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 : Drooler (220)  

Feedback:   All (3093)  |   Reviews (116)  |   Comments (241)  |   Replies (2736)

Other:   Replies Received (1473)  |   Trust Ratings (82)

Ratings & Reviews

All the reviews and ratings from this user.
Shown : 26-50 of 116 Page :    < Previous Page - Next Page >

Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date
Visit Riot Girls

Riot Girls

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive content
+Included with membership to Bikini Riot
+Some of the most beautiful American models (details in bottom line). Every single girl here is stunning.
+Videos are a very nice quality 1280x720 wmv if downloaded as one complete vid (segments are half-sized at 640x360)
+Streaming the vids is also available
+Photos look gorgeous at 1500x1000
+Zips for photos
+Fast downloads. Getting 1.3 Mbps
Cons: -growth has always been slow, and is even slower in 2009 (see my recent comment)
-visitor’s area does not show updates (but see the complete breakdown in the bottom line)
-if you don’t like solo masturbation with toys, you might not like this site, because it’s in every scene
-The 10 “BTS” videos have the camera constantly flashing, out of 43 videos total
-Only 27 photosets to date (the first update was before Feb. 2008, but not dated at the site)
Bottom Line: If you think of this site as a real bonus to Bikini Riot, then you might avoid disappointment after forking out $24.95 for the package that includes this site as well (and the Euro model site, which has more toy play yet).

But I can’t do that! The quality here is so good that of course I want more! And even though I’m not into the “toys business,” the girls are so breathtaking that I’ll overlook that little problem.

Well, to date, here’s what, and “whom” you get if you join:

Andi Valentino: 3 photosets, 4 videos
Carli Banks: 2 photosets, 4 videos
Celeste Starr: 2 photosets, 4 videos
Jana Jordan: 2 photosets, 5 videos
Jayme Langford: 2 photosets, 4 videos
Karlie Montana: 2 photosets, 3 videos
Lena Nicole: 2 photosets, 2 videos
Melissa Jacobs: 2 photosets, 2 videos
Michelle Maylene: 3 photosets, 5 videos
Neveah: 3 photosets, 3 videos
Renee Perez: 2 photosets, 2 videos
Tiffany Brookes: 2 photosets, 5 videos

What a lineup! Short, yes, but sweet, sweet, sweet! That’s reflected in the score, but so is the lack of quantity, for a site that seems to have gotten started almost a year and half ago.

05-26-09  04:44pm

Replies (0)
Visit Ambya


Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Some nice exclusive content of “natural” girls with no fake breasts
+Exclusive photos available in sizes up to 3000 pixels
+Easy to navigate; uses the same web package as now does Aziani and FuckedHard18
+Variety of models greater than shown in visitor’s pages (but see cons)
+Videos are only of the exclusive models (usually 2 per model) and are usually not shot at the same time as the photoshoots
+Videos available in DivX 1280x720 or 640x360, wmv 640x 360, iPod 480x272, or Flash video
+Total of 182 photosets to date
Cons: -Hasn’t updated with anything since May 2nd, '09
-Usually only 3 photosets of each exclusive model (one plain background; others in various settings)
-Some exclusive photosets are too dark
-Zips of exclusive content only of 3000 pixel photos
-Some of the exclusive models aren’t that appealing (chunky bods or overboard tattooing)
-Non-exclusive content is only 1024 pixels, even though there are always “stated links” for 1600 or 3000 pixel photos
-Thumbs don’t show all of pics; cut off sides of “landscape” shots are particularly annoying
-Not all zip file links work for non-exclusive content (the “Jeans” one of Renee Perez, for instance)
-Only 36 videos; 4 are “BTS”
-Videos are only 2-6 minutes long, mostly in the 3-4 minute range. This might be long enough for some. ;)
-Downloads are kind of slow, reaching approx. 360 kbps
-Last “news” post was over 2 months ago – not a good sign
Bottom Line: I’ve seen sites that started with a lot of non-exclusive content to boost the overall amount early in the game and gradually grew into truly exclusive sites. MPL Studios is one. But Ambya has done it in reverse! Browsing the model index by date, you’ll find most of the exclusive ones together from the time the site started. Then the non-exclusive, 1024 pixel sets start appearing rather suddenly, but regularly, usually with 2-3 updates per day until March 20th this year, when the frequency drops to 1 per day to May 2nd, after which purely archival zombieism sets in.

There are 89 models in total, but only 20 of them are exclusive content models. The rest are in the non-exclusive stuff, which includes Ember, Jade Hsu and Nikki Nova (many years old), but also some “less-old” stuff of girls like Cassie Young and Renee Perez.

Of the exclusive models, my favorites are Cali Logan, Stephanie Sage, Erin Nicole, and Alyssa Reese. Funny what they all have in common: Sexy eyes, slender figures, and nice butts. And usually small tits.

But others don’t do that much for me. Anyone remember Maliya Madison? I even have stuff of her from Shae Marks’ former site. Vintage 2003. Here at Ambya, she appears as “Heather.” She’s still got a cute face.

And “Tangent,” while having a nice physique, has this enormous tattoo all over one side of her body and much of her back.

It’s practically a cliche now, but you can’t always tell a site by its “cover” pages. I mean, just look at the bulleted points on the tour page ("Exclusive Content ... Diverse Model Portfolio," etc.). None of what they say is untrue, yet it is very different from what one would expect. Very.

And it’s a shame. Ambya looked like it had a good concept going: All-natural girls (‘except the ones with tattoos) in exclusive, toy-free softcore at 3000 pixels. But that sizzle turned to fizzle and now the fire’s apparently gone out.

Maybe there just aren’t enough all-natural girls around?

05-09-09  02:02pm

Replies (4)
Visit Finest Models

Finest Models

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Updated: 05-18-09  04:50pm  (Update History)
Reason: Site made positive improvments in response to review
Pros: +Almost no toys or lez -- very much a softcore site
+237 models of all ethnic types
+Exclusive content, mostly, with some “seen-before-elsewhere” sets thrown in here and there
+Models as well known as Tila Tequila and Crystal Klein, as “classic” as Crissy Moran, Aimee Sweet, and Zdenka Podkapova, and as obscure as Juju
+Tons: 459 videos and 1084 photosets ... and 43 segmented video “confessions” (interviews of 13 models blabbing about sex, etc.)
+Interviews display the questions, then the model answers. No idiotic, faux-macho talking male involved.
+Vids can be viewer-streamed or downloaded (wmv) in 3 qualities – nice ‘n crisp “DVD” (720x480), “BIG” (480x352), or dude-where’s-my-broadband “MID” – and there’s Ipod mp4.
+ Only about 25% of the photo content has sets in 1024, 2048, and 4000+ pixels
+Zip downloads, once they get going, are an acceptable 4-600kbps
+Variety of browsing options (whole site, single theme, vids, models, etc.)
Cons: -75% of the galleries have pics no larger than 1024px
-Gallery thumbs are too small! Really small!
-In too many galleries, the girls never take off their 7x3 pixel panties!
-Zip downloads take a few seconds to start for the “rezziest” rez
-Videos are of photoshoot posing
-Older vids in “DVD” quality not as “crisp” as newer
Bottom Line: Pro or Con?: Banner-style “watermark” at the bottom of each jpg might not appeal to all, but at least it’s never overlayed on the model’s image

I first joined (“Finest Women” in those days) mid-2003, back when it had romantic touches of poetry and gallery names like “Love’s Infinity” and “Unbearable Desires.” I got pissed off in 2004 when I saw that they were redating/recycling earlier content. I’d finally left it for good in the middle of 2006 (was getting boring, slow on updates, and short on pic sizes), still in the Era Before Porn Users. And all through that, the company had been adding new sites with separate memberships.

