OK, maybe I'll submit a full review when time permits, but I just did a signup after the recent "95" rated review for this site... and I am sorely disappointed.
Honestly, for a site that's been around so long, you'd think that certain basics would have improved. (I did an earlier subscription a couple of years ago.) My major disappointment: the photos are not just smaller than most top sites -- they are very lacking in fine detail and resolution. Honestly, you could take sharper, higher quality pictures with a cell phone these days. I really don't know WHY Clubseventeen manages to take such aweful, soft and blurry images. And it applies to almost every set. I just gave up after a while.
Other issues: the preview pages give the impression that tons of galleries are added across the many categories. But actually, it's only the main (white shaved teens) categories that get regular updates. Others like "unshaved teens" and ethnic teens only get a handful of galleries each year, if that.
Oh, and navigation sucks. You can't even tell which page you're on because the "1,2,3...Last" links don't highlight the current page.
The girls are truly hot. If only Clubseventeen photographed them in sharp, high-quality images, they'd have a much better site. But things never seem to improve there. Rating: 55.
I would rate AW much lower than "81" these days. I did a month recently to see if things have improved, but alas, they're worse. Yes, they use a lot of "Euro-girls" now, many of which are very hot. It's just that every other site uses them too, so AW has lost one of the few advantages they once had: unique models. Furthermore, updates are very, very poor for the price they charge. They try to fill in with those (low res) behind-the-scenes sets, and recycled "one year ago" sets, but sites like met-art or ATK have more sets in one day than AW has in a week... and the photography's better on those other sites too. Now that AW has more sets in bigger sizes, it's much more obvious how aweful their photography is, riddled with poor focus, grainyness, motion blur, etc. And as always, the "goods" are only seen properly in those closeups where the girl's face is missing. There's usually a hand or a dildo in the way. Sorry, AW, never again.
Good to hear. I hope you will also use a low enough compression that it doesn't strip all the fine detail out. This is a problem on many sites where they boast about big sizes, yet the actual detail is no better than smaller sizes due to too much filtering. I look forward to checking the site out in the future.
The thing that keeps me away from Nubiles the most is that all the girls are completeley shaved. I mean, even if they had 1 out of 5 models that were natural then it would be nice. But there are none. It's another ALS if you ask me, but with inferior photography.
I'd have to agree with your review. What you say is also true of ATK Galleria -- despite the larger image sizes that they now offer, ATK's images often lack detail and look processed. I think at least part of this is due to over-compression.
ATK Hairy is probably the best quality, but it's still a mixed bag, some photographers being pros, while others are clearly amateurs.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
- Attractive collection of girls
- Good lighting and composition in most sets
- Site navigation is fine
- I guess the videos are OK, although check out other reviews for those... it's not my scene
- Pictures look OK at 1200 pixel resolution
- A few natural bushes, in addition to the usual dominance of completely shaved models.
- So-called "poster size" images (the "big" size option) are horrible quality with no fine detail in the vast majority of photosets.
Sorry, but I just had to blow the cover on this site. The Best Porn gave Zemani's image quality an "A+" which is so, so misleading. (Misleading enough that I signed up in the hope that things were good there now, but I was very disapointed.)
You guys at The Best Porn should take a second look -- you said the images are so sharp even when you zoom in on the big images (which are 4000 pixels or higher.) Well that's because they've applied HEAPS of false sharpening. Maybe 1 or 2 percent of sets are OK, but the other 98% are full of digital artifacts like jagged edges and pixelation in the model's eyes that look like they upscaled the image from a smaller size. Last year I commented on the full-size sample images, and they have taken them off the site now, only offering small samples in pop-up boxes. I'm not surprised. Beware!
It's a shame, because if the images were high quality like Met-art (which they're not) then they'd have a great site because the girls, settings and compositions are just fine.
Well said, Messmer. I hope that ATK are reading this, because so many of us loyal members of their site are now pretty pissed off that so many of the girls are like circus freaks with gorilla hair everywhere, tattoos and piercings all over their bodies,too. ATK have a category called "Scary Hairy." These types of women should appear there only.
While we're on the subject, one GOOD thing about the new comment feature is that ATK gets to hear how bad its members feel about the amateur quality of the photography (Sean R excepted.) So much of it is badly lit, badly focused, and not especially well resolved, despite the larger image sizes now.
I checked out 21sextury this month, and the biggest (and most annoying) surprise was how small all the easily accessible images are. I mean, the ones you can view or download individually are tiny by today's standards. The only way, it seems, that you can obtain larger versions is to download an entire zip file of the gallery -- and that's only available on a few sets. It took AN HOUR to download one of these zips on broadband, then a further 30 mins or so to unzip it, etc... and all I wanted was about four shots in HD. Totally unacceptable.
And the content? Well, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Of all the bizzare categories, there's not even one for regular gals with bush.
Yes Bish, I've seen those gals, and agree that some are gorgeous. It's just that in the last 3 months or so, they generally haven't been, or else it's someone we've seen far too much of already. But I look forward to when there are!
I, too, checked out this site recently since it gets good ratings here (and like messmer says, there are so few natural pubes sites that one is forced to these shaved-like-window-dummies" sites to get any variety.)
Anyhow, to give ALS some credit, a lot of the images are quite good quality. But the thing that struck me the most was that every single model (aside from all being shaved) has almost exactly the same figure and face. Sure, some are brunettes and some are blondes, but as I looked back through their catalog, I kept thinking that I'd already seen each new model because they are all interchangeable. So boring! This was pretty much confirmed in a couple of sets called "Prague Auditions" (or something like that) where the site posts models that auditioned for the site, stating which were rejected or hired. It seemed that only the ones who fitted their tiny range of looks got through... and all the ones that I found interesting and a little different got rejected.
