| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
26
|
AV Erotica
(0)
|
Reply of
greg909's Comment
from Drooler:
When it's good at this site, it's very good. Unfortunately, too often part of the girl's image is blurry. There were some great shots there recently of Milla, for instance, that were marred by her head being all blurred out in the largest pics.
It's problem that persists at this site.
|
11-27-09 04:28pm
|
Reply
27
|
Club Seventeen
(0)
|
Reply of
greg909's Comment
from pat362:
Sometimes some members will look at a similar site and see something we don't but I do find that 95 was rather high for what I consider to be a semi-dead site. I checked what passes for a preview section and
at least 3 of the updates are many years old since the performers on them have been retired for a couple of years already.
It's nice that you get access to a couple of other sites but frankly Seventeen video is basically the video section of this sites photosets and the other site is a cam site.
There was a time when Seventeen was the site for cute teen models but that time is long gone. There are better ones now and frankly cheaper ones as well.
|
11-10-13 08:24am
|
Reply
28
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from skippy:
(greg909's Reply)
OK, I know what you mean, but I really think they have improved a LOT at Femjoy in the last 4 or 5 years. I keep all my images by year (10 years worth for Femjoy) and I just went back and opened some zip files from 2007. They are good, but sometimes these images are a little darker and sometimes the emphasis is on the overall locale with the model included in the image periphery someplace. This was pretty common in softcore several years back and was a technique made popular by Holly Randall and others from the days of Penthouse magazine (the "artsy" dark hazy look, the halo look and the High Dynamic Resolution look sometimes still used by Michael Ninn and others can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned.) Honestly, a panoramic shot with the model in the image can sometimes be very beautiful, but it does not appeal to everyone, it should be used very sparingly and it distracts from the reason for the set, which is the model. Dark sets do crop up occasionally and I too get very frustrated with them. Fortunately, those sets are very rare. Digital cameras are much better these days, too, so the softness we used to see sometimes is also rare.
One thought....sometimes they mess with the thumbnail image to brighten it up for the text they are adding, not simply to improve the image. This may be why you sometimes see brighter thumbnails.
These days I download and unzip the zip files of entire sets instead of just individual images. I also have a single folder where I keep the very best high-resolution images because of the model, the pose and the image quality, not because of the locale. If an image I want to keep happens to have a little too much space at the bottom or top (often they are formatted portrait but could easily be cropped to be landscape), then I just load up Adobe Photoshop and crop it myself. I just looked at my jumbo best-of collection, about 1000 images, and I've probably cropped 75% of them, but I've only messed with color balance and brightness on about 10% of them. These are the cream of the crop models and images across about 30 sites, but they still required a little cropping to suit my tastes and emphasize the model over the locale. I imagine that may be the case for others as well.
Photographers these days need to be all things to all people. That means they need to do panoramas, full body shots, close ups, hands and feet, face shots, coy shots and open shots, all with both direct eye contact and averted eyes. A little of everything. Amazingly, probably 80% of the Femjoy sets and 60%-80% of the images in those sets for last few years are keepers for me. That may not sound like much, but that is an incredibly high percentage compared to the average soft core site I visit. Of course, your mileage will vary, but I think the photographers at Femjoy do a very, very good overall job these days of keeping their audience happy.
|
09-01-14 06:33pm
|
Reply
29
|
FTV Girls
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from rearadmiral:
(greg909's Reply)
No. The individual photos come in at 1600x1065. To get the higher resolution you have to download the zipped set.
|
02-07-15 12:21pm
|
Reply
30
|
Girls Dot Com
(0)
|
Reply of
greg909's Review
from ace of aces:
thanks for warning
|
12-02-09 08:03am
|
Reply
31
|
Goddess Nudes
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from lk2fireone:
(greg909's Reply)
I'm not a person who understands the finer points of photography.
I look at photos and videos on a low-priced laptop.
Even if I had high-end monitors and expensivwe computers, I don't know if my eyes would notice a measurable difference from what I'm seeing today--because of advancing age, etc.
I respect the people who can appreciate the higher qualities of photos or videos, but it's not my thing. I'm not trying to be rude or disrespectful. I'm just stating that experience (to be able to view and enjoy artwork at a higher level) is beyond me.
