Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Easily one of the top 5 softcore sites on the Internet.
Models are 18-25-ish, generally petite Europeans.
Lots of popular European models plus a bunch of newbies and exclusive models.
Very nicely done sets and videos.
Set management is among the best in the business (make-up, lighting, wardrobe, location, atmosphere and composition are all superb.)
Most of the models are beyond beautiful. Some could stop a 747 in mid-flight!
Models are generally not shy.
Model Eye contact with photographer is generally excellent.
Nice mix of full-body and close-up shots.
Outdoor sets are the best I've ever seen (no stalking-style girl in the woods sets here!)
All of the models appear to be enjoying themselves!
Navigation, search and voting all pretty good
Customer Service was prompt and courteous.
Really not much to list here...I have to dig deep to find things:
A "User settings" option would be nice. (Image size, thumbnails-per-page)
I'd like all set thumbnails to be on one page. Typically you have to click through 4 pages of thumbnails to see all of them in a set.
Navigation could be a little better (browsing is single thread from updates page to model-set page to individual images. No new windows for sets, thumbnails or images.)
Page back sometimes takes you back to unexpected places like the log in page.
These are all REALLY minor things, though.
I had some minor issues with IE-11. Chrome is fine.
Some might not like that there is no comment section for each model, but seeing how that tends to get abused at other sites, I don't blame the webmaster for that decision at all.
I promised that I would try again to get into this site and I'm really glad I did. It is simply top-notch. Gorgeous models, really well done sets and excellent overall. Customer service when I contacted them was prompt, helpful and courteous.
This site has been around since 2003 and the collection is pretty massive. About 195,000 images and 395 videos. 1 set a day would put it at around 3600+ sets. Older sets are very well done but not quite as revealing and the resolution is not quite as high. (A few sets prior to about 2008 are non-nude or partially nude.) There appear to be about 250 models, the vast majority of whom are simply stunning. Al of the models are completely natural. I see a lot of sites where the model ratings are artificially inflated to 9. Not here. Here they are almost all 9s...or better.
Images come in three sizes both for viewing and in zip files: 4000, 2000 and 1200 on the long side. Older sets are at least 1600 and 1200.
As I mentioned above, the sets are generally excellent. In fact, I can't really recall seeing anything I didn't like. The girls are happy, friendly and open. Lighting, focus, composition, etc. are excellent.
This is generally a solo-girl softcore site, but there is a toy occasionally and some of the video sets include masturbation. Girls usually start out clothed or partially clothed but many of the outdoor sets start out completely nude.
Sets are usually about 30-40 images each. Some older sets are a bit smaller. Older sets are also a bit more conservative, although the imagery is just is good. Some older sets are also continuations (I.e. 30 shots in one release and 30 more from the same set sometime later), but it isn't enough to be a bother and they don't seem to do that anymore.
The videos, though not as common, are somehow better than many of the comparable sites. I think this is because the girls tend to interact with the camera more. In many of the videos, You get this little "you like?" look once in a while. Why yes, yes I do!
All sets are properly dated and there is NO recycling. Every set all the way back to 2003 is unique as far as I can tell. Some sets seem like they might be a little older, but they are otherwise unpublished. And the girls in those "new old stock" sets are gorgeous enough for you not to mind at all.
Another really nice thing is that the highest resolution of each image is native. An image displayed in 4000 was actually shot in 4000 or higher. (Occasionally you may find an low-light inside set shot near the ISO limits of the camera, which tends to make the largest images a little grainy, but that's not because of resizing.) Older shots at 1600 or 2000 were shot in that and not resized. there isn't a single fuzzy or up-sized image on the entire site as far as I can tell! Kudos to the team for that!
About the only negative I can find on the entire site is the single threaded browsing. No new windows open when you drill down. This is probably to keep the website traffic down, but I prefer the met-art or FemJoy style where either sets or images appear in their own windows. Yes...I can type a key while clicking to open pages in a new window, but it seems like it should be a preference setting. Otherwise, navigation is good. Once in a set, you have forward, back, thumbnail and open image in any available size options.
There is another option I discovered eventually that makes navigation a little easier...there is a flip-book on the lower right side of the main page for each set. You can flip through it to an image you would like to look at and click on that image. When you do THAT a new window opens starting at the first page of thumbnails (not the image or page of thumbnails you clicked on). This little flip-book is actually pretty nice because you can quickly flip through all the thumbnails in a set. Not sure why it doesn't just take you to the image, though...
