World-Class Nudes
- Thread starter wmonbear
- Start date
1621 A
Prod3
Expect Nothing and Appreciate Everything
#1601A is the same resolution as the Jana Irrova picture (1601G) you approved at 72 dpi. Admittedly it is not as clear as some pictures, and older pictures are of a lesser quality like I explained when I posted all those pictures, which you can't help because of photo technology back then. Does this mean a lot of older pictures will not qualify, even though they may be very very nice and are sexy pictures that people want to see in the competition?
It seems a shame that they would be disregarded because of lesser clarity and quality even though these older images may be popular and sexy!
Yeah, reluctantly, I did approve 1601G (subpar image quality as well)... another borderline/judgement call.
However, comparing the two pics in question, I find the 1601G image a bit sharper, overall, than 1601A.
Disagree that 1601G's problem is due to outdated photo technology. I think it's just happens to be a bad copy.
There's plenty of vintage/classic pics from the 40's and 50's, for example, that have surprisingly good photo resolution.
On the other hand, there's also many great vintage pics that are unfit for this competition due to either small size or low resolution (i.e., pixelation).
The bottom line is... pics should be submitted [and qualified] based on having a "reasonable" chance at HOF status via a tournament title or medal.
ps: looked far and wide for a better version of 1601A, but with no luck.
Last edited:
gmase
Nattering Nabob of Negativism
Yeah, reluctantly, I did approve 1601G (subpar image quality as well)... another borderline/judgement call.
However, comparing the two pics in question, I find the 1601G image a bit sharper, overall, than 1601A.
Disagree that 1601G's problem is due to outdated photo technology. I think it's just happens to be a bad copy.
There's plenty of vintage/classic pics from the 40's and 50's, for example, that have surprisingly good photo resolution.
On the other hand, there's also many great vintage pics that are unfit for this competition due to either small size or low resolution (i.e., pixelation).
The bottom line is... pics should be submitted [and qualified] based on having a "reasonable" chance at HOF status via a tournament title or medal.
ps: looked far and wide for a better version of 1601A, but with no luck.
Correction: I meant 1601A.
I agree, it's unfortunate and frustrating.
Over the years, I've come across a number of potential HOF-worthy pics that were simply inadmissible because of size or quality shortcomings.
Comes with the territory, I suppose.
Been doing this "tournament thing" seriously for 11 years now, and it's only occurred to me just recently that Shay Laren deserves to be in my Top 3 all-time
for nude-glamour models. Her sweet face, voluptuous/killer bod, and massive portfolio, positions her in exclusive company with such legends as
Dasha Astafieva and Veronika Zemanova.
Yes, this is another
for #1627. 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Prod3
Expect Nothing and Appreciate Everything
I agree, it's unfortunate and frustrating.
Over the years, I've come across a number of potential HOF-worthy pics that were simply inadmissible because of size or quality shortcomings.
Comes with the territory, I suppose.
Yeah, it is a shame about some of the older pics and lack of quality which can't be helped for whatever reason., I do also understand about some of those pics I posted up.
Generally I try to look past the quality of an image if I can if it is visually very nice, unless it is obvious it's not going to cut the mustard!
