egafd.com

Hmm, surprisingly, not many magazine editors on this thread!

If I can offer up my two-penneth worth?

A number of you will know that I've been editing magazines for around 15 years (Dave should, we've done business often enough in the past), and presently put MensWorld and Mayfair together.

In my experience, what this industry lacks is genuinely new, younger photographers coming through. No offense to the old guard, but as some snappers move out of the UK, there's really no-one new coming up to take their place.

As to the quality of photography or magazines going downhill, well, I can't comment on specifics, but there are certainly a number of titles out there who could be described as 'generic', or jumping on the latest bandwagon from the US. I should know, because at my previous company we became the first in the UK to consistently run 'niche' material like smokers, foot sets and teen material.

What happens then is that *every* photographer starts shooting that material, because it's what sells. It's incredibly difficult re-educating them, too. You should try finding stocking and suspender sets for Mayfair. It's a nightmare. So ultimately, in effect, it's photographers who are controlling market trends.

Mayfair, for example, is one of the few UK titles which doesn't print pink shots. But it can prove difficult to find sets where the girl isn't whanging her hand in and out of her pussy. But we try. And I think our readers like it that way. MensWorld sales are up, thanks to Ms Guest (the figures are available to most of the trade), and judging from the letters we're getting, most Mayfair readers are more than happy to see sets of 'women' with curves, rather than spotty teens.

The more general availability of hardcore can only be a good thing, and I think ultimately, there's room for both soft and hard. Let's face it, if you eat steak every day, you're going to get sick of it and look for a pizza instead. Either that, or die of an impacted bowel complaint...

TheProf. wrote:
>
> Well,what can I say...it's so true what you all say...
> I started work as a pro back in the 1950's right through to
> the mid-90's...the early years WERE the glory years of
> glamour photography...
> Today-it's all gone down the tube,as I've said before "the
> kitchen has been taken over by the amateur snapper,Mrs Jones
> from next door...and the digital camera".
> Yes,the digital camera,the un-thinking mans tool.Cram as many
> pictures as you can onto a disc and flood the internet with
> millions of snaps..
> Thats NOT photography,thats gluttony to keep your site
> running to stave off your competition.
> Then theirs the punters who want everything FREE...what's all
> that about!!
> The REAL photographer,not the garage machanic who thinks he
> can DO photography,it seems has had his day,the real
> Professional like myself has retired,not through age,but all
> the crap he encounters out there today.
> As I've said "Im looking for a new sin" one that the amateur
> and Mrs.Jones cannot get too.
>
> TheProf.

you cant beat the 70s and 80s for instance escort the best one on the market at that time circa 82-89![mayfair was good as well]

Hi Dave,
Hope your well, I think in your reply you have stated one great comment. Mayfair not printing pink shots. I sure you are aware that if we DON'T shoot pink we don't sell in America. If we don't sell in America, we DON'T exist as the American mgs are the only ones that pay decent money. To sell to Mayfair for ?650 only covers the costs of shooting.
As for photographers setting trends - I wish. Tell you what I'll think of a trend and you buy the set's I produce ?
Keep Well.

To answer a few points?

1) Wilbert mentioned about wanting to see the girls wearing more clothes. Good point. I edit two hardcore maagazines and, where possible, try to introduce a 'storyline' element to the photosets. It's just the same if you're watching a porn film - where there's a gradual shedding of clothes and plenty of build-up to the main event it makes it more satisfying to watch.

2) I've only worked in the business for 2 and a bit years so can't really comment on what photographers used to get paid, but I've no reason to doubt what Dave Wells says with regards to the fees paid last being increased in 1989. But it doesn't seem to put people off trying their hand at glamour photography. Almost every week brings in yet another new snapper eager to get into the business. Certainly every photographer I've ever met has had a better car than me and lives in a bigger house (sometimes houses!!).

3) The internet. It's hard, nigh on impossible for magazines to compete with the vast volume of material on the net. Every day people post links to free galleries here on the forum. If you can view endless amounts of free porn on the net, why bother to buy a mag from your newsagent. So? magazine circulations go down, revenues drop, budgets get slashed and there's less money to pay to photographers.

When all's said and done, it's impossible to please everybody. For every thousand punters who want to see smoking/messy/leggy/lingerie/pregnant/whatever sets there'll be another thousand who want something entirely different. That's the way it is and the way it'll always be.

Lastly, at a rough guess I'd say that there's somewhere between 300,000 - 500,000 adult mags being sold every month in the UK. Certainly less than the amounts being shifted in the late 70s and early 80's but proof, surely, that we must be doing something right!

Well in my opinion you can mix soft and hard in the same pictorial. It's far better than just all hard which I find really dull and un-interesting half the time.

Top class women who will do HC. Some of the women in the newer breed of British HC mags leave a lot to be desired. There are stunning girls in Paul Raymonds mags but they are only soft, if Private and Cheri etc can get stunners why not the UK producers?

TopShelfBlue wrote:

> 1) Wilbert mentioned about wanting to see the girls wearing
> more clothes. Good point. I edit two hardcore maagazines and,
> where possible, try to introduce a 'storyline' element to the
> photosets. It's just the same if you're watching a porn film
> - where there's a gradual shedding of clothes and plenty of
> build-up to the main event it makes it more satisfying to
> watch.

I agree, but to do this you need context, i.e. flesh, whether clothed or unclothed, should not fill every picture. Where are these events taking place? Some of the Private photosets are (perhaps used to be?) good examples. The first pic is/was often an outdoor setting with plenty of background. Then there might be one or two more setting the scene. There might even be one later in the 'story' which was not entirely action. I remember seeing one where a girl is taking on two lads in what is meant to be a student's bedroom and in the background you can see her boyfriend opening the door and looking in. If I remember correctly it took another two pics for the threesome to become a foursome.

I know, I used to shoot the set's for Private.

And very good they were too.

Don't mention it Pete. Anyone round here will tell you that Officer Dibble is a miserable bastard who's always slagging somebody or something off, so on the rare occasions that he does give the thumbs up you can pretty much take it to the bank - it really means something. Also, my compliments to Kathy West, she?s obviously a very talented lady in many departments.

Keep up the good work and give my regards to Kellemarie and Jessica - both highly regarded visitors to Dibble Towers.

Dibble.