Bottom line: If you like the Met-Art or Erotica Archives sites, you will also really like this one. It easily rates up there with the best.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Decent collection (about 1000 sets, I think)
Generally very attractive models
Many familiar models
Excellent value for the money
Photography is generally very good
Images available up to 3200x4800
For the price, you will not be disappointed!
Navigation is extremely basic
Site formatting is also very basic
Only a couple of videos (it is a photo site...)
Only 2 zip file sizes (but good choices)
Only 2 image file sizes (but big enough)
For less than $10, I figured I didn't have much to lose and I ended up getting MUCH more than I expected.
This site has several years worth of about 5 updates a week. The models are generally Eastern European. Many have been in Femjoy or MetArt, but there were also many, some quite beautiful, that I had not seen before. Some of the best European models on the planet are on this site, although most have different names. If you like Dominika, Katya or Mila on Met Art, they are all here. There are even a few nice sets of the now-retired but forever revered Marketa.
Neither the site nor the sets are quite as polished as some of the more expensive softcore sites, but I guess that is to be expected in this price range. There are many models that I've seen elsewhere and I just cant tell if the sets are from when they were younger, or if the girls just aren't wearing make-up. The tendency here is to use less or no make-up, so if you are not into the glam look, this is another treasure-site.
The sets are generally good quality, both indoors and outdoors. Lighting is good. The amount of "reveal" depends on the models, but most sets start out in lingerie or fully nude and about half have close-ups. There are no toys, insertions, etc., although there are a few scenes with two girls. This is not an "in your face" site...more of a girl-in-the-woods or girl-in-her-bedroom thing. Interaction with the photographer is generally very good, depending on the experience of the model, and many look like they are having a pretty good time. Kudos to the photo crew for that.
All sets are dated on the main thumbs page for each year. File names are reasonable for both the images and the zip files, so you don't have to go through hoops to save them. Since each set is listed since the site was created, you can tell that there is no recycling going on like at some other sites.
The navigation on the site is very, very basic. The update page is not formatted, so the update thumbs just go down the left side of the screen for ever. The two choices under each thumb are "screen sized" (currently 934x1400) or "print sized" (currently 3930x5988) older images are slightly smaller, but still pretty big.
So for navigation, you click on an option under a set image (screen or print) and then click on an image. To get back to the main page, you back out with your browser. There are no pop-ups or viewers. Once in a set, you can also download a zip file of images in the size you chose to get into the set (screen or print). NO toggling between image sizes or even choosing multiple zip file sizes once you commit to screen or print for the image sizes. No forward or backward movement once you chose an image to look at. Just page back and pick another image (or shift-click to open a new window). This works, but it seems so 1990. Perfectly acceptable, though, for the no-frills price.
I would have scored this site a little higher if it were not for the navigation. It is an honest site that is in the business of providing quality softcore images. They don't fluff it up and they don't steal your money. That is a rare and terrific thing in this industry and I will be back both for the images and to help ensure they stay around.
Bottom line? This site is a terrific deal! If you are tired of paying $30 to get into a new site only to be disappointed with quality or quantity of content and you like the softcore genre, then this site is a must-visit. C'mon! for under $10, you've got absolutely nothing to lose!
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Attractive, fit and flexible models
Images and videos all the way back to 2000
About 65 models
5-30 sets per model
All sets are dated
Probably 60+ HD video clips
Sets are nicely done (all studio)
CCBill generates a random username and password, (at sites request) but the site allows it to be saved.
Best site that I know of for the genre
Good honest site in a tiny niche
Image size is 800x1200 MAX!!??
No image size options. What you click is what you get.
Navigation is truly awful!
No zip files of sets!!!??
File numbering is 001.jpg, 002.jpg (making file management diffcult)
Older vids are tiny
Older images are REALLY tiny (800x524)
Many of the models are only partially nude
Some are not nude at all
Updates maybe 2 times a week with partial sets.
Simply too expensive for quantity of material.
I tripped over a video from this site on Dailymotion.com and, after looking and leaving several times because of the high price, finally decided to see what was there. I was not really disappointed, but it was immediately apparent that this site is not run by any of the big players.
