Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Feedback History A detailed history of activity from this user in all different categories.
User : greg909 (2)  

Feedback:   All (54)  |   Reviews (3)  |   Comments (11)  |   Replies (40)

Other:   Replies Received (44)  |   Trust Ratings (9)

Site Comments

All site comments from this user.
Shown : 1-11 of 11  

Type Site Feedback / Review Date
Visit abbywinters


My Final Visit

I too just completed another subscription, which I think will sadly be my last. I'm not into the videos -- I've always joined for the pictures which, while not always very big, were often hot.

Sadly, the picture sets have actually got worse. More sets have a larger size option now, but there's no point offering larger images when the quality is as low as it is on Abby Winters. Unlike quality sites such as Met-Art, AVErotica, Explicite-art, etc, the Abby sets look like they were shot with a cell phone! There's just no fine detail at all. Each picture looks either out-of-focus or shot with a shutter speed that's too low to retain sharpness. I'm not exactly sure what AV does to their pics to make them so soft and lacking detail, but it's true of every set.

They made a lot of fuss about the new web page design, but hey, if the content isn't any good, then who cares.

12-14-10  10:45am

Replies (4)
Visit ALS Scan

ALS Scan

WARNING: This site is affected by a Serious Virus

ALSSCAN is currently host to the Ransom Trojan (a.k.a. "Homeland Security" virus). Go there and you will pick up this virus! Be warned.

11-24-13  12:19pm

Replies (1)
Visit ATK Natural & Hairy

ATK Natural & Hairy

It's Not Improving...

Just finished another month on Hairy. It's getting even more repetitive; how many identical sets of the same model can a guy sit through, no matter how nice she is? Just when you think a model has gone away, she comes back a couple of months later for yet more endless sets of the same poses.

Sadly, Sean R remains the only photographer turning in sets with pro quality. All the others are either falsely-sharpened, have bad depth of field, bad lighting, or the images are overcompressed, giving unrealistic images.

And the models? A few occasional cuties, but still too many bizarre tattooed skanks with body piercings and weird makeup.

06-04-10  10:04am

Replies (2)
Visit ATK Petites

ATK Petites


Hmm, the weekly free samples for ATK Petites look just like a subset of Galleria to me. Just more of the same models. ATK really seem to be trying to draw yet more cash without really offering anything new. What's next? "ATK Old & Ugly"?

11-27-09  04:23pm

Replies (0)
Visit AV Erotica

AV Erotica

AV Erotica

I'd like to add that while the model list is a bit repetitive, the photo image quality on this site is among the highest I've seen anywhere. I mean, not only are the images BIG in pixel dimensions, but the file sizes are impressive too, giving exquisite fine detail and no compression artifacts to spoil the pictures.

Other sites with similar sized pics (which also have some of AV's work), like Femjoy, often filter their image files to death so that even huge pictures have no detail in them. Not so on AV Erotica!

11-27-09  03:37pm

Replies (1)
Visit Club Seventeen

Club Seventeen


OK, maybe I'll submit a full review when time permits, but I just did a signup after the recent "95" rated review for this site... and I am sorely disappointed.

Honestly, for a site that's been around so long, you'd think that certain basics would have improved. (I did an earlier subscription a couple of years ago.) My major disappointment: the photos are not just smaller than most top sites -- they are very lacking in fine detail and resolution. Honestly, you could take sharper, higher quality pictures with a cell phone these days. I really don't know WHY Clubseventeen manages to take such aweful, soft and blurry images. And it applies to almost every set. I just gave up after a while.

Other issues: the preview pages give the impression that tons of galleries are added across the many categories. But actually, it's only the main (white shaved teens) categories that get regular updates. Others like "unshaved teens" and ethnic teens only get a handful of galleries each year, if that.

Oh, and navigation sucks. You can't even tell which page you're on because the "1,2,3...Last" links don't highlight the current page.

The girls are truly hot. If only Clubseventeen photographed them in sharp, high-quality images, they'd have a much better site. But things never seem to improve there. Rating: 55.

11-07-13  04:36pm

Replies (1)
Visit Need A Pee

Need A Pee

The Photosets

Just having checked this site out, I found the photosets very disappointing, quality-wise. The preview page says "1200dpi x 1200 dpi" which is pretty meaningless. The images are actually about 1200x900 pixels, which fills about half my screen -- not exactly HD by today's standards! Furthermore, most pics are somewhat blurry (with false sharpening). Also note that of the small number of photosets (33), most are of the same model, called Rebekah.

Actually, I preferred the videos here, and I'm not usually a video man, so that may say something.

12-09-09  11:55am

Replies (1)
Visit Nubiles.net


Image Sizes

Has Nubiles started to post decent sized images yet? Last time I was there it was still only 2400 pixels.

03-17-15  10:00am

Replies (0)
Visit Teen Dreams

Teen Dreams


So what's the actual dimensions of the photos here? And how far back in time do the "ultra HD resolution" photos go? Are they riddled with excessive false sharpening, which I seem to remember from a couple years ago.

Just wondering if it's worth a revisit, although I don't care about the videos.

11-29-09  03:30pm

Replies (2)
Visit We Are Hairy

We Are Hairy

Room for Improvement

I like this site and really want to see it succeed, especially with so few quality hairy sites out there. But more and more, it's starting to feel just like ATK Hairy. Most of the models are the same ones that appeared on ATK a month or so before, and there isn't much turn-around. The same old faces keep reappearing. Also, although the image size is bigger than ATK, the fine detail in pictures just doesn't come anywhere close to what you'd see on Met-art or a few other high-quality sites. This might be down to poor photography, but at 3000 pixels, you should be counting pores on the skin, yet many sets on WAH just look soft in close-up.

The poses are also getting to be quite boring. Every set is much the same, with corny lingerie up to the last page.

As I said, I want this site to succeed and be good, but it's getting too repetitive and the image quality isn't among the top sites. I'll see how it looks in the future.

11-22-10  06:32pm

Replies (6)
Visit Zemani


Picture Quality

Hmm, after reading reviews by you other folks, I checked out the samples on this site. Yes, very disappointing. The so-called "super high-res" 4000 pixel images appear to be just tiny images that have been upscaled to 4000. There's no detail in the images at all.

I really wish more sites that cheat this way (calling pics "high res" when they're not) would be called out over it. Anyone can take a 1000 pixel image and rescale it in Photoshop to 4000 or 6000, but what's the point? We want REAL hi-res, i.e. images that were actually captured at 3000+ with their original fine detail.

06-04-10  02:48pm

Replies (1)

Shown : 1-11 of 11  

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.


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 0.58 seconds.