Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Fri 19/04/24 10:08:54 GMT |
Message # 66561.3.1 Subject: Re:A little review about wetlooker.com Date: Mon 08/02/16 15:53:56 GMT Name: Magician Website: jqici |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
I agree with all criticism about Wetlooker. I bought some sets, but deleted all but one as quality was very poor. Such a shame as models are attractive, and the outfits never seem to vary now, at least they did slightly at the beginning. Biggest issue for me is quality - a lot if people enjoy jeans and sneakers so no point me moaning about that, but picture quality can easily be improved upon with a tiny bit of care and effort |
In reply to Message (66561.3) Re:A little review about wetlooker.com
By Dima - Mon 08/02/16 15:44:13 GMT Thank you for your review!
There are 4-5 different series from different photographers and different style. You are right, there are a lot of mistakes, so I hardly try to improve quality. I would like to test long hi-quality set with one girl/one shooting day soon, but we are not sure, that it will cover costs.
So, we try to have a balance between "quality - quantity - costs".
|
In reply to Message (66561) A little review about wetlooker.com
By Slawomirro - Mon 08/02/16 11:05:39 GMT wetlooker.com
The same sneakers, simmilar clothes. I think that a producer have sneakers and clothes for girls. Very often girls in a next set has wet underwear and hair on dry clothes. It's mean, new sets are shot one after one.
I bought 7-8 sets. Some photos are a blur, many photos are upload horizontaly, not vertically. EXIF exist, so for example, from start to end, a whole one set was made in 10-12 minutes.
quantity not quality... it is a motto for wetlooker.com
Some people are very angry for wetlooker.com because wetlook sites like eewetlook.com, eurowam.com, mostwam.com, ect. accustomed us for a quality.
|
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
[ This page took 0.022 seconds to generate ]