Now all of those sites have been combined and recast as “themes” under the Finest Models umbrella. That explains the volume and variety of content. None of the galleries have fanciful names anymore, so they’re hip to the post-Bush-era cynicism. And the right side of every image, where they used to put the watermark that mentioned photographer Lawrence Gayoso by name, has been replaced by one on the bottom that just gives the site name. Sounds like “new management,” but since originally posting this review, I've been told that no such change has occured (see replies to this review).

I did wonder why a couple of galleries of models like Crissy Moran and Mindy Vega have been given the 4000+ pix treatment while most did not. Was hoping to see “super biggies” of Meriah Nelson, Francine Dee, and Zdenka. No such luck. The reason given is that their pre-2006 images were never edited in the larger sizes.

Still, it would be nice if they would redo at least some of the sets, should they have the larger originals to work with. There are sites that have done such things (1byday and ALS Scans to name two). It's work, but it's got to be less costly than all that's involved in a complete shoot. Then it would be an added plus they could advertise.

To softcore lovers, I could generally recommend this site especially to those who don't mind a fair amount of non-fully-nude content.

05-07-09  11:56am

Replies (5)
Visit Nu Dolls

Nu Dolls

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +40 different adorable, natural young women who smile a lot and make eyes at the camera and aren’t usually photographed staring into some mysterious and distant void
+No fake tits, and very little in the way of tats (exception: Vlada, with a big one on her belly and a “V” right above the ...)
+Exclusive content
+Photo quality is pleasing to the eye with sharpness and color
+Variety of indoor and outdoor shoots (though I’m more of an indoor man myself)
+191 photosets and 212 videos to date, usually combined into a single set (the extra vids are b/g hardcore or masturbation)
+Fast downloads of zips and vids that peak between 660-670 kbps (20MB nominal connection; using Firefox)
+Built-in “Doofus Recovery System”: If you accidentally close all windows to the site, you can return without having to log in again
+Nice design and good, straightforward navigation
+Extensive blog area might be of interest
+Visitor’s area gives you a good idea of the content
Cons: -First post was late Oct. 2007. That’s 10-11 photosets per month.
-Pics are 1549 pixels on the long end; for a site at this price, there should at least be 3000px photos as well. (That would make it more competitive.)
-Some sets have less light than I’d like, but I guess that’s a matter of taste. They’re not overly dark.
-Vids are only downloadable in avi (576x320)
-Vids have gotten shorter than they used to be (approx. 10 min. to approx 5-6 min)
-Models who have the same names: Anna (4), Natasha (3), Tanya (4), etc. require you to give them additional (or alternative) names if you want to keep them straight
-Too much play with the props sometimes: body parts viewed through spaces in chaise lounges, flowers all over the body (or sticking out of the Miracle-Gro), sand all over like tempura batter, a star-shaped dollop of cake icing above the ass -- stuff like that
-They have stopped doing hardcore (OK by me, but maybe not for the die-hards); last time was end of Nov. 2008
Bottom Line: Because the updates come approx. every 3 days, this site is better to join for the increasing size of its archives than it would be for the updates. And that’s what I’ve done, having not been a member since May of last year.

The girls are lovely for the most part, and as I said, natural in their charms. That’s a big plus for this site.

Some of them have been making their mark at other sites as well. "Anna S" at HegreArt (also at MetArt and FM Teens) is absolutely stunning! "Anna" the extremely alluring dark-eyed brunette is also at FM Teens, TeenDreams (as Tantsi), FemJoy as Paulina, JustTeenSite as Anita, and MetArt as Atena.

While I could list a few more, I'll just have to mention Viktoriya, who has smitten both Denner and I. This girl needs MORE exposure! I have seen her at JustTeenSite as Victa, but that was some time ago. Really, she should appear in oodles of updates at every high-quality softcore site in existence.

One little picky thing they could do is have each gallery open in a new window. It is a picky point, though, as I’ve discovered that right-clicking on a gallery link in Firefox allows for the same thing.

It seems that after a nearly year-long flirtation with occasional hardcore additions, they’ve decided to stick strictly to the softcore niche. Frankly, I’m glad just because it will be clear that this is a softcore site.

05-01-09  05:15pm

Replies (6)
Visit Pretty Nudes

Pretty Nudes

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Generally high quality photography
+Generally exclusive material (can’t vouch for every last one)
+Many attractive models (149 individually)
+Zips in both “hi” and “low” “resolution”
+”Hi” resolution is 3500-4368px from Jan. 2008
+Going “hi” with an image can be chosen on the fly as “html page” (has forward and back buttons), “same window” (just the image) or “new window” (just the image)
+Models list can be viewed as “all” (alphabetized), “latest” (2006 – present), “2004-2005,” or “2002-2003”
+Good download speed
+Good visitor’s preview
+Navigation options: chronological (2 of them) or by model
+Nice price ($17.99) for the volume of stuff here
Cons: -Dates that appear under photoset thumbs in the visitor’s preview are nowhere to be found in the member’s area
-Single shoots get broken up into 2 or more photosets, each a separate download, but the file names in each zip start with "01." Boy, what fun it is dealing with THAT.
-Those 2 or more photosets are strewn about in different places in the chronological listings (non-contiguous)
-One chronological option is a text list organized by parts of years (not “visual”); example: “Ulya, The Mirror by Kotsya, Part 3” is in “Year 2009 (January – March)”
-The other “chronological” option is to browse through “galleries” of six partial shoots per page (79 gallery pages are complete); number 80 has 4 at the moment. (That's 478 partial shoots!)
-The “models” pages are confusing as the thumbs have no labels under them to tell you which shoot each partial set belongs to – and they’re not always placed together
Bottom Line: Cons, continued:
-Pre-2008, “hi res” is usually around 1700 pixels. You do get one “bonus” HUGE pic each time, though. (Remember those prizes you’d get in a box of Cracker Jacks? Kinda like that, but updated for post-puberty.)
-“Low res” is often 900px (sometimes 1024)
-Updates 3-4 times per week (not a big con, but not a pro)

I assume you’ve read the “cons.” Welcome to the Jumble.

It wouldn’t be if, in the models’ individual pages, they’d put titles under the thumb of each partial shoot and always keep things TOGETHER in a coherent order. You know, like “Forest, Part 1” and “Forest, Part 2.” That alone would be a big improvement.

Since I’m one of those “chronological” types (who want the best, most recent stuff first), I didn’t find the alpha-omega babe model list useful. I went for the “galleries.”