All of the girls are fit, which I suppose they have to be to be flexible like they are. Many are very attractive...some even beautiful The sets are all very similar, with the model starting out clothed in a dance outfit or something similar and then paring down to whatever their personal minimum is. Some of the sets start out with the girl nude. The sets are well done and the girls seem to interact well with the photographer. (suggestion: get a ladder! A full-body straight-down shot of some of these girls would be amazing!) Sets are generally between 25 and 50 images. These are all Eastern European girls, I think, and I have never seen any of them on any other site that I can recall. Kudos to the talent scouts for that.
This site does not have any sex, insertion, masturbation, etc. The models simply flex in incredible ways and give you a nice view. This webmaster has another site called perfectflex.com where there are toys and insertions. Personally, I'm more into the view, but I may and up over at the other site at some point. Clearly he's got models that are willing to pose nude. He needs to up the volume with those models here.
It looks as though there are a few "regular" models that have 20 or more sets. It looks as though this is the "stable" now, as the updates are dominated by these girls but I can't tell for sure because updates only come twice a week.
Now....on the down side...
That collection of 60 mnodels dates all the way back to 2000, so you can get some idea of the volume and frequency of updates.
The images on this site are much too small for today's monitors. I'm downloading 4k images from other sites, so 800x570 is really unacceptable. And as good as some of the older sets are, I'm going to have a hard time keeping images that only fill 1/5 of my screen and are grainy at full-screen. The webmaster really needs to go back and post the larger master images.
Navigation is pretty basic. Click a model, click a set, click an image, click "page back" to go back to set, click another image. No forward or backward, etc.
No zip files???? Come on, really? That makes no sense whatsoever...unless the server can't handle it...
Bottom line: I really like the type and quality of content, but the site really needs a lot of work to attract and keep subscribers in this 2-updates-a-day for $20 world. $39 to sign up? Somebody needs to take a marketing class to learn about elasticity in marking, not just modeling. I would be recommending the site like crazy if it were $19..but have a hard time telling anyone to check it out for $39.
So....my apologies to the webmaster...but if you are interested in this site, keep your money until the price comes down or they offer a mega-pass for all of the super-flexi sites for $39. After this month, that is probably the only thing that will get me back.
Current Member for over 2 months (at the time of review).
Excellent selection of models (350+)
Mostly 18-26 or so.
All shapes and sizes but mostly petite
Very large collection (650+ vids, 200k+ images)
A few of the most popular European models
Older sets of spectacular popular models
Navigation is good
All galleries are dated
Generally very good photo quality
Newer sets use good file naming convention
Videos have been in 720p for several years
Newer sets up to about 5800x3500 pixels.
Lots of new models you've never seen before
The site is often slow.
I had difficulty logging in a few times
All zips named small.zip,medium.zip,large.zip
(meaning zip files are not unique)
Videos are mostly from photo shoots
Good lighting/imagery, but not consitenly great
Color/white balance on some of the sets is off
Some of the sets are pretty short
Top rated model, though beautiful, is from 2005
Not that many new stand-out models
Lots of models you'll never see again
Oddball, quirky 3D sets
Bland color scheme
This is a very good site that anyone who is into solo or two-girl modeling should absolutely visit. It has tremendous variety of mostly eastern European girls that are perhaps a tad more natural than what you might see elsewhere.
That said, I find it very difficult to rate this site up there with the best of this class. I've been a member of this site off and on for about 8 years. When I first joined, the site was way up there with the best. It is still very good, but there is just a little something that makes it less appealing for me personally. The folks at MC-Nudes put together a very nice site and I know from my experiences with them that they are conscientious enough to read this, so I'll explain as carefully as I can.
The first thing I notice are the colors...or rather the lack of them. Everything is in tan or cream or some color of rice, wheat or straw. Everything. Even the sets are mostly in these nuetral colors with very low color saturation. I am pretty sure that this is because they think they might want to convert sets into 3D and the red-blue 3D doesn't work well if there are bright colors. But sadly, it is detracting from all the sets and the entire site. Go look at Met Art or Watch4Beauty and the colors on the site and in the sets leap off the page. MC-nudes? The colors stick to the page like this mornings oatmeal sticks to the bowl. If this reduced band of colors is to support 3D, I really think you should dump 3D. The site needs more POP.
OK, next. Years ago, MC-Nudes utilized mainstream models that were among the most beautiful on the planet. Marketa, Monika Vesela, Bambi, Zafira, Eufrat, etc. There are some fantastic sets here if you are into these mainstream models from 2004-2010 or so. They still have several models that have recently become very popular (like Nika and Dominika).
