I'd been away from this site for about a year. On the current join, I found some good improvements but also some things that had kept me away since the last time.
Being a pic fiend, I'll focus on that. Since mid-January this year, they've been doing pics in 3 sizes -- 1024, 1600, and 3000 -- with zips for each size. (Funny how the reviews have missed this.)
But they're still reposting older sets in 1024 on weekends. I wonder if they could repost them at least in 1600 instead. They've got some very nice "legacy" material of girls like Breanne Benson, Aneta Smrhova, and the latina Marlena, but these are nothing new to long-term fans of the ATK sites. They're just re-runs. Why not do "encore presentations" instead? ;)
And the thumbs for the newer galleries are bigger (good) than the older ones, so you get this mix of thumb sizes in the gallery listings (bad), the 125px thumbs mishmashed with 200px thumbs. It looks really tacky.
Who cares, you ask? It's why we have building codes, clothing sizes, paper sizes, and layout concepts. What would you think of a product catalogue that mixed different sizes of images on a grid, with big, empty white spaces above all of the smaller ones? Anyway, don't even think of asking me "who cares?" I don't fucking care if you don't. Go write to the International Organization for Standardization and tell them you don't care.
Getting back into the site after a year meant going through the many categories and trying to catch up. They've got 13 softcore categories and 10 hardcore categories. OK, fine, variety is the spice of life and this much has got to be the stuff of five-alarm chili, but why not have a straight chronological list to keep things simple? I mean, I don't want to have to think in terms of "dime pieces" or "masturbation" OR "toys." Just who and when will suffice.
Besides, once you get into a category, the only heading at the top of a list of galleries (this is also called a gallery) is the number of the gallery of galleries. "Gallery 84," for instance, of 16 thumbs to galleries. Of what? Like, where am I? There it is, in the browser's title bar! "nudism 84."
I know, they're trying to keep things organized, and they do, but it doesn't work anyway when you have to struggle to maintain a sense of virtual place while you're trying to enjoy the pictures of naked women.
Still, with the caveats explored above, I'd recommend the site. There's some very nice exclusive material. Quite a lot of it, in fact.
Found this through EBI, and then saw it has been listed at TBP. The tour sure doesn't tell us much. They give the impression that they have a lot of models, but the only updates that show are for January of this year -- very few. And do they have zips? What size(s) are the pics? Video info?
The tour, while colorful, is as brisk as the Alpine air.
Met Art gallery pages now allow you to:
1. Rate the series, the model, or the photographer separately
2. Input tags for each series
3. Return to recently viewed content (their starred "Recent" button)
4. Control viewing options such as number of thumbs per page, whether the thumb opens a pic in a new window, and the default resolution of opened pics.
These are nice improvements, but I did notice one change. It used to be you could change the default photo viewing resolution right on a gallery page, but now it always uses the "browser options" setting whenever you go to a new page. So you might, for example, change the view to "low" but get "high" on the next page.
Perhaps this seems like a quibble, but I did like being able to reset the default without having to go into the browser options area.
Just the same, the overall improvements show that Met Art continues to find ways to enhance the user experience.
UPDATE: They're going to fix the problem I pointed out here (see replies).
Remember Avery Adams? She was at quite a few sites back around 2003-2004, KarupsPC included. This year, they've reposted some of her sets there (now at 1500 pixels). There's one of her in a sudsy bathtub that is especially hot. (And I don't usually go for the sudsy tub scenes.)
Another is "Simona" (aka "Kitty" at LSG). She's like the naughty girl you knew before you knew what a retirement plan was.
It would be great to see them reissue their Evelyn Lory sets, btw. I'm pretty sure that KarupsPC was the first site I saw her at. There's some nice exclusive stuff.
I rejoined through EPOCH. THEN it prompts me to fill out yet another join form with a different vendor. I didn't do that.
Then I logged in. Fine for the first few minutes. Then it starts moving like a snail on a cold fall day and not much later loads nothing and gives me gateway timeouts.