This required the application of library skills, along with a modicum of patience. Finding that gallery “80” was the most recent (thanks to the updated visitor’s page, which HAS dates!), I’d look through a few of those six-item gallery pages and then occasionally scan the dated list in the non-member’s pages (separate browser window) to see when in time I was ... since I wanted to see at which point the galleries slipped into 2007, when the 3500+ pics weren’t standard.

You follow?

And to make matters worse, I’d been a member once before in January 2007, so I didn’t want to go so far back that I’d start downloading stuff I might already have.

In other words, it’s one of those sites that doesn’t make it terribly easy for an old “Pretty Nudes Hand.” (Don’t read too much into that.)

Somehow, it seems that whenever a site gets into the habit of “piecemealing” the content, it has more of an exponential than additive effect of frustration for the paying member. It’s a damn chore. And this site is no exception.

Well, I guess it's time to start renumbering some of those pic file names ...

04-15-09  06:56pm

Replies (0)
Visit Denude Art

Denude Art

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)
Visit Fucked Hard 18

Fucked Hard 18

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +HOT SEX the way I like it
+New member’s area is easy to navigate (old member’s area was kinda funky in more ways than one).
+66 scenes and counting
+Dates of publication are shown
+Mostly excellent American girls; 65 different girls to date (Eden came back for a second "session")
+Exclusive content
+Videos available full scene or in segments
+640x480 wmv., acceptable 1589kbps bitrate
+200-500 pics per scene, rarely fewer, sometimes more
+Zips for pics
+Member involvement (comments, polls, scene ratings)
+Models of next two future scenes announced
Cons: -Updates just once every Saturday (but things take time!)
-Most pics are 900x600px (or reverse); from "Melissa” Feb. 21, 2009 on, tall pics are 1500 tall and wide pics are 1024 wide. (Is that really Melissa Lauren?)
-Don’t like the ass slapping (and reddening) and hair pulling
-Doesn’t show file sizes of zips or vids on the pages (does show time length of the segment clips)
-New members area has a bit of finishing to do, but only in non-essential ways
-Visitor’s pages aren't bad, but they don't seem to preview all of the content; don't give a quick enough idea of who all of the models are; don't do justice to new member’s area
-Bonus sites (4 of them) are streaming-only
Bottom Line: OK, you fucktards. What? It's FuckedHARD? Ohhhh, oh I see. Yes, that's very different. Well, then ... never mind ...


(remember Emily Littela?)

I really, really love this site! Sure, it’s the same scene over and over again: Girl comes in for massage appt., gets asked “a couple of questions,” gets rubdown, THEN (and this will surprise you) ... she gets boned silly.

But it’s the way they have sex that I just love! Lots and lots of backdoor action, on the table edge, on the red wedge, on the blue wedge, flat out on the floor! There are 2-3 “mini-scenes” of this in every episode. There’s almost no group sex, nor anal sex, nor fiddling around with “accessories.” This is all quite fine by me.

Hey, check out this week’s poll question: “What position do you most enjoy watching the girls get fucked on the massage table?” All of the choices involve backdoor sex. Yeah, this site is al-l-l right!

And the girls are mostly hot looking and high in “fucktitude.” The way Lexi Belle gyrates her ass. The way that fit petite newcomer Evah (seen also at KarupsHA , ATK Galleria, etc. as Eve, Eva, ...) takes it both hard, fast and deep and savory-slow. Well, I could go on ...

So I will: Alyssa Hall, Taylor Tilden, Tanner Mayes, Tristan Kingsley, Kagney Lynn Carter, Stephanie Sage, Eden, Nika, Nicole Raye, Sandy Sweet, Kacey Jordan, Ginger Lee ...

A special mention goes to Priscilla! I've not seen her before, but she's just incredible. Beautiful, with a firm, smooth and very round ass, lustrous hair, and a darling mouth and eyes. AND a low, sexy voice. The backdoor sex just goes on and on and on. The vid is nearly 55 minutes. Don't miss!

I applaud this site for its “no-frills formula” approach because it’s the right one -- IMHO, of course. (Sure, with all of the “wedge and edge” business, there’s not much of the pure “belly down flat,” but it’s still good.)

I mean, it’s not a “wedge issue” (cymbal crash).

Certainly with the new, recent improvements, this site has a lot more to offer than it did when it was first reviewed here.

Was temped to rate it higher. With yet higher quality vids (larger dimensions and faster bitrates), I would have. Still, I highly recommend this site.

04-04-09  11:16am

Replies (4)
Visit Oldje


Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Many of those hot Euro girls – Cayenne, Stracey, Leanna Sweet, Rachel Evans, Julie Silver, Lucky, etc. – enjoying sex with older men.
+All exclusive content
+Total of about 268 scenes to date
+The most recent 116 scenes available in WMV 720x404.
+Scenes split into usually 2 vids means you can just get the best action in scene 2 if you like (though sometimes the first blowjob is in scene 1)
+Creativity in storylines and a sense of humor as well as sex
+Arranged with 10 updates/scenes per page; 27 pages to date
+Follows your browsing, so after you finish with a scene and then click “Updates,” it takes you back to the updates page you were on.
+Good visitor’s preview of the content
Cons: -Slow downloads (for me anyway): around 140Kbps (“20 Mbps” connection. Maybe my ISP is lying.)
-The first 152 scenes are only in Real Player and those vids aren’t so good
-Model name not mentioned in some of the scenes
-“Medium-sized” watermark on the vids; prefer “small” or none
-No all-in-one vids; scenes are split into 2 or 3 segments (usually 2)
-No streaming, should you prefer that
-Action in vids starts before the “Oldje” branding graphics have disappeared
-Some vids have “slow motion” parts you may or may not like
-Photos are only 960x640; screenshots are 720x576
-No zips of screenshots or photos
-Found a few screenshot or photo pages with missing links
-Priced in Euros, so dollar-buyers will pay more than $29.95
-Only updates about 1x per wk
-Some of the oldsters have big guts that block the view
Bottom Line: The first time I joined this, over two years ago, I was disappointed. The babes were hot, but those RealPlayer vids were skimpy in quality and the screen dimensions were small.

Funny how I quit just before they started offering the much better WMV’s. At this transition phrase, on their page 16, they even redid a few choice vids that I’d only been able to get in Real Player: Lucky in “Backstage with the Director” and Sarah in “Who’s the Boss” are among my faves, if only for fleeting minutes of the “belly-down flat.”

As for the men here, as an old Playboy cartoon once said: “There may be snow on the roof, but there’s still fire in the furnace.” Enter Big Pharma. I mean, PU’s have complained about some younger porn actors having trouble keeping Johnny at attention. Doesn’t seem to happen here.

A lot of these geezers appear over and over. They range from the middle-aged to the octogenarian. Some are in good shape, and some sport ample “table muscles.” One of them reminds me of gay Mr. Kidd from the old Bond movies; don’t think it’s the same guy, though.

But this isn’t your run-of-the-mill gonzo porn. Just check out the visitor’s area. What imaginations these people have! But the sex is still pretty much by the numbers, with a facial at the end.

