that drowns out the erotic thrill of hearing a woman breathe and moan in real time as she pleasures herself. I can almost imagine myself there with her in that moment without the annoying distraction of an obligatory male pornstar.

Plus I also like hearing couples talk to each other during sex instead of having to put on a show for the cameras and fake orgasms.

I still love the "Golden Era" but I spend more time collecting and making clips from those days and going into my own imagination to discover what could've been.

[Gasket the Cat]

Originally Posted by Carlton Brown

The quality of digital video and stills is far superior to nearly anything produced in the vintage era. Lighting is often better understood although that's no guarantee that the photography or content is better.

Unfortunately, a digital SLR used for stills or video is an open invitation to shoot large quantites of often boring material that frequently seems to lack that essential spark.

I need to disagree strongly here!
The quality up the entire creative chain of hardware from the cameras, lenses, films and lighting from the Golden Era were all, almost 100% entirely superior to anything produced today, that is digital in anyway shape or form.
The trade-offs have been expense, size, convenience, ease of use, maintenance, etc.
The quality of the images capable of being produced or reproduced by today's hardware if better at all, may be only in some specialized situations. And then only marginally, IMHO.

And to claim that lighting is better understood now, as opposed to back then is almost laughable.
The basics of understanding light and controlling it, have not changed much since the 'camera obscura' was invented by prehistoric men and women, over 2000 years ago.

I do agree 100% with you, on your last point though!!

[sto]

I think the newest pornography has gone boring. There were really innovative production studios with very open models to perform insertions, fisting etc at early 2000's, like sickpuppy and fistingsex. Many of the now major studios like als, FTV, 21 sextury, inthecrack, DDF etc. produced much naughtier material ten years ago. Everything is either lame or too much anal. There are no good lesbian scenes anymore even with FTV. Kink does not appeal to me, too mechanical.

[Witness]

Originally Posted by Gasket the Cat

I need to disagree strongly here!
The quality up the entire creative chain of hardware from the cameras, lenses, films and lighting from the Golden Era were all, almost 100% entirely superior to anything produced today, that is digital in anyway shape or form.
The trade-offs have been expense, size, convenience, ease of use, maintenance, etc.
The quality of the images capable of being produced or reproduced by today's hardware if better at all, may be only in some specialized situations. And then only marginally, IMHO.

I disagree with your disagreement. If you had written this 10-15 years ago, you would have had a point, as digital still had a long way to go, but digital has made vast improvements in the last 5-10 years. As a photographer (unfortunately, not of the erotic), modern equipment is vastly superior to what was used in the Golden age. Lighting is smaller, lighter, runs at a cooler temperature, and more powerful. Digital cameras, being a "perfect" medium (meaning that the image sensor is perfectly flat, as opposed to film which buckles or has waves in it) requires sharper lenses than used to be produced. Film still has some advantages over digital (dynamic range, color saturation), but I wouldn't go back to it for all the tea in China.

Originally Posted by Gasket the Cat

And to claim that lighting is better understood now, as opposed to back then is almost laughable.
The basics of understanding light and controlling it, have not changed much since the 'camera obscura' was invented by prehistoric men and women, over 2000 years ago.

First off, 2000 years ago was the height of the Roman Empire, hardly prehistoric. Secondly, understanding of lighting definitely has improved since those times. Just compare DaVinci or Caravaggio to medieval artist, or even Cimabue, and you can see an obvious progression in knowledge of how light works.

However, I will grant you that older photographers had a better knowledge of lighting. They had to. As they had fewer frames to work with during a session, lighting needed to be carefully planned, checked and rechecked to make sure the image would be usable. In the film days one little mistake could ruin an entire shoot, and the problem wouldn't be found until after the film had been processed, creating largely unusable images, resulting in lost footage and, if even possible, costly re-shoots.

On the other hand, digital cameras can have an almost unlimited number of frames, leading to the "spray and pray" school of shooting, wherein a photographer just takes a million shots while hoping that one will be good. Also, because the image can be seen instantly, it means that photographers don't need to plan out their lighting as thoroughly as in the past, as any issues can be caught and corrected mid shoot. This leads to a bit more sloppiness than can be seen with older photographers, but also give the newer the ability to take more chances and be riskier. After all, pixel don't cost anything, whereas film is expensive.