At the same time, they managed to find some ungodly beautiful models that you'd never seen before or since. This unknown but beautiful girl Simona is still their top rated model (from 2005 and with only 3 sets...)
More recently, I think they've gotten into using new and unknown models a little more. This is a great thing for those of us who like a lot of variety, but you have to go through a LOT of girls to find one or two true stars in this field. Nearly all of the MC-Nudes models have spectacular figures, but because of either the lighting, the make-up, the inconsistent eye contact with the camera or perhaps because they are new and don't seem to be having much fun, many of these girls just aren't as appealing as they could be. Some of the brighter or more popular models have figured out how to tease and play with the camera a little. But a really good photography team should be teaching them ALL how to be playful. It makes a huge difference.
Couple of peeves. The site is often very slow. I also could not get in a few times, getting an Apache server-type error message instead of the web site. I know that account management is tricky, but I have several subscripions (and several computers) and I have not had this kind of trouble before...pretty much ever.
Although the file management is better than it used to be, the zip files still need to be named and dated or coded in such a way to make them unique. Webmaster, if you do that once for each set, your thousands of customers won't have to do it at all.
Bottom line? Go check it out! If you like what you see in the samples, sign up! There is enough quality material to keep you busy and happy for quite a while. If you don't stay, check back every year or so. With daily updates, it will be worth your while.
OK, just to clarify, the refund was for a double billing. I paid Rocketgate for the annual subscription and then a few days later, Epoch charged me for the old monthly subscription because they did not get notice of the change. One moral to the story is that if you are going to upgrade, don't wait until a day or two before your original subscription would normally rebill. Give it a little more time than that....maybe a week in advance. You aren't losing anything because the upgrade only kicks in when the old subscription ends.
I firmly believe that a web site is only as good as its customer service. Once again this week, Met Art demonstrated that it is an AWESOME web site by providing some of the best online customer service I have ever experienced.
I upgraded my subscription from monthly to annual. My monthly subscription was through Epoch and my annual subscription is now through their new biller(Rocketgate?). What I did not realize is that Epoch had already queued me up for my monthly charge, which I saw on my account a few days after upgrading. I sent an email to Met Art support telling them about the issue. Within a few minutes, here is first class the response I got:
My name is amnon and im the CEO of MetArt,
So sorry for your trouble; however rest assured you are in great hands and our support team is looking into this issue ASAP.
we will make you happy.
all the best,
OK, I'm not easily impressed, but here is a guy who truly understands how important it is to be responsive to customers.
So many other websites (adult or otherwise) really don't care when there are problems and some (often adult) are downright obnoxious (Go look at the chain of my MPL Studios comments. I complained about an easily resolvable problem and MPL Studios blamed ME and permanently kicked me off of their site.)
Oh, and yes, I was promptly refunded the Epoch overcharge and received a follow up email from Met Art customer service to ensure everything was OK.
Kudos to Met Art for not only having a terrific web site, but for ensuring that, in the words of the CEO, "I am happy". Yes, I am happy. Thank you very much!
The images are shot in very high resolution so when you blow them up, they are still sharp (unlike some sites that just take smaller pictures and increase their resolution). Many of the images are very sharp, but unfortunately, when you magnify blurry, you get VERY blurry. It all depends on the source image and the focus point that the photographer chooses.
Well....lately I've been trying foreign clubs (russian and latin) and this one popped up on my radar. I noticed that they now have a payment option for ccbill, so apparently they are figuring out that we don't want to be billed directly. I will probably try them within the next month or so and will write a review when I do.
I'm looking at the previews to these two sites (wowgirls.com and 18onlygirls.com) and the images and videos are almost exactly the same, but they do not appear to be part of a network. Anyone have any info about that?
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Many top-notch and popular models
Excellent quality videos
Most videos are full 1080 HD
Good photo sets
Wide variety of models
Lets and lots of masturbation...
Pussy classification system is a hoot!
Lots of details about many of the models
Not much variety of activities or sets
5 point voting system seems a bit off
Sort order on many pages seems random
no extra large images (2800x1867 max)
Not much depth (i.e. most models in only one set)
Models are often a little...un-made-up.
Many models don't interact with the camera much
Well, the best way to describe this site might be "Forget the foreplay, let's get to it!"
