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 (2984)  |   Reviews (115)  |   Comments (237)  |   Replies (2632)

Other:   Replies Received (1456)  |   Trust Ratings (85)

All Activity A summary of all the feedback from this user.
Shown : 51-75 of 2984 Page :    < Previous Page - Next Page >

Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date
Review
51
Visit Aziani

Aziani
(0)

81.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive pics of hot American and Euro models
+All exclusive pics in 1400px size
+Zip files at good speed
+File names include model name, gallery number, and file number
+Straightforward navigation if you understand how it works (see “Bottom Line”)
+More recent vids at 960x540; crisp and excellent quality!
Cons: -Times you out after awhile (not due to inactivity!); makes you type in UN, PWD, and random security code each time
-Not all content is exclusive; superfluous access to 20 bone-ass, I mean bonus, sites
-Some non exclusive pics in 1024 or 800 px size, some crummy in quality
-Saving single pics, file name is “push” (hmm), so just get the zips.
-LARGE watermark in pics that sometimes overlaps the subject
-Vids mostly solo softcore WMV (a plus for some, of course)
Bottom Line: There are about 460 vids total (including the bonus sites, as far as I can tell). Trust me, there are TONS of pics, but not all that glitters …

The bonus site content is actually integrated right into the Aziani site, so by clicking, say, “Crissy Moran,” in the models index, you’ll be taken to her content. You could instead click the Crissy site thumb, but you’d be getting the same stuff. That’s why it’s superfluous, but it is convenient. And I mention Crissy because I was once a member of her old site; haven’t seen anything new here.

From most recent to least, the photo content goes from vivid quality to so-so to “forget it,” the last being old, non-exclusive “filler” content we’ve all seen before and have probably purged from the hard drive by now.

Some of the non-exclusive stuff, of European models, is in 1600px and very good quality; however, you might have seen it already, as it’s also generally available at the Babelicious bonus sites, clubsilviasaint.net (which offers previews, so you can see the kind of stuff I mean), and many more.

The biggest plus is the delicious exclusive content of models like Andi Valentino, Nikki Nova, Moni Michaels, Jamie Lynn, Carli Banks, Lexxi Tyler, Charlie Laine, etc. But I wish I’d waited longer to join, so there would be more of it. There are about 33 models with just one to seven exclusive galleries each.

And Rachel Aziani is here, too, in photosets. She and her husband, Buzz, co-created and run the site.

06-06-07  05:43am

Replies (4)
Review
52
Visit Errotica Archives

Errotica Archives
(1)

81.0
Status: Current Member for over 3 months (at the time of review).
Pros: +Beautiful Eurobabes most of the time
+Daily updates from August 2005; fewer per month from June 2004
+zip files in 3 sizes (site began with 2000px as "large"; from mid-2006, large is usually 4000px)
+Full length videos in wma, avi, and Quicktime; they look good in full screen mode
Cons: -Videos are of the photoshoots. While they're not hyper-edited, they tend to be slow and awkward in the motion as you watch the model try different poses. You also see other people (photographer, etc.) in them.
-Incomplete updates are first posted (usually missing the zips); zips are added the same day, though. (A minor complaint, perhaps, but it's not good practice.)
-Lighting is sometimes too dark; sometimes too light. And sometimes blurriness is a problem
Bottom Line: This is a completely softcore site with NO TOYS. I consider that a plus.

It's also primarily a photo site. A typical month will have 5 videos and 15-16 photosets. The videos are subtitled, so you can brush up on your Czech ;).

I'd definitely recommend it to people who like softcore nude photography. The content buildup and the price of $19.99 a month make it worth it.

You can get a sense of the content by visiting the site and clicking "updates." That's a plus, too. (Wish every site did that.)

With better control of lighting and focus, and fewer of the somewhat boring videos, this site would have gotten a score in the 90's.

Follow-Up:
I've lowered the score from 87 to 81. Gallery thumbs partially "X" out too often; back then fwd buttons needed to fix that. Thumbs are too cropped, not WYSIWYG; must open to see whole pic. Too many pics of models looking away, or just writhing around. Not enough "spark"/errotic appeal, though sometimes there is.

05-03-07  05:16am

Replies (0)
Review
53
Visit Only Cuties

Only Cuties
(0)

81.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Excellent quality content
+Beautiful Euro babes in solo, lez, and HC scenes
+Daily updates of one video AND one photoset (unlike same company site InFocusGirls, which does one or the other)
+Pics sized at 800,1200, and 2000px
+Video options for variety of download capabilities: stream in Flash8, download in Quicktime (960x540) complete; WindowsMedia (1280x720 or 852x480) complete, or Mpg segments (448x256).
+TBP discount $19.95/month
Cons: -only 2000px is available for gallery downloads in zips (of jpgs)
-individual pics obtainable in 800, 1200, or 2000, but the 2000px are bmp (a sample was 7.62MB in bmp; 330KB in jpg). Some may see bmp as a plus as there's no compression/loss of quality, but of course you pay in hard drive space.
Bottom Line: Presently, there are 246 photosets and 246 videos. The majority are solo. I counted 41 lesbian and 21 b/g hc videos.

The site has good, straightforward navigation options: by models, photosets, videos, locations, and activities, although the last two have too many choices, I think. They also give you a preview of what's to come in the next two weeks (perhaps a good way to keep you from cancelling ;).

There's a lot of attention to toys and the pussies that complement them, as is the case with InFocusGirls. Great if you like it, not so if you don't. There's not enough ass worship for the booty lovin' man.

Had there been enough and had the bmps not been an issue, I'd have scored this site in the 90's.

Follow-Up:
Downgrading my rating of it, but keeping it in recommended. It has gone the way of Infocusgirls with TOO MUCH toy obsession! In the "pussy and toys" niche, I suppose it really shines, though not as much as Teenrotica. I'm just not into this masterbation with toys business. If you are, though, you'll probably love it.

05-02-07  11:45pm

Replies (1)
Review
54
Visit 66 Beauty

66 Beauty
(0)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive softcore photo and video content of beautiful Russian women -- 46, not 66, so far
+If you’re an ass lover, there is some great stuff here
+All pics are available at 3000, 1600, and 800 pixels on the long end in zips, 3000 px individually and sometimes in the lower sizes
+Galleries have at least 100 pics each
+Simple but tasteful and uncluttered layout
+Straightforward navigation
+Updates every other day with a photoset, beginning July 2009
+Videos in iPod, WMV 768x576 (1086kbps in sample vid), and QuickTime H264 1024x576 (1.6 Mbits per second), which is superior quality to the wmv here.
+Downloads at around 330kbps are OK, if not great
+Good visitors preview for overall grasp of the content
Cons: -Irritating login problems. You never know when you’re going to get prompted to re-enter your usepass.
-Semi-transparent grey border around every pic gets on the subject. ANNOYING!!
-Pics of goofy or angry expressions not edited out.
-A few galleries don’t display any thumbs!
-Some links to individual pics are 404! True in many galleries for all 1600 and 800 px sizes.
-Corrupted files in zips (a few)
-Photo thumbs are only 80x120 pixels; too small!
-Some shoots are segmented as separate updates. OK since each update has lots of pics, but not OK that the segments are often 2 months apart.
-Video updates are only 4-5 per month, and those are often partial shoots, too.
-Some very amateurish videocam work, or call it a lack of editing. They’re of the photo shoots. At least there’s no flashing light.
-Blurriness and light control problems come up, but it’s not chronic.
-There’s just a little bit of toy play here and there, so it’s a con whether you like it or not.
Bottom Line: If you’re a fan of the Russian girls, you’ll probably recognize Yulia (often Guerlain elsewhere), Yana (Rose at AvErotica), Susi (Kylie atAvErotica), Mocca (Anita at Errotica-Archives and TeenDreams; Danita at MPL Studios), Danny (Millis A or Mandy Dee), Bella (see Chloe at MPL Studios), and Lola (Bans, Cathy C, Ekaterina, Faith, Inga, Kat, Katerina, Lindsey, Nastya, Scarlet, Svetlana, Tori, Vikki), so she’s been at 14 sites so far! I don’t get the “66” part.

