Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Generally high quality material
Beautiful, natural models
Wide variety of sets, locations and models
Very "artsy" site
Good range of image sizes to view/download
Generally good video options
Navigation is generally good
Fast download speeds
Many popular European models
Very "artsy" site.
Very little eye contact with camera
Creative edge takes precedent over practicality
Landing page focus is on cross-selling live site
Entire site including all sets are very dark!
Many sets in black and white or oddly tinted
Many shorter sets
Many models only have a set or two
There are more tattoos here than other Met-art sites. (not always bad, but not good on otherwise beautiful models)
Seems like some is B-roll from other sites
About 1500 photo sets
About 500 videos
About 320 models
1 new update a day
Some older sets are not exclusive
The site has been around since 2009 but some of the sets pre-date that.
The models are generally young and all shapes, sizes, ethnicity, hair color, some hairy, some tattoos, etc.
This site is, to a large extent, sort of an evolution of the "girl in the woods" theme with the idea that you are observing a model in a more natural environment instead of a studio environment. Often the idea is that the model doesn't really know you are there or doesn't pay much attention to you, the viewer. About 50% of the sets are solo girl in a straight modeling scenario. Many of these sets are of very, very attractive girls that are just standing or in other conservative poses. Another 40% are female masturbation sets that range from boring to pretty interesting. And the remaining 10% are girl/girl scenes. I need to say that the majority of these are very conservative sets with few money or close-up shots. (There are some Oh My God models, but they are not necessarily doing OMG things....) There are notable exceptions, though. It depends on the model, I guess. There also is a wide mix of eye contact. Some sets have models that never make any eye contact with the camera at all. Earlier sets are better, but the quality of those sets is not as good. Oh, most of the sets start out with the model(s) clothed. I noticed some models remained clothed for 75% or more of some sets.
The first thing that strikes me about this site is how dark it is. Everything is dark. The site, the sets, the lighting, the videos, EVERYTHING! Older sets are a little better in this regard, but you will generally think there is something wrong with your display. Newer images are dark, contrasty, very shadowy. Distracting. Annoying. Generally awful. I batched a couple of sets through Photoshop and auto-adjust increased the brightness in most images by 50% or more. That is a heck of a lot and it is not accidental. They are deliberately turning down the brightness on these sets. You have to work to make images this dark. Really work.
The second thing I noticed was how hard the webmasters are trying to get you to go to the live site. When you get to the landing page, you don't see a single girl on the site you are paying for. instead you get a full page of images from the two live-cam sites that seem to be taking over the Met-Art network. You have to scroll down to see the contents of the site you already paid for. The webmasters are apparently experimenting with where best to put these live-cam ads as they can be found in different places on the various Met-Art sites. This is the most intrusive placement, right at the top of the main page and present on every page on the site. Stop it! Really. Just stop.
Another thing is the almost complete lack of playfulness, compassion or interaction with the viewer in many of the sets. Some of these models have all of the expressions of a check-out girl at K-Mart, meaning none. Even models that normally shine are somehow less expressive here. This is not in any way erotic as the name implies.
And the last thing to note is how inconsistent many of the sets are. More recent sets seem to follow that dark theme for the most part, but some sets are not like that at all. Some sets are very short, some are filled with close-ups, some are not. Some girls are almost entirely fully clothed for the whole set, some are not clothed at all. Some have eye-contact, many do not. You can tell if you are familiar with other Met-Art sets that some of these sets seem like they might have been B-roll or too weird to put on Met-Art. For example, there is an outdoor set of Lorena, beautiful Met-Art regular, where she is entirely covered in red mud in every single image. Really? Has to be a B-roll.
Navigation is generally good. There is an options section that allows you to set defaults for image size, number of thumbnails on a page, etc. like some other Met Art sites. The search function has user defined tags, which helps if you are looking for a particular trait that others are likely to define, like ginger or spread. But it could be better.
Bottom line? Good site to visit once, I guess. I personally don't like it anywhere near as much as other Met Art sites like Met-Art itself or Errotica Archives. You can actually see the weird evolution/devolution from a site similar to Met Art in the beginning to a site that now looks more like a bad graphic novel than a soft-core porn site. There is a decent amount of material here and some of it is pretty good, but be prepared to sift through a lot of dark, odd and often slightly off pictures to find things that really float your boat.
I wish I could be more enthusiastic, but this site just doesn't live up to Met-Art standards.
I think this may be a case of different strokes for different folks, but I do get pretty disappointed when I see a really beautiful, pristine model with a new, blatantly obvious tattoo. Example: Melena Morgan pre-tattoos? Awesomely beautiful. Malena Morgan with tattoos? Either clearly branded as a porn star or spending a lot of time on the softer sites covering them up.
