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.
I'd joined this site almost two years ago. Wasn't too thrilled by a lot of the women, though a few were really hot.
Then I recently got an offer to rejoin for $20. I see they've started adding hardcore as of Dec. last year.
Frankly, I don't think that step was as critical as simply getting better looking women. Having gone through their archives, I feel I've done it mostly for Queen and Country.
Older doesn't bother me, to a point at least, but fat and/or shriveled just ain't what I'm after. And there are a couple of girls in there, young ones, who would have looked nice had they not apparently had a head-on collision with a hardware store (face piercings).
Messmer's right in his review that the photographers produce sets that could be clones of each other. Being an ass man, I was disppointed that the recent Michelle from Hungary, a very hot girl, never got to show her goods the way Josi, another dynamo, was able to. Who (or which robot) did the shooting made all the difference.
"Toby" is probably my favorite photographer there. "Atomic W" does OK sometimes.
I feel I got my money's worth, thanks to my waiting so long and their generous discount. But as I was saying, ugly-solo isn't going to be improved upon by ugly-likes-duckies.
There's no other ATK site that has this problem, generally speaking. Why it does at all is beyond me.
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?
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?
Boy, I kept wondering if I was doing something wrong here at Aziani. I'd be going through the material just fine, with everything running at a good speed. Then I'd click on a single pic to view from one of the galleries and BAM! It was like time standing still.
Then shutting down Firefox took forever, with ctrl-alt-deletes and all. Reboot, and the damn Firefox was still in a coma. And shutting it down was another coffee break. Reboot again.
There are sites with pics much larger in file size that don't give me this problem. And I've had it again and again, even after taking the precaution of rebooting and visiting ONLY the Aziani site.
I like the site. It's got nice, new sets of models like Breanne Benson, Monique Alexander, Kagney Lynn Carter, and the still fabulous Kirsten Price (just one so far). Plus, there's recent stuff of Nikki Nova at her "ClubNikki" that prove that she's as dynamite as ever, too. And it's all exclusive stuff.
24MainStreet, which I'd thought was long gone, is now here and they've even just started posting pics, just new ones, at a size larger than 1200 px -- FINALLY. Welcome to the future! (I hadn't been there since 2005, so that's another six years of a very naked kind of conservatism.)
Glad I joined, but I'm getting just a little tired of the RAM problem. Just a little ...
Can't stop bein' a Boomer. Suppose that only the over-40 crowd would remember the jingle, for Almond Joy and Mounds candy bars.
This site is very irregular about posting zips, enough that when they do have them, you feel kinda "lucky." And that's up to the present day -- an unlucky one.
I just don't understand why they're so on and off about it. And to make matters worse, you can't use a download manager.
The most efficacious option available is to run the slide show, and do the "right click-->save image as ..." manual repeat loop until your eyes glaze over, your brain browns out, and your wrist cries for Advil.
I suppose there's some freeware macro program out there that would do it for you (?).
TBP says that the other sites of this company are clones. Actually, in 2005, most of those sites were included with the membership to BabeCenterfolds. So their becoming separate sites is more a matter of mitosis. Call it mitosis economicus.
If they were clones, it would be more like meiosis, methinks.
Today I downloaded zips of Veronica DaSouza's "Round Ass Babe." When I tried to extract, a password was demanded -- a password that I ain't got.
This isn't the first time, either. It's happened before with other sets, and I've contacted them about it, to no effect. I'd even wait a couple of days. I'd finally just give up, turn on the slide show, and cherry pick the photos with the "show" running. It's a pain. It gives my brain's interval timer a real workout.
Would someone like to explain the rationale for posting zip files that subscribers can't open? I'm at a loss for coming up with one myself.
For the past couple of weeks or so, Babelicious has added this thing in the upper right corner so that if you mouse up in its direction -- as you would for closing the window -- it displays a message about getting two minutes free, "a 11.99 value."
I don't know what it's two minutes of, but it sure sounds expensive, and I'm annoyed at having to remind myself to mouse around this thing or use ctrl-w to close the window.
I've been a member of Babelicious for about 3 months non-stop. I like the large pic sizes (esp 4000s), the beautiful and very sexy women, and the clear site layout.
I agree it's a nuisance to have to log in to every bonus site. I have the browser remember the access codes, so it's just one extra click, but it is every single time, too.
Glad to know from the webmaster Nick Cs reply to the review by exotics4me that they're going to start putting completely exclusive stuff on starting this month, as I had seen much of the previous content on TeenDreams, Blue Fantasies, etc. -- though at a smaller scale.
