Replies Received
|
Replies to your reviews or comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
Newbie Nudes
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#16
from messmer:
(SuchSluts's Reply)
Those watermarks are nice and clear .. too clear, because they're in the hair, in the face, on the body, in all the most awful places ... in other words they do get in the way in a most intrusive manner. If someone put them discretely on the bottom right I'd have no problem with them but in the hair, on the body? Other amateur sites do the same thing. Redclouds, voyeur web (I think they're called), world wide wives .. they all got into the awful habit of defacing the pictures of their contributors in a ghastly way by putting the logo either near the person or on her/him. I thought at first the watermarks were meant for those who looked for freebies and that subscribers would get the unblemished picture, but a couple of sample pictures provided by "world wide wives" made me realize that this is standard practice in true amateur circles. I'm shaking my head over this. Who, in their right mind, would want a messed-up picture like that? Well, I guess someone would or the practice would have stopped ages ago. And good luck with your own site. If it's going to be minus watermarks I'll be cheering you on. :-)
|
08-09-08 04:11pm
|
Reply
2
|
Newbie Nudes
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#9
from messmer:
(SuchSluts's Reply)
I liked what I saw but there was a watermark right across the pictures and they were blurred. I haven't been to this site in ages, didn't bother keeping a record of my user name or password, so the question is: is that confounded mark in all the pictures or just in the freebies?
|
07-21-08 02:13pm
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
