Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
I can't speak for Chainer, but I see why he deleted your photo. It's far worse than Melinda's photo that you posted. In fact, I don't think there's anything wrong with Melinda's, while your photo of Annabell is not even viewable, in my opinion, because of the poor quality.
Yeah, Melinda's photo is of perfectly acceptable quality. The photo you posted is blurry, low res garbage. The woman in it is very attractive, mind you, but I wouldn't bother looking at the photographic equivalent of a 240p youtube video.
This is far from the first time that someone salty about their deleted pic has come to us finger pointing at another pic on the site ("how can you delete my pic but not this one??") but this might be the first time when the other image is actually quite a bit better...
I agree that there aren't many pics of Annabell Serfling on the site and as such, all else being equal, new uploads of her have more value than someone like Melinda Lindmark who already has tons of pics on here... That said, the upload manages to hit not just one, but two of the "discouraged" categories from the upload rules (low quality, onstage pic), so it should not come as a shock at all when it gets deleted.
The higher quality version of the same pic linked above by superiorgenetics seems fine.
I'm not a mod, I'm just a regular viewer of the site. So I'll give my assessment.
There is like 8 pixels in the first picture you posted. The resolution is of very poor quality. It is extremely hard to point out her muscles or face if the resolution is terrible. It probably had nothing to do with lighting, posing, or the woman herself. The difference is night and day with that pic and the Melinda picture you posted. It's like watching a YouTube video in 240p and comparing that to something that was shot in 4k.
PS. Here's a better quality version of the photo, maybe you can get this uploaded.
I could also run low res pics through an AI improver program to artificially increase quality but I believe that such pics are also not allowed on the site.
It's your website, and you can do what you wanna. I get it. And I deeply appreciate all the work you put in to making GWM one of my favorite sites. But (and I know you knew this was coming) I have to dispute some of your judgment calls.
I recently uploaded the photo below of Annabell Serfling, which was deleted after a couple of days (and a number of likes) for "poor quality." I knew when I posted it that the pic wasn't top notch, but it still clearly showed her muscle mass and definition. However, my decision was based on the fact that precious few pics of Serfling are available, and I think she'll be a breakout star on the bodybuilding scene. Until more and better photos become available, I thought, that picture would suffice.
In contrast, there are thousands of crummy photos at GWM that are far worse than the Serfling pic. Linked below is a photo of Melinda Lindmark (an amazing woman who apparently uses the world's most untalented photogs) that's an example of what I mean.
I just wish you would reach an equitable balance between your quest for perfection and what is actually possible.