The sets are a mix of outdoor, indoor, and studio locations. There’s at least one photoset of each girl, and some have a lot. Several girls don’t have any videos. Visit, and you’ll see who does.

I still don’t get the “66” part.

The site is in English, though there are telltale “as a second language” signs. And speaking of second languages, there’s a bit of German, too, in the model pages, to tell you how many photosets and videos the girl’s got, assuming your lazy ass can’t do the arithmetic. And in the “favorites” section: “Hier könnten Ihre Favoriten stehen.” Hey, vatevah. My favorites may start global, but they always wind up local.

One standout beauty I haven’t seen before is their “Jennifer.” Wow, and HOWL again! Mandy Dee is a marvel of curvaceous femininity here, btw. And “Mocca” (Anita) has the most kissable lips!

One zip download had 3 copies of EACH file in it, about 380 in total. Delete, delete, delete ...

Oh, one video I looked at suddenly blanked out for a whole sleepy-town minute and showed nothing but a pattern that looked like it belonged to a dingy table cloth. Then the girl suddenly reappeared and continued posing. Was that intentional?? Talk about tease! And that was both in the wmv and QT versions.

In another, there was a spell of just the giant paper roll the girl had been posing on. No girl, just the paper roll. Was this some oblique attempt at product placement? How’s the Brawny supply holding up?

I would say this is primarily a photo site, anyway. The videos are “extra,” more extraneous than extraordinary, though with enough sampling and tossing, the surviving QT versions can make for pretty good eye candy.

Might as well be. There’s no sound.

But there are management issues. The login problems, the empty links for smaller pics, the missing thumbs, the lack of editing ... Most of these you can work around fairly easily, but work around you will.

And that’s for the exclusive photo content here, which is plenty good enough. Actually, this is the first site I’ve reviewed since last August that I’ve been especially happy about joining, in spite of the flaws.

I do wish they’d get rid of that grey border around the pics! Ughhh!

06-22-10  07:49pm

Replies (0)
Review
55
Visit Holly Randall

Holly Randall
(1)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Professional quality
+Dated updates (site started in Feb. 2009)
+Videos in 3 formats: Flash, QT, and WMV (720x540 with bitrate over 2700kpbs)
+Video downloads exceed 1 Mbps
+Photos in three sizes (800x600, 1024x754, 1600x1066)
+Zips, but only of 1600px photos, even though the unzipped folder might be named "1280" (?)
+Variety (solo, lesbian, b/g hardcore)
+Easy to use model's index
+Nice search features for narrowing things down (videos that are hardcore for instance); there are many options listed (all natural, blonds, red lips, girl girl, tattoos, smoking, Latina, etc.)
+Discussion boards that show some activity
Cons: -Only 41 models so far (though they seem pretty carefully selected)
-Only 93 photosets so far
-Only 53 videos so far (9 are hardcore b/g)
-"Holly Recommends" ads might annoy some folks
Bottom Line: I "took the plunge" with this site, given the Randall brand name and the agreeable price of $19.96 to join. And quitting wasn't that hard; just be sure that you get to the page that really confirms that your subscription IS cancelled.

This site updates M-F, and it is slowly growing. It does a lot of things right; it's just that there isn't a whole lot here yet unless you're into just about everything the site offers. You'll be happy with it for sure if you're a "porn goat."

It's visitor friendly, so you can browse the offerings and see for yourself.

Me, I'm not into fetish material and not really into the kind of hardcore at this site (bored now with big-titted mamas). But I did find a lovely photoset of Julia Crown, who really revs my motor, and a nice hc vid of Jennifer Dark, who looks great, in heat or not. And a few other things.

07-31-09  02:45pm

Replies (4)
Review
56
Visit Skokoff

Skokoff
(0)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Lots of attractive girls who probably sign their contracts in the Cyrillic alphabet.
+All-exclusive content.
+None of those blasted toys!
+Galleries updated every other day June-October 2008; daily in November.
+Pics in 3 sizes: small 1000px; medium 2500px, and large 3008 or 3872 or 4368px.
+All sizes of pics available à la carte or in zips.
+Nice, clean site design that is set up to be easy to use. (But see the cons ...)
+Extensive visitor’s area. You can see everything the site offers except for the gallery thumbs and full vids. And there are photo samples in all sizes.
+All videos in WMV (424x240), QT, and HD DivX (1280x720), which is the best, of course, with no choppiness.
Cons: -Unruly thumbs: Have been greeted in some galleries, even new ones, with nothing but empty image-tag X’s, not thumb pics. “X” occasionally marks the spot in some other galleries, too.
-There’s also the “swollen thumb” -- a tiny fraction of the top left of a pic where the thumb should be.
-Some clicks for enlargements expand to a full-screen “404” error page.
-Wandering watermarks: At least one gallery had the watermark not in the bottom right where it belongs, but in some pics hovering like a drone close to the model, etc.
-Oops! I’m a visitor! Some links in the members’ area expose you to the public space. (Click “members” for re-entry with no additional login.)
-Slow downloads. 30 min. for a 324MB vid. Started at 175Kbps; eased down to 139. And a 140MB vid clocked at only 105. A photoset crawled its way to me at 70.
-Only 14 videos. Sorry, but this is a photography site, even in motion. Flash-flash! The mood music helps a bit.
Bottom Line: You might have heard of Skokov. That’s how it’s spelled at MetArt. Well, my friends, I did check the artist page there for material here that might qualify as “non-exclusive.” Fortunately, I found none.

The girls here are mostly very lovely. Some of the better-knowns are Lena, July (Sandra at MetArt, Judy at FemJoy), Katerina (Rina at MetModels, Cat at FemJoy), Vika (also at FemJoy), and Natasha, the ubiquitous Helena-Larissa-Nastya-Nata-Natalie. 53 models in all so far, that ain’t bad!

The photography is tasteful and professional. The settings suggest a certain opulence, yet it is not overdone. I just wish there was more brightness in more of the sets. And I do hope for more sets of July and Lena. There’s only 1 of each so far.

As I got into the site, I was thinking, “This is very smart. The clean design, the simple and easy navigation by models or by galleries ...” But then I started seeing the flaws, as noted in the cons. Somebody needs to get their act together and make sure that the thumbs work, and that they’re there to begin with.

And what’s with the watermark right above Katerina’s head in “Beautiful Red” 047.jpg? And in 080? To the left of her face in 035? And why is 053 missing both the thumb and the pics?

Well, in spite of its flaws, I’d still recommend this site to now-forewarned photo lovers. The pros outweigh the cons, even though the cons are annoying. And I’d say now is the time to fix that stuff, before the site gets any bigger.

11-22-08  08:46pm

Replies (15)
Review
57
Visit Next Door Lana

Next Door Lana
(0)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Lana Lopez is very cute and photogenic. She has a nice tan, too.
+Nearly 100% exclusive material
+To date, 53 “glamour” photosets are available to members
+All “glamour” photos are 1800x1200, except for “Royal Room” (1024x683, from 24MainStreet)
+25 “candid” photosets to date are 1200x800 or smaller (less professional BTS or “Lana’s lifestyle” material)
+Zips for all photosets
+On photo pages, number of photos included for each set, and thumbs are nice and big
+Nice slideshow feature: can select among 6 different photo sizes and 6 time intervals between slides (the “timeout” setting)
+48 videos to date, 640x480 or less, wmv
+No DRM
+Mostly good, straightfoward navigation, but see con’s
+$19.95 is not a bad price for this
+Diary, bio, and wishlist (Lana’s, so you know her clothing sizes and recommended brands)
Cons: -“Glamour” photosets and videos update just once per week.
-Some “glamour” photosets are brief. 8 have 30 pics or fewer, and a few have little or no total nudity.
-Downloads are kind of slow, but not bad. 625kbps reached on video download with 20 Mbps IPS service.
-One photoset zip, “Blue Dress,” wouldn’t open (tried download and extraction twice).
-Thumbs for "Little Black Dress" gallery (new as of 6/3/08) just "X" out. There's no excuse for that.
-“Glamour” photo quality very good, but not top pro.
-Video quality varies from marginally OK (“Backyard strip” 6480x480, 891 Kbps bitrate) to not (“Tiger Stripes” at 400x300, disappointing). Video dimensions not posted on video page.
-“Member’s Area Homepage” and “Updates” page seem pointless. They duplicate each other. What’s more, the links on them just open to the most recent page of photosets (or videos), not to the specific one you click on.
Bottom Line: In her bio, Lana says that she finds clothes uncomfortable. Photosets in which she doesn’t get completely naked (like “Girl Scout” and “Rollerblades”) put me a little on edge, too.