Update, Dec. 8th, four days later: It's STILL having bad gateway problems. I'd actually kind of forgotten about this site, then remembered, logged in (which was slow), started getting into just one gallery, and it happened again! I had to close the site window after several bad gateway messages. There was simply no point to it.
This just doesn't pass muster. A month costs $30. And it's this bad. How long can a site be this difficult for paying users before its listing at review sites comes into question?
The current poll is about nudity and sexuality. So here's a sideshow: Actiongirls has, for this entire month, had nothing in its stock of new photos but non-nude material. And frankly, I think they look pretty awful as well. It sure isn't what I'd signed up for (6 month subscription, stupid-stupid-stupid me!).
I haven't been able to equate any of them with sexuality, btw. ;)
I suppose this could have been a forum topic, but why not here? For those who are recent members of the site, you've surely noticed the growing collection of material that pairs the black-haired Devi with the blond Angie.
And they've also shown up recently, under different names, together at MetArt.
So, who gets your motor running better? Is is Devi or Angie?
I was just looking at the review of this site at another review site, I Love Ethnic Women, which is linked from the TBP page. The pics are only 1200 pixels, and they're aren't many galleries, either. ILEW even has some samples to view. They look nice, but for the price these days, you'd expect better.
There's a list of 4 pages at the bottom of the first page. Click 2 or 3 or 4 and what do you get? More views of various content inside as you got on page 1? That's what you'd expect, but instead you get the signup page each time.
I took a look at this one. Noticed some galleries were the same as from the old Matrix Nudes site, such as those of Karli Montana, Lena Nicole, and Tiffany Brookes. That's not necessarily a bad thing if the pic sizes are really 3500px for all galleries.
But the site looks young. Will wait and see if they're really going to add anything, or if it's just a makeover with low operating costs (no new modeling fees, for one). I mean, there's no "new updates" section here.
There's also a gallery of Sammie Rhodes that's been all over the place.
Well, how did I learn to be so skeptical? Sites like this, for one thing ...
they're not! I mean they post for visitors that their latest update is July 11, 2010, today. Actually, they haven't posted an update since June 3rd.
I hadn't been to the site for a few months, but decided to rejoin. Finding the problem, at first I gave it a little time, just to see if there was a glitch.
They're aren't many updates since February of this year, btw. And the site has maintenance problems such as full-sized pics where there should smaller ones in some of the model pages, making the layouts a screwed-up mess of scrolling vast territories of white space and huge image files.
If they're no longer updating, THEY SHOULD SAY SO! Then they wouldn't get called on it.
Two and half months ago, posted a favorable comment about this site. I also joined soon after, and now I have a few warnings for those interested.
First, the maximum pixel resolution on new photos is their "super large," which is about 2000 pixels (sometimes exactly, sometimes a little less). But the site is still advertising "2722 PIXELS RES." to this very moment.
Did somebody just make a little mistake and just kept copying and pasting it? I mean, they're not just lying, are they?
The second problem is that although you get access to Viewpornstars, too, getting there is a hassle. You have to look around to find the entry point, turn off your popup blocker, click the Viewpornstars collage icon, then click this little button in a popup. Then the windows to the site open.
And then there's a third problem, and this one is really bad. The more recent galleries and zips prompt you for a usepass that you don't have! And not having it, you're up the River Shits.
I've emailed them twice about Viewporstars access problems. The responses: NOTHING. And that's problem #4.
After several months away from this site, I decided to rejoin. I like their large, vivid-sized softcore photos ...
... which are getting harder to come by! They've been doing a lot more hardcore pics instead. What's more, the women are looking less pretty and more beefy and tatted up -- you know, like sluts.
This makes me unhappy. I know: "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." Will there be any more Melissa Jacobs? Princess? Georgia Jones? Lena Nicole? Girls like that??
But let's look on the bright side. Those of you who love seeing slags getting it good might enjoy it more!
BTW, they do have a nice newer (and growing) hardcore video section with a good viewer and quality vids now, in addition to the low-quality crap that's still there, too.
