Comparing The Sun and the Daily Star

In regards the quality of the Page 3 photograph, on the day it is down to three elements:

1. The model
2. The photographer
3. The quality of the Photoshop

Some would regard The Sun as being the 'Premier League' of glamour modelling but if the rumours of how pay structure for Page 3 works, the facade will wear off pretty quickly for the models concerned. Little wonder that the models concerned have to go to lads mags and if they're not careful even more dodgier publications to supplement/increase their income.

Some are lucky (or unlucky depending on your p.o.v.) though that generalized scenario isn't the case though and they can find sufficient income elsewhere.

Arguably The Sun work their models far more with various promotional duties that they do whilst over at the Daily Star, there doesn't seem to be too many 'extra-curricular' activities for the models to do.

Personally the difference in quality of the end product between the two publications is fairly superficial.

Are Alison Webster (The Sun's main Page 3 photographer) and/or Zoe McConnell (The Sun's occasional Page 3 photographer) that much better than Jeany Savage (the Daily Star's main Page 3 photographer)? It's all in the eye of the beholder and all that, and of course which photographs are you using to justify your argument?

Some look like snapshots (I'd accuse Alison occasionally of being far too quick to just get smash-and-grabs and then moving onto the next shot as quick as possible rather than going for the overall quality). Some pictures don't seem to look right (I'd accuse the Daily Star of being far too reliant on Photoshop at times).

Now I can't be the only one to notice this but I'm pretty surprised that the quality of the paper they use to print The Sun with has gone considerably downhill. The photograph that is on Page 3 is usually ruined because of this (the Daily Star's just about better).

It's handy that therefore there are online versions with The Sun's Page 3 and the Daily Star's version.