Exactally what is quality On members area photos??? - GoFuckYourself.com

3xTom · 09-26-2009, 06:40 PM

Hey guys working on some new projects and rebuilding some of the old members areas and I have been hit with a pressing question. It seems that ALOT of review sites dont seem to think that 1024 x 768 is a high quality image anymore...

So my question is what constitutes high quality?

Is it the dimensions ( 1024x768 etc), Or is it the clarity/resolution of the image? Or a combination of the two? And if a combo.. what is the ideal?

Im also looking at displaying my photos in lightbox so members can view an individual image, advance one by one and or view as a slideshow.
Considering this.. What would be optimal dimensions of an image?

And if displaying in a lightbox instead of clicking to see the photo in your browser
is that a bad decision on a review site or anyone elses thoughts?

if you only offer a lightbox type of experience should we also offer downloadable zips as well at a higher quality?

Mind you we are trying to protect the content from downloads but in your opinions do you think this is a bad decision or does it offer the membership attractive choices?

I hope this makes sense..

AmeliaG · 09-26-2009, 07:44 PM

I think different review sites judge quality on different factors and it may come down to review to review differences, even on the same site, with different reviewers, some who care about 3000 pixel printable images and some who are looking at clarity and some who are appraising composition and artistry or whatever.

My members, on the other hand, tend to complain if any vertical image is more than 600 pixels wide by 800 or 900 high, because then most have to scroll and they hate that. A lightbox which allows custom sizing would somewhat address that, if a member could set the size they want, but large images resized down for viewing will always be a bit fuzzier.

Mutt · 09-26-2009, 08:00 PM

photo content on solo girl sites is and i think always will be as important or more important than video content UNLESS the model is doing hardcore. i got a fair number of complaints on Dawson Miller for the lack of a bigger image size - hers are 800x1200 px.

I think today the large size should be 1600 pixels.

On my new sites I'm giving them the full high resolution photos at 3500 pixels in a ZIP file, way too big to be used in gallery display. and I have added a Lightbox feature for surfing the galleries quickly and will use 800 pixels for the Lightbox display so not much scrolling for the majority of surfers whose monitors are at 1024x768 and 1280x800

Nautilus · 09-27-2009, 03:58 AM

We settled at 1000x1500 - which appears to be enough of a hi res for most users, and still viewable in a browser.

But having several options is still better I think - standard res (~700x1000) for lightbox, slide shows and quick viewing, hi res (~1000x1500) as a main gallery option, and super hi res (~3500) for closeups addicts.

Download protecting images is not necessary I believe, there's no photo tubes with massive traffic and there's no need to be harsh on members in this case (unlike video downloads that need to be pulled down in order to keep your stuff off the tubes).

09-26-2009, 06:40 PM	#1
3xTom Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,610	Exactally what is quality On members area photos??? Hey guys working on some new projects and rebuilding some of the old members areas and I have been hit with a pressing question. It seems that ALOT of review sites dont seem to think that 1024 x 768 is a high quality image anymore... So my question is what constitutes high quality? Is it the dimensions ( 1024x768 etc), Or is it the clarity/resolution of the image? Or a combination of the two? And if a combo.. what is the ideal? Im also looking at displaying my photos in lightbox so members can view an individual image, advance one by one and or view as a slideshow. Considering this.. What would be optimal dimensions of an image? And if displaying in a lightbox instead of clicking to see the photo in your browser is that a bad decision on a review site or anyone elses thoughts? if you only offer a lightbox type of experience should we also offer downloadable zips as well at a higher quality? Mind you we are trying to protect the content from downloads but in your opinions do you think this is a bad decision or does it offer the membership attractive choices? I hope this makes sense..

09-26-2009, 07:44 PM	#2
AmeliaG Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 10,563	I think different review sites judge quality on different factors and it may come down to review to review differences, even on the same site, with different reviewers, some who care about 3000 pixel printable images and some who are looking at clarity and some who are appraising composition and artistry or whatever. My members, on the other hand, tend to complain if any vertical image is more than 600 pixels wide by 800 or 900 high, because then most have to scroll and they hate that. A lightbox which allows custom sizing would somewhat address that, if a member could set the size they want, but large images resized down for viewing will always be a bit fuzzier. __________________ GFY Hall of Famer AltStar Hall of Famer Blue Blood's SpookyCash.com Babe photography portfolio

09-26-2009, 08:00 PM	#3
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	photo content on solo girl sites is and i think always will be as important or more important than video content UNLESS the model is doing hardcore. i got a fair number of complaints on Dawson Miller for the lack of a bigger image size - hers are 800x1200 px. I think today the large size should be 1600 pixels. On my new sites I'm giving them the full high resolution photos at 3500 pixels in a ZIP file, way too big to be used in gallery display. and I have added a Lightbox feature for surfing the galleries quickly and will use 800 pixels for the Lightbox display so not much scrolling for the majority of surfers whose monitors are at 1024x768 and 1280x800 __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

09-27-2009, 03:58 AM	#4
Nautilus Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,631	We settled at 1000x1500 - which appears to be enough of a hi res for most users, and still viewable in a browser. But having several options is still better I think - standard res (~700x1000) for lightbox, slide shows and quick viewing, hi res (~1000x1500) as a main gallery option, and super hi res (~3500) for closeups addicts. Download protecting images is not necessary I believe, there's no photo tubes with massive traffic and there's no need to be harsh on members in this case (unlike video downloads that need to be pulled down in order to keep your stuff off the tubes). __________________ . . FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote \| 100K+ FHGs \| Check recently added galleries New sites \| Pantyhose \| Nylon \| Shemale \| Strapon \| Lesbian \| Mature/MILF \| Anal \| Old&Young \| Gay \| Feet Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog\| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2) Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password. ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com