For the good stuff, go to the top of the page and choose "Penthouse in HD" from the little click-on, drop-down menu. MP4s in 720 px, true HD, are there, and you can get whole scenes or segments, plus usually screen caps for previewing or watch the vid streaming. It's one of best setups for porn video I've seen. B/G and G/G stuff.
And they've got some hot babes too like Nicole Ray, Ashlyn Rae, and Marie McRae. Quite an array.
It's $5 week in Droolerland, I guess. This site offers 3 days at that price. Have been a member before and although it was tough at first, having to put up with with confusing navigation and usepass boxes popping up too often, I finally tamed it.
There's some nice stuff here along with the "action" stuff that I myself don't care much for. (Women in grease paint, body oil, and dom uniforms welding weapons and baring their teeth is not my idea of sweet hunnykins.)
What's really great is that they've recently moved to a larger max photo size, 2722 px (was 1722). There's plenty of content I've not seen elsewhere of girls like Crissy Moran, Amy Reid, etc.
"NEW PHOTO VIEWER posted January 24, 2010
Our members requested a better way to view our photos and now we've delivered! When you click "VIEW PHOTO SET" on a model's video, you'll now access the new photo set viewer. You can surf to any photo set right from the viewer and also download the high resolution zip file!"
There are two photosets at Eroberlin currently that have images at 3872x2592 (both of Cayenne), available in zip format only as the message on the home page makes clear.
The rest of them go no larger than 1600 px -- when the photos are in landscape orientation. 1080 is normal for portrait.
This would be a pointless quibble on my part were it not for the fact that Eroberlin itself labels those two 3872x2592 photosets of Cayenne as "high resolution" and labels all of the other photosets available on the site as "low resolution." Mind you, this is not from the photo viewer, which doesn't label but provides download only through a simple disk icon. But from each model page, there are buttons for downloading zips, and when you click them, "low resolution" is the only option available -- except in those two Cayenne cases already mentioned.
But just to make sure, I downloaded several sets from the viewer anyway. It didn't make any difference.
Well, Eroberlin, if you don't call them "high resolution," I guess I won't either. But how do you explain the statement you made, quoted above? You're telling people that they can get something from your site that even you don't believe you have!
Ah, Epoch! You sign up for the site, then a page appears that gives you your username, password, and member ID. All of these are generated automatically (you don't have the option).
Then the page with that information disappears and it cannot be regained! Then I go to the epoch site and, fortunately since I did manage to copy the member ID I was able to locate the purchase. But the password still isn't there. You have to click to have it emailed.
Do you think that this is hassle enough? It isn't! The email doesn't come!
You don't get this shit with ccbill, because their pages that summarize the purchase do stick around long enough. They don't vanish in a matter of .6 seconds. Whoever thought that was a smart idea ought to get a Wall Street bonus.
For $5 (rounded) this site has got about 5 months worth of updates so far (5x per week). Unlike the "big sister" site, Domai, the pics here are bigger and range from about 2700 to over 5000px, and you can also get 1400 px of the same galleries. Zips of both sizes are available for all galleries.
Some of the material is a bit short in volume or quality, but still, I got it for $5 for a MONTH (not 3 days) and it can recur at $9.95 per month if I allow it. I'll probably stick around.
$7.50 seemed like a sweet deal, so I gave this one another try. Here's what I got: Log in; it fails. Request a PIN sent to email account. You get a new password, too. Click the link in the email to go to the access page. Enter UN, new PW, and the PIN. All well within the required hour of receipt.
Result?: You session has expired. Please log in again. Doesn't work.
About once a week or so I've been putting myself through this nonsense. Sure I could try contacting their support, but frankly this just seems too far gone to even bother with. I mean, if they can't provide user access any better than this, there's simply no hope.
I thought I'd seen everything ridiculous possible already. Wrong again!
I guess that last month there were tech problems at this site, but after being away for over two years, I rejoined (thanks TBP for the 19.95 price) and have found no problems. Actually, the site is a lot faster than I remember it being before, both for navigating and for downloading.
The vids in high quality look really nice now. Of course, the pics are still too small at 1280 px.
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.