I rather doubt that the more bright-eyed and bushy tailed of the PU community would much care for a site like this, but I’m getting up in years and this site helps. Hell, it could be ME on this one! With languid Leanna Sweet or foxy Cayenne! Mmmmmmm!

NB: BeautyandtheSenior is a clone. I've never been to that one. At least one PU member has provided a detailed comment on this.

02-28-09  04:54am

Replies (5)
Visit Skokoff


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)
Visit DDF Beauties

DDF Beauties

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +That DDF image and video quality, as always
+Collection updated daily since the faux start date of January 1st, 2008. (TBP lists the launch date as “Oct. 2008, approx.”)
+Niche links to b/g hardcore (33 sets), lesbian (64 sets), or toys content. “Beautiful Babes” is semi-redundant as it includes lesbian.
+Monthly calendar layout is simpler and more straightforward than 1byday’s
+3 image size choices: 800, 1200, or 2000 pixels
+Image viewing a bit better than at 1byday: You can click the three size choices under each thumb instead of in the image popup window.
+Videos in 1280x720 (wmv and divX), 852x480 (wmv), 960x540 (QT), and 720x405 (Flash stream). Also available are 448x256 mpg segments.
+Fast downloads: 2-3 Mbps on vids; galleries in a few seconds
+”Babe Finder” may help those who, for example, prefer blonds with medium-sized tits doing hardcore
+Visitors can buy only the sets they want for $2.50 each, though a one-month membership is obviously a better deal
Cons: -Very little that’s new to DDF. If you’ve been a member of 1byday, you’ve seen most of this already. This is the biggest minus for sure.
-Limited navigation. Can’t browse galleries with thumbs all on one page; can’t jump ahead to final or other page. Makes for tedious browsing by model. (Must click “Model List” then the first initial then the model’s thumb to return to her.)
-Zip downloads of one size: 2000px. (Could be worse.)
-From the niche links, you get thumbs not with the model names, but instead with the vanilla-flavored titles such as “Sapphic Fornication,” “Sapphic Obligation,” and “Sapphic Recreation.”
-Thumbnail images of only the girl sometimes which, if you’re browsing from the calendars or the model list, don’t indicate that the gallery/video content is actually lesbian or hardcore. The titles don’t always help, either.
-“Coming Soon” might as well be called “Coming Next.” That’s all it is.
-Cancellation not set up for this site. Had to request by ticket.
Bottom Line: I don’t get it. Why are they offering this site? It’s basically just a smaller-sized clone of 1byday, albeit at a more affordable price.

Still, I’d think it would have made more sense to offer something they haven’t done before: Spanking new content of beautiful women without the hardcore, lesbian or toy activities. (I didn’t mean that there should be spanking in it.)

Another alternative would have been to offer their “reloaded” content all on one site. There’s still a big backlog of that. And that way those who wanted it could get it (I would), while those who didn’t wouldn’t be dissatisfied -- as I know some PornUsers have been with 1byday.

At least the design here is cleaner, clearer, less confusing, and frankly more attractive than 1byday, which takes a little getting used to.

Yet I would only recommend this site to a PornUser who has never joined 1byday and probably never will. At $24.95, it would be a good deal.

For them, the review score would be 90. For the DDF-experienced, it would be a 50 because it offers practically nothing that is new. So to be fair, 90-50 = 40. 40/2 = 20. 20+50 = 70.

Finally, when I tried to cancel, which you can only do through the site, I went through a maze of pages only to find that it wouldn't work because they lead to the cancellation page of a different site! So I had to create a "ticket" to send to support. Fortunately, cancellation was completed within 24 hours.

11-08-08  01:55am

Replies (6)
Visit Springtime Beauties

Springtime Beauties

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Lots of never-before-seen content
+2 updates per day, 7 days a week
+Members get a preview of the next 3 updates.
+53 models; many beautiful, sexy teen-like girls (look Russian and/or Ukrainian)
+406 photosets to date
+Photosets are at least 1232 pixels. Some are 1536, and some are 3456.
+Photos are generally acceptable, overall good quality; varies a bit.
+82 videos to date
+All videos in 5 versions: WMV hi (720x480), med, or low; mpg; and Quicktime.
+Can browse all, only by photos, or only by videos
+Allows use of DownloadThemAll in Firefox
+Search engine finds all content of a model in lieu of a models index
+Visitors can preview all content (representative pics or screenshots)
+Not much toy content, at least so far.
Cons: -NO ZIPS for photos
-Even recent photo updates are sometimes only 1232 px. You never know what size they'll be.
-32 updates per page (photos or videos) means a lot of scrolling
-More variety in models would be helpful. (There’s way too much of their “Iveta” if you ask me.)
-One girl, Lusy (50 photosets), is very beautiful but never gets fully nude (panties stay on)
-Video downloads are too slow. 360Kbps on a 510MB download (20Mbps connection).
-Videos are usually solo and “quiet,” (no music). (Probably a pro for some.) But one of Roxy had the tinny sound of techno music being picked up by the cam mic. And the frame rate was choppy on it and on another, too, making the wicker couch "come alive" like some LSD-induced hallucination. And that was at 720x480.
-Seven of the videos are in black & white (?)
-Not all content is exclusive, though most is new to me.
-Watermark usually not intrusive, but its style is sometimes in odd contrast to the photo content.
Bottom Line: PornUsers familiar with MetArt, MetModels, Nubiles, TeenDreams, HegreArt, ATK Galleria and/or Amour Angels will recognize some of these girls.

One standout is “Andrea,” (Shannon at Nubiles; Lena at MetModels). Would some think she’s too skinny? Well, it’s a healthy, firm-toned skinny, and she’s got good-sized natural breasts for her frame and a very cute mouth. And playful eyes. About half of her 33 photosets are at 1536 pixels; the others are at 1232. Too bad that the one video of her solo is also choppy with the frame rate!

Another is Nella (Anastasia at Nubiles; Martina at MetModels). Cute face. VERY cute butt. There are about 6 photosets of her and 1 video, which was nice! All of her pics are at 3456. One set, in a sauna, is also at TeenDreams, where she’s “Kate.”

Then there’s Roxy, who is really sexy and nicely round in the back. Same goes for Monica. But the thinner Ally and Sindy deserve mention, too.

Stephanie has a lovely, serene face. Might be the most truly beautiful girl on this site. Also has appeared at Nubiles as Aimee.

Finally, I’ll mention “Koika” as she’s known here. One of the cutest blonds anywhere. She’s been at some of the other sites, too. There are several vids of her here, where it looks like she’s been in an accident (stitches on her shoulder and arm). But the charm still comes through.

So yes, the models here are for the most part a feast for the eyes. And though the pros do add up, especially in the amount and freshness of the content, the cons still bring the score down under 80. Number one is of course no zips. Number two: The slow vid downloads.

Just the same, fans of these kinds of models and this kind of content would probably enjoy the site -- at least for the photos. I can’t say that I regret joining it myself. But if I were more of a video fan, I'd avoid it because too many of the videos are poor in quality.

