Photography: getting her to pose?

[Member #4312]

Tell me what you think. Should I share?

[GatorNation11]

One of the few times I liked tats on a girl. Looked great with her body.

[GatorNation11]

Thought she looked better the 2nd time.

[GatorNation11]

My fresh 19 year old.

[Skiper]

Great rack

I like it! I was hoping for that one Mahem girl who disappeared on you. I'm still looking for the little "Fox" at the Royal Palm too. I thought I saw her today up by the post office but I'm not sure it was her.

[GatorNation11]

Great rack

[GatorNation11]

Love redheads.

[GatorNation11]

Sweet girl

[GatorNation11]

Can't believe I never saw this board before but nice work. I'm a senior from Tampa, if you read the board you probably know who, but just made a new account so no one that searches my main handle will find your little honey hole here. Been dealing with so many headaches from posting pics on the main board so hope you all don't mind me posting them here.

[Richmond Fotog]

VBulletin software optimizes images posted in these forums.

http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/forum

The images are optimized to reduce bandwidth, load and storage for the site.

If you scroll to the bottom of the forum here you can find out what version of the software is being used here and research that in the vBulletin forums.

It used to be explained in the photo guidelines here that images with a resolution over 600 pixels on the longest side were automatically reduced in size and compressed. The JPEG quality is also reduced to about 70. The guidelines here used to tell members to reduce the resolution of an image to no more than 600 pixels on the longest side of the image and compress the image to a JPEG quality of 70 before even posting an image here. The DPI also has to be 96 or less. A 300 DPI image may be great for printing, but it will be optimized by sites to 96 or less. One of the editors that used to be recommended is Infranview.

http://www.irfanview.com

VBulletin also suggests that people learn about image optimization on the link below. The image I linked here was optimized for the web using Photoshop Elements. It doesn't lose any quality until it gets below quality of 70. If you want to use the gallery here you have to learn how to deal with that. You could get a free gallery on deviantArt or any other site and just link it into your posts. That eliminates you from the guidelines and optimization.

This is the link vBulletin provides as a test for people to learn about site optimization.

http://tools.dynamicdrive.com/imageoptimizer/index.php

[Glockman]

What's the point with all the testing? Forum software reduces size and DPI. If your edit is good and saved for the web all you have to do is use an alternate posting source and post the direct link. Many free sites do this and you simply provide the direct link to the image.

http://s21.postimg.org/vqk1h7f53/AZ_Nude_295.jpg

I agree. Your post on the link is 1. 7M. 960x640, at a resolution of 96. A very nice shot. But that requires a direct link the post. I am trying to find the best combination for posting photos on the USASG site directly. This started a few months when I thought that the quality of my photos had deteriorated. In checking with my earlier posts, it seemed to be true. As far as I know, there has been no change made by USASG. The problem must be on my end. Many of my current posts look "lossy" and I am trying to minimize that. Cookyjar and I have discussed it. Still don't quite know what is going on. It seems to me that the forum software does not reduce size if the largest dimension is 600 pixils or less, but does reduce the image if the largest dimension is greater than 600 pixils. But my tests seem to show that the reduced dimension photos are better than when they are not reduced. Doesn't make sense, but that seems to be the case. Your thoughts. This seems to be as good a place as any to do my testing. I don't want to do it on my usual Memphis-Escort Review site. Maybe I should post in the photo techniques section. I think there may be an actual "test" forum, but I have not found it.

[Richmond Fotog]

What's the point with all the testing? Forum software reduces size and DPI. If your edit is good and saved for the web all you have to do is use an alternate posting source and post the direct link. Many free sites do this and you simply provide the direct link to the image.

http://s21.postimg.org/vqk1h7f53/AZ_Nude_295.jpg

Testing quality of resolution of saving photo on save for web function set to reduce photo to 200kb. How does it look? This is Sweet Sarah and Amber from Memphis from a recent session that was ended with some real hands on activity. Yeah, life is tuff!

[Glockman]

Still trying out various resolution-pixil combinations. This is Nicole, from Memphis. Uploaded at over 700kb but reduced to 61. 9kb Am curious to see how it looks on by large screen computer.

[Glockman]

Testing quality of resolution of saving photo on save for web function set to reduce photo to 200kb. How does it look? This is Sweet Sarah and Amber from Memphis from a recent session that was ended with some real hands on activity. Yeah, life is tuff!

[Glockman]

Four more of Tammy. The shots in the pool were taken at her house. For some of the pool shots, she put on a t-shirt and I poured water on it to get the wet t-shirt look. That was fun watching those nipples get hard under the cold water. Yes, it's a tuff tuff job. All of these shots were taken with my point and shoot Canon. She once told me that photo number 7 was her favorite because it got the most comments on her web page.