| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
WeeWillyWinky (0)
|
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 To Message
|
2
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
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 To Message
|
3
|
LPee23 (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - Drooler :
Not all photos of a given resolution are the same. For example, for a grainy and poorly lit photo, the resolution could be 3000x5000, and it would still suck. At the same time, I still appreciate the best photos from over a decade ago that were shot skillfully and released in 600x900.
To their credit, ITC makes good use of 2400x1800. Their photos are sharp, the subject is in focus, there is no grainyness, and they are well lit. They generally go for a high depth of field too to get the entire model in focus, and they go to the wide angle lens more often than most sites.
They are all about the close-up, and they do a good job at 2400x1800. The obvious next step for them as a leading "close-up site" it to up the resolution. I can't wait for the day I see 3000x5000 on ITC!
|
09-15-15 05:13pm
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #3 - LPee23 :
A site cannot predict what one user or another would like to see in closeup, so having a higher available resolution allows the user to do his own. I personally like to zoom in on the model's face in some shots, and elsewhere in others. 3000x5000 at ITC would certainly be welcome and would only play to its strengths.
|
09-16-15 01:05pm
Reply To Message
|
5
|
LPee23 (0)
|
REPLY TO #4 - Drooler :
Couldn't agree more, I too would love to zoom in more on some of those shots.
|
09-16-15 06:37pm
Reply To Message
|