Does that make sense?
|
05-13-16 08:43am
|
Reply
32
|
Hegre Art
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from skippy:
(greg909's Reply)
Yes, for most sites I only sign up for a month at a time, but I have annual subscriptions to a few. You are right about some sets not being that exciting, but I like the format because you can truly see what each model looks like without any stupid props, covered tattoos, airbrushing or clothing designed to hide things. Every single model is real and most are stunning. It isn't up in your face stuff very often and is mostly pretty soft core, but once a week or so there is a set that knocks my...um...socks off.
|
02-26-16 08:43pm
|
Reply
33
|
Hegre Art
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from badandy400:
(greg909's Reply)
This has long been my method of madness. Only year long membership I have ever gotten was for videobox, and that is because it took me more than a year of constant downloads to take their entire site. Huge was an understatement.
|
02-17-16 07:10pm
|
Reply
34
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
Reply of
greg909's Comment
from Drooler:
As a pic lover myself, I also think their max pic sizes are too small. They should make them at least 4000 px, but it took forever before they caught up 2400. And it's a shame because their pics have great color.
|
09-15-15 03:58am
|
Reply
35
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
Reply of
greg909's Comment
from WeeWillyWinky:
Yes that's the dimensions of their large sized pics. I must be old, but this size is ridiculously huge enough for me. I can count the hair follicles on any square millimeter of a model's lovely bits. What else do I need?
|
09-14-15 10:24pm
|
Reply
36
|
Karup's PC
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#7
from Karup:
(greg909's Reply)
Hey Greg,
It's definitely a juggling act because for every member that prefers the higher quality/lower compression, there is another member that will hammer us on file sizes or other cause & effect issues related to every decision we have to make.
If you have a moment and an example in mind for each side of the coin, we'd love to hear from you and see what exactly you think is overly compressed and what you think is just right. My e-mail address is (jeff at karups dot com).
Regards,
Jeff
|
12-01-11 03:30pm
|
Reply
37
|
Karup's PC
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from Karup:
(greg909's Reply)
Hi Greg,
We don't want to give a concrete launch date for the new "super high res" (as we're planning on labeling it) size, but barring any major roadblocks, it should be online within 2-3 weeks. It's definitely a top priority for us right now. Some recent sampling we did came out great and all new photos are being processed in the new super high-res size, along with the 2 smaller resolutions we already offer.
Also, after the new super high res size begins being added for all new updates, we plan on going backward to offer past photosets in the new 3000x size as well. We may not be able to go all the way back, but we should be able to go far enough back to make fans of the high res photos very pleased.
Regards,
Jeff
|
12-01-11 02:23am
|
Reply
38
|
Need A Pee
(0)
|
Reply of
greg909's Comment
from rebekahdee:
I would just like to respond to the comments made by greg909.
1200 DPI x 1200 DPI:
This was a typo on our part, what this should have read is 1200 pixels x 1200 pixels. Further a 1200 dpi image would be simply impractical. Professional printers only work at 300 dpi, if the images on the site were 1200 dpi you most likely only be able to view a square inch of any given image on a 20" screen. The file sizes would be huge.
By "1200 pixels x 1200 pixel" we mean that if the image is of landscape orientation it will be 1200 pixels wide and however many pixels in height in order to maintain the aspect ratio. Conversely for portrait images: 1200 high by many pixels in width in order to maintain the correct aspect ratio.
The reference to 1200 DPI has been removed and corrected.
This image size will almost fill an entire screen running with a screen resolution of 1280*1024. If these images are only filling half of the screen then you're running a very high spec screen with desktop publishing screen resolution which the majority of users will not have the capability to do.
"most pics are somewhat blurry (with false sharpening"
In order to capture the pee action shots we use a high speed shutter camera that can shoot 4 or 5 frames per second. However shooting at such high speeds means there is a small compromise in quality. In order to compromise for this we do sharpen some images in an attempt to improve quality. I can only strongly disagree that "most" images are blurred.
"the small number of photosets (33)"
The preview section of the site lists all and every photo and video set available. Before joining it is clear to see that there are currently 33 photosets. It is not as if we lure members with the promise of 100's of image sets when the reality is only 30.
