Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

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 (3015)  |   Reviews (116)  |   Comments (237)  |   Replies (2662)

Other:   Replies Received (1460)  |   Trust Ratings (83)

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
Rating
26
Visit Bubble Girls

Bubble Girls
(0)

58.0
No Review.
09-10-07  07:56am

Review
27
Visit Club Nella

Club Nella
(0)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Lovely, sexy Nella (aka Jana Miartusova), your Czech “girl next door,” and many other knock-out Euro babes
+A small but growing collection of exclusive pics at 2500 (and 900) px
+Nice navigation options: browse all content or by one of several niches
+Visitors can view entire content list of site
+Newer vids in WMV “hi def” 960x540 (720i) and “medium” plus Flash videos (for streaming or download). Music + moaning.
+No DRM
+Diary section is fun & interesting w/ lots of “real-life” pics.
Cons: -Well over 2/3rds of the content is non-exclusive or “non-original” (see “Bottom Line”) AND in lower sizes
-Downloads are SLOW (HD vid at around 220KB/sec or less); slow for zips of pics, too
-“Poster” option is a “McFeature” -- ONE pic of a gallery even larger than 2500px, but you don’t even know what it is until you’ve downloaded it. Never kept any myself.
Bottom Line: The first approx 160 galleries max at 1600px and are non-exclusive/original (with about as many companion videos). That’s from page 32 (the “end” at this point) of all content retro to p. 11. They’re pre-dated from May 2005, but the site launched in March 2007. This “older” content looks great, but much of it is up elsewhere and used to be on Evelyn Lory’s former site, Evelyn’s World.

That’s the non-original: formerly exclusive content of Evelyn that got put here, not on the newer “Evelyn’s Glamour.” (Some of it is HOT, though. M-my!)

But the non-exclusive issue doesn’t end there. In fact, such stuff, again maxing at 1600px, is on even most recent pages, but it’s mingled with the really exclusive Nella stuff. I mean except for the Nella stuff that’s on JustTeenSite. Or the gallery that just got posted on Pier999. Or the girl/girl thing with Evelyn that’s also on Evelyn’s new site. And the Mili Jay 2-part series from VivThomas. (At least here the pics max at 1600, not Viv’s own miserly 1280.)

Nella has been all over the place: ALS, Club Sandy, Erotic Destinations, HegreArt, Karupspc, McNudes, MetArt, TeenDreams, Teenrotica, Twistys, VirtuaGirl, VivThomas, Watch4Beauty, etc. She must be a sweetheart to work with, but can you imagine joining all of those sites to get Nella content?

Fortunately, ClubNella has put lots of Nella and friends together in one convenient place, for one easy payment of $30. Just don’t expect a lot of it to be really exclusive.

12-08-07  08:09pm

Replies (0)
Review
28
Visit Crystal Clear Movies

Crystal Clear Movies
(0)

92.0
Status: Was a member approx. 6 months prior to this review.
Pros: +Over 1500 high quality videos (640x480 that look good in full-screen mode, 1024x768 screen rez)
+Many niches (2-somes, 3-somes, interracial, etc.)
+Can find all vids of a niche by choosing a category in the drop-down list
+Euro, American, Asian
+Mostly exclusive material
+No DRM
+Smaller versions usually available
+Public area gives an exhaustive (some might say exhausting) tour
+Clear navigation
+In members area, lots of screenshots for previewing scene, if available
Cons: -Updates require earlier content to be dropped, so start downloading at the higher numbers (at page 196, not page 1, which has the most recent stuff)
-Content changes page location as site updates, so a vid on p. 70 you're thinking of will move to p. 71, etc. A small nuisance.
-Lez, solo or just stripping for a male, etc. are also niches
-No search by pornstar name
-Even larger, HD formats would bring this site a bit more in line with the present
-Occasional skanky-looking pornstar
Bottom Line: I've been a member of this site twice, and if you love hardcore, it will keep both your mind and your drives whirring.

There's just so much here that it's definitely worth $29.95 for a join. I'd probably join more often but frankly, I need time to rest after a busy month here.

The quality is usually great, the sex is full-out, and the selection of babes is vast. But sometimes there are no screenshots of scenes; they say they're "coming soon," but sometimes they aren't.

I wanted to get this review out as I suddenly realized that it hadn't been reviewed yet at TBP or PU. I think you hardcore lovers will find it to be a delightful surprise.

