| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
tangub (0)
|
I reckon Carina A. (aka Suzie Carina) must be another android when you think her most recent update here was April 2012 and I have old ATK galleries of her stashed on my hd that were dated 2002. She looks a bit older than in those old pics, (I'm sure she couldn't have been any older than 18 in those) but you'd never guess the difference is 10 years.
|
08-09-12 10:12am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
rearadmiral (0)
|
No idea. But... if you happen to find out that you're right would please let me know who the manufacturer is. Just out of curiousity, of course. Not because I want to order the "Gloria" model or anything like that...
|
08-09-12 10:36am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
If Eufrat is an android, then I've got a very leaky battery! She has grown completely into a woman of enormous charm and sex appeal. I'll NEVER get tired of her.
|
08-09-12 11:24am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Claypaws (Suspended)
|
I do not know if this applies to Eufrat as I have never followed her. But most sites would buy a whole stack of photo sets from a photographer. A photographer does not hire a model and do one set of 50 pictures. He (or she) hires the model and shoots 5 to 10 sets. Or he hires her for two days when she is in the area and shoots 20 sets. If a site likes a model, I guess they might buy 3, 5 or 10 of those sets, or all 20. Some sites, like Nubiles, release their purchase over consecutive days. Others drag out the release over weeks, months or years. I would need to examine MET sets very carefully to see if sets released a year apart show any evidence of having been shot at different times. Have you ever seen any exif data in a MET set?
Of course, there are some very successful internet models, and Eufrat is probably one of those, Sophie Moone is another, whose careers go on for many years. They will be hired for multishoot sets repeatedly and you will see material shot years apart.
All I am saying is that things are not necessarily what they seem. Sites like to give the impression that they maintain a relationship with the models over years. Maybe they do with some. But I bet there are very few of those.
|
08-09-12 12:25pm
Reply To Message
|
5
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
REPLY TO #4 - Claypaws :
I was merely trying to make a comment (and joke) that a few models barely seem to age over a period of 5 years or more. Most models do age quite noticeably once they are no longer teenagers.
But your explanation of a photographer shooting multiple sets of a particular model and then those sets being posted over a long period of time seems reasonable.
Occasionally I will find a new set of a model I like, and realize it was photographed years ago, because the model appears so much like she did when she was just starting out. The posting date of the set might be recent, but the set was photographed much earlier. That is different from when a site re-dates a set because they are trying to show they are posting new content, which is a lie.
When sites give a content date, that should normally mean the date the content was first posted at that site.
But even here, it's not always simple. Because some sites, when they give an updated version of some content, because it's in higher resolution or some other form of improved version, will re-date that content to the date it's currently posted.
I feel like a dog chasing its own tail.
I admire your way with words. Clear and to the point.
|
08-09-12 06:05pm
Reply To Message
|
6
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
REPLY TO #4 - Claypaws :
"Have you ever seen any exif data in a MET set?"
I'm not technically inclined.
I look at a photo (or video) and see whether I enjoy it or not. I pay very little attention to the technical specifications, although I do realize they can have an impact on my enjoyment.
I usually like photos that are clear and in focus. The same with videos.
|
08-09-12 06:14pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
REPLY TO #4 - Claypaws :
Excellent point about sets being released over the course of years. Sometimes you can pinpoint the date of a shoot by body modification - for instance, Kate of Kate's Playground, had a piercing in her back that became infected, had to be removed and she had a small, but easily visible, scar there after the piercing was removed. So the "before" and "after" were easy to identify, but sets with the piercing were released, mixed with post-piercing sets, over a long period of time.
|
08-09-12 06:29pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
Capn (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - PinkPanther :
Yes, that is the crux of it.
Release or re-release date has no bearing on actually how old the material is. As CP says, it depends on when, where & how much material was shot & the websites' publication policy & schedule.
Cap'n. :0)
|
08-10-12 06:31am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Claypaws (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #5 - lk2fireone :
I realised you were making an amusing point but I took the opportunity to respond with a serious one. Some models do appear to defy aging, it is true. There probably is not a great amount of noticeable change in a fit woman between ages 21 and 26, which is possibly the age group most models fall into, even the "18 year-olds". And I also suppose that the ones who become very well known and successful also get very good at applying makeup which is inconspicuous yet covers blemishes and any minor signs of aging.
I hope these words too are clear. Thank you for the compliment.
|
08-10-12 07:33am
Reply To Message
|
10
|
Claypaws (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #7 - PinkPanther :
Those body modifications can often resolve controversies over model identities too. Sometimes a model changes her hair colour and style, gains or loses weight and wears very different makeup. Since models appear under many different names, some distinctive tattoo, piercing or scar can sometimes be the only way to be certain she is the same person. It is sad when one can distinguish by means of pre- or post-boob-job.
Your described mix of pre- and post-piercing sets is an interesting example of where the model can be identified without the distinctive feature but where the change in feature dates the sets.
|
08-10-12 07:40am
Reply To Message
|
11
|
Claypaws (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #6 - lk2fireone :
Clear and in focus is what I like too :-) It is infuriating how often neither of those is achieved.
The exif data can be a useful learning aid to determining what might have influenced those properties.
My point about not having seen any exif data on MET sets is that exif data can also identify date of shooting. It is far easier to remove exif data than to alter it and sites could get into very deep water if they altered an exif shooting date to a more recent value. Hence, if exif data is present, I trust its validity. But sites may have perfectly honourable motives or causes for its removal and I am not suggesting that so doing implies any element of deception.
|
08-10-12 07:51am
Reply To Message
|