A lot of these girls don't realize that they are their own canvas. It is what makes them so amazing. The minute they agree to be somebody else's canvas, it takes some, sometimes ALL, of that amazing away. Or maybe to put it more directly...when have you ever heard anyone say "That girl was hot before but that new tattoo makes her look even better!" Yup....never.
I find that the TBP reviews are a little too positive sometimes, but there are often very well written PU reviews. In the end, you have to take a leap of faith no matter how good the reviews and previews are, but it helps a lot to have both professional and PU reviews.
The Better Business Bureau and Yelp have both been proven to accept payment for a higher score. I don't really think that happens in porn site reviews....yet. A site can plant a positive user review (which you can usually see through), but for the most part, I like how honest the user reviews are.
It depends entirely on the scene and the purpose of the video. POV scenes, for example, often don't have much of a set up but sometimes, like in a few of the W4B videos, the set up adds a lot to the scene. So I had to answer "other".
Many of you remember Savannah. Those who don't should look her up. She was an amazing porn star that committed suicide in 1994. Would it not make sense to remove her images? I had a lot of pictures of her but the thought that she blew her brains out made them considerably less appealing.
In other cases, some models request to have their images removed after they retire and move on. Marketa Belonoha is probably the best example of a spectacular model who has moved out of nude modeling and has asked the sites that showcased her to take down her images. Many sites honored that request but many did not. (She had a micro-site called Marketa4U.com in the Watch4Beauty network but took that down.) These day's you can't hide your past, but I think it is respectable to try to hide it from your kids until they are old enough to understand. Cases like these are reasonable when it comes to taking models off sites. (Marketa was one of my all-time favorite models, so I already have nearly every image ever shot of her.)
Other good reasons for pulling models include that they were minors when the shoot occurred or that the model release or image sale to that particular web site was disputed/pirated. Occasionally, when a site is sold, there are disputes about who actually owns the rights to the images (i.e. the site or a past partner in the site). That happens remarkably often and the safest thing is for the sites to remove the disputed images.
All that said, I do not think that old shoots should be arbitrarily pulled unless the quality is so bad the images or models degrade the impression of a web site. I just went back and looked at some Penthouse stuff shot in the mid-90's. Great stuff, but the images are 600x400 MAX so they have been remanded to the deep archives. What do you do with that stuff? If the originals can't be re-scanned, then I have a hard time blaming the sites for removing them.
The good news is that there is a shitload of great, new, high-resolution stuff out there and in terms of disk space it is pretty much doubling every year. We all like our old favorites, but there is a new girl somewhere getting naked for us every day!
Funny thing. I think we all trust CCBill and Epoch because we have used them so much and know what to do when it comes to cross-listings and cancellations, everyone's biggest gripes. CCBill and Epoch have their own sites where you can find your subscriptions and cancel them without having to go through the web site you signed up with. Most of the other billers exist because a) they undercut the above two with lower fees to the web site, b) the web sites don't want to make it too easy for you to cancel, or c) it is the web site's own billing system, so both. Using that logic, I always have to think twice before signing up with a different biller.
I have been screwed out of a couple of hundred bucks by websites/billers that have no clear cancel process, that require you to PHONE them several days in advance to cancel, or that cross list and don't send you any kind of email that you have subscribed to something other than what you intended. CCBIll and Epoch don't do that. (And no matter how careful you are, some sites manipulate their pages in an effort to trick you into a cross-listing. The most common is the "oh, you got that wrong" trick where they show you an entry error, but FAIL to highlight that the cross-listings have quietly been rechecked.) With CCBill and Epoch, you can point this out to them immediately when you sign up and they will reverse it or you can at least see the extra subscription on the biller's site and cancel it before you are charged the big monthly fee. Good luck with other billers.
A simple analogy is that when I buy something on eBay, I expect to be able to pay for it with Paypal. If an eBay seller doesn't use Paypal, I really have to wonder why. As an eBay seller, I use Paypal to ensure that people know they can pay for it easily and that they get all the buyer guarantees that come with it. CCBill and Epoch are the Paypal of porn. Most webmasters who don't use CCBill or Epoch are at the very least, being cheap and at worst, trying to get an extra month's subscription or perhaps a cross-listing fee out of you by making it harder to cancel.
All that said, if a new biller sends me an email with my sign-up information when I sign up and has a separate site that allows me to cancel easily, I will gladly use it. I just can't think of a good one other than the CCBill or Epoch.
