Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Feedback History A detailed history of activity from this user in all different categories.
User : Drooler (218)  

Feedback:   All (2960)  |   Reviews (115)  |   Comments (237)  |   Replies (2608)

Other:   Replies Received (1452)  |   Trust Ratings (85)

All Activity A summary of all the feedback from this user.
Shown : 1-25 of 2960 Page :    Next Page >

Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date
Review
1
Visit Babelicious

Babelicious
(0)

92.0
Status: Current Member for over 3 months (at the time of review).
Pros: +570 photo sets to date, usually of very HOT Euro and American babes
+Just 37 of the photosets are hc (a + for me; a - for others, though)
+Pic sizes max at range of 2500 to 4000px
+Zips or pics à la carte in 1000, 2000, and max size for each photoset (usually)
+Flexible, intuitive navigation and gallery viewing options
+Very easy and helpful search functions
+265 vids (35 are b/g; 20 are lez)
+Detailed info (for each vid, too) available to visitors
+8 bonus sites (3 are really good!)
Cons: -Most of the content is not exclusive, but generally done better than other sites do.
-Too much toy content; would like more good solo ASS content, like Claudia Oct. 28, photo number 62. (THAT’S what I’m talkin’ about!)
-Wish they had thumbs corresponding to the main activities in each vid segment; they have good thumbs for the content overview of each vid, though.
Bottom Line: I’ve seen LOTS of these photosets at BlueFantasies, TeenDreams, Xisty, ATK Galleria, and the now defunct BrandNewBabes, BUT Babelicious offers larger pic sizes and more flexible viewing and download options than most. (I like to view all the pics on one page, and it’s a snap here.) And Xisty puts only a fraction of their content above 1800px in a “special” section of their site; at Babelicious, it’s just normal to have pix at 2500px or higher. So Babelicious does ‘em best, that’s for sure.

Add to the pros:
+You can vote on each model and on each photoset and video, and you can post comments
+Previews of the next 10 photosets to come and the next 6 videos
+Highly responsive, friendly support
+The bonus sites SexyBabes.tv, DreamBabes, and Eurobabez update 5-6 days per week. From Sept this year, SexyBabes got an improved interface (similar to Babelicious’) and has been offering larger pics, sometimes to 3500px, as well! DreamBabes offers a lot of MatrixNudes content, usually at 1600px. Eurobabez also does 1600px most of the time. All of them also have even more videos! And all have zips.

Add to the cons:
-The bonus site content isn’t exclusive, either, except perhaps BabesUK, which updates infrequently and erratically and has a “bleached” quality in the photos.

Among those sites that specialize in the non-exclusive (hey, someone has to!), Babelicious is probably the best there is. It’s very user-friendly, with valuable features and tons of content.

12-09-07  10:52am

Replies (7)
Review
2
Visit Hegre Art

Hegre Art
(1)

92.0
Status: Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
Pros: +MANY beautiful European, S. American, etc. women (some well-known, some less so)
+Exclusive photos, very highly professional and often intensely detailed
+Daily photo updates, all well represented in visitor’s area
+Zips or singles in 600, 1200, 2000, 3000, 4000, and often 6000px for each photoset since May 2006; at least 2000px, usually, from 2002
+227 videos; about 50% are in 5 formats including wmv, divx, iPod, QT, and PSP, some hi-def
+Quick server response
+Friendly, helpful support
Cons: -too much shadow and darkness in some photosets
-photosets of over 200 images can get repetitive
-a few models are on the “cool” side and/or aren’t that appealing
-thumbed models index by numbered pages should be replaced by alphabetical list by name (though there already is a drop down list with names, too)
-video quality can vary (though it’s usually very good) and some vids are pretty boring (to me, at least)
Bottom Line: This is a softcore nude site, with NO TOYS, and I hope they will always keep it that way. Those of us who can do without all of the obsessive phallus shoving and formula driven hardcore saturating the porn world need some place to go, and this is one of the few spots to definitely head for. Definitely.

Whether it adds a video or not, this site always has a photoset update every day. And although I don’t like the amount of shadow that photographer Petter Hegre works with sometimes, I still say that he’s one of the absolute best softcore nude photographers ever. The images are staggeringly real. Only Tim Fox, Peter Janhans, and Martin Krake come immediately to mind as being in the same league.

Some of the better known models here include Amandine, Marketa Belonoha, Sandra Kalerman, Helena Karel, Nella (as Mirta), Roxy Carter/Veronika Hanacova, Sophie Paris, and Yvette Blanche, but most of the lesser known girls are also very sexy and appealing. Evi, Jaqui, and Keity are especially m-m-m-m-m-m-m.

A few of the models are skinny, and a few are a tad homely, but most of them are just fine in body weight, good looks, and sex appeal. Check out the model index, as a visitor, and see for yourself.

This site is one of the very best of its kind. If softcore nude photography is a favorite niche of yours, I highly recommend it.

09-17-07  06:31pm

Replies (3)
Review
3
Visit Crystal Clear Movies

Crystal Clear Movies
(0)

92.0
Status: Was a member approx. 6 months prior to this review.
Pros: +Over 1500 high quality videos (640x480 that look good in full-screen mode, 1024x768 screen rez)
+Many niches (2-somes, 3-somes, interracial, etc.)
+Can find all vids of a niche by choosing a category in the drop-down list
+Euro, American, Asian
+Mostly exclusive material
+No DRM
+Smaller versions usually available
+Public area gives an exhaustive (some might say exhausting) tour
+Clear navigation
+In members area, lots of screenshots for previewing scene, if available
Cons: -Updates require earlier content to be dropped, so start downloading at the higher numbers (at page 196, not page 1, which has the most recent stuff)
-Content changes page location as site updates, so a vid on p. 70 you're thinking of will move to p. 71, etc. A small nuisance.
-Lez, solo or just stripping for a male, etc. are also niches
-No search by pornstar name
-Even larger, HD formats would bring this site a bit more in line with the present
-Occasional skanky-looking pornstar
Bottom Line: I've been a member of this site twice, and if you love hardcore, it will keep both your mind and your drives whirring.

There's just so much here that it's definitely worth $29.95 for a join. I'd probably join more often but frankly, I need time to rest after a busy month here.

The quality is usually great, the sex is full-out, and the selection of babes is vast. But sometimes there are no screenshots of scenes; they say they're "coming soon," but sometimes they aren't.

I wanted to get this review out as I suddenly realized that it hadn't been reviewed yet at TBP or PU. I think you hardcore lovers will find it to be a delightful surprise.

06-06-07  01:30pm

Replies (3)
Review
4
Visit 1 By Day

1 By Day
(0)

91.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +huge collection going back to January 2001
+752 models
+new photoset (usually w/video) each day
+max pic sizes 1616px from 2/04; 2000px from 1/07 (two smaller sizes also available from 2/04)
+recent videos 672x378, in WMV/DivX/Quicktime segments; very crisp in 1024x768 screen rez; full-length HC are Hi-Def (1280x720) from 6/06 (often >500mb)
+solo, some w/ toys, fucking machines; lez; hc
+easy navigation
+quick server response (vid download over 600kps)
+public preview of models index
Cons: -no public preview of updates calendar (which they had years ago) or of monthly archives
-a few models so-so in looks
-zips of galleries only in largest size
-not really exclusive, as some of it shows up at ATK Galleria (there, as high as 1536px in 2007; 1024 before that)
-annoying black border around pics (not present in ATK Galleria)
-more recent “glam” shoots have too much shadow
-pre-2004 pics look funky
-voting on models, but can’t see results (if it matters to you)
Bottom Line: I’ve been a member of this site several times since Jan 2003. What’s attracted me are the beauties: Aneta Smrhova, Marina/Euphrat, Stracey, Simi, Caroline Cage, etc.

They even have recent HC vids of Stracey and Simi, I think with their boyfriends. You should see Simi assaulting the guy’s face with her tits (4/27/07). She looks like a fun chick! Sort of like Erica Campbell, but goin’ all the way.