All the same, as individual model sites go, this one is certainly better than average. What needs improvement most is the video quality. “Backyard Strip" had me drooling (naturally) with Lana squirming around belly down naked on a blanket, making sweetly inviting facial expressions, but I wish it had been less “fuzzy.”

Second, I’d like Lana to get totally naked in every photoset and really show her stuff more, especially her delicious behind! “Passion Purple” #47 and #48 are what I’m talkin’ ‘bout.

I need to add to the cons the slowness of getting back from a gallery page to the main listings. Example: if you're at page 4 of gallery, the only way back is 4 clicks, but the wait is too long.

BTW, there’s NO hardcore on this site, i.e., as part of the membership, but in closing I should mention the “hardcore” “zipsets.” There’s just one up so far, and the description and 4 preview pics show that it’s a 17+ minute masterbation vid. However, it’s NOT available with the site membership. It’s a separate purchase. Price? $17.95.

Think about it. Webmasters would pay more than that (for licensing, anyway). But would an averaqe consumer pay nearly the same price for one video as for a month of site membership?

Don't think so!

06-01-08  02:51am

Replies (3)
Review
58
Visit Torrid Art

Torrid Art
(0)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +All exclusive content
+Photos, singles or zips, both in 3 to 5 sizes in each gallery; max is usually 4000px (and at least 3000px)
+All zips accessible from both gallery page and each model page
+Monthly archives going back to September 2006
+Some very fine American women, some well-known
+Some photos look great and most are clear
+Plenty of attention to the loveliness of ass (but not in every gallery)
+Good visitors preview
+Usually good server speed, but ...
Cons: -server occasionally takes a snooze break for a while
-Updates only 12-14 times per month and most shoots are in two parts (a part = an update), but at least the file numbers in part 2 follow in sequence from those in part one
-Only 37 models
-Models seem limited to 6 updates each
-A few of the models aren’t very appealing
-Some photos lack good color
-Blurriness not usually a problem, but it does happen a few times
-Lack of good light sometimes a problem
-Realism may not appeal to some (scars, bruises, rashes and zits are not airbrushed out)
Bottom Line: Allen Ginsberg once wrote "Under the World, There’s a Lot of Ass, a Lot of Cunt." Well, under my nose has been this site for the past 17 months, and there’s a lot of Ass, a lot of Bending Forward, a lot of Cheeks Beckoning.

The best of these, IMHO, are Addison Rose, Charlotte, Charmane Star (very squeezable), Hailey Young, Jamie Lynn (!), Jenny, Kacey, Karlie Montana, Kimberly, Kina, Lindsey, Marlie Moore, Nina, Sabrina Sweet, and Tiffany Brookes. Austin is also very beautiful, but you do have to accept that long scar on her back. But most of these girls have nice clean hineys, and man, do they ever offer them up!

And Alexandra has a nice clean butt, too, but the photos are not so hot color-wise.

Celeste Star, Hanna Hilton, and Ginger Lee are big favorites of mine, but most of the poses didn’t satisfy my lustful cravings. Wish they’d posed ALL of them as they did Lindsey in her “Bench” set, part 2. Damn!

And yes, this is a photos-only site, but why not, just as there are video-only sites?

Oh, it has also has 4 articles on sex and a blog on nude photography. What I read was long-winded and unfocused. Someone should send ‘em a copy of Strunk & White.

It’s great to find another mega-size photo site of American women. The only others I know of are Bare Maidens, which is too weird and even slower with updates, and Penthouse, which doesn’t do ass right nearly as often (though the photo quality is usually better). Anyone know of others?

Follow-Up:
They've changed to only twice-per-week updates. Reason? They want to develop the site with more features and are short on resources. For how long? Indefinitely. I've lowered the score from 86 to 80, which I think is more than fair to them.

I can explain. I'm a consumer, and I have a year long subscription to this site based on the good faith notion that it would update 3x per week. I don't like the "bait-and-switch" any more than the next person. It's not a good way to retain members (= financial resources).

I also do not agree that they even need to develop the site more outside of adding more content. It works fine as it is. New content should be priority #1.

Should they reduce updates to once a week, the score will drop futher as soon as they do.

01-29-08  03:08pm

Replies (0)
Review
59
Visit Club Nella

Club Nella
(0)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Lovely, sexy Nella (aka Jana Miartusova), your Czech “girl next door,” and many other knock-out Euro babes
+A small but growing collection of exclusive pics at 2500 (and 900) px
+Nice navigation options: browse all content or by one of several niches
+Visitors can view entire content list of site
+Newer vids in WMV “hi def” 960x540 (720i) and “medium” plus Flash videos (for streaming or download). Music + moaning.
+No DRM
+Diary section is fun & interesting w/ lots of “real-life” pics.
Cons: -Well over 2/3rds of the content is non-exclusive or “non-original” (see “Bottom Line”) AND in lower sizes
-Downloads are SLOW (HD vid at around 220KB/sec or less); slow for zips of pics, too
-“Poster” option is a “McFeature” -- ONE pic of a gallery even larger than 2500px, but you don’t even know what it is until you’ve downloaded it. Never kept any myself.
Bottom Line: The first approx 160 galleries max at 1600px and are non-exclusive/original (with about as many companion videos). That’s from page 32 (the “end” at this point) of all content retro to p. 11. They’re pre-dated from May 2005, but the site launched in March 2007. This “older” content looks great, but much of it is up elsewhere and used to be on Evelyn Lory’s former site, Evelyn’s World.

That’s the non-original: formerly exclusive content of Evelyn that got put here, not on the newer “Evelyn’s Glamour.” (Some of it is HOT, though. M-my!)

But the non-exclusive issue doesn’t end there. In fact, such stuff, again maxing at 1600px, is on even most recent pages, but it’s mingled with the really exclusive Nella stuff. I mean except for the Nella stuff that’s on JustTeenSite. Or the gallery that just got posted on Pier999. Or the girl/girl thing with Evelyn that’s also on Evelyn’s new site. And the Mili Jay 2-part series from VivThomas. (At least here the pics max at 1600, not Viv’s own miserly 1280.)

Nella has been all over the place: ALS, Club Sandy, Erotic Destinations, HegreArt, Karupspc, McNudes, MetArt, TeenDreams, Teenrotica, Twistys, VirtuaGirl, VivThomas, Watch4Beauty, etc. She must be a sweetheart to work with, but can you imagine joining all of those sites to get Nella content?

Fortunately, ClubNella has put lots of Nella and friends together in one convenient place, for one easy payment of $30. Just don’t expect a lot of it to be really exclusive.