I have a large house with 6 wireless access points and 3 SSIDs including a guest network for my kids friends to use. It is all tied to gigabit Ethernet run into most rooms (I still prefer wired connections when possible). I have a dedicated Windows server for audio, video and Tivo file storage (about 16 Terabytes now)in an A/V closet that includes whole-house audio and a managed Cisco gigabit switch with POE. I just checked and there are 28 DHCP lease connections including A/V components (stereos, Blu-ray players, TVs and 3 Tivos), 4 game consoles, 4 iPhones, 3 iPads, a Nook and 7 computers....all connected through a Docsis 3 router to one really shitty Comcast cable connection. I guess that would make me a computer nerd. When I load Net-stumbler onto one of my laptops, I can see 18 different wireless networks from my bedroom and I live on a pretty big piece of land. Apparently, I am surrounded by nerds, too. If you live in an apartment, grab a copy of net-stumbler so you can identify the least used wireless channels and reduce interference from your neighbors.
Free sites provide an opportunity to see new things that you would not ordinarily see in your proverbial back yard. The new higher end sites like Watch 4 Beauty post on the free sites and draw a lot of customers that way. Now days the POV sites are the big deal. I will also sometimes scan free sites for interesting models, then go to one of the porn wiki sites to find out where the model is. Found some interesting sites that way.
A few of my favorite models are total stunners but have tiny scars in one place or another (i.e. leg or knee). By looking for and finding the scars, I can tell whether the images are PhotoShopped. Same with moles. No moles at all? Probably shopped.
Wow. Porn destroys a lot of beautiful women but some are just amazing for a decade or more. This may also depend on the intensity of the activity. Some exceptional European photo models are still going strong after 10+ years, but they just do photos and solo videos. Personality has so much to do with it. Smart, interesting ones that control their careers can go the distance.
Hey RustyJ, I think you hit the nail on the head with the feel in House of Taboo. It is glam bondage. There is a lot of make-up and nice fetish clothing but no real roughness at all. (Straight peeing should not be in this category these days.) But here's the deal. Even with light bondage, the model needs to be tied up well or tied firmly to something. Bondage is about trust, after all and faking bondage destroys the trust concept. When I look at the images here, many, many of them show a girl in handcuffs that aren't clasped or a girl tied in a way that she can clearly slip her hands or legs out of. And seeing a girl that is tied up suddenly slip free and masturbate SO defeats the purpose of the set. Yes, Kink.com is pretty brutal and the models are usually not glamorous, but there are other sites that strike a MUCH better balance between fake glam and "OMG she's tied down tight to that machine and has come so many times she's drooling uncontrollably" bondage. I'm not a huge Hustler fan, but the Hustler Taboo site does glam bondage pretty well. Check it out if you haven't already.
Watching American porn where the girls talk (as in, talk at YOU) in English is great, but many American models are...um...too enhanced. The volume of young, fresh, natural interesting European models is just amazing. One category you missed is Brazilian. Holy shit some of those women are unbelievable...even with the enhancements.
I have three that I now buy annual subscriptions to...no brainer when they go on sale for, like, $89.00 a year (that's three months if buying monthly). Then I buy monthly subscriptions when I see something interesting, so I probably have 4-5 at a time.
I have several home-built computers and keep them for 5+ years but do incremental upgrades between major overhauls. I bought the fastest AMD CPU made about 2 years ago and it is still up there, so I recently upgraded the motherboard (new chipset), memory and installed 2 SSD drives...one for the OS and one for cache. The thing boots up in 7 seconds and pegs the top of the Microsoft Experience index (for what that is worth) at 7.9 in every category. The biggest bang for the buck speed-wise these days is in Solid State drives. Just upgrade your drive. Seriously. Do it.
The problem with the 3D technology sites use today is that it is old tech, as in red-blue tech. I have not seen any decent polarized (modern TV) 3D porn yet. Making polarized 3D look real takes a LOT of processing power when rendering (creating) and a decent amount when displaying. I'm not sure the industry can afford it.
A lot of sites don't really separate video from photo updates, so it is really by the image or thumbnail. It also depends a lot on what I'm in the mood for. Some sites are predominantly video so I will browse until I find a model I like and then browse for more of her. Bottom line though, it is the thumbnail that decides if I click to watch the video. There has to be something really appealing in that thumbnail for me to click on it.
It's all about the package. There needs to be beauty, some softness and some firmness. ...and absolutely no hard steroid face. Huge muscles on a girl? Pass. Ballet dancer body? Yes, please. Flexibility turns me on, too. There are a couple of girls on Met Art that are athletic and flexible but not too muscular.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
14 "sites" plus 2 pay sites
Models are generally attractive
Reasonable variety of girls
Lots of nice looking porn starlets
Sets go back to 2001!
lots of overdone porn stars
Many, many enhanced body parts
Average model age is late 20's early 30's
Ads on every page
Image download options could be better
Had a fairly hard time with logins and customer support (they require a captcha for EVERYTHING)
The regular price is insanely expensive.
