MPL Studios just released its first "Collector's Cut" series of Anya. This is what they've been saying about it in the member's area:
"Each 3000 res photo series will be created using photos previously not published with the set's initial release.
These "held back" photos are not rejects. They were intentionally set aside for future release. Editing techniques have improved in the last two years as well so the timing is perfect to now release these older, previously unpublished photos at 3000 resolution, now our standard release size."
My point here is that they DO look like rejects, aka "outtakes." You see lovely Anya not at her best. She squints and frowns a lot. (The poodle mutt that appears as well in some of the pics seems more content than Anya does.) Out of the 60 pics in this first series, I kept only 22. And I'm quite a fan.
Hopefully, future "cuts" will be better, but we'll see.
Earlier this month, I got one of their emails to rejoin for $10 per month, so I did, expecting the usual photo sizes of at least 2000px, and often 3-4000px.
But for the past several weeks, most of the stuff posted has been a pitiful 1000px and no larger.
So I've cancelled and that's that. I don't know why they've decided to go this route, but it's a huge mistake if you ask me.
This used to be a favorite site of mine. I'd given it a very positive review. Oh, well. I'm out $10.
Now they're left to just screw themselves. They're already off to a great start.
They've recently posted a Christmas gallery of Larissa ("Natusik" to them). I thought to myself, "Haven't I seen that before at some other site?" After all, their days of all-exclusive material have been long gone for some time.
Nope, it wasn't from another site. It was from THEIR site, two years ago!
And they've recently reposted a gallery twice of Natasha Marley, too, the one where she's sexing up the lorry.
This site looks attractive, but I wonder what distinguishes it from the other "only" sites that this same company puts out. The tour isn't nearly as good as at OnlyTease, for instance. Sure, it looks good, but it lacks the important details about image dimensions, zips, and so on.
Don't they'd think that people would want such details?
Yeah, that's from a song. Anyone else remember that one, or am I just that much closer to my grave? (Hint: Chevy Chase played drums for them at an early stage.)
Nakedby has a new design! And when they post videos or photosets, they're put in the section called "Articles"! How very intuitive!
But they're on a big video streak. Photos seem to be getting pushed off the page, as it were. Man, that's messed up!
Yes, I'm on a campaign. Sure, the site had domain name problems, but it's been sticking around and I'd like to see TBP do a review. So far, it's been nominated for one by two parties, myself included.
Please, kind sir, would you help a potentially interesting site with a little handup? Just go to the site's page at TPB, click the nominate box and add your vote.
I want to see if it's really worth joining! Eufrat is very popular, need I say!
On this site, the Crissy Moran set "Breathe On Me" looked familiar. Yes, I'd first gotten it at least three years ago at FinestWomen, which has since become FinestModels.
But the set at My Glamour Site is better! It has 147 pics at 3000px; the FinestWomen version had 68 at 1024px long end. And the watermark at My Glamour is not as obvious.
Finally, when FinestModels would occasionally -- and much more recently -- redo a photoset in larger dimensions on their own site, the results were often blurry (yech) and, let's face it, just plain worthless. Not so at MyGlamour.
Funny how the original site has had such lower standards and that the quality of the content gets "rescued" by another.
I do look forward to more reduxes of FinestWomen at MyGlamourSite!
So many of the girls are listed here as "non-nude," yet the primary category at TBP for this site is "Nude Photography."
Maybe some of the older PU members will remember the Jethro Tull album "Thick as a Brick" with the mock newspaper inside. It had TV listings such as "The Wonderful World of Colour.*"
FM Teens has finally gotten it together and come up with a better design. Now you can browse through all sets sequentially, forwards or backwards. What's more, the model's name is right there with her, too on every page of her galleries, so you can't possibly miss it.
And so I've found my "mystery blond"! Her name is Olga.
To get the zip of a set, you click this little rectangle thingy on the bottom left, which takes you to the page with the link for the zip (yes, still a bit clunky, but not too bad).
And they have a model's index that makes sense now! Finally!!!
One more plus is that they seem to be less into covering the girls in flowers and beads and having them balance knick-knacks on their formidable fannies.
And formidable they are! The angles in the pics are suggestive sometimes of ground-zero viewer proximity.
And the lighting is consistently better, too.
But I do have a gripe. The pic sizes. They're still in the 15's on the long end. Why? Why not get into at least past the 2000px mark, as does NuDolls, which seems to have the same modeling agency on the most finger-worn card in their Rolodex?
My first comment stated that several of the links to sets of Sandra Shine were not working. That's been fixed. There are now 44 exclusive photosets on the site that can be accessed (was 35 when those links were broken).
Just read the latest TBP review, which noted the recent slowdown in updates, and I'll add that only two (count 'em) two updates appeared in October at Blue Fantasies.
I'm still a fan of the main site, Twistys, since they've been regularly, if not always, adding 3000 px zips. But you don't get those at Blue Fantasies, either.
Twistys has a lot of pots on the stove, so to speak. I guess it's hard to keep everything simmering along.
Viv Thomas has just come out in a new site design. I thought that might also entail photos larger than 1280 pixels. After all, 1280 is on the small side these days, and there is VT content available at some other sites in much larger dimensions.
But all I see is 1280 as the max size in the new site tour. Too bad.
