| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Boobs4ever (0)
|
Nice comment Drooler! Im surprised as you are. Myself Im very care full about wich sites I join, A site that always have had a good Reputation what I know of is Matts Models.
I would really like to see a review from you ore someone else that has been active reviewer here awhile (like you) when the most reviews are from new members ore from members like me that does write that many reviews atm.
|
07-19-07 03:51am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Denner (0)
|
Drooler has a point.
But I'm not so surprised by the outstanding difference in points.
This is in many ways a difficult site - some really good looking girls - and some strange navigation and some boring videos.
I've been there twice and both times was quite disapointed with the site.
I don't think I'll be back for some time
|
08-16-07 10:42am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #2 - Denner :
I see your point about the differences of opinion about Matt's once I start remembering how some other sites get a wide range of scores and comments, too, either here or across the spectrum of adult review sites. People can really vary in tastes ... and also in experience (a-hem). And sometimes it might even be their motives.
And I'm with you about being disappointed. The quality at Matts ... it's time for that to improve consistently, especially in the lighting and image clarity. I've had enough of that kind of "amateur" shtick.
My last membership, which was recent, terminated a week short of the subscription time, but you know what? I didn't even bother dealing with it. Just didn't think it would be worth the trouble.
|
08-16-07 02:20pm
Reply To Message
|
4
|
DigglerFL (0)
|
how can he "re-publish" in 1600px? Do you want bigger, blurry pixelated photos?
|
09-22-07 08:26am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #4 - DigglerFL :
First of all, not all of them are blurry and pixelated, although you're right that some of them are, and I think we'd both agree that too many are.
I've already read your review of Matts, and it really came down hard on the negative aspects of the site, which I agree with, especially the poor quality photography and videos. And I've also wondered why he hasn't learned more about it than even his recent stuff shows. His claim of being the "King of Anti-Glam" sounds to me like a cop-out on quality.
But I differ with you about the models, at least to an extent. Some of them are not very good-looking, but he's had a lot that are very hot and who have appeared on many other sites for that reason.
I'm glad you wrote that review. I think the site is overrated and needs a wakeup call.
Anyway, to answer your question, no, I don't want blurry and pilexated photos. Surprised?
|
09-22-07 09:42am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
DigglerFL (0)
|
REPLY TO #5 - Drooler :
what I meant, is that you can't convert 1024 pixel photos to 1600 without stretching them. You can't add detail. So its just not a reasonable expectation. He'd have to reshoot.
|
09-22-07 10:23am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #6 - DigglerFL :
The word I used was "republish," by which I did not mean blowing up 1024s to larger sizes. (Of course that would look like crap.) What I meant was redoing the masters for online pics in larger sizes, and that's assuming that the masters would be at least 1600 if not larger.
1024s were more of the norm, I think, for awhile because sites were perhaps concerned about bandwidth, even though photo equipment was already capable of larger sizes than 1024. Thankfully, bandwidth is less of an issue now.
Some sites have done such republishing of some of their older content. Digital Desire and Mindy Vega are two I can think of off hand.
So this is a misunderstanding based on a particular interpretation of that word "republish." It's been awhile since I wrote that comment, but I did intentionally avoid using the word "resize," or, even worse, "enlarge." I didn't go into detail as I have now. I was just trying to economize on words.
And you made an assumption about what I know and don't know about digital photographs, but now I think you have a better understanding.
|
09-22-07 10:46am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
DigglerFL (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - Drooler :
Ok, well I "ass"ume he shot digitally, and he used a 1024 save-size or maybe just used a 1 megapixel camera. SLR multi-megapixel cams were mega-bucks until recently. I doubt he shoots with film or a point and shoot.
|
09-22-07 11:41am
Reply To Message
|
