Yes, it's true that many of met-art's sets are not very sharp at all. More specifically, they often have low depth-of-field (one part of the body is in fairly good focus while everything else is not.)
Lack of sharpness is also more apparent on this site because they offer very large images (sometimes 7000 pixels), so the softness is very apparent. There are, however, a few photographers who offer better sharpness, like Matiss. I just wish it was more consistently good across other photographers' sets. Still, most viewers just wax poetic about every set that's posted there, which makes me laugh.
Yes, it makes sense. But you still haven't told us what the new "large" will be. Is it 3000 pixels, 4000, 5000? Also, please, please make the new large directly viewable -- not via downloading the whole damn set. Thanks.
I'll also chip in with a couple of "cons". I think that Met-Art gets too much praise for their image quality. Sure, there are some sets--maybe 15%--where the quality is superb. But the majority are just OK or even flat-out bad. There's so much badly focused, dark, grainy crap here, that it's a relief when you finally find a set that's worth saving. Unfortunately, it's the regular contributors each day who are the mediocre ones and the really pro photographers only show up occasionally.
Secondly, I have no problem with the site being soft core, but so many sets here are heavily processed to remove skin detail, hair, etc. What you're left with often just doesn't look like a real girl, and that's what takes me out of Met-Art.
2 Free K: Your comments are exactly the response that the DDOS attackers are trying to achieve. They want to shut down the site and prevent its business; you are helping in that effort. Any porn site that is relentlessly attacked like this is going to be down. They don't have the resources of billion dollar businesses like Wells Fargo bank, so stop making stupid analogies.
Yeah, the ATK sites have been up and down with this problem, but I'm sure these guys have been trying anything and everything to resolve it. I've had my gripes with their content, but they need our support in the long term. We need to fight the attackers, not the victims.
On the photos side, perhaps someone could post whether things have improved here?
When I look at their preview site, even the small weekly samples they post never look very sharp. And many of the models appear to be the same ones you see on other sites where there's better photo quality. So it doesn't make me want to sign up with Karups.
Hi Skippy, I wasn't sure if you were reviewing ATK sites generally in this review, or specifically ATK Premium.
The thing I've found with the secondary ATK sites (Premium, Exotics, Aunt Judy's) is that most of their good content is just a duplication from the primary sites (Galleria and Hairy). The primary sites also post MUCH more content each day than Premium, Exotics and Aunt Judy's. So there's little reason to sign up for the secondary ATK sites, except for a small amount of niche content which isn't very good.
On the performance side, I agree. Even when they're up and running, the response time is often slow. All the ATK sites are offline as I write this message, since they presumably all share the same server. I think there's been a number of DDoS attacks recently.
Funny, I did a month's subscription there recently (regrettably) but didn't notice the content aggregation thing. I guess I just didn't pay attention to where the content came from.
My issues with this site is that the images are not particularly good quality and you barely get to see each model in their nakedness; as soon as they're undressed, they are being banged by some dude, who never goes away. Waste of my time. This is strictly a hard core site.
ALSSCAN now have you enter your credit card details while still in the porn site's domain (Metartnetwork). Yes, I know it's an HTTPS transaction, but why is the site taking credit details themselves? They also have pre-checked cross sales. None of this makes me trust them very much. Met-art still has you enter your credit card AFTER you reach CCBILL.
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.
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.