People who join Cruising Girls or Sandra Shine Live for the "4 for 1" deal get this site as part of it. GlamAndArt has only 35 working, exclusive photosets (several of Sandra Shine have dead links). No videos have been posted at all.
The site still stands out, IMHO, because it is so unlike the other sites in the package (Cruising Girls, Sandra Shine Live, and Sandra Shine Bonus). GlamAndArt has no toy play, and the photos are available in both 1500 pixels and a much larger 3500 pixels to nearly 5000 pixels, depending on the photoset. What's more, the watermarks are barely noticeable, which isn't true of the other sites (though those are thankfully less obvious than they used to be). Another big difference is that most of the GlamAndArt shoots are outdoors.
There is one thing in common with the other sites: no thumbs of photos. You have to download the zips to see the pics.
GlamAndArt has only 12 models. The finest is Bambi, with four photosets shot outdoors. There's also Angel Kiss, Anita Pearl, Klaudia (Cindy Hope), Regina Moon, Conny Ferrara, the brunette Jamie (who hasn't been on the scene in long time! She's at ALS Scans), Sandra Shine, and 4 lesser known models.
I know this is sounding like a review, but I just thought I'd give a heads up since visitors to the site can't see much of what they'd be getting. The photo quality is really good. I just hope that the site starts growing again in the future, as it's not presently updating.
This site has a lot going for it in image quality, but there aren't enough good butt shots. Why not have them as often as the toy play and pussy fiddling? (Like, in just about every gallery!)
I've found a scant few that ARE good at this site:
Sandra DeMarco, "Abstract" 2576890.JPG
Veronika Fasterova "Little Bo Peep" 2266784.jpg Cherry Jul "Paradise" 2438698.JPG
In all of them, you can at least see some of the girl's face, and her rear is nice and evenly displayed. The one of Sandra DeMarco is especially riveting.
Toys AND ass. Can they co-exist for a change? Please???
The webmaster got in touch with me about a problem they were having during a revision of the site (see replies). I thought that they had decided to discontinue previews of the gallery thumbs for visitors -- a great feature that I wish more sites had. Turns out that hasn't changed. Hurray!
Trying to peruse the updates, but having a tough time of it with the walk-on ad girl stepping in and saying "You'd better have some time on your hands ..." Change to a new month, and she's gone, but not for long!
"You'd better have some time on your hands ..."
I can't read about a scene with this chickie standing right in the way of the text! (Go to earlier month.)
You log in to the site. You choose a model, and you're asked to log in to her page. You choose a gallery, and you have to log in to that. Then you click to download the zip and ... you have to login again to get it. While it's downloading, you switch to another page and ...
I went to cancel my membership here and found out that it's not listed among the sites that have direct cancellation by the user. I had had this same issue with DDF Beauties some time ago as well.
You have to submit a ticket and ask FW Billing to cancel for you. So don't put it off until the last minute!
Got one of their offers for a month at $15. Haven't been there in quite some time. Checked the review this year at Stroke King (ha-ha). Seems they're still maxing the pics at 1280, or is it 1200?
No matter. They need to get those pic sizes up to modern standards! 1600 px at least! If not, no deal.
Perhaps the people at the site think they're competitive enough as it is, but IMHO they aren't. You can get nice, 4000px galleries of Allysa Reece at TorridArt, for instance.
Was lurking and noticed that Zdenka Podkapova and Sandee Westgate are scheduled to appear on this site. These are two seasoned pros in glamour modeling. I'll be keeping my eye on this one.
First off, as a pic fiend, I was pretty disappointed. The galleries are usually really small, ranging generally between 10-20 pics, and there are no zips. So, aha, I finally got it: It's a video site.
There are a lot of videos. And there are a lot of theme-based Hustler "sites" you can access from the main one. The themes are things like college girls, anal, "cum crazy," milfs, etc. Vids that show up on one may appear on another as well. You could see this either as an annoyance or a convenience.
There's a lot of variation in terms of what you can access and how quickly. Some vids were "1200" (864x480 wmv), some were only up to "768" (720x480). Some had smaller dimensions than that. And sometimes, they were streaming only.
I like to preview vids online and click ahead through scenes before I decide to download. With some of them, it was a snap, but not with others, which I just downloaded before viewing.
Some downloads took under 5 minutes. Others took quite a bit longer.
For the price of $20, it's not at all a bad site, but it's not great, either. I'd joined years ago and just hated it then, but it's definitely more user-friendly than it had been.
The crazy navigation problems the site had two years ago are all ironed out now.
Photos from July on are large at 1600px (were 1280 before that, and 1024 earlier still). And at the "Classics" site, stuff has started to appear large at 1536px, though only from August on.
Videos, while not "HD," are sharp enough. 640x480 and 720x540, close to 2000kpbs. Sometimes there's too much lingering on penis-in-ass or girl's face, but the action is hot and most of the models are really good.
There's some non-exclusive stuff of Euro girls by Tim Fox, but not a whole lot. The Cindy Hope (aka Klaudia) stuff is exclusive. I think she made a trip to the US, as she's appeared recently at Aziani, too.
One other thing that I've noticed is a reduction of the really garish fetish stuff. They did have one of Lexi Belle with a mouth ball in what looked like a kinky turn on pre-1950's swimwear. But it was an exception. OK by me.
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.