May ’07 is a typical month: 58% are solo photosets with videos (some w/ toys, one w/ a sex machine); 29% lesbian, and 13% hardcore (in 2’s, 3’s, or 4’s).

It’s made important improvements over the years:
-better layout and navigation
-larger pics with more vivid color
-gallery downloads all in one set (used to be 1 zip per page), redone retroactively throughout (!) the site (a lot of work, that was!)
-much better server response (in 2004, had to go back and forth to a page just to get the thumbs to load (grrrr!); also was CONSTANTLY having to re-enter username and pwd.) Now you can hang around the site for quite awhile without being timed out. Yay!

Now I only wish they could retroactively increase their pic sizes, especially pre-2004. I’ve even asked them to redo a specific gallery or two, but got no response :(. Maybe it’s just not doable.

Follow-Up:
Since I wrote this review, the site has made further serious improvements: updates viewable in public area, vids in gobs of formats and sizes, and lots of reduxes of older pics and vids with great results! And two releases per day instead of one. Bravo! Raising the score. (Just wish they'd cool it with the toy stuff some, and do the ass shots in better ways more often -- but that's me!)

06-16-07  07:59pm

Replies (3)
Review
5
Visit FEMJOY

FEMJOY
(0)

90.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Regular updates of 2 photosets per day from Nov. 2006; one per day before then
+Usually very beautiful European women and great photography
+Exclusive content
+Archive from June 2004
+3 pic sizes: 800, 1200, and 3-4000px, in zip or singles for photosets going back to May 2005 or so; earlier sets max at 2-3000px
+More recent videos at 1280x720 in WMV or Quicktime
Cons: -awkward navigation (but you can get used to it, and some features you might come to like)
-occasional excessive darkness or light, or blurriness where you don’t want it
-middle size on earlier galleries is 1000px
-a few galleries are only 25 or so pics
-“Best of” links are just to sets that were published earlier, but first-time members might like them being pointed out
-sometimes a sluggish server response, but it’s been improving
Bottom Line: FemJoy has become one of best softcore nude photography sites out there, pretty much on a par with MetArt. The models include Nikky Case, Susana Spears, Bambi, Peaches, Jana Mala (here as “Jane”) … and others with aliases too numerous to mention.

Since I first joined in Sept 2005, it’s had a makeover: a more visually appealing design and better organization. The navigation is a learning experience, though.

As a member, you open to the latest updates. Click one, and the next page has links to rate the gallery, download zips of it, make a comment on it, or just go somewhere else in the site! But what about that gallery, which you haven’t even seen yet? Why not just go straight to it, and put the gallery-related stuff in it?

The actual gallery opens in another window of one to several pages, or you can “View All” on a single page.

Choosing pic sizes depends on where you click on a thumb (top = largest, middle = 1200px); this feature I like now, but for a while I didn’t even realize that the little thing at the top of the page was a “visual” explanation of it. (Too cryptic? Your call.)

Another thing is the models index. You can either search by name, or FemJoy name, or you can view ALL of the approx 400 models at once, alphabetized, on one page! Even if they just put them in A-D, E-H, etc. visually separated sections, there would less “overload.”

FemJoy: excellent quality content + some interesting features + a few quirks.

Follow-Up:
Since I wrote the above review, they've recently changed to a more tasteful and visually appealing design that's also easier to use. Just wish they had more ways of searching for models, like, say, ATK Galleria does. The model list is so long, it's staggering. (Kinda like being in the orgasmatron in Barbarella.) One thing is clear: they are doing a lot to make this site better.

05-31-07  06:43pm

Replies (0)
Review
6
Visit Matrix Nudes

Matrix Nudes
(0)

90.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Many HQ images
+Huge archive, going back to mid-May 2000
+2000px size images from Dec 2006; 1600px sizes from March 2003, and 1024s are max size prior to then
+Many HOT models in solo, hc, and lez
+Nice trial price of $4.95 for 3 days; when I went to cancel at PayCom, they offered $22.95 for a month (above the standard $29.99).
+user preferences page lets you choose the default viewing size of images (4 sizes)
+extensive model index with thumbs (but not dates)
+what's new index by date
Cons: -too much emphasis on toys shoved into gynies and poopers
-no zips
-videos are stream only and small screen
-navigation is pokey and slow; the screen will go blank until everything on the page loads at once (just so you know there's nothing wrong with your "set")
-site doesn't work unless I reset privacy in my browser to med low or just low before logging in; once several months ago it didn't let me in at all and I had to get PayCom to refund my membership -- but that was just once.
Bottom Line: If you been around in Twisty's, SexyBabes.tv, DreamBabes, or many other sites, you've no doubt seen content from Matrix.

It's here, too, but the pic sizes tend to be larger. Most of the women here are really hot and include Riley Shy, Lonnie Waters, Monique Alexander, Avery Adams, Jana Cova, and the list just goes on.

To give an example of content, April 2007 had 26 solo sets, one lez and one hardcore. Also, there were 4 hardcore and 8 solo vids.

This is more of a photography site than a video site (you can KEEP the images). If you've got the time to look for those special enlargements from a set you've seen elsewhere, they might well be here. If you've got time to cherry pick each image and upwards of $30 from your tax refund, you'll have plenty to do. And if you've never seen anything from Matrix before, man, someone's gonna have to send you a big "care package."

Final note: they used to do a lot of "faux amateur" sets that had bad lighting and no makeup. These don't seem to come anymore. Overall, MatrixNudes is just getting better.

05-07-07  01:38pm

Replies (0)
Review
7
Visit Eve Angel

Eve Angel
(0)

89.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Huge collection, from April 7, 2005, of EXCLUSIVE pics and videos of Hungarian supercutie Eve Angel and friends; some of the friends are hot, too
+All galleries available in zips at 2048px or 980px
+Videos are good quality at 640x480, 1.5Mbit, WMV or QT; 384 or 768Kbit WMV or QT also available. No DRM.
+Calendar organization helps a lot with navigation
+TBP discount is a sweet deal for the first-time subscriber
+Good previews of models and content volume for the visitor
Cons: -Lags behind in updates; “daily” certainly does not mean “on time, every day”
-Individual pics download as 2048px bmp’s only
-View a gallery, then must click one way or another to return to zip download page (esp. tiring for a first timer, esp. with large galleries)
-Some of Eve’s friends are “funny valentines”
-Section of collected galleries and vids of Eve is a confusing, disorganized mess
-On login, annoying upsell page for meeting people in my locale; click to continue to Eve’s site
Bottom Line: Actually, it was discovering that Mia Stone had made several appearances here that got me speed typing the signup form back in 11/05. Several other wonderful Eurobabes have guested here as well, though the ranks have been thinning to where it’s only Eve this month. Up to Sept. 19th, anyway. It stops there. My subscription ends today.

Would you be happy with that?

I’m not, of course, but I still recommend this site for its substantial existing content. I would have rated even higher if, in addition to corrections of the con’s, there was less darkness in some of the pic sets, less prolonged toy sucking and shoving (not my thing), and removal of those small enlargements in the calendars. (They stick to your cursor and are very, very distracting and annoying!) But it has improved since ‘05: the added smaller sized zips, fully controllable videos (not just play & stop), and the TBP discount (a very nice price).

As individual model sites go, Eve’s is either tops or close to it. There hasn’t been any recycling of content, as is the case with Mya Diamond’s site, and there are far more updates per month than at Lara Craft’s. And Eve herself is a divine beauty and seems to be a beautiful person, too.

BTW, if you’re looking for b/g hardcore, there’s only a very small handful of it here, in 2005. Eve herself goes only so far as to tease a guy with her dominatrix boots and getup. (She’d quit real hardcore by then.) There is a fair amount of lez stuff, though.

