|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Do watermarks ever affect your decision to join a site? |
| 1-18 of 18 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 10-12-09 05:34am - 5512 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
Do watermarks ever affect your decision to join a site? I tried to make a poll out of this question but I couldn't break it down right. So I'm asking here - do watermarks ever keep you from joining a site? Looking at some of the reviews here, I'm thinking this might just be another one of my pet peeves. I'm not a big fan of labels anywhere - like refusing to buy designer clothes because I don't like paying to advertise someone's product. There are some highly rated sites that I know of that have what I'd call large and intrusive watermarks, even though TBP lists them as medium-sized. I know it's probably done to protect their content, but sometimes I think they go overboard. When I'm checking out a video, the last thing I need to see is a big, colorful reminder of where I got it. What do you guys think? Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 10-12-09 06:00am - 5512 days | #2 | |
|
Denner (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,217 Registered: Mar 03, '07 Location: Denmark |
Absolutely.... There are sites with too damn large watermarks in both photos and video-clips. Some of the east-euro sites like My18teens, Teenburg ect. are horrible - yes, like RB says: They go overboard... They want to protect their material, of course, but that can be done in a more elegant way. "I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle" | |
|
||
| 10-12-09 07:29am - 5512 days | #3 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I haven't yet seen a site where the watermark bothered me but if I did see one where the watermark was not transparent and so obvious that my eye kept going toward it then I don't think I could join. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 10-12-09 12:10pm - 5512 days | #4 | |
|
james4096 (0)
Suspended Posts: 132 Registered: Mar 02, '09 |
I'm pretty good at ignoring watermarks. I have noticed that watermarks really irk some people here. There have been a few times where the watermark has gotten in the way in vids for me though. I can't recall which sites right now. | |
|
||
| 10-12-09 11:56pm - 5512 days | #5 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Yes. I can try to ignore them, but it's pretty hard to when they get on the subject. For example, I have nice pics of Veronica Hill from Harris Archives BUT, the watermark gets all up in her hair! Ruins it! And I paid for it anyway. Watermarks do affect my decision to join a site and has held me back from rejoining, too. I've complained numerous times here about them, and over the years to various sites such as Myglamoursite (then they reduced the size, thankfully), Matt's Models (who challenged me to suggest a better one, LOL), Cruising Girls (who said their large one was necessary, sorry!), and Twistys (I made a comment here). The quality of what you buy is important, and watermarks aren't part of it. I'm not advertising their sites because the only person who sees what I download is me. I understand that they have to protect their property, but would you brand your show dog just to hold your claim to it? TorridArt is a good example of a site that has watermarks that are OK. Or the ATK sites. They're small and unobtrusive. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 10-13-09 05:31am - 5511 days | #6 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
Drooler - It's nice to know you actually got feedback from some of the sites. A site that says a large watermark is necessary? That's just ridiculous. I've been looking at Nubiles.net for a long time - but everything I've seen from them has a mural at the bottom and up the side of the pic or video. That's one of the sites I was referring to when I said I don't agree with TBP's calling it medium sized. If that's medium, I'd really hate to see what they call large. I also have to thank you for today's laugh - your response from Matt doesn't surprise me. Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 10-13-09 05:44am - 5511 days | #7 | |
|
Denner (0)
Active User Posts: 1,217 Registered: Mar 03, '07 Location: Denmark |
Drooler's got an importend point: "....And I paid for it". The exampel with watermarks that goes into hair, face, ass, high heels/legs ect. is far from rare. When you pay for in all other ways fine/great photosets, it's a nuisance to get it ruined by too large w-marks... "I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle" | |
|
||
| 10-13-09 05:51am - 5511 days | #8 | |
|
ControllingMind (0)
Suspended  Posts: 52 Registered: Jan 29, '09 Location: Inside An Unseen Force |
Watermarks should be exactly that, barely able to be seen. Some sites have a site name sign layered over the vids/pics, which is too visible for it really to be described by the site as a watermark. I'd prefer not to have them, especially the obtrusive ones that are in the way of the models, but as for putting me off a site I'm more concerned with download limits etc. | |
|
||
| 10-13-09 11:45am - 5511 days | #9 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
I answered the Matt's challenge by writing back. "OK. Here goes. Ready?: " That was as constructive and as honest an answer as I could come up with. As for Nubiles, it was actually WORSE before they started posting pics in 2400 pixels. They'd FINALLY have the kind of ass shot that my limbic system craves, and the bleeding watermark would be there to fuck up the shit out of it. Now, the pics are bigger, but they've long since turned into a toy-happy site -- I guess to somehow distinguish themselves from the rest? One site I found some time ago, and it was one of those that didn't last very long (and I can only wonder why) was called "Banana Babes" or something like that. The watermark was EXTREMELY garish and WAY too big. It was almost like, "Hey, is that a nude model hiding behind that peeled banana logo thing?" I kid thee not. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. Edited on Oct 13, 2009, 12:05pm | |