10-25-08  06:24pm

Replies (0)
Visit Just Teen Site

Just Teen Site

Status: Current Member for over 3 months (at the time of review).
Pros: +1178 updates (mostly galleries; a few videos) from Dec. 2004 to present
+All-exclusive to April 2007, then it starts to mix.
+623 different models, mostly European, many of them lovely
+From Oct. 2005, often has pics sized at least at 3000px, along with smaller pics at 1200px. “Hi rez” sometimes even 5000px.
+Good download speed at 2MB/second
+Search feature: drop-down lists of names, ages, countries, and hair colors.
+Access to live cams, though I doubt they’re included in the membership price.
+Membership includes JustTeenMovie
+Very good visitor’s browsing preview of updates and models
+Overall quality continues to improve
Cons: -Pricey, with no trial
-Claims at the bottom of visitor’s home page to be “100% Exclusive.” Not true, but see the bottom line.
-Inconsistent updating; has taken as much as a week for new updates to show.
-Zips are only of the large pic size.
-Large/“hi-rez” pics usually at 1200px until around Oct. 2005 (2-3000px).
-Older, 2004-05 content too often has poor image quality
-Some pics have the usual problems such as blurriness, excessive backlight and forward shadowing, low lighting, stupid poses, goofy props, etc.
-“Country” in search feature lists only Ukraine, Russia, and Czech Republic. So they made Czechs out of Austrian Crystal Klein and Hungarian Eve Angel, etc. (Will this affect their tax situation?)
-Once you’re logged in as a member, you have to take care to mouse around their EXTREMELY ANNOYING “Live Cams!” link which constantly animates in the top right corner.
-Problem with customer support e-mail (see my comment and the reply)
Bottom Line: Maybe you could say that the real “salad era” for this site was from Oct. 2005 to April 2007, when all of the pics were large and exclusive. But it’s not that simple.

The first non-exclusive content I can identify is Marketa Belonoha, April 23, 2007, which I’d seen in lower quality at the highly dismissable Viewpornstars. From that point forward, there are at least 31 non-exclusive photosets that I’ve seen elsewhere. (Not counting redundant videos.)

I don’t see this as such a bad thing because the image quality is sometimes better and the pics are nearly always larger than at the other sites: KarupsPC, MyGlamourSite, TeenDreams, SexyBabes, Watch4Beauty, VirtualGirl, and VivThomas. (But at least you can download zips of smaller pics at those other sites.)

Besides, what has been non-exclusive in 2008, for instance, is only about 10% or less of the total output so far.

But that total output is waning. Here are the update totals per year:
2004: 10
2005: 152
2006: 400
2007: 362
2008: 254

Even if they updated once per day for the rest of this year (87 days), which I doubt, they’d end up with 341 for 2008 – less than last year. And that’s with the higher $34.95 price in 2008. (It was $24.95 in 2005 and $29.99 in 2006-07.)

And sure, it DOES include the video site now, but I joined it for a 6-month subscription before they added that and started slowing down on the photo updates. See, I'm a pic fan, which is why I joined! I'm not as happy with the site as I used to be.

And I’m scoring it as fairly as I can from that perspective.

10-05-08  03:05am

Replies (2)
Visit Beauty Is Divine

Beauty Is Divine

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +High quality, professional photography
+Exclusive content
+Speedy server
+Mix of Euro, Latina, and American babes
+Some hot “name” babes: Georgia Jones, Heather Carolin (as “Scarlett”), Alexis Love, Sasha Grey, Franziska, Lexi Belle, Klara/Zoe, Nella (Jana Miartusova)
+Some hot “lesser knowns” and unknowns
+Zips. The most recent 24 photosets in 1200, 2000, and 4000px. But see the cons.
+Nice thumbnail sizes (277x417).
+Simple, clear, attractive design, but note the cons.
+”Showcase” tells you some things about the photographer and his work.
Cons: -Only about 98 photosets to date
-Updates about 1x per week.
-Photosets accessed from one LONG, SCROLLING page.
-Average number of pics per set is 23 in the ten most recent photosets.
-A few photosets have < 10 pics.
-Approach to zips is inconsistent. Most zips are “hi” (2000px) and “low” (1200 px), but a few photosets have only one zip size (e.g., 1200x800, called “medium” then!).
-Inconsistent approach to single files. Most have the hi and low, but the most recent have only 2000px as singles.
-Artistic approach means black & white photos either mixed with color ones in a gallery or all B&W (15 to date; a bit over 15%)
-Many photosets are purely artistic objectifications; the stuff of exhibition halls, not a horndog’s hard drive. In fact, some of them don’t even give the model’s name anywhere.
-However, pussy probing with toys has shown up, too.
-“Bonus” features is just two more galleries, and boring.
-No videos
Bottom Line: The site shows signs of improvement with the expansion of zip files. There’s been a bit more pink added just lately, too, such as Heather Carolin’s fun with a big toy.

These things, however, are all that might conceivably interest a PornUser who also likes nude photography. Other than that, I think an actual photographer or perhaps another kind of visual artist would find a membership to this site more gratifying.

This is not to say that some of the girls don’t look nice here, but there aren’t enough photos to take you very “far” into a fantasy. Evidently, it’s not the point of the site.

But what of the future? Seems that the site might be undergoing an identity crisis -- one of “art” vs. “porn,” to put it simply. It has the potential: a skilled and creative photographer, a fast server, and simple web design that wouldn’t take too much fixing to make it more user-friendly (more gallery pages and less scrolling).

If the resolution is in the “porn” direction, that could mean larger photosets, and more fulfillment of user fantasies. And obviously, more frequent updates for that $20 price tag.

If it isn’t, though, the site will remain on the periphery of what PornUsers is all about. It will be art that just sticks a toe or two into the “porn” realm.

As it stands at present, I rate it accordingly.

09-09-08  04:33am

Replies (1)
Visit One Girl a Day

One Girl a Day

No Review.
08-30-08  03:18am

Visit Ariel's Blog

Ariel's Blog

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Ariel (aka Piper Fawn): A fully blossomed, all-natural 24-year-old woman with girlish, sometimes mischievous charms. She looks closer to 19.
+Clean, clear, straightfoward site design
+Login right on the home page (no clicking for it)
+Exclusive content, even within the Watch4Beauty collection of sites
+Total of 87 “nude art” photosets so far (back to late Sept. 2007)
+”Backstage” photosets (17 so far) might provide some additions to some “nude art” ones
+17 “real life” photosets (but not that interesting unless you and she have friends in common, IMHO)
+Photos in 3 sizes (1200’s, 2000’s, and large at least in 3872px)
+Zips in all three sizes
+Videos in iPod (640x480); QT and WMV 720x576
+Updates continue (unlike every other single-model Watch4Beauty site)
+Users can rate photosets and videos
+Active fans’ forum
+Members get discount rates to other W4B sites (“links” page)
Cons: -Some photosets emphasize the “art” at the expense of enjoyable nudity
-Blurriness, darkness, graininess, strange skin coloring (especially red) in some of the photosets
-A small number of black & white photosets
-Watermark on photos can be annoying
-Not many videos. 8 in “nude” art and 6 each in “backstage” and “real life”
-Some videos may bore (Ariel looking into space) or frustrate with all of the cutting and splicing
-Videos usually under 5 min. (may be a pro for some)
-Somewhat irregular photo or video updates, but 3 per week on average for all types
-“Search” box shows only on the home page; good only for searching titles of updates
-Server rather slow (rarely > 400kbps; 20mbps connection)
Bottom Line: Ariel has a face that can project many nuances of mood with her eyes and mouth. She can look right into the camera and “connect” with a grin, an arched eyebrow, a startled stare, etc. She is one-of-a-kind and yet she possesses a chameleon-like versatility. This really shows when a good makeup artist or hairdresser is involved.

