Make your hosted galleries like Phil-Flash
 

Why can't more sponsors make their hosted galleries like Phil-flash?

The pictures in his galleries are high-res originals unlike the ones I have seen in most other galleries.

I have looked at the hosted galleries from Felixflow, FTVCash, Spunkycash, Dutchteencash....

And they just don't compare. Their pictures are fuzzy low res copies. Isn't the point to entice the surfers?

Or maybe Phil-flash is giving too much away in his galleries? I don't know. I am just a newbie at this game. But, all I know is that Phil-flash galleries give me a boner, the other ones don't.

If was a surfer I would be more likely to sign up to his sites than some of the others...

I agree. I started with 640x480's of the original full sized images for my galleries, but about halfway through I switched to full sized images and noticed more conversions. I wasn't running up against overage cost, so why not?

600x800 is enough for hosted galleries. The "idea" is to get them to click through to the site where they can see the real images, not to jerk off to the gallery. Having a sample of the full size image on the tour is one thing, having 15 or more on a gallery just does not make sense in the BW department.

I've never understood sponsors that use huge images on their hosted galls. Money to burn on BW I guess. Not knocking it and I've even tried ot for 90 days, but I just have never see it make a difference other then the amount of the server bill each month.

More power to them I guess.

:)

How does the surfer know that the quality of the images in the member's area is better? Sometimes there are full size samples hidden away on the tour, most often there don't seem to be any.

All you have to do is say so on the gallery and/or tour. You could also have 3 or 4 of your thumbs labelled as "members area quality" and have them go to the full size pics.

100% agree, whats the point of hosted galleries that dont convert?

The Phil-Flash FHGs are with like 10 pics of hq-res.
Other sponsors might be with 15-20 pics of low-res.

So I dont think it would cost extra in b/w.

it definetly would. the pics on Phil-Flash's galleries are all around 250 KB. other hosted galleries are 50-80 KB.

yeah, then it would. But 50-80kb??
I mean, if HQ generates more sales, you also have to calculate the cost of lost sales if you are not using HQ.

Phil is the proof that is doesnt matter if youre the worst photographer in the world. If your girls are hot they will sell.
Phil always manages to make pics with 90% background and 10% subject haha.

either way, if you have a good host, the bandwith costs are pretty negligible. i was just pointing out that there is indeed a difference in cost.

and yeah, 50-80 KB. i've seen some as low as 25 KB, actually.

didnt see this so sorry for the late bump, weve got 600x800 hg, 16 pics each, some hg have on them the members quality is 1000x1500 but the sites have as well

the hg arent crappy lowres for sure take a look

http://www.dutchteengalleries.com/mma/10/index.shtml

approx 50-70kb, ours were fullsize as well, didnt convert better, but ill talk here and get the members size is 1000x1500 back on all galleries, good point thanks :thumbsup

I have had tgp's turn me down for using high res images...

so now i just keep the galleries at a kind of middle res.