| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Capn (0)
|
Yes there is evidence of some changes going on.
It is still primarily a pics site, & none the worse for that IMO.
The number of photosets per update is fine for me, but I do agree the pics are overly large now.
My main gripe is the number of pics.
Often they are about 250 pics per set, when 100 would cover the same ground perfectly adequately.
I think things are improving but it is still slow & not all the changes are for the better.
Cap'n. :0/
|
01-08-11 04:34am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
The Bishop (0)
|
REPLY TO #1 - Capn :
No way the big sets are brilliant, I wonldn't want to see them been trimmed (I refer to Sean Rs work) best on the site - the site needs to add custom downloads for users to select their range of pics, but reduced choice is not the way to go!
Without Sean R the site wouldn't be so good, his stuff is crystal clear, and I think the 3000x2000 is a vast improvement, in slide show thay work perfectly well and in close the clarity is amazing.
|
04-05-11 05:27pm
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Capn (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - The Bishop :
Posting well over half a dozen repeats of the same pose in the same set is just laziness & bulking the set out for the sake of it. We are typically seeing sets of around 250 photos
IMO a properly edited set need not be over 100 phots & cover the same ground.
Cap'n.
|
04-05-11 11:34pm
Reply To Message
|
4
|
The Bishop (0)
|
REPLY TO #3 - Capn :
Cap'n.,
I hear what you're saying but maybe it's me I like long sets with a good number of pictures within a particular series (e.g. full body shots standing or lying), as in slide show this has a nicer flow to it, rather than a sudden change where for example the model has changed pose drastically.
On another note I only look seriously at a few photographers, and some like R Williams who's work is excellent but with sets around 80 images and less there isn't the time to ogle the sets slowly as sometimes (actually mostly) you see too much on the first page - I like this to be a bit slower - personal preference fair enough.
As to bulking out I can't say if this is the aim as I don't go through all the contributors, for a start there isn't the time!
Sean R sets are the main reason I enjoy N&H for the reasons stated above, anything else hasn't come close IMHO - if you look at the voting on the site the vast number of models voted are by him.
Each to their own but sets around 100 pictures are way too short in my view - no pun intended!
Bishop
|
04-06-11 07:36am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
Capn (0)
|
REPLY TO #4 - The Bishop :
Yes, I think a lot comes down to personal preference.
I find a lot of models shot by Sean R to be less than attractive.
Largely, I find a lot of his shots focus is detailed gynacology, which really doesn't appeal to me at all.
Cap'n. :0)
|
04-06-11 09:07am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
The Bishop (0)
|
REPLY TO #5 - Capn :
Hi Cap'n,
I'd agree with you too, sometimes there can be a bit too much close stuff in Sean Rs work – a bit on gynaecology side for sure, but this is offset with a good range of shots, hence I like big sets.
A criticism I had of his work was he never (or rarely) focused on the bottom, that is just showing lovely curvy cheeks (where the model possessed them!) instead overdoing the spread shots, and where there was nice shots there was never enough in the series, something you’d probably favour!
Solo photography is by far the only niche I’m interested in, and I feel it’s probably the most challenging for a photographer; it must be hard or impossible to repeat the same poses, then again it is pornography after all, and this is where Sean R wins for me as some of the angles are excellent and it is essentially hardcore solo – I think anyway.
On the subject of looks, well I guess he can only shoot models that apply and given society’s attitude to body hair I’m glad there are still some out there willing to pose – so I’m glad they’re about – though there is the odd one that has the old slapper look :)
Bishop
|
04-06-11 10:48am
Reply To Message
|
