Erotic sites and poor quality of picture sets

Arbol01

Member
I am aware, that those people, who are responsible for the quality of the pictures, won't possibly read this. When i wrote poor quality, i don't think of models, i don't think of incapable photograher.
The Models are adorable and the photographer are adepts. What i think of is the format of the pictures, jpeg is a lossy format, the compression and subsequent size of memory.

I do not have a problem with pictures with 10 mb per picture. I have problems with jpeg-fragmets! I know that many user won't magnify their pictures on the computer. I do. I magnify to the labia, the eyes, the mouth and teeth. I have no problem with pimples and moles. Each vulva and labia of a woman is unique and a kind of flower (or prune). So i want to see it like on a real photo with the complete structure.

amourangels.com, showybeauty.com and teenpornstorage.com (they belongs somehow together) have nearly accaptable pictures, in packrate and memory size. Not so the most other sites. I found at metart.com sets with 10 mb per picture, but them are form nearly 2012, before Met-Art reconvert to pictures with 1.5 to 2.8 mb size.

So if one of the responsible from Met-Art, Nubiles, 18Eighteen and Naughtimag, Karups, ATK, Teenflood, Eyecandyavenue, ... read this: Change this!

I think either, that the size of pictures should be 4000x3000 pixel and greater. Even old sets deserve it to bring it in new, greater size.

Ther is a bad habit to photoshop pictures. Moles, pimples and warts are not usually beautyful. But a photoshoped picture is worse as a wart!
 

Arbol01

Member
No Title

I want to bring some examples:

This picture is relatively new. Met-Art, Model Aurmi, Serie Uomo, Picture number 40, 11th december of 2017.

I tortured that picture to bring the fragments good visible. The fragments are visible without treatment, but you have to look closely. You can see the Fragments in the eye, near the eye, on the teeth, on the neck and on the breast.

All these fragments are unnecessary. The picture needs 1.19mb Memory. With 4 to 5mb Memory, picturesize 4000x3000 pixel, as Met-Art used at till 2012.
 

Attachments

  • photo6722.jpg
    photo6722.jpg
    27.1 KB · Views: 1
  • photo6723.jpg
    photo6723.jpg
    64.5 KB · Views: 1
  • photo6724.jpg
    photo6724.jpg
    172.8 KB · Views: 1
  • photo6725.jpg
    photo6725.jpg
    215.8 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:

God

New member
i agree most of the photos today are dogshit . i see the same things you see , and there is no point in zooming in on any photo . i complained about this on metart (as a member) but nobody else seems to care , they just applaud and rate every set a 10 like idiots . the only way i see this changing is if the subscribers complain . this set is from 2006 and it looks way better than anything from metartnetwork in the past five years https://www.indexxx.com/set/86019/metart-tigra/
 
Top