09-29-07  05:59am

Replies (8)
Review
8
Visit AT Kingdom

AT Kingdom
(0)

89.0
Status: Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Massive collection. Updates photos Tues. to Sat. every week.
+Many hot American and Euro babes
+Photos usually at 1536px since Jan. 2007
+Much content not seen elsewhere.
+Many niches: amateurs, coeds, babes, lingerie, uniforms, masturbation, feet, lesbian (“experimental coeds”), blowjobs, hardcore action, etc.
+Excellent, unparalleled search features by months, single days, model names, and many model and niche types
+Member participation in voting on models and on each photoset.
Cons: -Photo quality varies greatly, even now, from vivid color/clarity to poorly lit, “orange skinned models,” etc.
-A few “no way” models
-Non-exclusive content, same as from sites like TeenDreams and 1byDay; smaller pic sizes, too (but still good at 1536). 1by sets split between SC and HC galleries here. (That’s really cheating!)
-Vids segmented over weeks! Ugh!
-Zips of photos are by-gallery-page. 10 pages = 10 zip files to compile together! Such menial tasking is no fun.
Bottom Line: Like other PU members who’ve written about it, I’ve been a long-time fan of this site. How many sites offer 16+ gallery sets per day, meaning 80+ per 5-day week? 6,400 galleries is the total on quick estimate; could be more. Can’t beat it for value if you’re a photo fan. On pic size as well, they whip other large collections such as Twistys.

I also like that voting on photosets is distinct from voting on models. I’ve avoided voting on sites where only the galleries get rated as I haven’t wanted some models to suffer “collateral damage,” so to speak. I don't know how much much effect the voting actually has, though.

As for the vids, ~24 new HC, lez, and solo ones come each Monday. 213 such collections to date. 640x480, WMV and QT options for each, 70 to 160MB/7 to 12+ min. each, going back at least 30 collections. At least more recently the segments are longer. Some I've seen elsewhere, but, not bad!

Improvements needed, in priority order are:
1. Provide all-in-one zips! (ATKP Premium does!) That pop-up thing that replicates downloading by the page is utterly superfluous.
2. Improve image quality where needed. Stuff that looks like late ’90’s crap doesn’t cut it anymore, even at 1536px.
3. Do as little non-exclusive content as possible.
4. Reduce the obsessive upskirt and toy shots. Drop “pregnant.” (Too scary!)

Was really tempted to rate this site in the 90’s. Came very close! Call it an 89.9. I recommend it for sure, with a few caveats.

09-20-07  06:59am

Replies (12)
Review
9
Visit Fucked Hard 18

Fucked Hard 18
(0)

88.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +HOT SEX the way I like it
+New member’s area is easy to navigate (old member’s area was kinda funky in more ways than one).
+66 scenes and counting
+Dates of publication are shown
+Mostly excellent American girls; 65 different girls to date (Eden came back for a second "session")
+Exclusive content
+Videos available full scene or in segments
+640x480 wmv., acceptable 1589kbps bitrate
+No DRM
+200-500 pics per scene, rarely fewer, sometimes more
+Zips for pics
+Member involvement (comments, polls, scene ratings)
+Models of next two future scenes announced
Cons: -Updates just once every Saturday (but things take time!)
-Most pics are 900x600px (or reverse); from "Melissa” Feb. 21, 2009 on, tall pics are 1500 tall and wide pics are 1024 wide. (Is that really Melissa Lauren?)
-Don’t like the ass slapping (and reddening) and hair pulling
-Doesn’t show file sizes of zips or vids on the pages (does show time length of the segment clips)
-New members area has a bit of finishing to do, but only in non-essential ways
-Visitor’s pages aren't bad, but they don't seem to preview all of the content; don't give a quick enough idea of who all of the models are; don't do justice to new member’s area
-Bonus sites (4 of them) are streaming-only
Bottom Line: OK, you fucktards. What? It's FuckedHARD? Ohhhh, oh I see. Yes, that's very different. Well, then ... never mind ...

Bitch.

(remember Emily Littela?)
--------------------------------------------

I really, really love this site! Sure, it’s the same scene over and over again: Girl comes in for massage appt., gets asked “a couple of questions,” gets rubdown, THEN (and this will surprise you) ... she gets boned silly.

But it’s the way they have sex that I just love! Lots and lots of backdoor action, on the table edge, on the red wedge, on the blue wedge, flat out on the floor! There are 2-3 “mini-scenes” of this in every episode. There’s almost no group sex, nor anal sex, nor fiddling around with “accessories.” This is all quite fine by me.

Hey, check out this week’s poll question: “What position do you most enjoy watching the girls get fucked on the massage table?” All of the choices involve backdoor sex. Yeah, this site is al-l-l right!

And the girls are mostly hot looking and high in “fucktitude.” The way Lexi Belle gyrates her ass. The way that fit petite newcomer Evah (seen also at KarupsHA , ATK Galleria, etc. as Eve, Eva, ...) takes it both hard, fast and deep and savory-slow. Well, I could go on ...

So I will: Alyssa Hall, Taylor Tilden, Tanner Mayes, Tristan Kingsley, Kagney Lynn Carter, Stephanie Sage, Eden, Nika, Nicole Raye, Sandy Sweet, Kacey Jordan, Ginger Lee ...

A special mention goes to Priscilla! I've not seen her before, but she's just incredible. Beautiful, with a firm, smooth and very round ass, lustrous hair, and a darling mouth and eyes. AND a low, sexy voice. The backdoor sex just goes on and on and on. The vid is nearly 55 minutes. Don't miss!

I applaud this site for its “no-frills formula” approach because it’s the right one -- IMHO, of course. (Sure, with all of the “wedge and edge” business, there’s not much of the pure “belly down flat,” but it’s still good.)

I mean, it’s not a “wedge issue” (cymbal crash).

Certainly with the new, recent improvements, this site has a lot more to offer than it did when it was first reviewed here.

Was temped to rate it higher. With yet higher quality vids (larger dimensions and faster bitrates), I would have. Still, I highly recommend this site.

04-04-09  11:16am

Replies (4)
Review
10
Visit Erotic Beauty

Erotic Beauty
(2)

88.0
Status: Current Member for over 6 months (at the time of review).
Pros: +Very large, exclusive collection
+Professional photography
+Many beautiful models: Evelyn Lory, Jana Horokova (as Lisen), etc.
+Photosets usually 100-200 pics each
+two zip options (“hi” 3-4000 px, or “low” 1200)
+Daily photo updates from May 2005 (1 set per day)
+easy, straightforward navigation
+vids in DivX, WMV, QT264, mpeg (formats available vary by the vid)
+can rate both the model and the photographer on a 1-10 scale
Cons: -sometimes delays updates for a day or two
-max pic sizes vary greatly early in site history (1024px to 40xx 5/05-5/06, but most are 1500 or higher); nearly always 3-4000+ pixel size from 6/06.
-a few unappealing models
-sometimes too little light, too much shadow, blurriness
-a couple of photographers I don’t care for (esp. “Magoo,” who goes too far with the “artistic” effects)
-only 30 vids (the last in July ’06); transition effects sometimes overdone; some vids only 570px long
Bottom Line: Have been a member off/on since Nov. 2005; currently on a one-year membership.

This is a softcore nude photography site, mostly solo (but no toys), with a smattering of girl/girl lite. The vids obviously amount to just a little “extra” -- like sprinkles on ice cream.

For a softcore photo nut like me, it’s pretty close to the right formula. And there’s plenty of delectable ass to be found in the archives. Per diem, it beats 1byDay, W4B, and even Nubiles in the tushy quality/quantity index.

You might think of it as Met-Art’s kid brother or sister, as it costs the same but only offers 1 photoset per day (vs. Met-Art’s typical 3-5 per day). But it does give an option to join for $6.99 for 2 days, and with a good broadband connection, plenty of time, and enough piping hot caffeine, you could certainly make a killing here.

I’d do the same, but I don’t have that kind of self-discipline.

And I actually like the design and navigation here better than at Met-Art. It’s cleaner and less cluttered.