12-08-07  08:09pm

Replies (0)
Review
60
Visit Teenrotica

Teenrotica
(1)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Mostly very hot and beautiful Eurobabes
+Excellent quality photos in 600, 1000, and 2000px. Girls nearly always look happy and sexy and look directly into the camera. Nice visceral “encounters.”
+Color and styling. The pics are very attractive and professionally done.
+HUGE archive. Daily photo updates from 10/23/05. Sets have lots of pics. 2000px zips often > 100mb
+150+ videos (solo and lez) in DivX, 720x576
+Visitors can browse all of the galleries and videos (but not the thumbs)
Cons: -Pussy and toys! Pussy and toys! If that lights up your brain, this site should be heaven for you. For ass lovers, though, the photosets are a bummer. The photo shoots are extremely “formula driven,” and lovin' that ass isn't part of it.
-Zips only in 600 or 2000px. (Why not 1000?)
-Vids look really crummy in their WMV (360x288) and Quicktime(400x320) formats. Don’t even bother.
Bottom Line: Here’s the formula:
1. Get the girl in a very good mood.
2. Get her to slowly take her clothes off in various positions. Don't forget the camel toe!
3. Once she’s naked, have her put her hands on her cheeks and spread them and the pussy lips in EVERY such shot.
4. Have her go at it with an exotic-looking toy in various positions, after she's sucked on it through several frames.
5. Mostly likely, finish with her sitting on the toy, still looking very happy.

And most definitely, do not take any shots of her standing or lying face down, top of head to upper thighs, amorously looking directly back without at least having a leg or two in the way and/or keeping her hands on her butt. Or making part of the shot blurry. This is true nearly every time, like 98%. I shit thee not. I’ve looked at every photoset on this site, folks.

So to me, a genetically hardwired ass fanatic, this site, which outclasses LOTS of other sites in many if not all ways, is and continues to be incredibly, even astoundingly tragic. How difficult would it be to put in each gallery just a few shots, as described above, for those of us who drool for the derrière? And should give it a 65? Don’t matter how good it is otherwise if ass is this sorely neglected! Amazing!

But if you love pussy and toys and can’t get enough of that, it’s around a 95. Just get the DivX player if you haven't already and download those vids.

OK, then, I’ll compromise and pin an 80 on it. (Grumble-grumble

10-07-07  07:48am

Replies (7)
Review
61
Visit Bare Maidens

Bare Maidens
(0)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive photos of hot American babes
+large sized pics usually at 4000px
+zips available of two sizes (but see the con's)
Cons: -just 111 galleries total so far; site's been up since May 2006; updates about every three days
-Medieval theme, sometimes with weapons, "sorcery" photo effects, masks or face paint or smudges of soil, etc. on the models
-zips are a pain: often they don't download properly the 1st time and you have to redo them once or even twice, replacing the first incomplete download
-only two pic sizes: elvish 1000's or Grendel-sized 4000's
-blurriness in pics sometimes
-tacky, "late 90's" web design
Bottom Line: If you'd like to see American girls in a medieval fantasy theme, you might well enjoy such depictions of Alektra, Courtney Cummz, Cytheria, Jayna Woods, Mia Rose, MaryAnn (a blond with a very nice ass and sweet personality), Phoenix Ray, Tavia Spizer, etc.

Often, the girls and their charms are not upstaged by the "effects" mentioned in the con's, but sometimes the heavy "blue light" immersion or other photoediting tricks do detract from the primal, beastly enjoyment.

I'd say let the girls work their natural magic on us and leave it at that.

But on the positive, I must say that it's pretty rare to get photos at 4000px size of these girls. For that, this site should be commended.

I'd rate it several points higher if they'd fix the zips, have more consistently clear large pics and have a medium pic size, such as 1280 or 1500.

05-17-07  03:29pm

Replies (1)
Review
62
Visit Nakedby

Nakedby
(0)

80.0
Status: Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros: +Most to all content is exclusive
+Archive going back to June 2006
+Updates with videos or photosets usually every other day
+Some really great quality photography with 3000px size photos beginning Feb. or March 2007 (2000 px is the most common large size to date)
+zip files
+some very HOT European women
+1 week trial membership gives access to all
Cons: -some photo sets have too much shadow/darkness or annoying blurriness
-photo sets vary in number of pics (but some are substantial)
-a few of the women aren't so appealing and there's too much fetish emphasis (to me, anyway)
Bottom Line: If you are into sofcore photos, this site is a good buy with the week-long membership price of $9.95. CCBill does the billing (reliable).

Women like Soraya, Amandine, and Radka Novacova (here as Tiffany) in exclusive material is a big plus.

Sorry, but I can't say anything about the videos (not usually interested in softcore videos).

They'd had a problem with their zips not working, but they fixed that after I was a member in January 2007 (rejoined in March, when the 3000px had started showing and the zips worked). So it seems it's getting attention from people managing it.

I'd rate it in the 90's if there was less fetish material and the darkness/blurriness.

Follow-Up:
For the past 2 months, 3000px has been the consistent large size (wasn't before then, though many galleries had it). But I'm lowering the score from 87 to 80. Just rejoined. Too often darkness, s/t fetishy stuff + rate of updates makes me think I scored it too high before.

04-27-07  02:07pm

Replies (0)
Review
63
Visit Walter Bosque Art

Walter Bosque Art
(0)

79.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Quick server most of the time
+Visitor’s preview is a ”tourist-friendly” public space. There’s plenty to browse through.
+Sizable collection (519 updates from site inception in March 2007 through July 2008)
+Exclusive content
+Continuing daily updates
+No videos, so you know for sure that all of the updates will be photos! ;)
+Photos available in three sizes (800px, 1500px, and a large size of 1800px to 5000px – usually at least 3000px)
+Overall good navigation features (view by update or by model)
+Nice site design
+Some very hot women and quite a lot of attention to some splendid ass
+Latina flavors may turn warm and vivacious
Cons: -No zips (!) and no slide show viewer. (Gallery thumbs open in new windows.)
-No way to set own default pic size viewing preferences for all galleries
-Thumb numbers don’t match pic numbers (a minor complaint since the results tend to be in a better order than the thumb order is)
-Viewing all of a model’s galleries can be tricky since the complete list of the one you’re viewing can be replaced by another model’s list when both models are in a photoset
-B&W or other treatments/effects in about 16% of the content here. Was 3-5 photosets per month until May, June, and July 2008: 6, 9, and 8 photosets – a disturbing trend!
-Gets too “artsy” sometimes in other ways, too.
-Horndog photo roulette: Provocative poses in thumbnails, oh yes! ... Then you see blurriness, graininess, or pixelation in medium- or large-sized pic. Woof!
-A few of the models ain’t so cute
Bottom Line: Walter Bosque’s work has also appeared at MetArt, where there are 25 photosets between 2003 and 2006. My guess is that post-’06, he decided to forge ahead on his own and got this site going. Could be.

Some of the photosets here are very “artsy” with models doing weird things with paint or plant life or gracing a shallow delta while draping themselves with a colorful sari-like thingy while being photographed from “sniper” distance. You know, that sort of thing.

And it isn’t fair to just complain about that, since it says, “The First Latin American Website of Fine Art Photography” right on the box, so to speak.

Yet of course this is a PornUser’s perspective (what it says on THIS box). And I can say that I’ve been glad to have joined to get a pretty good handful of the content.

Personal favorites include Adriana, Aldana, Cali, Carmen, Carolina, Daliha, Deby Carolina, Emily, Florencia, Juliana 1, Liz, Lola, Melany, Sisi, Tabatha, and Natasha (funny, I didn’t know that was a Latin name, but she's also here separately as Tacha, the name she has at HegreArt).

Lola is especially HOT, but they’re all sexy and have nice round bottoms and you won’t miss any of them here. It's definitely worth a visit for lovers of ASS, which gets more proper attention here than at your average site.

I wish I could score it higher. The absence of zips is why I can’t. But I do recommend the site anyway for people who like softcore photos of lovely Latinas.

