Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Polls Daily polls where users can vote and give their opinion!

If you discard certain pics from zip files, what's the main reason?

Type: General

Submitted by Drooler (220)
poor lighting 2% 1 Votes
blurriness 22% 11 Votes
cropped model (head, ass ...) 18% 9 Votes
unappealing poses 33% 16 Votes
bad facial expressions 6% 3 Votes
other (please explain) 18% 9 Votes

Reply to Poll
Register to Vote!

49 Votes Total

Jan 14, 2008

Poll Replies (13)

Replies to the user poll above.

Msg # User Message Date


jd1961 (95) Repetitive gynecological closeups are something I delete.
01-14-08  12:37am

Reply To Message


asmith12 (124) As I'm a video kind of person, I never do it :-).
01-14-08  09:45am

Reply To Message


Toadsith (48) Rarely do I have to trim photos from a set - but if I do it is almost exclusively for some mistake on the part of the photographer - entirely out of focus, unintentional motion blur, ridiculously bad lighting / excessive grain (think ISO 4 Billion), or if a position they've thrown the model in is really, really unbecoming. There are some poses that would require the model to be literally anorexic to sit in and not have a beer belly look going on. Bend a primate enough ways and eventually you'll get a beer gut, it is basic physiology.

In generally I don't edit out too much because, for one - I'm lazy, and also you might screw up the continuity of the set a bit. I will occasionally Photoshop photos to remove really bad zits or scars and that sort of thing, being that I use Photoshop professionally it only takes me a few seconds to do that and it makes the models look more like the "perfect" creatures that they are supposed to be.

Due to me being able to modify photos in such a manner, I hate when sites jump the gun on using Photoshop and "fix-up" the photos but do a really shitty job of it (like using the blur tool all over the model's face). It makes them look like they have cellophane for skin. I'd take the imperfect human look over the creepy android look any day.

01-14-08  12:48pm

Reply To Message


Drooler (220) Blurriness is my #1 reason, or at least so I think. But everything else in the list is just about as important, along with repetitive poses, poor retouching, most poses with toys, and the wiping on of oil, whipped creme, chocolate sauce, or any other "smearable" substance.

I do go through every photoset at least once and weed out the less appealing pics. Actually, I didn't use to that much, but now my hard drive is filling up and I have to keep bailing for the moment. (Looking for a good 500G drive.)

Anyway, I want this poll to be making a point about such things as are considered negatives in photosets, both from the limited list of poll items and the additional comments in the replies.

01-14-08  03:37pm

Reply To Message


RagingBuddhist (65) 1. Poorly lit, blurry and/or poor resolution shots

2. Abnormal skin tones - especially those ridiculous orange ones

3. Repetitive shots
a. When the first 20 or so have the model clothed
b. Sequences shot with a motor drive.

4. Closeup shots of a tattoo, a piercing or just about any "bodily anomaly" (for lack of a better phrase at the moment)

5. Shots where the photographer seemed to run out of ways to be creative and played with just plain weird camera angles, or messed with filters - especially the very 70's-like vaseline on the lens

01-14-08  04:11pm

Reply To Message


Pinche Kankun (Disabled) REPLY TO #1 - jd1961 :

Well put, man!! Observing coochie is my favorite passtime but this is rediculous! :D
01-14-08  07:04pm

Reply To Message


Pinche Kankun (Disabled) IF I answered this question my way, I will get so denied!! :D

However, the only zip files I deal with involves a girl's pants!!! :D

01-14-08  07:07pm

Reply To Message


nygiants03 (162) Def. blurriness.
01-14-08  07:38pm

Reply To Message


Thaeral (8) I'm currently in a video phase, but not too long ago I was very bourgeois with my image standards. So my past self would have wanted an "all of the above" option in this poll. Currently, I'll settle for unappealing poses as the most common reason these days.
01-14-08  11:04pm

Reply To Message


messmer (137) All of the above. A personal idiosyncrasy: I much prefer "landscape" type images and will usually delete "portrait" style pics unless they are essential to the continuity of a set. That leaves a lot of sets undownloaded because most sites/photographers seem to like Portrait style.
01-15-08  10:58am

Reply To Message


SnowDude (214) While blurry images will always get thrown in the recycle bin, I chose unappealing poses. There are just some things I don't want or need to see like in depth gyno shots, so I'll delete them even from sets I otherwise like.
01-22-08  01:39pm

Reply To Message


badandy400 (103) I do not delete anything. It take time to delete the ones you dont like, and takes from time to enjoy the ones you do like. Besides you never know when you might wish you still had that picture, and hard drives are not THAT expensive anymore!
03-05-08  01:32pm

Reply To Message


indybt30 (6) I just keep the ones I like and delete redundant photos as well. I think in the back of my mind it makes me feel like I am saving space on my hard drive.
06-07-08  06:08pm

Reply To Message

*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.

Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.


To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.

Loaded in 0.02 seconds.