But on the other hand, Met-Art now offers three pic sizes in zips, and their 1024s do just fine and use less space than the 1200’s offered here. But that’s not much of a complaint.

Be sure to check out the browser options in the top right corner (default pic sizes; "enhanced" to show previous and next galleries; slideshow timing).

06-17-07  12:01pm

Replies (8)
Review
11
Visit VIP Area

VIP Area
(0)

87.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Great photo and video quality
+Over 130 exclusive photo galleries, mostly of well-known attractive American models and porn stars, by photographer Tammy Sands
+Additional over 44 non-exclusive galleries
+Galleries are labeled in the site as exclusive when they are (except for a few of Kayden Kross)
+Most photos max at 2000 px; a few galleries max at 3000
+Zips in 2000 px, and with a few galleries 3000 (“HQ zip”)
+Photos can be viewed and saved individually in 3 different sizes (800 px long, 1200, or 2-3000)
+Over 58 exclusive videos downloadable in three quality levels each for wmv, mov (Quicktime), and mp4 (iPod) formats: low (480x272, 1646kbps), medium (1024x576, 4278 kbps), and high (1280x720, 10624 kbps). Even “low” sets the bar kind of high.
+Excellent flexibility in navigation and viewing
+Search box feature works well
+Good trial and monthly prices
Cons: -Visitor’s area browsing by updates shows only the most recent
-Visitor’s area browsing by model doesn’t show all of the updates for each model
-Rate of updates is somewhat erratic (12 to 18 per month for photosets; 3 to 8 per month for videos, and usually closer to 8)
-Photo zip download speed is between 300-400 kbps, which isn’t criminal, though it’s getting toward the lower end of “acceptable” these days
-Video downloads for the highest quality are slow (around 200 kbps for a 700 MB file takes quite a while)
-Mic noise (pops and clicks) occurs sometimes in the videos and can be a bit distracting
Bottom Line: I thought I’d pretty much seen all of the exclusive stuff I could find of girls like Adrienne Manning, Georgia Jones, Valerie Rios, Ashlyn Rae, and Sabrina Marie. But there’s more here!

I really don’t have a lot to complain about regarding this site. The points about the visitor’s area are not only a concern for potential customers, but for the site itself. If visitors had a better idea of what’s inside, they might be more likely to join.

Some scenes have toy play and some are girl/girl, neither of which I personally care for, but there wasn’t so much of either that they became “issues” for me. Well, whatever! Watching Capri Anderson and Adrienne Manning masturbate each other with a glass toy is a hell of lot better than watching a lot of other things, I’ll have to admit!

Really, this is one of the better sites to have come along recently, if you’re into basically into softcore and glamour style material. And most of it is exclusive now.

So yes, just ignore the comment I made about it earlier here at PU. The site has turned out to be a lot better than I at first thought it would.

I joined for a month, not for the trial term, and I’m happy with what I’ve gotten from it.

Recommended!

PS: I should point out that a few of the Kayden Kross galleries are labeled at VIParea as “exclusive” even though they also appear at clubkayden. But the good news is that the pics are better at VIParea. They’re 2000 px (not 1600), they only have one watermark (not two), and they are better in quality as well.

10-01-10  04:24pm

Replies (5)
Review
12
Visit Pier 999

Pier 999
(0)

87.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: -beautiful women in a site that's heavy on glam (and a bit on "slam" with the HC)
-zips and good server speed
-pic sizes up to 1350 (and they have announced their interest in going higher sometime this year)
-excellent, positively lurid quality video, very sharp in avi (wmv also), with preview screen caps.
-collection goes back to May 2006
-navigation is pretty good
-two updates per day M-F
Cons: -most videos of masterbation or lez, not b/g HC
-at times the pics tend to be overly "fancied up" and lose sharpness and realism; the girls have a glossy "Lucite" look sometimes
-too much close cropping -- of the top of the girls' heads, of their arms ... of their behinds! (Hired - arrived - undressed - shot ... CROPPED! No, it doesn't make sense to me, either.)
-2GB per day download limit with wrist-slapping 24-hour access suspension penalty
Bottom Line: If you like glam sites, forking out $30 for a shot at this one might just do you.

04-08-07  11:02am

Replies (0)
Review
13
Visit Pix and Video

Pix and Video
(0)

86.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Mostly gorgeous and sexy Euro porn queens plus lots of newbies (410 models to date)
+Visitor preview of every month’s calendar of offerings
+46 monthly archives; nearly 1400 daily updates
+Solo, b/g variations, g/g variations
+Pics usually in vivid color; sets and girls are nicely styled
+Zips of pics by the gallery page or all-in-one
+Videos in both segments or complete form, wmv or avi, good image quality. HC action is HOT.
+Navigation is mostly easy and straightforward
Cons: -Way too much toy sucking and jabbing for this reviewer, but could be another’s treasure
-Login requires TYPING user name, pwd, and a code; sometimes rejected even though it is accurate, I swear!
-Server response consistently within a range of speeds slower than most sites I’ve joined
-Pics still max at 1280, as they always have (1600+ would be great!); sometimes too dark.
-Vids are 400x300. Small!
-Models list alphabetical, but within 21 numbered pages; no model search feature
Bottom Line: Have been a returning member since Dec. ’03, when only PixAndVideo and ClubSandy were the 21st Sextury network (it’s now about 34 sites). Back then, the archives started in early ‘03; now they start Dec. ‘03. I’ve seen some of that early content showing up at those other sites.

August ‘07 had 19 solo, 8 b/g, and 4 lez sets, each w/both pics and video, plus one video only. This breaks a pattern, several months long, of having only “backstage” videos most Sundays.

PixAndVideo is the sine qua non of the network, but here’s especially how I think it should improve. In this list, I’m going to take the liberty of really having my own personal say:
1. Better server response! Wouldn’t it be nice to read PU posts here that laud the server speed instead of complain about it?
2. Pic sizes to 1600 or more. (Predictable, aren’t I?)
3. More head to upper-thigh pics of the solo girls looking back amorously as they display, in equal proportion, their lovely butt cheeks, hands off ‘em! Even just ONE SHOT in each gallery. It’s all I ask! ;)
5. Vids at least up to 640x480!
6. Fewer sets that involve toys. (They bore me to death!)

Do the above and I won’t put off rejoining for 7+ months any more. I guarantee.

This site has always had a lot going for it, but I can hear a ticking sound: it’s starting to date itself. Solution? First, get the speed up. Second, get the pic and vid sizes up. And remember that booty call!

Ta-dah!

09-23-07  06:43am

Replies (18)
Review
14
Visit Peter Janhans

Peter Janhans
(0)

86.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Dazzling Euro-models, excellent quality exclusive pics
+Max pic sizes are 1600 or 3000px; all sets have 800 and 1600px sizes
+Can select pic size at each thumb
+Archive of 203 photosets to date; viewable in the public area. (You have to click “join” to browse them, but you don’t really join at that point.)
+Nice price at $19.95/month; recurs at $14.95
+Image quality better than most; blurriness and lighting not often a problem
+Simple navigation
Cons: -No zips
-Usually only 8 updates/mo
-Entire year of galleries listed on one page; makes for a long scroll; gallery pages (of only 15 pics) scroll, too, and it’s easy to lose your place.
-Pics per gallery varies from 1 to 7 or more pages; most have at least 3
-A few of the photoshoots broken into “part 1” and “part 2” galleries, separated over months
-More fun with pseudonyms (Priscilla, a breathtaking Ukrainian beauty seen at 1byday, is Elina, etc.)
Bottom Line: FYI: no videos, no hardcore, no toys.

This is the site of photographer Peter Janhans. I’m pretty sure he’s German because a couple of the outside “about me” links are in that language.

Well, we all know how important the articles are. Heh-heh.

