Purestorm hp masthead...

Purestorm hp masthead...

18 posts
19 Nov 2014
OldMaster
Photographer
OldMaster
How many weeks have I been looking at the same ps masthead pictures? I would've thought that there must be new pictures added to the site everyday that are worthy of display? Possibly an indicator as to why so many are migrating to other sites?

Posted 19 Nov 2014
marlhamphoto
Photographer
marlhamphoto
I've just flicked through the image uploads as far back as 10th November and couldn't find anything that particularly jumped off the page as being any better than what's there already. So perhaps people just need to upload better images and maybe then the rotations will happen much more quickly
Posted 19 Nov 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
marlhamphoto

I've just flicked through the image uploads as far back as 10th November and couldn't find anything that particularly jumped off the page as being any better than what's there already. So perhaps people just need to upload better images and maybe then the rotations will happen much more quickly


Exactly.

I'd rather they left it alone than to simply be forced to upload stuff that's mediocre.
Posted 19 Nov 2014
Studio1
Photographer
Studio1
That's a very biased opinion stating that some images are mediocre, the poster who stated this is obviously saying that their images are the only way that images should be taken. All photographer's have their own style which should be accepted and shown. Therefore images should be rotated regularly to give credit to the photographers and models who take the time to take and upload images. 
Posted 19 Nov 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
RedChecker

Exactly.

I'd rather they left it alone than to simply be forced to upload stuff that's mediocre.


Mediocre?  laughwink

Posted 19 Nov 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Studio1

All photographer's have their own style which should be accepted and shown.


Thankfully the site's owners seem to think otherwise.

There's an awful lot of stuff that gets uploaded that could tarnish the image of the site and put people off visiting.  It was, afterall one of the reasons that Net-Model died as they allowed all images to be shown and a majority of them were cheap/sleazy GWC-style images that people really don't want to see or even be associated with (one photographer in particular joined there and simply flooded the image feed day-in, day-out with his crap/sleazy/reader's wives style images and ensured a rapid decline in membership).

Is it snobbery?  to a degree yes, I will admit that.
Is it justified?  Absolutely!
Posted 19 Nov 2014
Studio1
Photographer
Studio1
Why Thankfully? This is a very self opinionated comment. This means the site is favouring the few and not how it should be by showing diversity. The favoured few who always have images super glued on the main screen are obviously happy with the present arrangement. It may be time to remove this facility as it is not working and is to say the least extremely biased. Possibly bring in a paid facility so the photographers who feel they are so much above the lowly photographers could have this facility to themselves at a yearly fee of say £1000.00 and this would guarantee them total use of this facility. The original poster is correct in his comment that the images do not change very often and some keep reappearing week after week. Come on Purestorm get your act together and stop being biased and unprofessional and show a diversity of work by a lot more photographers.
 
Posted 19 Nov 2014
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictures
Though there is some amusement to the concept of allowing a free for all with images, for instance another site has a competition called AvsB which used to raise a smile in the brief period I was a member there ( hmm 'A' sleazy shit badly modelled and shot VS 'B' awkwardly posed snapshot of someone's auntie with her growler out?) I don't think it's clever to subject the inadvertent visitor to the worst of what passes as photography and modelling here. Let's at least cling to the notion that there are a few reliable models here who might be approached for a shoot if the hobbyist photographer has any spare cash and time. Every other notion is now somewhat diminished.

Posted 19 Nov 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Studio1

It may be time to remove this facility as it is not working
 


Says who?

I suggest you read my post again as to the reasons a free-for-all isn't a good idea.  The 'everone's a winner' attitude does nobody any favours in any walk of life.
Posted 19 Nov 2014
Edited by RedChecker 19 Nov 2014
Studio1
Photographer
Studio1
Said I and my opinion is as valid as the next. For some time there has been a bias to certain models and especially some photographers.
 
The original posters comments are still very accurate and correct and in my opinion this lack of variety could cause Purestom some issues.
 
This is my last comment on this issue and I still feel if Purestorm does not get its act together and by showing the same images day in day out it could do the site a lot of harm. 
Posted 19 Nov 2014
marlhamphoto
Photographer
marlhamphoto
Let's face it - the bar for getting an image in the front page banner isn't particularly high at the moment (no offence intended to anybody who might have an image in there just now). Anybody who's been around for a year or two ought to be capable of uploading an image or three that's pretty much guaranteed to get in there. So that's good isn't it - it's pretty much an open goal at the moment. Just a little application and good taste required to reap whatever benefits are conveyed by having an image in there.

Posted 19 Nov 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
It's not a bias towards certain people, it's a bias towards a certain level of quality.

Run-on-the-mill glamour & images akin to just being 'snaps' simply aren't going to do the site any favours and are simply left out. And for models you want good posing, not just some girl stood there like a sack of spuds with a face like a slapped arse.

Posted 19 Nov 2014
RedChecker

It's not a bias towards certain people, it's a bias towards a certain level of quality. Run-on-the-mill glamour & images akin to just being 'snaps' simply aren't going to do the site any favours and are simply left out. And for models you want good posing, not just some girl stood there like a sack of spuds with a face like a slapped arse.


Yeah I'm glad the homepage isn't cluttered up with cringeworthy tack.
If I want to see that I can go onto the "known" cringeworthy tack photographers pages and look/laugh.

I don't really pay much attention to the homepage, ocassionally will spot an image I like enough to pop over to the owners portfolio to leave a comment and if thats the "intended" purpose then its doing its job just fine.



Posted 19 Nov 2014
cgwebster
Photographer
cgwebster
RedChecker
It's not a bias towards certain people, it's a bias towards a certain level of quality. Run-on-the-mill glamour & images akin to just being 'snaps' simply aren't going to do the site any favours and are simply left out. And for models you want good posing, not just some girl stood there like a sack of spuds with a face like a slapped arse.
+ 1 to that I could be wrong, I thought the banner images were selected from paying members uploads "at random" from a pre-approved pool. There was problems in the past with some folk deliberately not tagging images appropriately so the pool of images couldn't be selected automatically, so if you're going to have manual intervention you may as well pick the better stuff.
Posted 19 Nov 2014
Edited by cgwebster 19 Nov 2014
Plymjack
Photographer
Plymjack
+1 @Redchecker & @Chrissie_Red If one of my uploads ever made the FP then it would mean something - rather then just because I uploaded a pic. I enjoy seeing aspirational images rather than a page of "maybe" shots. I often see a model who I would like to work with and follow up.
Posted 20 Nov 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join