One video that drives this home is “Valentine day” (Feb. 14, 2008). You really get the feeling that you’re right there with her as she caresses herself and looks straight into the camera.

It’s too bad that it was an exception. The same goes for photosets with her looking away, looking down, keeping her eyes closed. In other words, the “spark” that she can create would have ignited more often had those on the production end of things been more conscious of capturing it.

But there were some nice photosets here, for sure. Some of the real standouts include “Desert Rose,” “Green Tea,” “I Like My Bed,” “Wood Nymph,” and especially “My Lamp” and “Palm.”

I also thought the video "Wanted for beauty" was good as unique video art.

The fans forum is also rather interesting. Ariel’s native language is Czech, so of course don’t expect her to know English as if she were born and raised on it. What she says about her standards as a model I found impressive (e.g., avoid doing what you’ve seen 100 times already) and the way she handles jerks (enough of those) was, too. The lady just doesn’t waste her time with other people’s crap.

Bottom-bottom line: This site’s worth a join for Ariel fans.

08-08-08  04:53pm

Replies (5)
Visit Walter Bosque Art

Walter Bosque Art

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)
Visit Radiant Nude

Radiant Nude

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +1 month is only $9.95
+Exclusive content
+Professional photography
+Small watermark
+Beautiful models including some “names” in softcore nude modeling: Susana Spears, Janine May, Bernadette (as at VirtuaGirlHD), Michaela (aka Misa at VirtuaGirlHD; Mikelle at LSG Models)
+Easy to navigate after a short learning curve
+Photos in 2000px (and 800px)
+Good visitor’s preview and attractive site design
+Good download speed on the zips (but unzipping’s another matter)
Cons: -Zips in both photo sizes, but they always wind up as “No Files to Extract,” so they’re no good
-No videos at all
-Only 32 models
-Piecemealing: Some shoots are broken into several “updates”
-Updates have no date stamp and there’s no specific promise as to how often updates occur.
-Only 90 “updates” so far
-Some photos black and white or otherwise treated some way to achieve artistic effect
-Thumbs inside galleries are too small
Bottom Line: I thought I’d take a chance with this one; softcore nudes is a niche I like. But I’m disappointed with the content. It’s too “artsy” for me. The girls pose like they are objects of art. Fine if you like that, not if you don’t. Black and white and sepia and all of that treatment stuff isn’t my thing, either. (There are some nice color photos, too, of course.)

Of course, the zips not working is an even bigger minus.

One thing really good about this site is the design for browsing. Overall, I think it’s brilliant. Click a model, then a gallery, then all of her other galleries appear in a scrollable pane at the top, with the thumbs of the gallery you chose at the bottom. Zip downloads are right there between the two.

Click a thumb, which enlarges to 800px in front of the thumbs (now dimmed), then you can click to enlarge it to 2000px, or prev or next. Click “Back to Collection [escape]” to return to the thumbs.

What all of this means is that you can browse all of the content for a single model without ever having to leave thumb browsing.

But the thumbs need to be larger.

07-29-08  10:46pm

Replies (0)
Visit Ero Nata

Ero Nata

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Easy navigation
+Solo model Nata (known also as Natasha, Natalia, Helena, Larissa, etc.). is very cute and sexy!
+All exclusive content; nice quality pics
+Pics in 1000px, 2500px, and 4300px
+Zips in all pic sizes
+All videos in 3 formats: wmv (424x240), quicktime (424x240), or avi (but see those cons!)
Cons: -WARNING: Most of the photos on this site contain full or partial NON-nudity, which may be offensive to some subscribers.
-The “About Me” part of the web site makes a big deal about how Nata likes to pose nude. What, I feel I must ask, is the relevance of that to the photo content of this site???? It’s teaser stuff! (I guess all that “About Me” nudity stuff is supposed to be part of the tease, too, eh? Great. My balls just changed to a different shade of blue.)
-Only 36 photosets to date
-Updates every 3 days, so you’d be getting about 10 changes of clothes per month
-Only 7 videos to date; downloads only at about 380-400kbps (20mb connection).
-WMV and Quicktime videos look BAD.
-Trouble with avi. My version of DivX player (the latest) tells me the vids don’t support “seeking” and wouldn’t play.
Bottom Line: Nata’s been at a number of other sites (ATK Premium, FemJoy, GlamDeluxe, JustTeenSite, MetArt, Nubiles, PeterJanhans, Pretty4Ever, TeenDreams, and her own Helen's Planet) ... NUDE. Yes, nekked as a jaybird. And lookin’ good!

And here’s an excerpt from the “About Me” section of Ero Nata (corrected for word spacing): “As I've said before, I love to be nude. But to me, posing in the nude allows me to express myself in a way that many girls rarely get the chance to do: Express themselves in a sensual, sexy, feminine, beautiful way, in all their natural glory. And besides, the photos and videos will last longer than a simple memory. Also, it is very thrilling to know that people all over the world will see and enjoy all my natural feminine charms.”

Come again?

There is very damn little nudity here in the photosets. Exception: One darkly lit set in a shower. For $24.95.

The videos have nudity (except for “Swing,” which is upskirt naked pussy and a bit of titty), but they look terrible fullscreen in wmv and QT (small dimensions), and they aren’t working in DivX! And there are only 7 vids anyway.

For the money, there are much more content-loaded tease sites out there with a variety of models (OnlyTease, for one). But if you’re nuts only about Nata NOT au naturelle, then here ya go. The photos, anyway, since the videos are dicey.

Which hurts the score. Plus the lack of content overall AND of course the misleading statements about nudity.

07-26-08  03:30pm

Replies (5)
Visit Photo Dromm

Photo Dromm

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Beautiful European babes (most are very familiar)
+Exclusive content
+Some of the photography looks professional
+Zips (of “large” photos, but "large" varies)
+A few models have their own "Best Selection" pics at 2000px, and there are also 3000px in a main section, but see the con's and bottom line. (It's not very impressive.)
+60 video clips (yes, “clips” is the word) are mpgs. 49 are labeled “HDV,” which I assume is the “hi def” mpg format. They do look very clear, but see the con's.
+Navigation is pretty straightforward
Cons: -VERY slow server is possible, or just not all that fast.
-Photos: too often too much darkness/shadow.
-Gallery thumbs are too small.
-Galleries (thumbed lists of photosets by model) are sometimes disorganized
-Shoots broken into 2-6 smaller photosets (each with files numbered from 01, so compiling them is a pain)
-“Large” image size ranges from 1024 to 1280 to 1600px (but not many 1600’s)
-“Best Selection” 3000px photos is a rather meager collection of randomly chosen shots. Hyped in the visitor’s area, it rates highly for the “So What?” factor.
-Video shoots, like photo shoots, are piecemealed into 2 or more “clips,” which are too brief.
-Archives only by models or videos, and none have dates of publication
Bottom Line: 24kbps to download a 40MB video clip to take the better part of a half hour on a 20mbps connection then quits 20% of the way through? Then again, 63% of the way through? Then I went for a third clip, and it died in transit, too.