The girls on this site are Euro, stunning, and naked, and Herr Janhans does a nice job of capturing their beauty and charm. What red-blooded male wouldn’t like even MORE never-before-seen pics of Susana Spears offering her heart-stopping Czech booty on a chaise lounge? MORE pics of blond Masha (of TeenDreams), with her glossy bronze tan, sweet face, and perfect -- I mean PERFECT -- tits? MORE of Tamara (her name here), a dark-eyed Russian (?) beauty with alabaster skin, familiar to us MetArt and JustTeenSite types.

And technically, Janhans really is excellent. Open to one of the pics and you’ll see the clarity, the depth, and the often pleasing color. I’ve been to a fair number of individual photographer sites, and in terms of quality, I think his work is among the best.

The slow pace of updates and lack of zip files are why I couldn’t rate the site higher. It’s one of those sites you’d join not so much for the coming updates as for the archives.

BTW, for you photography fans, I found this site by wandering over to www.thenude.eu.

06-04-07  04:49pm

Replies (0)
Review
15
Visit Only All Sites

Only All Sites
(0)

85.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Many, many beautiful women
+No toys and almost no “messy” stuff with food or bath goop
+Intuitive interface
+Fast downloads, sometimes over 2Mbps
+Can preview the content of upcoming 3-4 updates on each site
+Earned or purchased ” FastTracks” allow full access to galleries or videos of your choosing ahead of their posting schedule
+VOLUMES of all-exclusive content available now, plus several hundreds of updates yet to be posted (Coming soon --> select “View all sets available for FastTrack”)
+Very user-friendly site/network. You get 10 free “FastTracks” in a calendar month (whole network, not per site); set several viewing and browsing preferences; and go from one site in the network to another with ease once your use/passes are stored in your browser.
+Photos from the past couple of years come in three sizes: 1066, 2048, and 3000 pixels.
+Consistently good lighting and clarity in photos from Jan. 2007 on.
+No DRM
+Model pages list other sites, outside the network, she appears in
Cons: -Occasional slow navigation and sudden timeouts
-Thumbs with dead links (rare)
-Must train browser to auto-enter use/pass for downloads on subsequent logins (separate for pics and videos); doable with Firefox, but it’s still 18 times for everything in the network: (access + zips + vids) x 6
-Zips before Dec. 2007 require drilling through five levels of folders to get to the images folder (hold cntrl down while drilling to prevent desktop clutter).
-Some unattractive women
-Quite a few women never get fully undressed, like Gemma Massey (too bad!)
-High monthly network access price ($44.95)
-The “fast track” system is rather complicated; note expiry dates and other restrictions
-Boring videos: Only avi, 640x480, 3-6 minutes long. 40-50 per month (whole network) in 2009. (Image quality improves through the years, but it’s never nearly as good as the photos. Sound might be techno muzik, the girl talking, or just the air near the mic.)
Bottom Line: I thought this network would be nothing but undressing to panties, if that, so I stayed away. But one day at OnlyTease, I tried their search (for visitors) and found nearly 2000 items that were at the “figure” level of nudity.

Now I’m glad that I waited -- and that I finally joined. Mind you, it’s usually the same women who do get fully naked and fun with it: Angel Dark, Elen (the blond Russian with the devilish smirk), Eve Angel, Jana D (Jamie J), Lola, Lucy Stratilova, Misa/Michaela Kaplanova, Mili Jay, Zuzana (Deny Moore), ETC. Considering the volume here, it’s been a bona fide candy store for yours truly (or “drooly,” I suppose).

Special mention goes to “Tammy” (aka Vendula). She’s the BEST.

The “Only” sites are photo sites, and the photos are DAMN good. If most models on this network showed off their asses the way Misa does, I’d be totally hooked! It would have EVERYTHING: great outfits, great stripping, and satisfying full nudity in excellent quality.

But they’d rather specialize at putting foreplay at the forefront, and this they do very well. I found myself grabbing “stripping only” sets of a few girls for whom I have “nude onlys” to combine them with. Kind of like “FemJoy and OnlyTease – together at last!” ;)

Here are some stats on the “Only” network sites:
OnlyTease: started July 2002. Around Nov. 2007, began occasional 3000 px photos, which became standard in March 2008. 3 updates per day!
OnlyOpaques (dark hose): started Aug. 2006; 3000 px photos most of the time from July 2007; 1 update per day
OnlySecretaries: started October 2007, with 3000 px photos from the start; 1 update per day
OnlySilkAndSatin: started Nov. 2008, with 3000 px photos from the start; 1 update per day
OnlyCarla: started Sept. 2005, stopped in April 2009 (lots of photosets, all it of tease-stripping)
OnlyMelanie: started April 2005, stopped in Feb. 2009 (same as with Carla, but REALLY cute!)

Finally, a little more about those FastTracks. One can be obtained by recommending three sites (not previously listed) that a model is on. (Must be used by the end of the current month.)

NB: You can view the thumbs of a set before deciding to FastTrack it.

I got a few that way, thanks to my application of library and information science, Lucy Lee, Tereza Ilova, etc. in the subject index.

But remember, it’s best not to join at the beginning of a month since you get 10 for free each calendar month. That’s a nice touch!

BUT be sure to download your FastTracked stuff right away, because access to it expires at the end of the month!

You can also buy 10 “Permanent FastTracks” for $9.95. These don’t expire as long as you stay a member, but they can only be used on the site you buy them on.

AND redeeming them on the site is a hassle: find the page before the billing page, click to redeem, get authorization code ... sheesh!

08-01-09  04:34pm

Replies (3)
Rating
16
Visit Karup's PC

Karup's PC
(1)

85.0
No Review.
08-19-07  05:51am

Review
17
Visit Foot Fetish Daily

Foot Fetish Daily
(0)

84.0
Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: +Exclusive content
+Large collection of photos and videos
+Quite a few "name" models who appear elsewhere
+Fast download speeds (1-1.5 Mbps)
+Zips of photos at 3000 pixels from 2008 to present
+Some zips of photos at 1500 pixels (earlier)
+Videos in wmv HD (1280x720), wmv standard (640x360), and MP4 (more recent); wmv standard for earlier; many videos stream also
+166 "hi def" videos are hardcore b/g or g/g videos; but there are lots more of interviews and solo footsie fun
+Allows use of download manager
+Foot fiend navigation niches: find only the stuff for dangling shoes, or tickling, or food, or another of many choices.
Cons: -Navigation is too complicated; well, the site is too complicated, really
-Inconsistencies in video formats available even in the same part of the site history
-Quality of wmv "standard" videos not so good
-Photos in 1500 pixels not in zip files once they began offering "full scene" zips in Jan 2008
-They don't make it clear that the "full scene zipped photo sets" usually contain ALL of the photos of a model, even the ones that are shown in earlier sets such as "Meet" and "Living" and "Self-Sucking" and so on.
Bottom Line: I'm not much of a foot fan, but overall I liked the content of this site. In fact, my hunt for nice pictures of girls showing their asses was my "sole" (a-hem) purpose in joining.

The photos from 2008 on are nice quality, if not super professional. There are plenty of hot models (Veronica Rodriquez, Ashley Jane, Jynx Maze, Marlena, Sammi Rhodes, Elle Alexandra, Emma Mae, Georgia Jones, Nikki Brookes, etc.). And it's all exclusive material, and it goes all the way back to 2004. (Wow, the quality sure has improved since then!)

You can also watch interview videos of the girls telling you about their sexual experiences and turn-ons. Beyond that, well, you can watch a lot of them getting down to gentle foot-and-pussy play with another girl, and/or foot/pussy fucking with a hardened male.

But there are problems with consistency in the offerings and with how things are presented. You can get hi def versions of many videos, but not all. You can get zips of some sizes of photos, but not all. You see the thumbs of only the hardcore photos, but actually the zip file has hundreds of photos that include the softcore and solo foot stuff of a model. You click the "Hi Def" movies link, but that's not all of the hi def movies. And the foot niches drop-down menu appears on some pages, but not on all of the pages you'd like it to. You may find yourself opening multiple tabs or windows just to keep part of the navigation at hand, which means that you're having to compensate for less-than-stellar web design. And in so doing, you'll wind up making the experience of the site more complicated.