There is very little posing, no glam photography (i.e. not much make-up), not a single "naked girl in the woods" just a whole lot of "Here's a girl. Watch her masturbate!" And masturbate they do! Every single girl! Usually with multiple devices in each photo or video set.
This is also one of those sites where you are so drawn in by the masturbation scenes that you won't notice some of the other features right away. There are a lot of interview transcripts that seem reasonably genuine, but the translation from Russian seems a little too perfect to be 100% correct. They are entertaining, though. There are both "bonus" and an "extras" sections that contain additional sets, some of which are from other sites. Ah, yes, there is a LOT of cross selling advertising going on, but thankfully the webmasters have kept the ads to small banners except at the very bottom of some of the pages. The sites that are advertised are all quality sites and a few have "special offers" that one would not get if one were to go straight to, say, Twisty's. (The offers are about the same as the discounts the PU.com...)
There are a couple of bonus sites: "We like to Suck" and "Wet and Pissy". If that doesn't paint a picture for you, quit sniffing glue. Thay have basically the same layout and quality but are a little more specialized. Not really my cup of....whatever.
The webmaster and photo teams do a really good job of creating a genre and sticking to it. The scenes are well lit, well focused and generally good quality. They are all entirely indoors, apparently in a hotel bedroom or bathroom with a few scenes in a home someplace. In some of the sets, one of the videographers, who I'm pretty sure is not exclusive to this site, gets into the action a little by putting a finger in various orafices of the models. I'm not sure I like this style and can't tell if the models do either.
The models are for the most part, right out of ALScan or Twisty's. The top models here are on those other sites, too. Generally pretty, with maybe a few that are not. Oh, and the "real factor" is pretty high here. Make-up is minimal. Lot's of very shiny faces and plenty of pimples visible just about everywhere you can imagine. One girl has a boot shaped bruise right across her butt! If you like "real" this is the place for you!
The "acting" is OK. Female orgasms in porn is like watching professional wrestling. Is it real? Who cares! It's entertainment!
The stats, curiously posted across the top on th ehome page to make it really easy for me to reference, are:
That is not a lot of material compared to some other sites and it doesn't take a math wiz to see that over three quarters of the models only have one photo set and one video. The price isn't bad, though, so I would say it is worth it.
Navigation is pretty straightforward. You can sort models alphatically or on popularity...but the order of the models seems to change and the ranking system, wich goes to 5, seems a little narrow and somewhat inaccurate. There are two image download sizes and a handful of video format options. There are also a few page preferences like number of thumnails on a page. I would like to see larger image options and the ability to download things directly from the model or scene summary page.
OK, bottom line: If you are into solo mastubation videos, this site is certainly worth a visit.
For me, it's a toss-up. Random username/passwords aren't bad IF your browser is allowed to remember them. (That way, you only enter it once and don't have to remember it.) If not, random username/PW are the worst. It is why I dropped my Watch4Beauty subscription...because they do not allow your browser to keep the info. Capcha is rapidly becoming the most annoying as it becomes more widespread, though. What is the purpose, exactly, to make sure you are not using a download bot? You already paid for the material, right?
Looks like I need to keep looking around. There is one bonus site that isn't bad called Ariel Rebel. Although I don't recall seeing the girl before, the solo site has Recent updates, decent vidos, etc.
I joined this site because the Girl they call Katie Fey is a personal favorite. Katie was Jenya at Met Art and was in Playboy as a Russian by the name of Yevgeniya Diordiychuk. I never expect much from these solo sites, but there was a lot of material here from between 2004 and 2008. I counted 300 sets!
Apparently, she is either retired or is no longer updating this site because the last sets were from 2008. Although she is smoking hot, she is not a porn model and most of the images were barely nude. The resolution of the images was 1000k or smaller.
There are some other sites that came with the deal, but they were of nobody I'd ever heard of, were very old (i.e. small and pooor quality) and most were not nude. I may have saved maybe one set from the other sites.
If you are "Katie Fay" collector, this site is worth it. If you hang around on the sign-up page long enough, you will get a "chat" pop-up and doing so will reduce the cost by $5.
Well.... think I get the question. Or maybe I'm interpreting it in a particular way. There is sometimes a distinct period of time between the orgasmic groan (or virtual groan if yours is silent) and actual ejaculation. The question is how long can one hold that sensation that causes the groan before shooting off? Well, for me, maybe a couple of seconds the first time. Longer, but less intense the second or third times, probably because there is not as much left to hold back....