08-02-08  02:16pm

Replies (12)
Review
64
Visit Euro Pornstars

Euro Pornstars
(0)

79.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Hot Euro stars in solo, lez, and hardcore shoots and vids
+Image sizes 1000, 2000, and 3500 px, zips or singles; many look great!
+Viv Thomas galleries in the large sizes. (His own site rarely goes over 1280px.)
+Videos good quality at 640x480 wmv or mpg; Viv Thomas videos better than at his own sites!
+Easy navigation mostly (see cons)
+Quick download speeds
+8 bonus sites without additional login, but no click back into EuroPornStars! (Copy a member URL to paste your way back in.)
Cons: -navigation: default image size is 2000px; select a different one and you’re taken back to the start of the gallery
-some content non-exclusive
-bmps for all singly chosen images, regardless of size, even if you clear your cache. A 3500px is usually 21-23 MB(!), so you have to download an entire 3500px zip to get jpgs, or save the bmps as jpgs
-a few Viv Thomas galleries are grainy, but some are great
-some images less than optimal in color quality
Bottom Line: This site started April 1st, 2007. It adds a video every Tues and Thurs. Otherwise, it’s pics, more hardcore and lez than solo. It updates every day. You can browse just pictures, just videos or, with the calendars, everything in the order they’ve been posted.

One really GREAT thing about this site for the visitor is that you can see every single thumb of every gallery, and two or more of every video. With the pics, you can pretty much see all of what you’d be getting! Bravo!

You do get full access with the $9.95 five-day trial. (I’ve been busy!)

However, there are no streaming video previews. And the models (“Our Pornstars”) list includes a few who have yet to appear; hopefully that means they soon will. (Mia Stone being one.)

For those who’ve never seen any Viv Thomas content, it’s definitely a “recommend.” It’s a “might recommend” for those who have unless they want bigger pics and more per gallery than what his own sites generally offer. Still, I think it deserves the score I gave, all things considered.

I’ll be happy with more Viv Thomas content this good, and considering the volume of his work, there could be a lot!

The 8 bonus sites are stream only, each with 10-30 HC vid & gallery sets, mostly mediocre in quality. The pic sizes vary wildly from under 800 to over 2500px -- usually smaller. No updates in months. Most are of Americans. There’s even Ron Jeremy, fatter than ever! (Jeez!)

Follow-Up:
NB: The VivThomas content on here can be good to very poor in quality. Their sets of Annette Dawn and Dora Ventner (Oct. 07) are fuzzy and have poor color compared to the originals. And the Erica Campbell (Nov. 07) is shitty beyond expectations. The 2000 and 3500px shots -- this is what severe myopia looks like.

Considering the company -- New Sensations -- I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Rescoring from 82 to 79. (Thanks for the ripoffs!)

09-16-07  11:20am

Replies (2)
Review
65
Visit ATK Exotics

ATK Exotics
(0)

79.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +vast and growing collection
+models not seen at other sites; some are very attractive
+updates every day except Sunday
+most photosets from Jan. 2007 on are 1536px
+excellent variety of search and browse capabilities
Cons: -overall quality not as good as ATK Galleria or ATK Premium
-gallery zips broken down by the page; 7 pages in a gallery? SEVEN annoying little zips in a row.
-too many categories: 12 for softcore; 9 for hardcore. Can ignore by using the search engine to get all photo or video content thumbs for a specific day or a whole month.
-plain and unattractive site design and color scheme
-in “latest updates,” thumbs are only of the current day’s updates; the rest are text only
Bottom Line: “ATK” puts out sites of varying types and quality. Here’s a comparison of ATK Exotics with what I think is the best of them, ATK Galleria (AG).

1. On photo quality, AG is a lot better overall. From Jan. this year, their pics have almost always been 1536px in size; Exotics started doing 1536’s about the same time, but not as consistently. Of the 193 photo galleries in Aug. ’07, most were at 1536, but 24 were smaller, usually in their “Best of” category (?) with unbalanced color and a cheap, grainy look like stuff from the late 90’s. But even the large ones in Exotics suffer more often from poor lighting and/or color control; some of the dark women would look just fine in better hands.
2. AG has more photo updates; 362 in Aug. ’07, for instance.
3. The women at AG are generally more attractive. You might wonder if I’ve got a racial preference, but no, attractive is attractive, no matter what the style or the wrapping is. And one of the draws of this site are the women “of color” that you don’t see on the other ones. Some of ‘em are HOT, but some are NOT lookers at all! It’s kinda gross.

The “babe” continuum is like this: ATK Premium/Galleria (close to a tie) – Exotics – Natural and Hairy (and fat ‘n ugly!). (“Archives” I haven’t been to in years, so I can’t comment.)

In sum, a 90-day term with Galleria is satisfying, but with Exotics, it’s once every 6-8 months, with the understanding that a fair amount of the newer content will be skipped over.

09-01-07  06:54pm

Replies (0)
Review
66
Visit Peter Girls

Peter Girls
(0)

78.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Drooler Plus Point #1: ASS gets a lot of “worship” here, and yes, it CAN coexist with toy play!
+Hot babes sometimes, BK Booty Babes (nod to jd1961) other times.
+Fast download speeds for pics. Plays well with DownloadThemAll. 15 Mbps!
+Studio pics are mostly nicely lit and sharp. Blurriness happens, but not often.
+Plenty of good quality images ranging from 300-800k each, but see cons and BL.
+Galleries generally range from 60 to over 300 pics, though there are a few with fewer.
+Includes 3 bonus sites (see some of the girls fuck and suck!)
+All exclusive content.
+241 updates and growing. Daily since Sept. 09.
+Most videos available streaming or download at 3 bitrates: 3300 (1440x1080), 1000 (1440x1080), or 500 kps (640x480), all in wmv. Audition vids stream in small viewer only, but I didn’t find many of those.
Cons: -No zips.
-The WATERMARK on the pics. TBP says it’s “medium-sized.” See the Bottom Line.
-Are these really the first nude photos of these “amateur” girls? Sometimes, I’m sure!
-10% older, recycled content, posted as 2009 updates, but the WATERMARKS on the pics fairly shout “2007!” and “2005!” (BTW: Different watermarks, still way too big.) Well, this site was launched in 2007, but the “updates” begin in Jan. 2009. Go figure.
-Pic sizes. “All = 2106 x 1372,” says TBP. Oopsies! Actually, it’s about 90%, but some older pics are as small as 800 px! See BL for excruciating details.
-Studio set might get boring.
-Beach pics are usually too dark and weak in color (lower quality camera?). Dance pole pics are usually too dark, too.
-Slow video DL speed (280 kps), especially with the highest quality vids.
-Older vids are nominally 2100 (720x480), 1500, and 758 kps. Viewed a 2100 of Kylie Wylde. Ugh! (Not her, of course.) And some vids are older still (e.g., Shy Love’s)
Bottom Line: Peter Girls? It’s not what you might think. This is a softcore photo and video site of “anatomically correct” women. (For b/g hardcore, see the “bonus” video sites.)

Some of the girls here might look, or even sound, familiar: Addison (of ATK Galleria, KarupsHA, etc.), Bree Olson, Destiny St. Claire, Isabelle Skye, Montana Raye, Nicole Graves, Shawna Lenee ... Ring any Dinglebells?

There are also some that I’ve not seen before, like the tall blond Jennifer. Whew! She’s got it comin’ and goin’! Fake tits that actually look pretty damn nice! And Sasha Von, from Denmark, is very sexy, and 100% as nature intended.

They strip. They smile and show off their asses a lot (!). They sometimes get the groove on with Plasticy Dan. And on the Hawaiian beaches, they get moist sand on their tushies, often in the light of sunset, or even sundown. Sometimes the camera angles are very POV, but it isn’t like those totally-from-below “Upskirts and Panties” sets you sometimes get, like at ATK Galleria. You do get a fair number of “normal” shots, too, which include lots of sexy facial expression closeups.