About the complexity of the site, some may say that it just has a lot of navigation options, which can only be a good thing. After all, you can look at content that's only "Kick Ass Feet," or only "Flowers Exclusive," or only "Mark Archer Exclusive," or only "Barefoot Confidential." But do these terms mean anything to you? The term "exclusive" got me thinking they were different from what I was seeing on the page until I realized (by looking at the bottom of the page) that each entry is color-coded for these terms. Oh, well, now that's nice. Flowers is blue; Mark Archer is green; Kick Ass is pink; and Barefoot is purple. Well, I don't have to learn the color system, but I have wasted my time by wondering if I should.

Plus, there are 16 bonus sites included, but each one contains only 8 galleries and/or videos. Some are only videos ... And some are really old stuff (but not all). And you're given an offer in the bonus sites to join the "Kick Ass Network" for only $14.95. The "Kick Ass" bonus section includes that offer as well. So there's "Kick Ass" bonus and "Kick Ass" network and they're probably not the same thing. You know what? Fuck it.

I mean, I've already spent $30.

Anyway, I do recommend this site for its abundant quality exclusive content, but be forewarned that if you're not careful, the design and complexity could lead you to needless distraction.

12-28-11  04:18pm

Replies (4)
Review
18
Visit Goddess Nudes

Goddess Nudes
(2)

84.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +$5 US for the first month’s membership; recurs at $9.95 per month
+Updates regularly, M-F, one gallery per day
+138 galleries posted so far
+All photo sets are in two sizes: small (1400 px portrait; 1600 px landscape) and large (usually over 3000px, sometimes over 4000, and sometimes even over 5000 pixels)
+Zips are available for all sets in both sizes
+Server downloads at about 340kbps where I am, which isn't a huge pro, but it's not a con if you ask me
+Content is largely exclusive to this site (not the same as on Domai), though some scenes may match with content found on Domai or on other sites
+Discounts to members who add Domai (1 year "non-recurring" is $89, compared to $109.95 as listed at TBP. There’s also a monthly plan starting at $21, but that's far more than the $9.95 starting price at TBP. It decreases by $1 a month, but hey ...)
Cons: -Content index is one looooong and growing page of links to thumbnail pages
-The 22 earliest galleries have no thumbnail pages, just zips in both photo sizes
-A few galleries are not exclusive and can be found at least partly at Erotic Destinations
-Some galleries don’t have that many pics
-Some galleries are boring "nude art" stuff
-Some models might not appeal
-No model index
-A few models have names that are unique to this site (Anya of MPL is "Irin," Paloma B of MetArt and MetModels is "Alima," etc.), but this is doesn’t happen that often.
-Limited visitor preview
Bottom Line: Eolake Stobblehouse, the guy who has been running Domai for many years, is now offering up this new site, which launched late last October. The last time I was at Domai, it worked pretty much the same way, but the "large" pics weren't as big as they are at Goddess Nudes.

I think this is a great deal for people who like nude women, in photographs, very large, and who don’t mind going on a little "treasure hunt" for some real gems. Admission charge: Only $5. Skip an order of cheese fries and go for this, I'd say.

I really got inspired to write this review after seeing today's post of Marketa Belonoha, in a set I'd never seen anywhere before, starting off in a fuzzy pink top and wedgie shorts and showing off her cuteness and curves in 96 pics. As Denner would say, "Wauw."

But there are some other nice surprises in here, too.

Oh, I didn't mention videos yet. There aren't any. It's a pic site.

I like pic sites. This one rates pretty well 'cause it's a good value.

04-08-10  03:16pm

Replies (3)
Review
19
Visit Bella 1010

Bella 1010
(0)

84.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Completely exclusive softcore and toy play content
+Some hot models, including Shay Laren, Rita Lovely, Lena Nicole, and Riley Jensen
+Photos in zips at 3000 pixels
+Updates every day, usually with 2 items (videos and/or photo sets), sometimes with 3, rarely with just one
+Good visitor’s preview
+Navigation is clear and easy.
+The videos look great. They can be streamed in a player that allows you to select low (crappy), med (default and plenty good), or high quality. Some even have an additional “HD” option for those with blazing connections and muscular video hardware. View full screen if you like, and jump from one part of a scene to another (click the icon of 4x3 squares).
+Videos downloaded are hi def, 1280x720, 1.98 mbits/sec.
+”BellaTV” offers brief BTS or outtake scenes that stream and download. See Shay Laren prove that you can’t laugh and jack off at the same time.
+Good “self-help” section
+Responsive support if you have a question
Cons: -Photos to download come in only one size: 3000 pixels
-Photo galleries range too much in number of pics. Some have over 100, but others have just 20-30.
-Previewing photo galleries is difficult: pics are not arranged in any particular order; thumbs are small and are not wysiwyg; and to get them wysiwyg, you “enlarge” them (but not to full size) in the viewer.
-Zip downloads take about 15 seconds to really get going
-Zip download speed around 340 kbps (not a major con, perhaps)
-Pics are randomly ordered in the zips as well.
-The watermark in the pics is large enough to be distracting. It should be at least 50% of its current size.
-Videos available in only HD MP4 or iPod (might not be a major con).
-Street noise can be heard in the videos; it’s a bit distracting
Bottom Line: I signed up for the site as a “premium” member rather than fiddle around with the credit purchasing system they have. I hate those things, especially during tax season.

I like the overall look of this site, but of course it’s fairly new with only 51 photo galleries, 54 videos, 12 “Bella TV” scenes, and just 20 models at the moment.

In the photo galleries, even though there is some toy insertion, and sometimes even multiple insertions, the emphasis here is on “sexy” rather than sex. Full nudity is also pretty uncommon; the preference is for the model to have on a dress or some article of clothing draped over her which she can lift up. There also seems to be a preference for natural light, so indoor shoots are often near large open windows.

It’s a rather unique approach. The sites that seem closest are Breath-Takers and GirlFolio, but Bella1010 has a better control of light and there aren’t as many pics with heavy contrasts of amber light and shadow as you’d find at those other two.

The videos are another matter, and they are the real strength of the site. There’s more prolonged nudity and plenty of masturbation with the digits or the old “Dan-o.” They’re actually pretty exciting. You’ll be sitting in your computer chair, rooting for Shay Laren to get off, forgetting all about baseball or football or whatever for a moment.

I do have suggestions that I think would make the site better:
- Get rid of the photo viewer and just put thumbs – larger thumbs – on the gallery page. (See my PU poll “How do you prefer to view pics at a porn site?” With 25 responses so far, no one likes “photo viewers.”)
- Arrange the photos in “start to finish” order, not “52-card pickup” order
- Allow a smaller photo option as well as the nice 3000 px, for both single pic downloading and zips. 1200 or 1280 px.
-Make the watermark smaller.
- Show the girls completely naked more in the photo shoots
- Show the girls really showing off their asses. (I had to put that in.)

Doing that would give the site two notable strengths – videos AND photos. There are some people who prefer pics over videos. Keep them happy too and Bella1010 will probably have even more people delving into its treasures.

