Vicki Richter website

[cream4u]

Vicki, or any members for that matter. Could you tell me a little more about what your site offers. Pictures? Video? Webchats? Hardore/Softcore? You top? You bottom? How often is it updated. I am a fan who would like to see alot more.

Thanks

[Vicki Richter]

All the reviews seem consistently pretty good. Updates are bi-monthly and now include full length shemale videos. :P

I go in and tweak the site quite a bit, but I consider all of these fair and unbiased. No sexual favors were exchanged for these reviews.


Newest Review

http://www.trannyreviews.com/index.php?p=review&lid=198

2nd Newest Review

http://www.sirrodney.com/category.jsp?category=TS&all=true

Oldest Review

http://www.shemalesitereview.com/vickirichter.html

[Vicki Richter]

By the way, I am really curious about what people want for photo size. I typically have published them 1024x768 and 800x600. I have bandwidth to burn so when I make smaller photos (800x600), it is typically because I am trying to be considerate to all members. However, what do you guys prefer? Huge pictures 100k + in size or smaller quicker loading files?

I'm really curious about this.

Vicki

[canihavu]

By the way, I am really curious about what people want for photo size. I typically have published them 1024x768 and 800x600. I have bandwidth to burn so when I make smaller photos (800x600), it is typically because I am trying to be considerate to all members. However, what do you guys prefer? Huge pictures 100k + in size or smaller quicker loading files?

I'm really curious about this.

Vicki

Personally, I prefer the larger images.

[joyboy123]

Hi Vickie,
I vote for a higher resolution. Sites like Planet shemale and Frank's t-girl world use the higher resolution and those pictures tend to come out quite nice. Also, there is a very strong "fetish" element involved in the collection of pictures and guys like me tend to be connoisseurs for detail(my opinion).

Yeah, I need to get a life... :wink:

[Ecstatic]

Vicki, I think you're doing the right thing by providing both sizes. As a professional webmaster for nearly eight years (in other industries: software, pro audio, tourism, etc.), I usually keep sizes down to a little under 800x600 to allow for proper display in a browser window (i.e., to account for the browser border, scroll bar, etc., the max width is really about 768) to prevent horizontal scrolling and also to reduce download time, but hey, guys who surf for porn don't care about that, they want to biggest hit they can get. But if on dialup, the filesize does make a big difference, so I think it's smart to target the ideal (1024x768) and the standard (800x600 - anyone still on 640x480 needs a new PC).

As for the other factor, file weight vs. display area, I typically find that saving jpegs at a little less than maximum quality can half the filesize yet create no discernable loss in photo quality. For most images, I usually save at about 9 (using the Photoshop scale, 0-12) and the image quality is fine, though for high res images maybe 10 or 11 will do. I don't think anything is gained by going for the max (12 in Photoshop). Here's a typical breakdown: original filesize: 270; saved at 12: 270; at 11: 220; at 10: 175; at 9: 150. Below 9, artifacts will start to appear in the image. But even going one stop down (11) will reduce the filesize by 50 K. And by using Save for the Web, you can use Photoshop's incremental 0-100 scale to finetune the save--and see the difference side-by-side with the original. There, I'd suggest 85 or 90 for high res quality and 60-70 for good quality.

Cheers!

[Vicki Richter]

Wow that's great info. I probably need to learn how to do that in Photoshop. I use a gallery generator which does all the resizing and compression for me when it creates the gallery. Kinda cool. I know photoshop does the image stuff, but I had no idea it could do it to many images at once. Good to know.

[Ecstatic]

In Photoshop you need to create an "Action" by recording the steps you apply to an image, then applying that action to any set of images (e.g., all open images or all images in a given directory). This kind of processing saves huge amounts of time, especially if all you're doing is resizing and compressing images. Open up the Actions menu, then select New Action and start recording your image edits (could be color correction, levels, curves, etc., plus how the file is saved). Of course, automated processes can compromise quality over individually processing the photos, but if the steps are simple enough and the photographic values are consistent, then they can be very useful. Certainly worth checking out. Also there's a feature in Photoshop called Web Photo Gallery which may be useful.

[J_Rotten]

Size is of utmost importance! Errr, ummm, I mean your beauty can best be aprpreciated at higher resolution.

JM