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Very unique, playful style - a true "indie" web site
Unique look and feel
Fairly exclusive European models
57 of the girls are French according to site
A few popular models
True High resolution images to 4000k- crisp images
HD videos for most models
Newer site so no old low res material!
Great search options
Model mouseover summary and "exposure limits" very helpful
Newer models/sets are very good
Coolest "Shop" area I'v ever seen.
A good deal for the price!
Collection is not that large, but growing
Information is sparce once at the model pages
Rating system is confusing (model or set?)
Can't search by model score.
Many Models are not very engaging
Many models are pretty but not knockouts
Many models/sets are not nude
Navigation/viewing options are limited
(i.e. 10 models per page, 18 sets per page)
There are a few minor navigation issues (page back does not work so you have to reload a lot)
A few broken/incorrect links (might be in the middle of upgrading )
Set dates are not universally available.
This is the type of site that reminds me how incredibly difficult it must be to run a popular, successful porn site. They do many, many things really well here, but the overall package falls a little short, overall score-wise, of the big players.
This is currently a nude and non-nude modeling site. mostly passive, candid, single model, photography. No sex, nothing kinky in any way with the exception of a very small number of VERY light B&D sets. In this regard, it is kind of like the local strip club....the girls you WANT to see more of are not the girls you ARE seeing more of, if you catch my drift. If you have an appetite for sex scenes, toys, bondage, close-ups, spread legs, anything more than passaive nude modeling photogrpahy, this may not be the site for you at the moment, but check back as it looks like the folks here are making some very positive improvements in both the site and the collection. If you are the type who likes passive scenes, dressing room shots, that kind of thing, then this may be an EXCELLENT site for you. Frankly, there is a lot of variety here and my tastes, admittedly, run toward more engaging solo scenes.
Here are some basics from what I can tell...
About 100 models
About 350 sets
1 new set every 2-3 days
Sets have between 30 and 60 images
Models all seem to be 18-24
Model are, as the name implies, petite.
Most sets are in studio.
The design of this site makes it fun and different. I think the webmasters were trying to incorporate a Moulin Rouge kind of feel, and they came very close to pulling it off. Model thumbnails are shown full sized and they go nude with a mouse-over. Saw the technique in a french body study years ago and it is VERY effective here at showing you exactly what the models look like. Clicking on a model brings a pop-up that shows all of her sets. Once you select a set, you get about 36 images per page, a "stars" score, and a thumbnail slider that allows you to go to other sets of the same model. Very nice concept. In execution, though, the name of the model does not show up on the model page anywhere, only in the hard-to-read thumbnails, the stars scoring is not immediately clear (model or set? SET!), the model bio is not available from here, the sets are not dated here, the cover images are included for sets scheduled for up to a month away (so you click on a model and a set and THEN find that the set isn't on the site yet). Some navigation options are missing, but don't hit back-page here (or ANYWHERE) or you will have to reload your browser. (I also clicked on something once or twice and got dropped into a shell directory where I shouldn't have been...looks like they are in the middle of upgrades.) I love the navigation style here, but it could be much better with a few small tweaks.
When you first look at the site, it really does give a Moulin Rouge feel. The sample images are representatative, so you honestly see what you get.
The photography, though competent, is sometimes a little weak. There are some excellent studio sets, but many sets are passive, so you feel like you are following the model around through her apartment or something. There is a little model interaction with the photographer (and therefore the viewer), but not much. This may be more about the models,as the more popular models are more interactive (it is part of what makes them popular) than the neophytes. But the incongruity between the playful feel of the site and the passive feel of many of the sets is what makes things a little...off here. They need a little more of the sexual energy you find at Twisty's or ALSscan...you usually only get that with the hyper-confident pro-models or with a photographer/shoot team that is ungodly talented. I noticed that many commenters like the passive stuff and frankly have no idea how one would balance the two styles. I have to say, though, that the newer photography is much, much better in terms of interaction and content than the older stuff, so clearly somebody here gets it.
I really want this site to be a success. It is different. It is unique. It is not a formula web site. It deserves to be successful. I could easily and rightfully compare it to an Indie in the movie industry. But the problem with indies is that, although they are often critically acclaimed, they just as often don't get the popular vote simply because they are not following the popular formula or because of one or two faults. This site COULD be a Kill Bill, a Pulp Fiction, A Quentin Tarantino kick-ass example of a web site. Unfortunately, it isn't quite there....yet. Clearly, I am rooting for it, though.
