Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
There's 50 bazillion pictures on this site, why worry about any of this, I've had pictures taken down for one reason or another. get over it! If you want this picture save it on you computer for your own needs.
This site is so inconsistent with which post it deletes and not ….have posted several pics from the same photoshoot /source and some stay and some get taken down
looking at your deleted post history i just see a bunch of posts from pay sites
if you're concerned about this particular instance spread out the uploads. spamming multi images of the same woman is, as above, strongly discouraged but since everyone seems to be concerned about points all that does is water down points too
Was curious as to why the the below shot of Emiliana Guerra Latouche was not approved when a video from the same photo shoot was allowed. I grant that the video shows off her upper body to much greater effect, given both the skimpier outfit and the curls she's doing, but I figured her thighs were sufficiently impressive in the photo to make the cut, and she's just so adorable! :-) I assume it wasn't ruled out for the shameless plug, as three other pictures that made it through had the same issue. In any event, thanks for the reconsideration, and any feedback you could give would be appreciated.
Generally if there is a video source I don’t think it’s necessary to post stills of the video. Sometimes it becomes a bit runaway and there are multiple stills from the same video—so the source is enough!
Also remember even if a model is muscular, not every photo is going to present her in the best way. For this reason focus on the pictures that best represent the best muscular side of a model, rather than trying to simply post every possible image of her.
Also, as images go through the queue we get numb to images that are borderline and simply reject. If an image take more than 5-10 seconds to decide whether its worth posting or accepting, then it probably isn't.
Well, the picture isn't actually from the video, they were just taken at the same event (as noted, she's wearing a different top in the video). Also, precisely because she is so petite and adorable, I was very careful to try to pick shots and videos that emphasize her strength, so that it wouldn't be thought that I was just putting her in because she's cute. This is also the only time I submitted two things from the same shoot, because I thought this shot showed off very well the juxtaposition between the cuteness and the strength; I, at least find that contrast very attractive, and it hits me particularly hard with her for some reason, and thought others might feel the same. Oh well, I shall accept the judgment; thanks for the feedback.
This pic I uploaded was just deleted because of 'Image report: HerBiceps'. Of course I was aware it's from HerBiceps, because it's under the pic. But as Chainer once said:
With HerBiceps specifically, we have a little leeway because they have authorized us to post small samples of their work (and certainly images that are already available for free on model instagrams would qualify).
This pic was posted by HerBiceps themselves on Instagram. What I'm looking for is the criteria for the 'small samples'. I think this is a really nice picture, with clearly visible muscles, with a girl that has just a few pics on this site. It really stands out. What more would you want?
I will restore this one—seems theyve updated their style guide a bit but I can see why off the cuff this looks like it was pulled from the site.
Generally we ask people to source the image as the first comment so it doesn’t get flagged by a user or one of us
I will restore this one—seems theyve updated their style guide a bit but I can see why off the cuff this looks like it was pulled from the site.
Thanks!
Generally we ask people to source the image as the first comment so it doesn’t get flagged by a user or one of us
I try to, but sometimes I forget...
Which is fine j think. It’s mainly just to keep people from posting entire albums from pay sites which is the main issue.
I had a few images of Lora Ottenad deleted weeks after they were posted for claims of cropped watermarks. Just wondering if you know what the watermark was. I don't crop watermarks and now only pull from social media, not now ever have I pulled anything off of paysites. I'm just really interested to know where these came from out of curiosity, because they are rather poorly done if shot professionally. here's one of the pics....
Thanks Guys
A simple google image search could have answered that (there are browser addons you can get so you don't even have to go to the google images page, you just right-click on the image and select to search for it).
https://www.instagram.com/p/CZuAf4Wr620/
This pic was deleted for being a morph. As you can see, it's straight from Jodie Engle's Instagram, without a hint in the caption of it being morphed. Which isn't always 100% proof, I know. But in this case, when I compare this pic with other pics of Jodie and Ivie, the muscles don't seem incredibly big.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CZuAf4Wr620/
without a hint in the caption of it being morphed
Oh yeah, because people always openly admit that they are manipulating/morphing their pictures...
Just take a closer look at the black lines of that cabinet. They are clearly not straight around her shoulders and biceps. Same for the black lines around her right quad to waist.
@corp31 If you're uprezzing them yourself which you appear to have been doing for some, then no, that's not particularly valued, just upload the originals.