egafd.com

Here are some pictures I've grabbed for
Rachel [2] (see also profile on iafd). They are low quality because they come from analog TV recordings.

First set - 8 pics from "Ludivine":
[IMG]http://img178.imagevenue.com/loc375/th_88080_Rachel_Ludivine_1_122_375lo.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://img294.imagevenue.com/loc343/th_88080_Rachel_Ludivine_2_122_343lo.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://img12.imagevenue.com/loc589/th_88081_Rachel_Ludivine_3_122_589lo.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://img202.imagevenue.com/loc474/th_88082_Rachel_Ludivine_4_122_474lo.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img139.imagevenue.com/loc456/th_88082_Rachel_Ludivine_5_122_456lo.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://img28.imagevenue.com/loc94/th_88083_Rachel_Ludivine_6_122_94lo.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://img159.imagevenue.com/loc509/th_88084_Rachel_Ludivine_7_122_509lo.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img240.imagevenue.com/loc336/th_88085_Rachel_Ludivine_8_122_336lo.jpg[/IMG]

Second set - 3 pics from "Disco Sex":
[IMG]http://img146.imagevenue.com/loc195/th_00762_Rachel_Discosex_1_123_195lo.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://img282.imagevenue.com/loc497/th_00762_Rachel_Discosex_2_123_497lo.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://img152.imagevenue.com/loc233/th_00766_Rachel_Discosex_3_123_233lo.jpg[/IMG]

Thanks, but most of those images are too poor-quality.
I've added one of them from Ludivine, and some stills.

Well, I beg to disagree !wink! about the "too poor" qualifier, as I find the pics acceptable compared to downsized stills from official sites, or downsized digital-quality film screen shots. I thought more than one of my pics would at least be better than nothing but apparently I was wrong; so from now on it will be less work for me.

Anyway, I think it would be good to have something about image quality in the FAQ, and something about adding pictures taken/derived from other sites. For now it's not clear what is acceptable or not. Thanks.

Bernie112 wrote:
> Well, I beg to disagree !wink! about the "too poor" qualifier,
... although even you yourself described them as "low quality"?


> I thought more than one of my pics would at least be better
> than nothing but apparently I was wrong; so from now on it will
> be less work for me.
I'm sorry you feel offended. If you were sitting in MY chair you'd soon
develop a much thicker skin : -)) If it's any consolation I'm even more
ruthless with caps of my own making - I've been at it for 15 years and even
now 90% of them don't make the final cut. For a first try, 'one cap in' is not
that bad a score !!
The 'better than nothing' rationale does often apply - e.g. in the case of
70s or 80s stuff shot on film and pretty much impossible to obtain in good
quality, where basically we have to be grateful for anything we can get.
This is not usually the case with more recent performers, and I made the
judgment that it is likely that better-quality sources will exist to provide
'live' caps for Rachel. Those I've added are very much in the way of a
'holding action' pending such turning up....


> Anyway, I think it would be good to have something about image
> quality in the FAQ, and something about adding pictures
> taken/derived from other sites. For now it's not clear what is
> acceptable or not.
I agree entirely. However, there are so many variables that it would be
quite hard to frame any such criteria in a brief paragraph. In addition, each
admin will have a slightly different view of the criteria: for example I am
generally unhappy about using 'stock shots' from photosets, preferring caps
taken from listed films, even where these are [as they will tend to be] of
somewhat poorer quality.
This is why I described the pics I have added as a 'holding action'. In my
view, however pretty photo-shrinks may be, they are no substitute for caps
taken from the actual films. The overarching aim [again, from my personal
point of view] is that each gallery should ideally portray a range of angles
and physical characteristics such as moles/tattoos, from all stages of a
perf's film-career, in such a way as to present a 'gestalt' feel for the girl.
Easy [well, fairly easy] to say: much harder to achieve in practice.
The issues I have with photosets include: the girls are generally more heavily
made-up, obscuring identifying-marks like moles; the hairdos etc. are often
unrepresentative of a girl's actual appearance in her films; and the shots
may not be contemporaneous with her film-career.
Even though I've tried to choose the most 'normative' shots I could locate
at short notice, it is obvious that the pics I've added from photosets are not
greatly like Rachel's appearance in her films. But for the moment I feel the
quality issue trumps the sourcing one.

... I've now added some movie-caps.

The copy of Ludivine that I used is considerably darker than yours seemed
to be; while this makes capping extra-difficult it does mean that when the
caps are manipulated for colour-balance they are less diffuse with somewhat
sharper definition. IMO they're slightly better than yours - which is entirely
a reflection of the source-material and certainly no criticism of your efforts.

Thanks very much for all those explanations, they make a lot of sense, especially those about pics from films vs photosets.

I'll try to find better quality sources for my future contributions. I guess any source is okay, as long as due credits are given, is it?

Bernie112 wrote:
> I'll try to find better quality sources for my future contributions.
We look forward to seeing them : -)

> I guess any source is okay, as long as due credits are given, is it?
In general, yes - but as you've discovered, there are always exceptions 0 -)

A j b root or explicite blog the most likely source of quality
pics/screenshots that you wont find googling

Pure luck finding them

Though google.fr may prove different

Bg Gg pics from explicite







ps

change of name almost imminent..lol


[IMG]http://thumbnails110.imagebam.com/38733/83b789387329448.jpg[/IMG]