Bottom line: A very unique site that is worthy of a look. With a few tweaks in the site and content, this could be among the top players and it seems as though the webmasters here are figuring that out. I will absolutely be back in a year or so to see how things have progressed.
I just joined this site a few days ago and so far, it isn't bad at all. It is an "Art" or "Nude" site, mostly what I call "Girl in the woods" stuff, but many of the models are exclusive. The non-exclusive models are top-tier (perhaps from before they were mainstream), and all of the models are, for the most part, absolutley flawless.
I definitely see the granularity, mentioned elsewhere in feedback, in many of the larger images, even brand new posts. This leads me to believe that the host is drawing on older images that are previously unreleased..or he just doesn't want anybody zooming in or printing razor sharp, life-sized images of the models and thinks the grainy look is artsy. (Remember when the images in Penthouse Magazine had that odd glow/fuzz effect?) It's distracting but not terminal.
I'll do a full review in a few days once I 've had a chance to look around.
It is amazing how convenient digital media is. I"ve collected over 2 TB over the past 16 years or so, almost entirely images. Of course the old stuff is like 8mm film and you can hardly even see the videos on today's screens. Those old videos are laughable.
Apparently they WERE telling me to screw off since future sign-up is "no longer an option". Here's the final message I got from the webmaster. You have to wonder what people are thinking in terms of marketing when there are public review forums like this. Was it retaliation for writing the comments? I don't know. It's just very dissappointing. And I'd bet that they never even try to replicate the problem I outlined.
No disrespect intended and no justification is necessary on either end. Our site is not a good fit for you. We both recognize that. Your $19.95 has been promptly refunded
Future signup is no longer an option. As I said earlier, we're sorry it was so difficult for you. Login authentication is not supposed to be a complicated, frustrating experience.
On 2/8/2013 5:22 PM, skippy99 wrote:
Well, Iím more than a little disappointed that you just closed my account and refunded my money, but I suppose that is your prerogative. The reason I contacted ccBill and not you was that I really wasnít expecting anyone to respond to me from your site at 1:00 in the morning. Usually, ccBill can reset locked passwords and even change them and I know they are there 24/7.
From: Webmaster at MPL Studios
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: Your login process is a nightmare!
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Some of the models are really beautiful
Most are at least good looking
Most are natural, not enhanced.
100% original content
Exclusive models as far as I can tell
Reasonable variety of body dimensions
Sets are not dated.
Unknown update frequency.
Can't tell if sets are recycled.
No HD found so far
Images and zips are 1600x1067 MAX!!
Navigation is a little clunky
Site is mostly bathing suit and lingerie shots.
Models are not very animated (most just standing)
Softer than soft core...really a bikini site with extras.
Not a particularly good value at $29.95.
About 210 models and 1475 sets.
Very few videos but all are decent quality.
Sets have between 30 and 120 images.
Vast majority of sets are bikini/lingerie sets.
This is an odd, sort of misidentified site and I just can't understand why they didn't define it better. (Sorry TBP...) Probably 97% of the girls are NOT NUDE! This would be a classic tease or bikini site if it were not for the occasional nude set. Even the nude sets, most of them anyway, are not particularly revealing. I've seen more on the Chive, Maxim or free web sites. Much more. But then, oh wait, there are two or three models that get naked and provide extreme close-ups. Waaaat? What's THAT about? No wonder TBP had such a hard time defining the site. It's like the sock drawer of nude sites! Most things in there match up with a specific genre ou would expect, but rogue loners to make you wonder what's going on....
Maybe the next best way I can define this site, besides as a tease site, is outdated. Navigation is good but not ideal. You can filter the models by odd preferences like "wet" (as in water),"fishnet", "see-thru", "blond" and, oh yea, "nude" and even "extreme close up" which is just wierd compared to the rest of the site. You can't select multiples, so no way to see wet blonds, etc. And "see-thru" applies to a top worn over a bathing suit as often as something you can actually see parts through.
When you select a model, you get a list of her sets. The sets have tags like "fishnet", bathing suit", "nude", etc. that match the search parameters. These are site defined. Select a set and you get the first batch of 30 thumbnails. If there is nudity, it is often very late in the set. Some sets have over 300 images, so you have to go through 10 pages or more to see everything. You can also navigate directly to a page. Or you can download the entire set in a zip file.