I've been around long enough to remember when DDF was owned by Dennis De Franco, a European photographer who shot for magazines and made Sandy famous. His work was simply spectacular. That was nearly 20 years ago. Since then, DDF has gone from his name, to DDF productions to DDF network. Dennis has either sold the site or no longer has very much to do with it. That's a shame because whoever runs things now is trying to be all things to all potential customers.
The site feels a lot like Twisty's or the long gone Danni's Hard Drive. The collection is huge but the girls are...let's just say many of them have moved a little too far down the porn star path to be really attractive. There are a LOT of enhancements, tons of porn moans and the percentage of anal is far above my threshold of tolerance. (Why so many beautiful or once beautiful girls subject themselves to anal is completely beyond me. And what is with all the gaping asses? If you are into anal and gaping asses, sign up now! You won't be disappointed!)
But I digress, let me tell you a bit more about the sites:
"1 by day" is one of the original sites that provides one video/photo set a day. You know many of these models, but it could be from years ago. Zafira (current), Peaches (last set in 2008) and Eufrat (2013) are among the most popular. Almost every set starts with the girl clothed, then a strip, then maybe a few straight nude shots, then come the fingers and toys. Lots and lots of toys. (If you like toys, then sign up now!) Many of the newer sets look truly new and are of girls I have not seen before. But the formula is generally the same with every set including (simulated moaning) masturbation or insertion. The oldest sets in 1 by day go back to 2001 and the old ones look almost exactly like the new ones except there are no anal shots and not as much insertion in the older sets. With 15 years of sets, you WILL get lost in here if you aren't careful. DDF Busty is a site full of...huge, huge boobs! These are mostly double-Fs at least. Some look pretty good but many are clearly not well done and a lot of the girls have the full figure to support that mass up front. This is more of a full porn site with sex, fisting, blow-jobs and boob sex, with the obvious feature up front. If you are into truly ginormous boobs, you will get your fill of them here. DDF Busty goes back to about 2005 with a set every two or three days for that entire time.
Hands on hard core is pretty much as it sounds. These sets go back to 2003 with SV videos and images in each older set. I can't quite tell when these went HD but I see some 720 as far back as 2005. This is the site that is...um...filled with anal and there is some double penetration and multi-way stuff as well.
Hot Legs and Feet is a fetish site for stockings, shoes and feet. Most of the sets are regular porn with the camera or video emphasizing the feet. Lots of shoe heel insertions... If you are into that stuff, the sets are not bad. The sets go all the way back to 2001 with a few sets a week for that entire time but there are a lot of duplicates to the other sites.
One other site I want to mention is House of Taboo. This is supposed to be a B&D and kink site but if you have ever seen any of the better commercial sites of that genre, you will be pretty disappointed here. Maybe 1 scene in 15 looks even remotely genuine. There are some pee scenes if you are into that, though.
There are several other much smaller sites including "only blowjobs", "Euro Girls on Girls", "Euro Teen Erotica"(6 sets with Anjelica here), "Hairy Twatter" and "Sex Video Casting" which is a collection of casting videos. There are also a handful of one-girl sites like Sandy and Cherry Jul.
So, the bottom line is that there is a LOT of stuff here and there are micro-sites that look like they fill most niches. The quality is decent, the models are mostly popular porn stars and the navigation is consistent and fairly intuitive. But the problem is that they try to fill so many niches that the site doesn't really excel at any of them. I'm not really into hairy twats, feet, peeing, fake bondage, watching blowjobs, fake orgasm moans, bolt-on F-cups, massive insertions, double penetration, anal or gaping. So the sites that feature those things are not something I want to pay for. Fortunately, there is a reasonable amount of good quality solo and straight material spanning a decade and a half. is it worth the $44 or so regular rate? Well, sorry, no. I waited and finally got an intro deal for $25. If you see it for $29.95, go ahead and try it.
If you are into a wide variety of different niches I mention above, sign up now. If you aren't into some of those things, look around for discounts and sign up when you find one. But if you are into any of these niches exclusively, you should probably sign up for one of the many other niche sites out there.
So I'm back. Go to the site through PU and the monthly price is now $38.95!!!! I open Chrome and go direct to the site and get a $29.95 option. I tried to purchase that repeatedly but the option will not load the Epoch pay site (the $99 annual option will, though.) (Yes, I cleared the cache, etc.) Tried Mozilla and it is $38.95. Three months in a row I've tried to join this site. Three months in a row I've gotten something that bothers me enough to pass. Off to Joymii, I guess!
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.