|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Am I asking for too much? |
| 1-13 of 13 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 11-03-11 08:35am - 4798 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
Am I asking for too much? I'm in the process of writing a review of a site and I've written that the photo resoultion is low by today's standards. The photos are mostly 968x1300. They look okay, but they aren't great. I've just had memberships in several sites (ALS Scan is a good example) where many of the photos are excellent quality - miles above what I'm seeing on the site I'm reviewing now. Am I asking for too much? Keep in mind the site is primarily a picture site. These aren't add-ons or screencaps for a video site. Any and all thoughts will be appreciated. If I'm being a spoiled prissy-pants who is too demanding, please let me know. | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 08:58am - 4798 days | #2 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Prissy-pants? Too demanding? Tell us the name of this porn site, and we can send them flaming emails to show our irritation. To be honest, I only paste the technical numbers of photos and videos in my reviews because I've gotten smacked down by critics for not including them. I am more interested in, maybe this is naive, the visual effect of the photos and videos. I have a bunch of Playboy photos of old centerfold girls from the 1970s through the 1990s. And even though the file size of each photograph is below 100 KB, I think the girls in them look great. I don't know why the size of a single photo from MetArt can be over 1 MB in high quality. Looking at the photos on a PC monitor, I really can't tell the difference. Maybe if I tried looking at them on a TV screen, I might see a big difference. But on a computer monitor, there seems to be no difference between low and high resolution photos. But there are sites where the photos are very grainy and whatnot, and the photographer's skills are lacking, and the photos are more like screenshots instead of shots taken by a real photographer. I've tried to stay on topic. But what the topic was eludes me. Lol. | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 10:30am - 4798 days | #3 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Well, if it is billed as a photo site, I would ideally expect a choice of 3 resolutions with zips plus a user custom zip function. Whilst the resolution you mention is possibly adequate, it is far from 'class leading.'  Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious 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! | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 11:02am - 4798 days | #4 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
While an Ultra High Resolution Picture may not look much different on a monitor from that of a lower resolution one, just enlarge it to scroll to various body parts of interest and you will see why most of us prefer "UHR." If I can't see every pore, every strand of hair, every bit of weave in the garment the model wears I feel cheated. I agree with lk2fireone that in normal viewing it is hard to tell the difference between 968x1300 and a picture that is 2000x3000 but I do like the option of zeroing in on some choice bits to get every detail. When it comes to pictures of lower value than 600x800px then forget it. No matter how popular they were with me at the time they do not look good on a monitor that is set at a resolution of 1680x1050, and I have deleted all but a handful. BTW, 968x1300, isn't bad (for now!) .. just at the lower end of the "very good" scale.  | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 11:47am - 4798 days | #5 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
Thanks for the reply guys. I'm more comfortable saying what I say in the review now. | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 12:59pm - 4798 days | #6 | |
|
Ed2009 (0)
Suspended Webmaster  Posts: 509 Registered: Sep 12, '09 Location: Wales, UK |
I've never got a consistent response when it comes to picture size. I've been offering 2048 pixels as standard on my photo sites for a long time now. I've often held polls asking about preferred photo sizes but opinions vary massively. Personally I think less than 1280 isn't acceptable these days, but more than about 3000 gets impractical, so I guess a couple of variations between the two is the way to go. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 01:06pm - 4798 days | #7 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Don't get me started on crappy resolution pics (I pretty much say in my reviews that a site can't score in the 90's without pics or low res crap. Two prime offenders are RealityKings and NaughtyAmerica. They have lots of good content but (take your pick) ... 1) continue to use the first digital cameras ever made which limits their pics to 900x600; 2) are just claiming to be futurists by foreseeing the rise of cell phone porn and originally modeled their sites years ago to accommodate cell phone noobs; 3) have servers that gleefully accept video files that measure hundreds of mb's but can't seem to find the space to accept 200k pics; 4) they just don't care. Pic lovers are admittedly in the minority when it comes to porn. The average spanker force fed a steady diet of tv and family videos as a child apparently can't appreciate good photography or lacks the imagination to fill in the gaps that photos leave out compared to the annoying chattering, bad dialogue and fake orgasms videos let you enjoy. Pics are actually so damn easy to do well now a days. Even pocket cameras can shoot damn fine pics in the 10 mb range and if the lighting isn't right even the free photo editing software can fix that with a few clicks. No need for grainy pics (unless the bozo editing the ginormous original pic files doesn't know that his editing software might automatically set the "grain" at 72 pixels before editing down a file), excuses for file size (it might cost a buck or two a month more to rent servers for high end pics), bad cropping (don't get me started), or only 20 pics in a set. The bottom line is that if sites don't have decent pics then it just means they don't care about pics. End of rant.  | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 04:34pm - 4798 days | #8 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Prissy pants huh ? Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 05:02pm - 4798 days | #9 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
No, you're not asking too much for the photos to be in larger dimensions than 968x1300. Lots of sites have gone higher. I'd say that 1600px long end is the least they should be these days. Of course, it's subjective, as Ed pointed out above. It's a shame that some even NEWER sites are stuck at 1200 and go no further. Or Sandy Westgate's site, which is around 1350 or so if memory serves. She's a hot babe, but ... We're out of the dialup days, pretty much, aren't we? And if I sound like a spoiled prissy-pants, it's the many good sites that have spoiled me, so you can eat my shorts! I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 11-07-11 08:44am - 4794 days | #10 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Funny as most professional submission are 3 or 4 or even 5 times this size. I do professional photography and and can not even think of submitting something in a 1280. Oh well it would be nice to have clear clean pictures. I wish I took adult pictures then I could have my own high res LOL Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 11-07-11 05:30pm - 4794 days | #11 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
I looked at the metadata on the pics and some of them were shot in 2006 so I can understand the the resolutions would be lower. I'm going to chastise myself for raising this. I think I just got spoiled by sites like ALS Scan. | |
|
||
| 11-08-11 08:58am - 4793 days | #12 | |
|
Ed2009 (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 509 Registered: Sep 12, '09 Location: Wales, UK |
The only time I use 1280 now is when e-mailing personal photos to family/friends. It's high enough res to give a good photo but small enough to be fast to work well via e-mail. Also if I send stuff which is too large to some of my older relatives they complain that they can't see the whole photo! For professional/work use, it just has to be 2000+. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. | |
|
||
| 11-09-11 12:06am - 4793 days | #13 | |
|
Micha (0)
Active User Posts: 321 Registered: Jul 04, '10 Location: san jose ca |
High Res? Every photo on the Reality Kings network is labeled "high res" Many of the recent updates are in the 200 to 300 kbps range. Many though are in the 40 to 60 kbps. Not hardly worth a click. If you've spent 10 bucks on the recent PU newsletter’s RK Promo, avoid most anything posted prior to 2006 or 7 Many of their vids are labeled HD and are not (4 to 600 megs) The ones that are HD are 1080 lines. I don't see much advantage of 1080 over 720 unless I was going to watch them on a 5-foot screen. My 27-inch monitor with a 720 is just fine thankyou with a third to a quarter of the disk space. A lot of great vids and photo sets on RK. One thing I've rarely seen in adult vids is skilled acting. RK's Money Talks has changed my mind. The lasses here are all pros or seasoned amateurs, and are very convincing in the depiction of seduction and the financial persuasion on which the site is based. It’s worth a look. unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck. | |
|
||
| 1-13 of 13 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