One hope: that they fix browser navigation so that the total number of pages in a gallery displays at the bottom when in a gallery, whatever page you're on. Now it will show 12345, but you have to click 5 to see that actually it continues -- 5678 -- that is, to eight pages of pics.
Currently on a month's subscription after a couple years away.
Their current pics max at 1536 or 1600 px, but once you're in Aug 07 and further back, they more often max at 1024. June to Aug 07 is an uneven period in this way. Pre-June 07, they max at 1024.
Speaking of things uneven, they sometimes do the portrait orientations at 1536 or 1600, but the "landscape" ones at 1024. Why, I cannot fathom. There's an Andie Valentino set in Aug. 07 that would have been better if they hadn't done that.
Quality is also uneven from set to set. Some have fuller color and look fairly professional, while others are washed out and color-poor -- even recently.
And it's uneven WITHIN some sets, with strings of pics that suddenly have way too much red in them or are way too dark -- again, even recently.
Another thing is their navigation. If you're in the August '07 updates calendar, to get to February, you have to click 6 times to get there. Turn around? Use your own back button. They do have a basic html drop-down for model names (a long list) and another for ... upsells.
The pics are all exclusive and some of the sets were nice, but overall I'm not very impressed by this site. These days, we should expect better for $30, and with a fair number of other sites, we get it. Too often with this one the message I seem to be getting is "Don't care."
I'm gonna look like a shill here, at first anyway. I'm getting to the end of $10 one-month membership. Can't complain too much.
There is lots of exclusive material here, and a bit of stuff I've seen elsewhere, such as Playful Anne's outdoor shoots at ArtLingerie. But the Babespotting large pics are bigger, so I'll shut up.
I'm not thrilled by some of the photosets that are just quick, strippy affairs that leave the rest to the imagination. But there are plenty of photo galleries that do very well in extending the fantasy "narrative" right down to the denouement.
One caveat: Some of the photos are as blurry as condensation on the eyewear, and those were letdowns. Still, that's not reason enough to skip the goodies!
I recommend this sight with only a touch of reservation.
This site has hot exclusive pics, and there's a fair amount of nice ASS poses (lying belly-down or standing provocatively). Think Crissy Moran, Mindy Vega, Rita G ... that's ASS!
The trouble is, the earlier stuff is only 800px and then they upped to 1024 sometime in the middle of 2006, but they didn't redo many of the earlier 800px. There's also a fair amount of non-exclusive added padding from MatrixNudes early in the site history.
There are no zips, which makes grabbing the stuff a s-l-o-w process.
They have a list of updates in the public area, but no dates with them. I recall they updated about every 3 days or so, FYI. My last subscription was in Sept '06. The photos do look nice.
As part of my "economic sustainability program," I've joined Twistys (which includes BlueFantasties) for an acceptable rate of $10 per month. I've been happy with the increased pic sizes to a standard 1600px.
But I'm dismayed by the increased size of the watermark in the most recent photoset of Vanessa Cooper, "Stair Way ..." That blasted watermark is certainly larger than in the previous sets. It gets right on her head or arms in several shots.
Vanessa is a hot babe and the photoset is pretty nice, but that watermark just RUINS the pics in which it intrudes on my viewing.
Why didn't they see the problem before posting this set? It's OBVIOUS. What, do they just run the watermark layer macro, zip, and post without checking the results?
Drawn particularly to Amandine and Crystal Klein, I was a member in November. Will definitely not return.
Most of the photo sets were repetitious pics of women rarely getting completely undressed, usually in light that's way too low for my taste. And there were way too many "JC Penny poses," jd1961's term for models looking away from the camera, or just having their backs to the camera, and standing around like real, flesh-and-blood mannequins.
The photography is "professional," but that doesn't mean you're going to like it any more than you'll like the work of certain professional musicians, composers, or architects.
To be fair, I suppose this kind of stuff is in a niche that would appeal to someone. I'd call it "Extreme Softcore." But if you want nudity, or ample light, or models that often look at the camera, forget it!
Just joined for the 9.95 10-day trial based on fairly positive review 3 months ago and the site saying that it updates once a week.
Here's what I got:
-Very few new updates over the past 3 months, certainly not 12 or so (4 wks x 3 months). The "updates" list is only about 5-6 long.
-"Access denied" page from thumbs; no matter what, many times. (Cookies etc. were OK on my machine, and I tried again after a reboot.)
-Not even thumbs for "Nesty" (aka Aletta), and that's not the most recent "update"
-Reminder to myself that almost all of the content is still only at under 800 px in photos (scoured the models' lists pretty thoroughly)
Here's what I did:
-Called Netbilling and had them terminate my worthless access and refund me the $9.95
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.