Our strong point is the video section which currently features 155 videos in 3 different bit rates (the latest of which are 720p High Definition) which you omitted from your review.
|
12-10-09 05:17am
|
Reply
39
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#20
from Nubiles Captain:
(greg909's Reply)
Sorry Greg909. We did get the larger size. I put in multiple requests to Pornusers when I could not respond. I had to have one of my people get ahold of their team just to get it fixed. I tried to respond right away. I even asked a few of our members if they had account here. Sorry for the delay.
|
05-17-16 09:38pm
|
Reply
40
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#19
from Amanda:
(greg909's Reply)
Just a quick note. The WM for this site is having trouble accessing PU at the moment and has contacted me for help! Stay tuned!
|
05-13-16 11:21am
|
Reply
41
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#16
from Nubiles Captain:
(greg909's Reply)
The photo editors have told me April 12th is the date all new models will have the larger size.
|
02-18-16 09:01am
|
Reply
42
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#10
from Nubiles Captain:
(greg909's Reply)
Sorry, not yet. We are migrating the front end of the sites over to the new CMS and then we can start working on our post production progress.
Thanks!
|
08-10-15 03:16pm
|
Reply
43
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#8
from Nubiles Captain:
(greg909's Reply)
We have not figured out the large size quite yet but yes it will be directly viewable.
|
07-05-15 01:46pm
|
Reply
44
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from Nubiles Captain:
(greg909's Reply)
Greg909,
Sorry if i was not clear. The image sizes for Nubiles.net are the same as they used to be. Small is 800 x1200 and the bigger size is 1600x2400. That bigger size used to be called large but when put into the new CMS its called medium.
When we finish moving the post production of Nubiles.net to the new CMS then we will offer a larger size, larger then 1600 x2400.
Does that make sense?
|
07-02-15 10:38am
|
Reply
45
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from messmer:
(greg909's Reply)
You are right, greg. I counted only 144 sets that contained "hairy" and some of them stretched the definition because the pubic hair was just starting to grow in, so hairy models are definitely not well represented.
I am a hairy fan from way back but got so used to the shaved look (and so disillusioned with hairy sites because of their growing emphasis on hairy legs) that I no longer notice. You could say I even like it now. Who says the leopard can't change his spots. :-)
I even enjoyed my membership at ALS, something that would have been unthinkable 3 years ago. :-) I think the vast majority enjoys shaved these days and takes it for granted.
|
10-21-11 11:08am
|
Reply
46
|
Teen Dreams
(0)
|
Reply of
greg909's Comment
from Drooler:
"Ultra HD Resolution," if it meant anything, would mean the best possible image quality between here and the nearest spy satellite. Suffice it to say that there's better image quality at other sites than at TeenDreams, of which I'm currently a member -- because the image quality is generally good as far as I'm concerned. But it might not satisfy a more expert eye.
|
11-30-09 02:28am
|
Reply
47
|
Teen Dreams
(0)
|
Reply of
greg909's Comment
from Capn:
Landscape typically around 2500 x 1600
Portrait 1700 x 2500
Ultra Hi Res? A few months.
I would say it was worth your while taking another look. ;0)
|
11-29-09 03:45pm
|
Reply
48
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
greg909's Comment
from messmer:
"Corny lingerie up to the last page." I really must re-subscribe soon! How many sets out of, let's say fifty, contain corny lingerie? Thanks, you would really help me make up my mind even though you don't like it! I took the tour and found some but still not enough to still my craving for nicely wrapped girls. :-)
|
11-23-10 10:09am
|
Reply
49
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
greg909's Comment
from Capn:
Yes, it is the old conundrum of not being able to please all the folk all the time.
What floats one persons boat is a real turn off to another.
I do think things are improving, but it is a slow process.
Cap'n. :0)
|
11-23-10 09:18am
|
Reply
50
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
greg909's Comment
from Basil:
Thanks for your feedback, duly noted! There's always room for improvement when we're talking about quality and since we'll be adding a lot of new unique models in the mean time would like to hear your opinion again in a couple of months from now.
As for lingerie we've got some members who are absolutely crazy about it and ask for more however I would not say that there's lingerie in every set - proves again that all tastes are different.
PS. If you could send me a personal email to support@wearehairy.com and let know about few sample sets that you don't like and most importantly why I'd really appreciate it. I'd also like to hear what particular sets did you like as well because to make the site better we need to focus on positive things rather than negative ones.
All the best!
WeAreHairy.com Basil
|
11-22-10 07:05pm
|