04-02-10  08:06pm

Replies (18)
Review
20
Visit ATK Petites

ATK Petites
(0)

84.0
Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: +Updates are always exclusive content, of their “featured petite” models, every day from site launch
+Exclusive featured petite model photos are 1600px
+Usually (not always!) 2 updates per day (2 photosets, or 1 each of photo and video)
+Zips of all photosets
+Videos in up to 5 formats: Flash Stream, QT, MP4, WMV (854x480), and WMVHD (1280x720, 4025 kbps)
+621 “bonus” petite models with tons of content – but see the cons
+Fast downloads to 2Mbps
+Great search engine that allows many kinds of searches
+ The results of your 10 most recent searches are automatically stored and easily retrieved
+No DRM
Cons: -Only 14 “featured petite” models so far, and they vary in appeal (looks and whether or not they do hardcore, if you’re a hard core hardcore fan)
-Bonus content is previously published material from other ATK sites such as ATK Galleria, ATK Premium, ATK Exotics, and ATK Natural and Hairy
-Some bonus content is pre-2007 (max pic size 1024px; vids not as good as these days)
-Most featured petite models have also appeared on other ATK sites, so quite a lot of their content is also not really exclusive to the ATK Petites site
-Even recent videos not always available in all formats, including HD. Saw one hardcore of Dani Cole in only 2 formats, though the wmv vid looked fine.
-Visitors cannot view recent updates or browse listings of models
Bottom Line: Us guys are not such a varied lot; we’re a lot like the fare at the local pizzeria. Women, on the other hand, I’d liken to Asian food. There’s so much variety! To say nothing of delicious! This is true among the petite girls here (“bonus” stuff, too). They’re by definition trim, no taller than 5’4”, and no heftier than 110 pounds. From there, the possibilities are nonetheless staggering.

The “featured petite” models are Aundra (10 galleries, 5 videos), Camila (23, 7), Dani Cole (26, 5), Emma (11, 4), Emy (44, 15), Evie (16, 5), Jana Foxy/Jordan (42, 12), Jayme Langford (48, 12), Kaylee (3, 2), Lexi Belle (33, 6), Marie McCray (100, 12), Nicole Raye (50, 13), Olivia, seen at FTV Girls as Lidia (9, 3), Stephanie Crane (19, 9). NB: Figures include both “Petite” exclusive and other ATK site content.

Not that I’m “staggered” by each and every one. Aundra is too skinny! Marie needs to watch it with the high fructose corn syrup, or whatever the cause might be. Emma has acne, though she’ll get past that and probably blossom into a full-blown woman soon enough. She does hardcore, and I’ve heard that sex helps clear the pores.

One standout is Jayme Langford. Some of the photosets of her reveal subtle nuances of mood that are worth slowing down to take in. Well, obviously I’m smitten.

It’s not easy to score this site. Petite fans, especially those with no ATK site experience, would probably love it. Those with credit card statements reflecting one or more ATK site purchase might want to hold off longer until the exclusive content has grown more. Still, it wouldn’t be fair to knock the site for simply being fairly new. So whether you agree with the score or not, I hope you now know enough to make an informed decision about whether or not to subscribe.

07-04-09  03:13am

Replies (6)
Review
21
Visit Zemani

Zemani
(0)

84.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Daily updates ... but only from June this year
+144 Slavic models; quite a few never seen before, and some of them are darlins’!
+All exclusive material
+Mix of indoor and outdoor shoots
+236 galleries (avg. 126 pix each)
+Pics at 800px. 1200px, and 3-4000px
+All three pic sizes available under each photo thumbnail for individual pic saving
+All three pic sizes are zipped and linked on each page of each gallery
+Good visitor’s preview with demos of those pic sizes, a face shot of each model, and a “calendar” of updates you’ll want to familiarize yourself with before making that “buy” decision
+Good, consistent organization of content within models and galleries
Cons: -A fine mess of a model index. If there’s any organization here, damned if I know how.
-A few models are too low in body mass index, and a few others are easy on the eyelids.
-A few photosets are 2 from one shoot
-In case you were wondering, it has not updated every day since 2006. Scan those dates carefully. (The year 2006, btw, will take very little time!)
-50 videos, which might not suffice for those who crave photos in motion
-All vids are only in avi -- the gold standard for nude art, no? But they’re not “HD.” Specs of the sample I suffered through: 656x496, bitrate of 1744. Kind of amateurishly done, too.
-Vid audio is teckno muzik – the gold standard again!
-Occasionally has one or more of the problems typical of soft nude sites: excessive shadows, blurriness, lack of light, and models being made to be anti-photogenically “not really there.”
-Downloads kind of slow at around 280 – 340 kbps or so, but that means you can grab a beer! (hic)
Bottom Line: Pro or con, your call: Lots of models have only one gallery up, at least so far.
------------

Not sure who Zemani is, if anyone. Have seen theories that, if it’s related to “Zeman,” it’s either Spanish, from “Zamora,” or Czech, meaning “small landowner.”

Maybe it’s a line of haute couture? Whatever.

There’s no “Master of Nude Art Zemani” here that I’ve been able to lay my finger on. Fact is, this site shows the work of various photographers and, as one might predict, variations on satisfaction are guaranteed.

Some of the girls seem very amateurish in both attitude and looks, so what you get are nude photos of average girls looking pretty ordinary.

Generally, though, I’d say I’m pretty OK with this site. Found some new material of Vika H, Lena, Rudi, Lolli, Jasmine, Jozel, Hannasya, Lenusya, Alena, and Alsa. Those are their names here. At MetArt, MetModels, etc., they’re nymed otherwise, of course, as is typical for Russian models.

But what have we here?? Lika, Mara, Evzha, Vita A, and Allana, who’s the cutest, jail-baitiest-lookin’ honey I think I’ve ever seen! Now mind you, I like ‘em skinny if they look healthy and have a nicely formed orb ‘round back. Anyhow, those are some of my never-before-seen choice babes. With so many amateurs, some are bound to be winners.

Well, I didn’t think I could possibly find another site in the soft nude genre, but here it is. And this one’s off to a good start with the now daily updates and its considerable “back” catalogue (yuk-yuk).

06-17-09  01:02am

Replies (7)
Review
22
Visit Nu Dolls

Nu Dolls
(0)

84.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +40 different adorable, natural young women who smile a lot and make eyes at the camera and aren’t usually photographed staring into some mysterious and distant void
+No fake tits, and very little in the way of tats (exception: Vlada, with a big one on her belly and a “V” right above the ...)
+Exclusive content
+Photo quality is pleasing to the eye with sharpness and color
+Variety of indoor and outdoor shoots (though I’m more of an indoor man myself)
+191 photosets and 212 videos to date, usually combined into a single set (the extra vids are b/g hardcore or masturbation)
+Fast downloads of zips and vids that peak between 660-670 kbps (20MB nominal connection; using Firefox)
+Built-in “Doofus Recovery System”: If you accidentally close all windows to the site, you can return without having to log in again
+Nice design and good, straightforward navigation
+Extensive blog area might be of interest
+Visitor’s area gives you a good idea of the content
Cons: -First post was late Oct. 2007. That’s 10-11 photosets per month.
-Pics are 1549 pixels on the long end; for a site at this price, there should at least be 3000px photos as well. (That would make it more competitive.)
-Some sets have less light than I’d like, but I guess that’s a matter of taste. They’re not overly dark.
-Vids are only downloadable in avi (576x320)
-Vids have gotten shorter than they used to be (approx. 10 min. to approx 5-6 min)
-Models who have the same names: Anna (4), Natasha (3), Tanya (4), etc. require you to give them additional (or alternative) names if you want to keep them straight
-Too much play with the props sometimes: body parts viewed through spaces in chaise lounges, flowers all over the body (or sticking out of the Miracle-Gro), sand all over like tempura batter, a star-shaped dollop of cake icing above the ass -- stuff like that
-They have stopped doing hardcore (OK by me, but maybe not for the die-hards); last time was end of Nov. 2008
Bottom Line: Because the updates come approx. every 3 days, this site is better to join for the increasing size of its archives than it would be for the updates. And that’s what I’ve done, having not been a member since May of last year.

The girls are lovely for the most part, and as I said, natural in their charms. That’s a big plus for this site.

Some of them have been making their mark at other sites as well. "Anna S" at HegreArt (also at MetArt and FM Teens) is absolutely stunning! "Anna" the extremely alluring dark-eyed brunette is also at FM Teens, TeenDreams (as Tantsi), FemJoy as Paulina, JustTeenSite as Anita, and MetArt as Atena.