Oh well, nice if you like that exact look repeated over and over, but it wasn't for me.
Yes, I think that Sean R remains the only true professional photographer used by ATK. Sadly, most of his more recent sets are either of models that we've seen a million times already, or they're tattooed slags with makeup like a hooker. I'm hoping he gets some fresh, young, unspoiled talent again soon.
Oh, and I find it strange when people refer to hairy content as "niche", since most of the women in the real world have pubic hair. It's only niche in the porn world where models feel they have to be shaved like window dummies -- that's the REAL niche as far as I'm concerned. But everyone to their own fetish :-)
Oh, one other thing... much, much more unshaved girls please. The category is so neglected. I don't know why you even have a "shaved" category because almost all the girls are shaved anyway in every other category.
I agree there is some quality content now, and the girls are the most genuinely teen-looking anywhere! But I do have some criticisms still, which I hope you can address:
1. The thumbnails are square and only show about 60% of the represented image. This makes it near impossible to judge what's in the image itself, without actually viewing it. This drove me crazy! Most other sites show full-image thumbnails, so why can't you guys?
2. There are so few sets where we get to see the girls in close, full-frontal without some obstruction in the way (usually a dildo or their hands.) Once undressed, it's straight to the dildo or fingering. Hey, some of this is OK, but almost every set is just annoying. A lot more straight head & pussy views of these great girls, please, without dildos or hands!
AW webmaster: Depth of field is one issue on AW, and continues to be. But that's not what I was talking about in this thread.
Yes, all other sites I compare to are viewed on the same monitor which is well-calibrated, and 1920x1200 resolution. I am a keen photographer myself, so I'm not talking out of lack of experience or judgement.
I can't point to a specific set, since I'm not a member any more, but if you look at the largest size images and think they resolve detail well for their size, then there isn't much hope. I'm not sure what you mean by "moderate compression", but if they're more compressed than 10 on Photoshop's scale, then that may be contributing to your problems. In addition, a lot of the shoots don't seem to pay attention to where the focus point is; you have the wall behind the model in sharp focus, but the model is not. Also, many shots appear to have slight motion blur due to too low shutter speed, so that may be contributing to the overall lack of resolution and quality too.
Honestly, I'd love to see a big jump up in image quality on AW because I've really liked the type of models used in the past. I'm not mouthing off for no reason. Perhaps you could show your large images to an unbiased professional photographer to get their opinion and advise.
I too just completed another subscription, which I think will sadly be my last. I'm not into the videos -- I've always joined for the pictures which, while not always very big, were often hot.
Sadly, the picture sets have actually got worse. More sets have a larger size option now, but there's no point offering larger images when the quality is as low as it is on Abby Winters. Unlike quality sites such as Met-Art, AVErotica, Explicite-art, etc, the Abby sets look like they were shot with a cell phone! There's just no fine detail at all. Each picture looks either out-of-focus or shot with a shutter speed that's too low to retain sharpness. I'm not exactly sure what AV does to their pics to make them so soft and lacking detail, but it's true of every set.
They made a lot of fuss about the new web page design, but hey, if the content isn't any good, then who cares.
I like this site and really want to see it succeed, especially with so few quality hairy sites out there. But more and more, it's starting to feel just like ATK Hairy. Most of the models are the same ones that appeared on ATK a month or so before, and there isn't much turn-around. The same old faces keep reappearing. Also, although the image size is bigger than ATK, the fine detail in pictures just doesn't come anywhere close to what you'd see on Met-art or a few other high-quality sites. This might be down to poor photography, but at 3000 pixels, you should be counting pores on the skin, yet many sets on WAH just look soft in close-up.
The poses are also getting to be quite boring. Every set is much the same, with corny lingerie up to the last page.
As I said, I want this site to succeed and be good, but it's getting too repetitive and the image quality isn't among the top sites. I'll see how it looks in the future.
I'd like to point out that although some picture sets have a large size option, the majority do not -- even recent sets. Abby Winters likes to tease you with only making some sets available in a larger size. Also, the pictures are not up to the count-every-pore quality that some sites give.
Hmm, after reading reviews by you other folks, I checked out the samples on this site. Yes, very disappointing. The so-called "super high-res" 4000 pixel images appear to be just tiny images that have been upscaled to 4000. There's no detail in the images at all.
I really wish more sites that cheat this way (calling pics "high res" when they're not) would be called out over it. Anyone can take a 1000 pixel image and rescale it in Photoshop to 4000 or 6000, but what's the point? We want REAL hi-res, i.e. images that were actually captured at 3000+ with their original fine detail.
Just finished another month on Hairy. It's getting even more repetitive; how many identical sets of the same model can a guy sit through, no matter how nice she is? Just when you think a model has gone away, she comes back a couple of months later for yet more endless sets of the same poses.
Sadly, Sean R remains the only photographer turning in sets with pro quality. All the others are either falsely-sharpened, have bad depth of field, bad lighting, or the images are overcompressed, giving unrealistic images.
And the models? A few occasional cuties, but still too many bizarre tattooed skanks with body piercings and weird makeup.
Totally agree about the Sean R review. But I would add that, in my view, he needs to drop the hideous makeup and lipstick in so many shots. It completely spoils it for me when the model looks like a clown! And the clothes? I know some guys like the fantasy outfits, but do we have to have high-heel shoes in EVERY set? I find the clothing so, so corny which also takes me out of the shoot.
Regarding the bank problems, I've been told the same thing by AW before, but Wells Fargo Visa still gets rejected through GMBill. I've given up now, and it NEVER offers CCBill as an alternative.
Regarding the new site with big, high quality pics on every set... it is now mid February and it looks exactly the same to me with just the small pics on most sets. So when exactly will all this change?
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.