I’d say the biggest problem here is the WATERMARK on the pics. It’s always CENTERED at the bottom of the newer PICS, but when you find yourself selecting which pics to DISCARD just because of it, because it’s so LARGE, so very THERE, that it’s on the girl’s ASS or overlayed on her LABIA MAJORA, well, let’s just say it’s your CONSTANT COMPANION.

Maybe it meets the definition of “medium-sized” at the TBP, but the effect on the viewer is what really counts. Such an unpleasant distraction cannot simply be mentally “tuned out.”

The solution? Reduce it to 25% of its current size! Then it would be closer to the size of the watermark at their bonus site “POVporn,” which is less of a nuisance.

Factoid Corner: The following models were all posted in 2009 in photo sizes smaller than 2106 pixels, usually with watermarks that predate 2009. It’s about 10% of what’s on the site:
1400 px on the long end: Gizelle
1200 px: Mallory, Tiffany
1024 px: Christina Applebottom (another is at 900px), Molly, Nia, Ria Lynn, Roxanne (another is at 900px), Shy Love, Veronica Jett
900 px: Barbie Addison (but another is good at 2106 px), Carli Star, Megan Joy, Summer Jewel, Autumn Breeze, Scarlet Fey, Summer Lynn, Shawna Lenee (but another is good at 2106 px), Sandy Sweet, Tuesday
800 px: Taryn Thomas, Tera Bond, “Jennifer Love” (not the better-known, Romanian Jennifer Love, btw)

The “older” videos roughly match the older pic updates.

I’d recommend this site to lovers of female solo masterbation captured on video. It’s more of a might barely recommend for pic lovers, thanks to the blasted watermark.

11-27-09  04:20pm

Replies (3)
Review
67
Visit Denude Art

Denude Art
(0)

78.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Full 3-day trial for only $6.26; monthly price isn’t exorbitant, either
+Attractive models, mostly the familiar (i.e., highly successful) softcore Czechs, Hungarians, and Russians
+Exclusive content
+None of those annoying sex toys that have taken over some other sites, like Nubiles
+Photosets with zips all in 3 (or 4) sizes: Small (800px long side), Medium (1200px), Large (4368px; sometimes 3800), and in a small number of recent cases, Extra Large (5616px)
+Usually very clear photos in large or extra large. Yes, these are NICE.
+Doesn’t have the usual problems these kinds of sites have with poor lighting or blurriness.
+Easy to navigate, but prefer going to directly to gallery and skipping the superfluous “cover page”
+Videos in WMV or QT, both formats in 1280x720 or 640x360
Cons: -It’s a posing site that has less “heat” overall than some others in the genre
-Updates only about 15 times per month
-Download speed only about 160kps (20 Mbps connection)
-Only 15 videos to date
-Only 73 photosets
-Only 45 models, right now
-Tiny thumbs (100x66px). (Squint-squint)
-The 1200 px photos in some of the galleries look too “squeezed down” in quality (like, at 100k); in other galleries, they look OK.
-They should have a “happier” medium size, such as 1600 or 2000px. If, say, a medium drink is 12 oz., would expect the large to be 43 oz.?! (Or for you computer types, a 9MB zip vs. a 74?)
-A bigger “small” wouldn’t hurt, either. 1200px, anyone?
-Few galleries have Extra Large, though the (empty) zip icon appears in every gallery
-Scripts on updates page (by year and month vs. just chronologically) seem to conflict and are not working quite right; makes it hard to count those updates!
-Two or three of the models listed have no content yet. They are “coming soon."
Bottom Line: DeNudeArt (or “DNA,” if you can relate to that), stepped onto the scene in November 2008 with its first update. Since then, it’s been posting anew pretty much every other day.

In terms of technical quality, it’s got some good things going for it. Visually, the design is clear, tasteful, attractive, and overall friendly to the user. Really, it’s got a nice layout.

One little suggestion, though: Putting the model names in that dark red color against a pure black background makes them pretty hard to read. Use a brighter color.

Regarding the photo content, I’d like it to be more consistently provocative and erotic. It’s in how the model interacts with the user through the camera, and though there are some models there who can really project, such as Euphrat, Jenni, and “Viri” (aka Verunkua), too often I feel I’m just looking at a woman taking her clothes off.

So I’d like to suggest some galleries that have got that “heat” I was talking about – the kind that would make DeNudeArt better:
From FemJoy: Bambi “Ready for the Trip,” Eufrat “Guess What,” Angela (aka Marina C) “Like a Breeze”
From MetArt: Evelyn Lory “Xarian”

Actually, Evelyn Lory “Xarian” alone would do it. Wow!

04-06-09  01:33pm

Replies (3)
Review
68
Visit Misha Online

Misha Online
(0)

78.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Many beauties: Jamie Lynn, Lela Starr, Andie Valentino, Zdenka Podkapova, Jana Cova, Crystal Klein, etc.
+Much improved navigation since my last visit (Sept. ’06): pics and vids in separate dated archive sections; alpha model index; search feature by cup size, hair and eye colors, and ethnicity/nationality
+Improved pic sizes (usually) to 2000px from July ‘07 (with a few exceptions, which are repostings of earlier photosets)
+110 solo videos; 36 “lesbian” vids (but on pages “under construction”); see the con’s, too!
+Good price considering archive size – but only for the pics!
+Dated postings
+Good server speed for vid and zipped gallery downloads
Cons: -Signup: Requires that you retype your email address and pwd. Then the confirm page (with the link for canceling) shows for under 1 sec. before switching to your homepage. How convenient!
-Rate of updates: Only 121 pic sets in 2007; only 32 vids in 2007, and none since November
-“Hi quality” vids wmv or QT are 400x300, 1602kbps and look BAD
-Pics sometimes overly airbrushed or odd in color; some b&w’s, too
-Not all exclusive. A number of photosets also at Penthouse, such as Andie Valentino (5/4/07), Nicole Graves (2/18/08 and even has the Penthouse watermark); also at Danni: Jana Jordan (1/18/06), Karli Montana “Study Hall.”
-Watermark gets obstructive on smaller-sized pics
-Pic sizes before July ’07 range between 1200 and 2000 (inconsistent); are 1024px or 1280px between from May ’06 to end of ’06; most often are only 1024px before May ‘06
-Management: Photos "all" link ends at 2/20/08; "solo" link goes to 3/12/06. Inconsistent new window or not in opening galleries.
Bottom Line: This site’s been on online since Dec. 2003, yet it has been left unreviewed by both TBP and PornUsers for all this time!

First off, if you don’t like stylized softcore glam, solo or soft lez, forget it, ‘cause that’s what the site’s about.

Second, if you’re a vid fan, skip it! (They do have places on their vid pages to eventually add “Super Hi Quality” vids, but none are on as if yet, as far as I could tell.)

#3: The Penthouse sets have larger pics (usually up to 4000px) on the Penthouse site, so why go here for those? And if you like Danni’s site, the 2000px there are also 2000px here.

However, if you’re satisfied with pics at 1024px, there’s a nice volume of truly exclusive content here from the site inception, and most of the models are very fine indeed. What I question as a business decision, though, is the sacrifice of the brand identity of this site by making too much of the content, from 2006 on, available at Danni and Penthouse. Why not have pics up to 4000px here and keep it all exclusive? Just wondering.

The site has made great strides to improve the navigation, which, along with too-small pic sizes, kept me away for 1.5 years. It used to be very difficult to find updates past a certain point, and there were too many separate, small, unresizable windows. Glad that’s over!

I also see that they now use the same tricky cancellation form as DigitalDesire and Danni. I recommend CONFIRMING that cancellation is complete.