The sets are not dated, so you have no idea how old they are. You also don't know how many images are in a set until you look. The image or file sizes are also not listed. The tags are helpful, but "nude" in this case might mean a nip slip. Ad if the model is nude, chances are pretty good that they superglued her legs together. Many of the girls that are nude are all crossed up like they have to pee! Some are only topless. One kind of interesting thing is that the girls may go nude but cover up everything with thier hands....until they turn around. That all of a sudden you'll get this beautiful standing rear view. The photographer seems to have a knack for these rearview shots as they occur pretty consistently in clothed and nude models.
Oh, yeah. The photography. Competent. Nothing special. No photoshopping. Some studio sets. Since most of the girls are clothed, it looks like the photographer often takes the models to a local hotel pool or maybe some gardens someplace. You can tell that many of the model sets were shot on the same day with the same locale. Nothing even remotely exotic in the locations.
Now if you are LOOKING for a bikini site, this one is probably not bad, but the occasional rogue naked close-up model kind of messes up that niche.
If this were my site, I would probably break it up into a "network" of three sites that might include bikini, lingere and nude sites. The price I paid, $29.00 was probably about $10.00-15.00 high considering comparable sites with tens of thousands of high-resolution images and HD videos.
Bottom line? If you are looking for some exclusve non-nude photography and don't mind a little nudity mixed in, this is a good site for you. If you are used to the top softcore sites, pass on this one...at least until the price comes down.
This is one of those cases where I read the review and did not quite get what you were saying. I was thinking the site has probably changed a lot since you signed up 5 years ago. Guess what? It hasn't.
Wow, now I just read the entire message from the webmaster and read the email he sent me. Although I can't really tell if he's telling me to screw off or not...the message was pretty polite...I am a little dissappointed that he just closed the account.
I'll try again some other time. Knowing what I do now about the login issue, I should be able to get around it without getting locked out.
I absolutely agree that ccBill is perhaps the best billing system. The problem, though, is that the site determines policy and ccBill abides by it. The random password is the site. Login attempts is the site. the tab issue is probably a comibination of site and ccbill as niether seem aware that it is an issue.
The reason I went to ccBill is because they are the site's wallet. If the issue comes from ccBill to the site, chances that it will be addressed are sometimes better than if it were just a little old user.
And lastly, I've had a few instances lately where login servers have been down and I was unable to get into sites. The login servers belong to ccbill. In those cases, you need to complain to both ccBill and to the paysite. There are usually quality of service clauses in the service level agreement between them and you want both parties to think at least a little bit about whether those clauses have been broken.
Interesting response. No "Sorry" message. No possible way that the web site could have done anything wrong. Operator error is the only thing it could have been. (Did I mention that I've been in IT for 20 years?) Kind of arrogant and politically incorrect, don't you think? The ONLY way to accurately enter in a cryptic username password combination like the one you assigned to me is to copy it from the ccbill site and paste it into the host site and that is exactly what I did. About 20 times.
YOUR site locked me out after multiple attempts based on the IP address I was using. When I loaded an anonymous browsing client that uses a proxy server, I was able to get in, but was unable to download more than a few images before, within 60 seconds of logging in, I got a message from YOUR site that said I was accessing the site from an unauthorized IP address (i.e. the proxy server) and tossed me out again. I clicked on the download button for the ZIP, but did not get the file. Probably an issue with the proxy server, not yours.
It's kind of too bad, too, because I liked the little bit I saw of your site.
I'll tell you what. I'll try again tonight to get in. If you look at my other revews for similar sites you will see that I write fair and in many cases glowing reviews. If I get in I will write a review that is untainted by this incident. But in return, you need to secret shop your own site from outside your facility on a typical IP connection. Use Internet Explorer. Buy a subscription. Click on the link in the "Approved" page that ccBill provides and watch as a tab within IE opens. See for yourself that it is physically impossible to get back to the ccBill login page (in an IE tab) once you click login and your website login pop-up appears. Try it a dozen times like I did and see if your site locks you out. Then get back to me and either say "Yes, we can see how this might be a problem" or "No, we tested this exactly as you described and were able to toggle tabs once the login pop-up appeared and were not locked out.
Your call. Actually replicate the issue as I carefully described above, or continue to be a defensive sysadmin who refuses to beleive something an intellegent, experienced customer tells them about their site.
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.