While I could list a few more, I'll just have to mention Viktoriya, who has smitten both Denner and I. This girl needs MORE exposure! I have seen her at JustTeenSite as Victa, but that was some time ago. Really, she should appear in oodles of updates at every high-quality softcore site in existence.

One little picky thing they could do is have each gallery open in a new window. It is a picky point, though, as I’ve discovered that right-clicking on a gallery link in Firefox allows for the same thing.

It seems that after a nearly year-long flirtation with occasional hardcore additions, they’ve decided to stick strictly to the softcore niche. Frankly, I’m glad just because it will be clear that this is a softcore site.

05-01-09  05:15pm

Replies (6)
Review
23
Visit FM Teens

FM Teens
(0)

84.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Many fine young Russian (?), Ukrainian (?) women with LOTS of sex appeal
+Exclusive content
+Pics at 1010x1515; good (albeit quirky) size choice
+Very good image quality from Issue 9 up: very few pics are blurry, dark, or color compromised. At least from that point, it seems to be a real priority.
+Zips
+Speedy server!
+No DRM
+Visitor’s preview: good samples of the lovelies and a taste of the clunky way it’s organized, too
Cons: -Organized, but very awkwardly
-In issues 1-8, images are really amateurish.
-Big watermark gets on the goods!
-More g/g than I care for
+All vids in avi only; a smallish 576x320; some look pretty cheesy.
-Too much body covering with strings of beads, frilly see-through garments, puzzle pieces, bath goo, smeared-on foodstuffs, knick-knacks balanced on butts, and flowers. Lots of flowers, sticking out of butts, etc. (Why the high price? The FLORIST! These are GOOD flowers. Not cheap!)
Bottom Line: Here’s what it’s like getting photo zips here. I login and work down to an issue, #13. Two models, but no names, so 2 clicks back up and over to the model rating page, the ONLY place where the names are. Oh, they’re BOTH named Natasha! Ok, “Natasha lighter” and “Natasha darker.”

Back to the issue #13 page, scroll down a few screens, then open to the pages of a gallery of “Natasha lighter.” The address bar shows “13-12,” which helps. Issue 13, Gallery 12. Ohh, nice! Get this one! Then alt-left arrow to get right back to the “gallery list” page -- the only place the link to the zip is. (Click the “home” button inside the gallery and you’ll lose your place; you’ll be at the TOP of the issue page and have to scroll down again, looking for that number 12. No, they don’t label the galleries by number, either.)

Extract the zip. A folder named “images.” Open that to find another folder, named (drumroll) “images” (cymbal crash).

The above, times 20 issues and counting x the number of galleries you download.

It’d be a helluva lot easier if they’d 1. put the model names and gallery numbers where they’re USEFUL, and 2. flatten the navigation. See, you have to go one step above the photo galleries to access the videos, too. It’s “old fashioned” web design, up and down the tree.

All the same, I was very pleasantly surprised by how much I got from this site. And at least content quality improvement is getting priority.

But that watermark has got to go!

12-12-07  06:27pm

Replies (6)
Review
24
Visit My Precious Virgins

My Precious Virgins
(0)

84.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Photos mostly at 2048px (some larger, some only 1280px)
+Many lovely models (not all); several recognizable from MetArt, FemJoy, MPL, etc. Their names on this site are Annaliese, Bianca, Cherry, Dana, Donita, Doris, Elena (Helen’s Planet), Isela, Jamilla, Marbelle, Marit, Nica (Britney, nice ASS pics!), Raven, Ricci (Lena at TeenDreams), Rita N, Sophie, Vallerie S (Jasmine Gold, but only in 1280s)
+Most content from end of 8/07 is really brand new
+Visitor’s page shows all of the models
Cons: -No videos (sorry, old chap!)
-Claims on visitor’s page that are NOT true: 1. 325 models (I counted 300, and 1 has two names); 2. zips for both high and low rez (there’s just one); 3. the only site with photos up to 4000 pixels (yeah sure)
-Bulk of content has been migrated from other sites of this company
-Inexplicable drastic changes in light in many photosets
-Updates show only new models; must revisit top of member’s page every 1-2 days to see when a new set is added for a model
Bottom Line: I think this company decided to create a photos only site. Their sites TeenStarsMagazine, TeenCharms, Real8Teens, and TeenageDepot, all of which I’d been a member of at least once, have either gone “video only,” or have been languishing with few if any updates for awhile. Content I’d seen on those sites has been migrated to this one.

So the more you’ve been a member of those other sites, the less chance you’ll find much really new content here until late Aug. 2007, and saying that doesn’t preclude future “encore” presentations. If you’ve never been a member of those sites, though, there’s a LOT of fresh photo content here to enjoy.

But note these additional cons:
1. A few of the models never get completely naked
2. Some pics are very blurry
3. Thumbs sometimes don’t show the entire photo (not WYSIWYG)
4. Watermark looks completely out of place (ditch it!)
5. First time logging in, must enter UN and PWD twice. Train your password manager and you’ll only need to remember the first character for the first login.
6. Bloody annoying timeout that doesn't accept your login anymore (after an hour or more).

I’m actually fairly satisfied with the new content I’ve seen, but it’s certainly not loaded with truly exclusive material. And the photography is not really professional, but there's enough decent stuff.

An 82 is more than fair considering the problems with this site. It's equal parts delightful and irritating.

Follow-Up:
Update: 24 models added since last review, new pics are exclusive and usually 3500px (making that watermark much smaller), image quality is better, and updates are usually every day (not always). Raising it to an 84, but, NB: about 18% of the models are less than fully nude, not just "a few" (yes, I finally did a fuller accounting). Newer models, though, nearly always change into their finest birthday suits.

10-14-07  04:16am

Replies (3)
Review
25
Visit Digital Desire

Digital Desire
(2)

84.0
Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: +Vast collection of professional quality pics by Stephen Hicks and his fellow photographers
+Many, many beautiful models from all over
+Some photos in 1600px; first set of each month has 3000px at least from start of 2006
+DDGX subsite offers extra pink, toying, and hardcore
+Returning member price of 15.95 for both DDG and DDGX combined (use same username and password as last time)
+Zip files (but only in largest pic size available)
+Quick model search, but some models have 2 names
Cons: -Some exclusive, some seen elsewhere (Twistys, Penthouse, etc.)
-Too many categories of pics
-Piece-mealing: “Daily” pics in 1-per-wk segments over 4-6 wks, or “themed” in one gallery with 4 models having about 5 pics each from shoots already or not yet published; DDGX has small sets taken from same shoots as featured galleries
-With “Daily” pics, you never know if max size will be 1024 or higher
-Softcore videos are often boring, overly edited, DRM restricted, and music tracked
Bottom Line: I’ve been a member many times off and on since 2002. The photography by Mr. Hicks & Co. is usually very professionally done and has signature elements of lighting and color that make it identifiable on sight. For awhile, it was my absolute favorite site.

Actually, though, I’m pretty burned out on it now. Here’s why:
1. All of that piece-mealing of photo content is really annoying!
2. Quite of lot of the “new” content each month as actually older content in larger sizes. (“Seen it before. Find older gallery on hard drive. Replace it?” – over and over again)
3. I’m tired of the inconsistencies in pic sizes and in number of pics per gallery.
4. I’m tired of seeing old, 3rd-party content showing up here, some of which is really mediocre.
5. With truly new content, they just don’t often do the great belly-down-flat and standing ass shots they used to. And that’s the final blow! ;)

At least they’ve toned down their hype. In ’06, they were pasting “3000px” and “exclusive” on their public pages, as if lots of that awaited the would-be subscriber. Glad they’ve cut that crap.

And the good news for photo lovers who have never been is that they’ll be getting better versions of the older content -- and probably won’t even know that they are.

06-08-07  05:16am

Replies (4)

Shown : 1-25 of 2960 Page :    Next Page >

Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

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.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 1.78 seconds.