03-15-08  08:11am

Replies (3)
Review
69
Visit MC Nudes

MC Nudes
(2)

78.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +All exclusive content
+Many stunning women, 93 in all
+Daily photoset updates from March 2005, but still more back to Oct. ‘04.
+3 sizes: 600, 1200, and 2-5000px (zips or singles) from Feb. 07 (prior to then only 1000’s and very large)
+Voting on models and photosets
+Zips at good download speeds
+78 artsy videos (17 are g/g) in avi (1280x720 by far the best), wmv, qt and ipod
+Extensive public preview area
+Very attractive site design
+Not many g/g pics
+NO TOYS!
Cons: -VERY sluggish when navigating
-Some photos are way too grainy/have too much noise, some are too dark, and there’s too much “detached” posing. (It’s “art,” you see.)
-Photosets vary from only 1 page to 5 or more
-Model index is disorganized
-Model search engine OK by hair color or bra size, but by country, name, or age it’s hit or miss. Example: The very popular Hungarian blond Britney/Brigitte Hunter is here as “Luisa” from the United States.
-Video d/l is slow, around 100K
Bottom Line: #1: They need to get their page (and video) servers up to speed. They update at precisely 11 p.m. GMT, and apparently lots of eager droolers (self included) know this. Sometimes it’s been impossible to log on around this time, and once I finally do, each page load takes the better part of a minute. Even in off hours, a 35 sec. click ‘n wait is no surprise. Every time.

I also wonder about security. I had a 365-day membership that ended earlier this year, and just days before it did my access got blocked; it had been hacked and shared. Their support promptly gave me a new pwd along with some barely veiled allegations. Did I get hacked or did they? (If interested, see replies to this review.)

About their models: They’re very selective overall. Aneta Smrhova, Ariel/Piper Fawn, Ellena, Ivette Blanche, Katy Gold, Klara/Zoe, Lenka Horokova, Marketa Belonoha, Simi (as Olivia), Susana Spears, Zuzana Zeleznovova, ETC.

Some of the photos are among the finest I’ve seen, but it’s still a crap shoot because others literally made the con’s point above. Example: Zuzana in the sauna -- so grainy that the silo ends its life as a double entrendre.

Of course there’s no hardcore, but asking for hardcore at a site like this is like expecting Twinkies at a hardware store. Do we ask hardcore sites to go softcore? See what I’m saying?

I’d certainly go from “might recommend” to “recommend” to lovers of softcore if they’d fix those persistent server problems.

12-26-07  06:03am

Replies (5)
Review
70
Visit Earl Miller

Earl Miller
(0)

78.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Approx 300 well-known and new pornstars and models, North & South American & Euro
+Professional photography by a seasoned master with a signature style
+Huge archive: photosets & videos
+Videos in WMV or QT, “high” (wmv 720x404) and “low” for both formats
+No DRM
+4 ways to go through the site content: 1. model hair color (LONG lists, though), 2. name, 3. reverse chronologically for pics or videos, or by 4. “Penthouse” or “Amateur” or “Monthly Centerfold” or “Pornstars."
Cons: -Public area does not show much about new updates
-Updates come slowly
-Recycles content
-Pics rarely larger than 1280px; plenty max at 1024.
-Too many pics are overly retouched
-Lots of masterbation with toys
-Videos are of photoshoots, including hardcore (suck-pause-camera flash, slow-fuck pause-camera flash).
-A bit of weirdness in zip downloads: No “right-click save as.” Click the zip link, and you get asked if you’re sure you want to download the zip. (Click "Yes.")
Bottom Line: I’d been getting offers to rejoin at a special price, $14.95 for a month, so I finally thought, “Why not?” after being away 7 solid months.

The number of photosets added since I’d left? 56. That’s 8 per month.

The number of “new” photosets that were actually recycled content? 8, which was a whole month’s worth for me. They weren’t enlargements of older sets, either. Just “old” presented as “new.” As old as from early 2006 on, when the site started doing photos at 1280px. It’s been around at least since 2003, so you can imagine there’s a lot of stuff at 1024.

The “zip weirdness” makes me think of the old dial-up days, when a zip download just might have been something of an issue. Thing is, zip files (and the "last chance" button) got added to this site only within the past couple of years!

It’s hard to stay a fan of a site that just hypes itself but is obviously behind the times in image size, rate of updates, and the approach to hardcore videos. The recycling bullshit doesn't help, either.

But for a first-time, one-time subscriber, a membership at the TBP discount price of $19.95 might still be worth it if you don’t mind the limitations already described. There is a lot of exclusive content of hot babes here: Adel Sharp, Amy Reid, Andie Valentino, the blond Lena, Riley Shy, Georgia Jones, etc. as well as older stuff of Alexa Kai, Angel Cassidy, Tyler Lee, Jassie, Tera Patrick, etc. to name just a very few.

12-16-07  02:09pm

Replies (7)
Review
71
Visit Suze Randall

Suze Randall
(1)

78.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +current offering of $7.77 for 1-week access to both the photo and the video sites
+huge collection of photos (posing & sometimes toys and/or fetish & HC or lez); 1280px at least as far back as 2005
+much improved recent gallery pages w/25 thumbs per page
+enormous number of models, many established and some more recent ones
+no DRM on the vids
+”Mega” streaming vids look great (too bad they can’t be saved to disk!)
Cons: -navigation is very tricky as you move through different parts of the site
-some links are incorrect
-very incomplete update history
- downloadable videos are too small (even newest post, of Faith Leon, is only 450x338 at best quality)
-available vid types are inconsistent, and some videos made only for iPod
Bottom Line: I complained in June about this site, but I couldn’t pass up on the very low-cost trial for both the pic site and the video site!

This is really two sites, photo and video, and two “sites” yet again (the old one and newer one). Sometimes there are links from the photo site to the video site, and vice-versa. New windows open up, and it can get tricky as you browse around.

Then there’s the new models index – a “beta” that contains only part of all the models and then only part of all the content for a given model. You can click a link to the “old” models list, which leads to text-only lists of pics that are s/ts click-dwnld only, s/ts in zips, some 1024 max, some 1280, but in the very old format of click fwd or back, 10 pics only per page.

Clicking “shoot history” brings this HUGE text list of links to shoots by their index numbers ONLY. (WTF?!) From there, and only there, you can get a simple html table that lists the entire shoot history for 2007 – the only one you get that makes ANY sense. 2006 and before? Forget about it!

The removal of the complete chronological shoot history is my #1 complaint. The models list mess is #2.

And I do wish they'd get the pics up to at least 1600px.

The streaming mega vids are the biggest improvement: very HOT SEX in gorgeous color. Many DNYNAMITE sexy beautiful women in great hardcore!

For this trial price, I do recommend checking this site out, but I hope some day they will finally get ORGANIZED!

09-05-07  06:31pm

Replies (3)
Review
72
Visit Ambra's Dreams

Ambra's Dreams
(0)

78.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +High quality photos of breathtaking Ambra (aka Valentina, Nadja, Vanessa Cooper)
+Zips of 1200s, 2000s, or 4992s in jpgs or "printable PDFs" (zip about the same size as for the 2000)
+Videos in Quicktime or WMV, both available in 1280x720 or 720x576, or iPod 320x240
+Good server speed
Cons: -only 29 photosets
-5 of the photosets are also on Watch4Beauty, but differently named
-only 4 videos
-one of the videos is also on Watch4Beauty
-navigation: click on a photoset thumb, then go to pointless enlargement of thumb, which you then click to view the gallery
-right click to download zip first time, but it fails; do again and it works. This "extra step" is required every single time.
Bottom Line: I first came upon Ambra at TeenDreams and was of course instantly smitten. She just looks like the kind of person you feel better just for being around. And she's definitely got the assets that a man craves.

Here's she's mostly outdoors (in 22 of the 29 pic sets and 3 of the 4 vids). She gets sand all over her skin in a couple of galleries.

If you haven't joined any of the other sites in this network, I'd recommend either Watch4Beauty or EroticDreams4You. The former has a lot of content buildup and is the best deal all around; the latter combines AmbrasDreams with 2 other sites -- of Nikky Case and Verunka, both very hot and alluring women -- for $24.95.

This review at least can give a potential subscriber to "ED4U" an idea of what's in the Ambra site.