|
||
| 10-13-09 11:49am - 5511 days | #10 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Watermarks don't have much of an affect on my decision to join a site or not. But I certainly don't appreciate looking at an otherwise lovely picture of a model who has a $@&** watermark covering part of her nude body. Maybe if she was clothed it would be less intrusive? Watermarks, if present, should definitely be small and placed in the lower right corner of the picture. | |
|
||
| 10-13-09 11:52am - 5511 days | #11 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
I wouldn't join a site with large ones. Yes, I am referring to watermarks. ;0) Cap'n. :0) Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU Award Hilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 10-13-09 02:43pm - 5511 days | #12 | |
|
anyonebutme (0)
Active User  Posts: 294 Registered: Aug 23, '09 |
Call me crazy, but I rather like watermarks!!! In my younger years I collected baseball cards, they all have the player's photo, a border design to go around, the card company's logo as well as the team logo on top. The designs are what made the collecting more fun, you have something more than just photos. Porn is kind of the same way, the watermark is another part of the presentation. And I certainly do not go into art museums and complain the artist signed the corner of his painting =) | |
|
||
| 10-13-09 03:53pm - 5511 days | #13 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
Okay - you're crazy. LOL Actually, everyone's allowed to like whatever they like, of course, but I certainly never expected an answer like that! And I'm curious if your signature analogy would still hold true if the artist signed it huge, colorful letters that covered part of the theme of the painting. Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 10-13-09 09:00pm - 5511 days | #14 | |
|
GCode (0)
Active User  Posts: 386 Registered: Feb 23, '09 Location: USA |
Yes they do but I have yet to find a site that has extremely disruptive watermarks that offend me based on the fact that most sites I join nowadays are reviewed by trusted users that tell this in their reviews. But, if I did join a site that contained these, I would be extremely pissed off and will email customer service with a complaint. While I see the reason for watermarks and don't think sites should do away with them, it's so easy to just make a small watermark that is almost see through in a corner to make the vital footage eye worthy. Why make a huge watermark to destroy an image or video, It's only going to create pissed off customers. However, keep them non disruptive and marketing the site should be greatly strengthened. I have seen plenty of free images with watermarks to the site which made me at least preview the tour because I liked the captured footage. Sexted From My iPad | |
|
||
| 10-14-09 07:43am - 5510 days | #15 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
For me the most aggravating offender is 40Something Mag.com. Their videos aren't too bad but their pictures are horrible with those yellow BIG watermarks in the upper right or left corner. As to Matt's, I would try a subscription if he placed his rather small watermark at the bottom right (the last place I look). | |
|
||
| 10-14-09 06:24pm - 5510 days | #16 | |
|
anyonebutme (0)
Active User Posts: 294 Registered: Aug 23, '09 |
Kind of interesting for me to think about. I would say the presentation of the image is entirely of the artist's own choosing. If it is in his personality to create a huge colorful signature, well, it was that same personality that created the underlying work of art. Can one truly be changed without affecting the other, for better or worse? That analogy doesn't always translate to porn, because it is often a different person making the watermark decisions, than the person who created the photos. That's why I like the baseball card comparison better. Is wishing the watermark were different, much different than wishing the photo was shot from a different angle? Or wishing the set was shot in a decorated room instead of against a plain white wall? Edited on Oct 14, 2009, 07:03pm | |
|
||
| 10-14-09 07:28pm - 5510 days | #17 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I suspect that watermarks are more annoying in a photo regardless of where it is located because your eyes are going to gravitate toward it no matter what since it's not really part of the photo. The size and location simply aggravate the situation. It's less noticable in videos since you're looking a motion, but size and location can force your eyes to focus on the watermark instead of the action Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 10-14-09 07:41pm - 5510 days | #18 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
I would say no to that, unless the different angle or different set somehow obscured or otherwise distracted me from the model. From a collector's viewpoint, I can almost understand the baseball card analogy. It's like having a Topp's series vs. a Fleer series. (Hope I'm not dating myself with those names - haven't collected cards since the early 70's) But, unlike a picture or video of a naked female, I wouldn't care if I couldn't see part of the body of a sports figure. It also wouldn't bother me if the first thing that jumped out at me was a logo. Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 1-18 of 18 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