That was my first experience. Fortunately, after a few days, the speed was slowly getting up to 430Kbps. Still not great, but not awful.

Why not make ALL of the images available at 3000px, instead of doing this “Best Selection” shtick? As a subscriber, who paid $22.95, I would like to have the authority to choose what is "best" at that size.

And they should replace those teeny-tiny gallery thumbnails with something larger and easier on the eyes.

The site design is highly stylized and unique, and I think it looks rather attractive. And it’s all solo posing, with nary a plastic Danny in sight. So there are a few pros here, for sure, but not enough to recommend another PU who likes this kind of site to join.

06-22-08  06:30pm

Replies (10)
Visit Babe Centerfolds

Babe Centerfolds

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive content
+Quite a few hot babes
+Some of the newer photography is really good: Justine Joli, Michelle Maylene, Nika Noire, Rebecca Linares (though some of it is on her site, too), and Leah Wilde are hot.
+Some galleries have MANY photos (but there are those excessively repeated poses)
+Two subsites included: “Club Sabrina Rose” and “One Time Babes” (this one, mostly videos, is VERY disorganized, though)
+No DRM on the videos
Cons: -“We guarantee daily high quality super sexy updates,” they say. Nonsense. 6/13, 6/11, 6/06, 6/4, 5/30, 5/28, 5/23, 5/21, 5/16, 5/14, 5/12, 5/09 ... so much for that.
-“(Including Extremely Large PHOTOS compressed in ZIP files available for download),” they say. Phooey, I say. Most newer photos are 1200px. Found only TWO galleries of the “extremely large” (3072px).
-NO ZIPS of ANY photos except for the 2 "extremely large"
-Slideshow feature doesn’t work
-Lists only the last 12 updates. To find the other dates, click on model, then on gallery; the date is under each thumbnail.
-Disorganized! Justine Joli "Fashion 1" gallery pics labeled "Fashion 2" is but one example.
-Some content is really old and looks it; 1024’s, and lower. Example: Jana Cova “Dress Up” from 2003 is 800px.
-Slow video downloads (330Kbps; ISP max is 20Mbps)
-Nominal video sizes can be misleading: Mariah Nelson “Back Alley Noir” 720x480 is actually smaller but matted in those dimensions.
Bottom Line: This is one of those sites that you like for having exclusive content, but you keep wishing it was in better hands. Pics that are too small, no zips (well, almost), amateurish design, and webmaster incompetence all make it feel like a wasted opportunity. Really, the web design is a joke. You can look at the site and see how it could be to set up in a user-friendly way instead of the sorry state that it’s actually in. Frankly, I’m amazed.

Why not have separate sections for models, photos, and videos, each with their dates posted THERE, for all of the content? This site is organized just by models (these models on page one, these on page two, etc.). And sometimes in a model page you get a video image, but click deeper and there are also photos.

The header on each gallery page of photos takes up so much vertical space that you have to scroll down to see the photo. Go to next photo, repeat ...

You’d almost think the objective was to make this site non- ... no, make that, counter- ... no, ANTI-intuitive and just plain difficult.

Low score, and well deserved, especially for 1. the statement “(Including Extremely Large PHOTOS ...,” which gives the misleading impression that much of the site has such photos, and 2. their “guarantee” of daily updates.

And actually, some content that it used to have is missing! Where are the Madison Doll, Meriah Nelson, and Rebecca Lord photosets? (Have been a member twice before, Dec. ’05 and Nov. ’06.)

06-14-08  06:55pm

Replies (4)
Visit Rebeca Linares XXX

Rebeca Linares XXX

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +3-day full trial for 7.49
+Rebeca Linares, aka “La Tigra,” is very hot in both looks and in the action department! Damn!
+23 professional hardcore videos, most at 600x432, many lasting 20-30 minutes
+14 “personal” videos (3 are b/g; 1 g/g; others solo)
+42 glamour galleries. Range: 49 to hundreds of pics. Most recent one: today.
+16 hardcore galleries. Range: 54-159 pics. Most recent one: April this year.
+Number of photos per gallery is shown under each thumb.
+All content has dates.
Cons: -Server is pretty slow. Videos don’t usually download faster than ~275kbps; 20Mbps connection. (I get ‘em easily at 1.5Mbps at Twistys, by comparison.) Getting into the glamour galleries page is also very slow.
-Videos are not exclusive; some photosets aren’t, either. (See BL.)
-Two videos, “Gimme the Finger” and “Only In Your Dreams” quit in the middle of their downloads. They’re big files; the server might be the problem. But tried again later with success.
-“Bonus HD Vids” = feeds.
-No zips for photosets.
-Photosets at various sizes. 1350px, 1200px, 900px. (Too many at 900px.)
-“Girlfriend Galleries” is a collection of mostly very dated content, but there is quite a lot there: Lorissa McComas, Nikki Nova, Teanna Kai, Briana Banks, Devon, and even a single gallery of Bonita Saint.
-The “News” (Rebeca’s journal) is empty.
Bottom Line: Rebeca Linares is a native of Spain who eventually moved to SoCal to make it big in the porn world, and she is. She is all-natural, with big dark eyes, a lovely body and no inhibitions about taking care of “business.” She’s a real “ass babe,” too. Anal sex is no problemo and there’s lots of it here. She really seems to be enjoying what she’s doing.

The biggest draw is the hardcore video (“clips”) collection, but none of it is exclusive. It would please someone unfamiliar with the companies that produce them and who has El Johnson Grande for Rebeca. There are 11 videos from Third Degree, 7 from Zero Tolerance, 4 from Diabolic, and 1 from Black Ice. There’s b/g, b/b/g, b/g/g, g/g, and a small number of body pileups (ensemble casts).

The “personal” videos are exclusive (to my knowledge); the hardcore ones are pretty good and don’t look amateurish in quality.

The photos a mix of companions to the videos (both glamour and hardcore), MatrixNudes and BabeCenterfolds content -- and other stuff that actually might be exclusive to this site.

Judging by the dates, which go back to August, 2007, the content updates irregularly.

I’d rate the site higher if that weren’t so, if the photos were larger and had zips, and if the server was faster and more reliable. Rebeca herself rates a solid 100.

Based on the bio, she turns a youthful 25 tomorrow. Feliz cumpleaños, Rebeca!