By itself, high-quality though it is, it's not enough even for the $14.95 price.

Follow-Up:
Today I just saw one of the sets from this site on the Dreambabes bonus site of Babelicious, albeit at a max of 1600px. FYI, don't expect this stuff to necessarily be "exclusive."

09-01-07  05:41am

Replies (0)
Review
73
Visit LSG Models

LSG Models
(0)

78.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +exclusive content of familiar hot Euro babes (Demi, Marina/Euphrat, Suzie Carina, Hana Slavikova, etc.)
+everyday updates: a gallery one day, a vid the next
+pic sizes at 1000, 1500, and 2000px, singly or in zips
+HQ vid sizes 1280x720 or 854x480 (each in both WMV and Quicktime; some go to 1920x1080!); plus mpeg (512x288) and ipod (320x180)
+monthly membership price of $19.99
+nice public preview area
Cons: -just 5 ½ months of content buildup; 44 models
-only vids or pics of some models
-pics per gallery varies (some are brief)
-slow downloads (>120mbps for vids, broadband connection)
-confusing login: click “members enter here” and it looks like the public area -- but everything is accessible.
-for each model, galleries named by shoot location, and it’s erratic. Example: Normandy 2, Prague 2, Normandy 1, Prague 3, etc.
-large watermarks in two corners of pics
Bottom Line: This is a purely softcore site with some lez stuff and some applications coming out of the phallic toolkit.

The photos are very good quality, but I thought some lacked enough richness in color. I’d also like to see more personality coming out of the models more often. Both factors together sent me into boredom too many times.

But at least LSG seems conscious of its watermarks; I never saw any overlaid on a model’s image in pics. They could make them smaller, though. (If Hana spread her buns more, could she make them shrink?)

The poor organization of individual model galleries is distracting; it means that the user has to keep mental track of things. Sure, I’m being petty, but frankly there’s no good excuse for it, either. It would be very simple for LSG Models to fix this problem and organize their content better so that the user can concentrate on more important things, like Bente’s soft and yielding behind.

I’ve seen three vids in large dimensions, and the image quality is excellent – better than the pics.

As TBP’s common refrain goes, the site needs time to grow. Because it grows equally in pics and vids, whether you lean more towards one or the other, it’s a slow but fair and even process. It’s pretty easy to predict that six months from now, it will be twice as good, and I’d probably rate the site in the 80s.

Final suggestion: with the vid sizes so high, why not crank those pics up to 3-4000px?

05-13-07  06:44am

Replies (4)
Review
74
Visit American Kittens

American Kittens
(0)

77.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Features some hot models not seen much elsewhere: Chasen Love, Kayden Love, Reanna Mae, Sarah Peachez, etc.
+Exclusive content EXCEPT for stuff at other featured models’ sites
+Models show lots of personality
+Nice pic sizes at 2000 to 2300 px long end for portrait, 3000 to 3500 for landscapes
+Nice thumbnail size in galleries: 400x400 px!
+Zips
+Over 200 videos, WMV (720x480, 5464kbps), plus h264 (720x480, 1.62mbps), mpgs, Quicktime, and Flash. Caps are available.
+Good download speed: starts around 400 kbps then climbs to 700-950
+Good navigation
+Tags (e.g., petite, indoor, shaved) let you find things fast, and you can suggest tags
+Responsive, friendly customer support
Cons: -Must manually enter on each login, plus a captcha
-(Added late May): They've redesigned and DIDN'T INCLUDE A MEMBER'S LOGIN LINK on the home page, so bookmark it from the start! And that's quite an oversight, no?
-Gallery pages too wide for 1024x768 screen resolution
-Thumbs show only half of each pic
-Only one pic size available for each gallery
-Inconsistent photo quality: quality glam, ‘shopped/glossed glam, grainy glam, amateurish/poor. So is lighting. And pose orientation, sometimes with 50% headroom or too far off to one side.
-Videos are mostly casual and amateur in style
-Videos vary greatly in length, ranging from 10 seconds to over an hour. Enough are 10+ minutes.
-A few vids are lower in quality
-Watermarks are a bit of a nuisance
-Clowning around by the girls is cute, but can get old
-“Nude” tag: Some of the girls NEVER take it all off. (Too much non-nude of Sarah Peachez)
Bottom Line: Fresh, exclusive content is presented here in myriad inconsistent and frustrating ways. With every click to a new gallery, you wonder.

It’s like this: How many thumbs will I have to enlarge to see what I think I’ll see? (What’s the point of thumbnails if not to show what’s in the entire image???) Will the next gallery be nude or non-nude? Will it have 1 page of pics, or 4? Will the lighting be OK, or will it be too dark? Will it be 150 watts ... 75 watts ... 40 watts depending on the picture? Is the model going to make a bunch of goofy faces?

And the videos? Well, it’s mostly of girls talking, often with men and/or other women. Sometimes there’s stripping. There’s not a whole heck of a lot of masturbation, nor girl/girl, nor boy/girl. The 2 hardcore vids of Kayden Love, with horrible lighting, color, and camera work, are entirely missable. And there’s one of Sarah Peachez just getting a “first-base” fondling by some guy.

You know how some sites can continue to draw you in? This one doesn’t. You have to force yourself to keep looking through more content to make sure you don’t miss anything that might actually be good.

There are many sites that charge around $30 bucks for a month (or less) that are better than this one, though along with the pros technically it does have some very nice and unique things to offer in content. There just wasn’t enough of them for the dough and all of the browsing time that had to be spent. The best stuff, I thought, was of Kayden Love, followed by Reanna Mae. At least there’s plenty here of those two. And they have nice asses! ;)

Bottom bottom line line: American Kittens has a lot of personality – more than a lot of really professional glam sites do – but it needs to standardize in key areas (nudity, for one) ... or come down in price.

05-15-10  08:39pm

Replies (4)
Review
75
Visit Eva's Garden

Eva's Garden
(0)

77.0
Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: +HQ exclusive photography and many excellent Euro models; a few models are so-so
+Daily gallery updates from October 2006, and 8 more in Sept 06
+Option of individual pic or full gallery downloads, both in 5 different sizes: 1mpx (1000px), 3mpx (2000px), 6mpx (3000px), 12mpx(4000px), or 22mpx (5000px).
+HQ videos in wma, avi, mov (Quicktime), iPod, mobile, and psp. The free, full-length avi sample is 1280x720 (388meg), absolutely sharp, and concentrates on a belly-down pussy massage. Mmmm!
Cons: -only 16 videos to date
-some galleries are too dark, have blurry pics, or are too small or not that interesting. Some models work the camera better than others, and too often the models are looking away. Gets overly glossy sometimes and stops looking real.
-recent price increase. I joined for 1 month, non-recurring for 19.90 five weeks ago. Now it’s about $30 a month.
-there are some galleries early in the site history that don't have 5000px sizes, in spite of the site's claims.
Bottom Line: This is a completely softcore site. Many of the best Euro beauties are here, including Lola L, Iveta B (as Sarah), Marina/Euphrat, Ellena (as Katy), Stracey (as Bijou), etc. As a visitor, you can get a one-pic preview of all of the models, galleries, and videos.

A lot of care has been put into the design and functionality of the site to make it visually appealing and flexible for the user’s needs and interests. In this regard, it’s among the best.

However, while it’s very glamorous, it tends to lack sexual magnetism in too many of the galleries. Whoever’s directing the photography needs to work on getting more of that across. I was actually bored by some of the photoshoots.

In sum: technically and stylistically, it’s great, but it needs more of that visceral spark that I know these models can set off.

Follow-Up:
I've downgraded the score from 88 to 77. The pic sets are very stylish, but BORING. Day after day, they just don't grab me, and many other sites do better. "Might recommend" is the most I can say.

05-05-07  05:30am

Replies (0)

Shown : 51-75 of 2984 Page :    < Previous 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 1.79 seconds.