posted
I noticed on the site's faq it says the photographer uses a 6.3 mega-pixel Fuji FinePix S7000. What's the point of using a 6.3 megapixel camera when all the pics on the site are sub 1 megapixel. Judging from the free preview pics I've seen on the Wus, the photography is great and the girls are nice, but the quality is severely lacking. I think you guys should start pumping out at least 3 megapixel photoshoots. I wouldn't mind paying a higher subscription fee for it.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The generous 6.3 Megapixel output of the S7000 is capturing images over twice the size of a 3 Megapixel camera, which is part of the reason for the images on this site being so clean, clear and outstanding.
In the case of Fuji cameras (and this one in particular), the 6.3 MP size is not always the definitive output - through use of interpolation, the camera is capable of an output of over twice the advertised size. In this case, over 12 Megapixels. Fuji's method of interpolation actually attempts to mimic film qualities - and they do a great job of it.
It is worth considering that the "sub 1 megapixel" size you refer to has no actual bearing on (and is not a result of) the capabilities of the camera used for the photo set or site. It's the simple practicality of publishing a usable image to the web. The sub 1 megapixel photos you've seen were intentionally resized for easy and proper viewing on a conventional computer monitor, and also to be "forum friendly"; easy to view and quick to load on your screen.
If you take a photo with a 5 or 6 megapixel camera and publish that to the web without resizing, the image will not be viewable on your screen - you'd have to scroll for several minutes (to the right, then down, back and forth) to then view small portions of the image as they filled your screen; but you'd never be seeing the full image, only small parts of it, one at a time. This is why the photos you see have been resized to "sub 1 megapixel" before being published to the site (or to Wu's forums).
Although it's not completely clear - from what you've said, you are basing your judgements on the free preview photographs in the forums (please correct me if I'm mistaken on this). You should know that as a subscriber to the site, you would not be limited to the size, selection or quality of the free preview photos. Paid subscription opens up a whole new world of great variety, larger file sizes, ultra-abundant content and other bonuses, benefits and privaleges.
As to the quality being "severely lacking", I'm at a loss to understand this. Although I am not affiliated with this site in any way, I'd be very interested in knowing what sites are less lacking in any respect; so that I may understand the level or standard to which this site is being held.
Over the years, I've held paid memberships to at least twenty or thirty foot sites (seen many come and go). I've had a few non-pay sites of my own, and done some personal and professional (commissioned shoots) photography as well. From this vantage point, I'm unable to find areas of "Soles of Silk" to be lacking and particularly when set in juxtaposition with many of the other subscriber-based sites. The photography is sterling, the girls are fantastic and the content is outstanding.
Once you've begun enjoying the pleasures of your first month's paid membership, I am certain you will find all of this to be true.
[ October 05, 2008, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Ben Del Amitri ]
-------------------- Respectfully,
Ben
Malory in Signature Posts: 5772 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As of August 16, 2006 all photos on Soles of Silk are now 1024 x 768.
This is extremely low resolution. I just think if the guy uses a 6.3 megapixel camera he should take 6.3 megapixel pictures and put them up on the site. Instead you get tiny 1024x768 pics. I understand that could potentially cause bandwidth problems, but at least he could make the pics 3 or 4 megapixels and I wouldn't mind a raise in the subscription fee. According to the site, the fee is currently only $14.99 anyways.
When I said the quality is extremely lacking, I am only talking about the picture quality. The photography itself is nice, just the picture quality is lacking. Some other sites I think that are less lacking would be Scandinavianfeet and Californiabeachfeet.