06-11-08  08:49pm

Replies (1)
Visit Next Door Lana

Next Door Lana

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
+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)
Visit Silent Views

Silent Views

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +professionally designed site
+professional quality photography
+easy navigation with a variety of good features
+slideshow feature
+voting on photosets
+photoset thumbs are a good size
+zips of photos in two sizes: 1200x1800 and 2000x3000
Cons: -currently updating only on Tuesdays and Fridays, but has sometimes been 3x per week (e.g., Nov. 2007)
-large photos only from zips
-slideshows pre-set at 10-second intervals that user cannot adjust
-only 47 models
-about 20% of the models are definitely NOT good looking (conservative figure): too old, too homely and/or too “butch.”
-photos are too often in a dark background
-photosets lack inspiration, at least from the subscriber’s point of view
-photosets sometimes brief at 30-40 pics
-no videos (sorry, video fans)
Bottom Line: This is a nude photography site, pure and simple. There are 168 photosets to date.

I’d been “visiting” for a few months and my curiosity finally got the best of me. (Kick self again.)

One of the really attractive women here is Denisa (known as “Deni” at 1byday). There are 6 photosets of her to date, but even those serve to exemplify the studied blandness that prevails at this site: “Classic Nylons” (64 pics, 4 positions); “Old Cabinet” (69 pics, 4 positions); “Classic Seat” (80 pics, 3 positions); “On Blue” (56 pics, just facing and partly turning).

In some sets, the girls don’t even completely disrobe. “Dream” with Veronica Vanoza is just the first, not-completely-nude part of “Violet” (nude; just standing, sitting, and squatting).

In other words: repetitive and uninteresting. Again and again. The feeling of some sets being too brief would vanish if they had more spark and variety.

Technically, the site is very good. In terms of model presentation, though, it could be lot better.

It’s boring. Skip it.

05-25-08  05:45am

Replies (0)
Visit Baltic Babes

Baltic Babes

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Some attractive women you've probably not seen before
+Generally good quality photography
+158 photosets (may be closer to a "con" for some)
+Models with the most photosets: Akvile (29), Gabriele (21), Jurate (15), Loreta (16), Gaile (15), and Zivile (16)
+Photos in two sizes: 1600x1067 and 800x534
+Videos in WMV 1280x720; 5516kbps (some are lower)
+Not great, but not bad download speed for videos (575kbps or so).
Cons: -Limited visitor's preview
-They say "3X Weekly Updates," but as of May 12, they hadn't updated at all since April 26th. (Maybe the meaning has changed to "once every 3 weeks.")
-Only 13 models
-Oversized watermark on both the pics and the vids
-NO ZIPS for photosets (!)
-Photosets vary in size from just 6 to 274; many are in the 40-60 range
-Only 12-14 photoset updates per month (lag time can be 5 days).
-Models with only 4-5 photosets: Goda, Ieva, and Violeta
-Only 23 videos so far and only 3 video updates since February this year.
-Video list doesn't always say who is in the video (and the thumbs don't make it clear sometimes either)
Bottom Line: After all of the recent discussion of Daisy this, Nikki that, and Sandy this 'n that, you might find it refreshing to encounter girls with names like Akvile, Jurate, Milda, and Zivile. As the homepage states, most are Lithuanian, and a few are Latvian or Estonian.

There are some pretty ones here. My personal favorites are Milda and especially Loreta. Milda may have a hard look in some photos, but she's very sexy in her video, rolling around on a bed and showing her lovely round ass. Woooh, Milda got back!

And Loreta is simply beautiful, with a slim figure, nice curves, lovely all-natural full breasts, and a face that would sail a thousand ships. I've got high hopes that she somehow shows up big time at MetArt and FemJoy.

Gaile is another beauty, but she's crimped her own style with an annoying large ass tatoo and a heavy green addition to her blond hair (though it's closer to red in some photosets). Nothing was broken, so she "fixed" it. Probably one of those girls who simply doesn't see how good she's got it. Well, had it.

You've heard of tit-for-tat? Akvile is a brunette with lovely light blue eyes, but she's got tats-for-tits. Animal paw prints. Fuckin' eh.

Anyway, the low score is due to all of the inconsistencies in updating and pics per set plus the lack of vids, lack of models, and the total absence of zips, especially given the price of 29.99. And that blasted watermark. Why, why, WHY??

Let's hope they make improvements in the future.

04-30-08  02:05pm

Replies (2)
Visit Rigin Studio

Rigin Studio

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Eastern Slavic (all Russian?) women, with 92 models to date. Julia, Kelly, Nika, Sandra, and Sasha are among the real lookers, by the way.
+A year’s worth of daily updates and growing
+Photos are exclusive to this site
+Photos at 533x800 and 2336x3504 pixels
+40-120 pics per gallery; usually it’s between
+In quality, photos range from very nice and clear to somewhat grainy and occasionally blurry
+Can comment/read comments on galleries
+Seamless login. After the first login, you can close all of the site windows, then later reopen the site and you’re already in as a member.
+Can check your subscription status at the site (termination date; days left)
+Subscriptions are non-recurring; loyalty discounts are available for those who extend
+No toys! Hooray!
Cons: -Overkill signup process: 3 screens before reaching the ccbill page
-Multiple galleries from single shoots are common
-Zips only in one size: 3500 px
-Some of the models are not very attractive.
-Some photos could do better in color and light.
-Can’t easily return to a model’s page from inside a gallery. The only way is to surf "backwards."
-Model’s index disorderly, not alphabetized
-Since the site was redesigned (relaunched in July 2008) some earlier galleries are being reposted as "updates."
Bottom Line: Vadim Rigin is a nude photographer (or should I say, a photographer of nudes) with a nice body of work on other sites, such as MetArt (about 240 galleries) and MetModels (64 galleries). There are no videos, no hardcore, and no toys!

The photos are pretty good overall, but this site was designed by amateurs. Visually, we’ve all seen worse, but it certainly doesn’t say “pro,” either. I’d be happy enough if they’d add zips of the 3500px shots and change that light blue link text to something readable, such as good old #000000 (black). They could up the “visited” link color to a slightly more rods-and-cones-friendly grey, too. These link color changes would take under 10 minutes with a decent site editor. The zips would take one person a week with a little caffeine, sensible pacing, and 8 hours sleep a night.

As for the updates, why not just list an entire month on one page? Why have the 30th to the 9th on page one, and the 8th to the 1st on page two? I’m glad my wall calendar doesn’t do that.

And why not just link straight to the galleries from the model’s and update pages, instead of putting a superfluous “cover” page in the way?

The photos, while not always great, are the best thing about this site, but getting to them (navigation) and getting them (no zips) are no fun at all, especially with the worst thing -- that narcoleptic server. I cannot recommend this site until that’s fixed ... but (now April 25, '08) it never was. Believe me, it's a major flaw.

After going off line for ~3 months, it's back (new design). The server's now FAST, and there are zips! Navigation's better, if rather primitive. A few galleries not yet republished (e.g. of Nika). At least the gallery thumbs are now a nice large size and serve as an example of what TO do.

Also, Mr. Rigin was gracious enough to offer a free extra month to subscribers as soon as the site went back online, and he made good on that. Such a man of his word is not so easily found in the porn world.

All in all, it's much better and I'd now recommend it to lovers of toy-free softcore, with the score raised to 82.

03-27-08  10:12pm

Replies (4)

Shown : 26-50 of 116 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.


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 1.23 seconds.