One of the things that really annoys me about Femjoy is that the thumbnails they post to represent each set is VERY misleading. Many of the sets are poorly lit, not very sharp, have the wrong color balance, and the model is miles away from the camera. Yet the editors on Femjoy take the best shot in the set (there's usually only one that's any good) and crop it significantly to look like the model is much closer. Then they pump up the light levels (which they don't do for the photos themselves) and adjust the color to a more accurate balance. As a result, the set's thumbnail looks very inviting, but you're really disappointed when you see the set itself. Don't be misled by their Updates page -- the actual content is rarely like it.
OK AW, here's the thing. I have posted reviews of your site before. But nothing ever changes. I really want your site to succeed, because the concept appeals to me -- natural young girls without silly makeup and silly clothes.
But endless shots of just a pussy (or more often, a hand covering a pussy) are not appealing unless you can see the girl who it belongs to... in reasonable focus. You so rarely get both clearly in the same shot.. unless she's 50 yards away. No, I don't want you to shoot with wide angle -- it obviously distorts the body and faces. But I think you should be shooting at f16 in acceptable ISO ranges (below 400). This, of course, means you need strobes. Oh, just think of it... the wonderful, natural girls you get with the technical clarity of Sean R. People would be signing up around the world!! But as it is, sure, you can quote some good comments, just as any movie publicists can quote a good review from at least somewhere. Use lights! It doesn't make the girls less natural -- it just takes them out of the grainy, murkiness and makes them more real.
I suspect this review is a plant by Abby Winters. Either that or perhaps you've never visited many porn sites! The photography is absolutely awful; it lacks fine detail in most sets, and shot without decent lighting. It is true that the models are great, but that's not much use if the pictures are worthless. Often, the only clear in focus unobstructed picture of both face and pussy is the last one in the set where the model is standing.
From what I can gather, most of the photography is by ex-models from the site. They seriously, and I mean SERIOUSLY need some professional photographers on the site. If they did that, and increase new sets by about 400 percent, then they'd be a good site.
Yes, they're claiming that "there's a shortage of unshaved girls", which sounds absurd. I did read elsewhere that ATK weren't paying their photographers on time, so perhaps those contributors are now holding back their work. Of course, we don't know the full truth of this, but my guess is that photographers like Sean R have a whole stash of great new sets ready but won't send them till ATK hands over the money.
I'm guessing this disappointment comes mostly from the video perspective. As a photos man, let me give you a different perspective...
The image quality at ATK Galleria is very good (on average) and the girls are HOT with a wide variety of niches every month. There are also more galleries each day on Galleria than ANY site I'm aware of. What really confuses me is how Nubiles gets such higher ratings than Galleria, when Nubiles has fewer updates, lower image quality, and hands in front of the pussy on almost every shot. I guess it's down to videos again, but I'd prefer Galleria any day of the week.
I might add that for those of us more into the still pictures, they are mediocre quality at best on this site, and usually miss the best action. As for the videos, great quality, but far too much other stuff like dildos and glasses for my liking.
I did a subscription here recently. The HUGE turnoff for me is that FTV Girls is one of those sites where you can only download the bigger images as a zip file -- the entire gallery or nothing. So it's a loooong download, followed by unzipping, followed by editing and copying, etc. I gave up after a while -- far too much effort.
Also, as the reviewer said, every set is repetative.
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!
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.