I don't what kind of computer you use Ben, but it sounds like you're using an extremely slow and outdated computer coupled with a 15" inch monitor if it takes several minutes for you scroll and you can only see small portions of the image. It's true that 5 or 6 megapixel images cannot be displayed in it's entirety, but they can scrolled quickly and you can view large portions of the image if your're using a decent computer. I'm not even asking for that much anyways, even 3 or 4 megapixels would be good. Also, a big thing to note is that large images can be resized by your browser or photo software to fit your screen so everybody wins. On the other hand small images cannot be enlarged without losing a lot of quality. Technology moves quickly and bigger screens are becoming more popular. So in a way, having bigger pictures is more future proof.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The photos straight off the camera are 4048 x 3040 and over 5MB in size. I keep the images to the smaller scale so they're pretty much loaded to the size I want them viewed in. If I wanted people to look at a close up of a toepad, I'd take a close up of the toepad. Plus, with the photos that size, it doesn't really look all that crisp unless shrunk down anyhow - so why post them so you can see them in this manner? Until I get camera equipment that matches those sites you speak of, then I'll keep going with what I have been working with thus far.
posted
Over 5MB? that's crazy high. Some of the largest pics at cbf are around 4200x2800 and they're only 1.3MB. What about something lower like 2048×1536, that will be a decent compromise.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FIASCo: Well said, Ben. The sizes Patrick posts are are just fine for Internet viewing.
Agreed on both points. If customer demands higher resolution (and the current content provider is unable), then the customer should become a content provider.
-------------------- Matt C. Nolan Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FIASCo: Well said, Ben. The sizes Patrick posts are are just fine for Internet viewing.
Absolutely. What's interesting is that this individual first complains about the resolution / file size being too low - and when given an answer, he then replies it is TOO HIGH:
"Over 5MB? that's crazy high. Some of the largest pics at cbf are around 4200x2800 and they're only 1.3MB."
Then he goes on to suggest a "compromise" - very kind of him to do so, and to set the webmasters straight on this.
quote:Originally posted by MC Nolan:
quote:Originally posted by FIASCo: Well said, Ben. The sizes Patrick posts are are just fine for Internet viewing.
Agreed on both points. If customer demands higher resolution (and the current content provider is unable), then the customer should become a content provider.
You are correct on this! If a CUSTOMER demands higher resolution ... but in this case, it's not even a customer - people like this find it easy to find fault with subscription-based sites and content providers, yet never actually PAY for (or subscribe to) anything.
Quite simply - any content provider who survives for more than a year in this business is doing something right (a couple hundred things right, actually), and probably has a pretty good handle on things. Why in the world should anybody other than they, decide what's good for somebody else's subscriber base? Much less some random poster, who's never hosted, subscribed to or held a paid membership in it (or any other)?
-------------------- Respectfully,
Ben
Malory in Signature Posts: 5772 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey guys. I don't want this to be an arguement thread. I appreciate any and all feedback that is intelligent and his was. I wish they'd be in the form of an email at times, but it doesn't matter.
I actually made the images slightly larger, but nothing as high as CBF. He operates a much higher end HD camera than I do and he'd be foolish not to utilize the camera's ability. Maybe one day I'll splurge on a camera like that, but it's not going to happen with my current need to save some cash.
I actually made the images slightly larger, but nothing as high as CBF. He operates a much higher end HD camera than I do and he'd be foolish not to utilize the camera's ability.
Not just the camera. That guy's glass (lenses) is from another world. It has to be over $7K easy.
I personally love big photos myself but heck, its not like I can go to one of the online print services and order a poster sized print of Layla with popcorn butter dripping off of her toes. Honestly, I asked Mommie Dearest for just one, but I don't push her on it, left the decision to her. Like Ben and others said, providing these big photos is merely a business decision based on demand. That is truly what that added resolution. Alot of people feature bigger pictures, yet they don't have the knack for composition, lighting, and exposure that Patrick has.
One recommendation for you though Hecil. Check out one of two programs: Genuine Fractals from On One Software or Alien Skin's Blowup 2. Trust me, you will forget about wanting big photos. You can do it yourself and all you need is Photoshop Elements. I'd PM you on this Hecil, but I figure more might have the same question.
Oops..I had to edit my post. I guess I am a hypocrite. My avatar is from a CBF model but its low rez . I'll update with something else.
posted
Patrick, you'll get no argument from me whatever you decide. I think the size of your pictures was just fine, but I'm sure you know what resolution is best-suited for your work.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cry]](cry.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. I'll update with something else.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