06-06-07  01:30pm

Replies (3)
Review
29
Visit DDF Beauties

DDF Beauties
(0)

70.0
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)
Review
30
Visit Defloration.tv

Defloration.tv
(0)

71.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive content
+Archives going back to 2001
+Many known and some lesser known Euro babes from Czech, Hungary, Russia, etc.
+Photos might look too “shopped” to some, but I think they look nice
+DownloadThemAll works with the photo galleries
+They no longer do their own billing. Now it’s through vsx bill.
+Site assigns you your usepass. Mine began with "Hym," which was mildly amusing.
Cons: -High price of nearly $40 (converted from Euros)
-The “faux defloration” bullshit might not appeal
-Almost no zips for photos
-Photo sizes vary from 1200 to 2000 px. They often max at 1350, even recently.
-Watermarks on photos are too big. 2004 and earlier, they are absolutely ridiculous: 5 lines long! And they aren't samples; they're on EVERY pic!
-Doesn’t update that often
-Videos download rather slowly at an unsteady rate of 360-500 kpbs.
-No separate section of just videos for quick access
-Videos are all avi. Dimensions and quality varies (larger and better are more recent, of course). Avi is a big con to me because even though I have the most recent DIvX player with the most recent codec, it’s shitty software. (But some play nicely in Windows Media Player. Figure that!)
-Downloads have quit and had to be restarted (not often)
Bottom Line: You might recognize a lot of these girls, but not necessarily by the names they have here. A sample: Amelie Loren (Angelica Black), Lulia Lesovitch (Peaches), Rita Hartman (Lauryn May), Anita Koromislo (Leanna Sweet), Natasha Pushkina (Suzy Black), and Vivien Piaf (Blue Angel).

Now, imagine that some of these girls lose their virginity at this site. That’s what you’re supposed to do. They speak in their own language with the stud, but there are English subtitles. “Do you know why you’re here?” “Yes, to lose my virginity.” I really like Blue Angel, but I doubt that it was a major life event for her. And for a girl about to lose her innocence, she gave a damn nice blowjob.

To assist you in your suspension of disbelief, the girls “bleed” when their “hymens” are “broken,” and they might ask the guy just what that creamy white stuff is that’s coming out of his cock. Yes, this guy, Tommy, is busy. He educates as he ejaculates.

Photo “evidence” of the hymen is also presented. Bigfoot, eat your heart out.

Not all of the girls are here for a cherry-poppin’ good time, though. Don’t expect Peaches to go seed-to-seed with Tommy. But I’m 98% sure that their “Nora Phillips” is also Rebecca C of MetArt, so that makes for a rare find. Video included. Pretty hot!


Now for some nitty-gritty. Posted updates are shown in both a left-side text column and a main thumbnail area. By year, the number of updates in the main area have been:
2001: 12
2002: 11
2003: 15
2004: 12
2005: 17 (final year of “one model per update”)
2006: 20
2007: 41
2008: 43
2009: 52
2010: 3 so far

These are photo updates. Some girls have solo and/or hardcore videos linked from the last pages of these. And some don’t.

Final word: For a site this expensive, it should obviously have 1. easily accessible videos in a video section, 2. photos at least 2000px as standard size, 3. zips of all photosets, and 4. videos in wmv as well as trouble-prone avi.

Even now, I think it rates about the same as what exotics suggested a year and a half ago.

01-09-10  02:08pm

Replies (3)
Review
31
Visit Denude Art

Denude Art
(0)

78.0
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)
Review
32
Visit Digital Desire

Digital Desire
(1)

84.0
Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: +Vast collection of professional quality pics by Stephen Hicks and his fellow photographers
+Many, many beautiful models from all over
+Some photos in 1600px; first set of each month has 3000px at least from start of 2006
+DDGX subsite offers extra pink, toying, and hardcore
+Returning member price of 15.95 for both DDG and DDGX combined (use same username and password as last time)
+Zip files (but only in largest pic size available)
+Quick model search, but some models have 2 names
Cons: -Some exclusive, some seen elsewhere (Twistys, Penthouse, etc.)
-Too many categories of pics
-Piece-mealing: “Daily” pics in 1-per-wk segments over 4-6 wks, or “themed” in one gallery with 4 models having about 5 pics each from shoots already or not yet published; DDGX has small sets taken from same shoots as featured galleries
-With “Daily” pics, you never know if max size will be 1024 or higher
-Softcore videos are often boring, overly edited, DRM restricted, and music tracked
Bottom Line: I’ve been a member many times off and on since 2002. The photography by Mr. Hicks & Co. is usually very professionally done and has signature elements of lighting and color that make it identifiable on sight. For awhile, it was my absolute favorite site.

Actually, though, I’m pretty burned out on it now. Here’s why:
1. All of that piece-mealing of photo content is really annoying!
2. Quite of lot of the “new” content each month as actually older content in larger sizes. (“Seen it before. Find older gallery on hard drive. Replace it?” – over and over again)
3. I’m tired of the inconsistencies in pic sizes and in number of pics per gallery.
4. I’m tired of seeing old, 3rd-party content showing up here, some of which is really mediocre.
5. With truly new content, they just don’t often do the great belly-down-flat and standing ass shots they used to. And that’s the final blow! ;)

At least they’ve toned down their hype. In ’06, they were pasting “3000px” and “exclusive” on their public pages, as if lots of that awaited the would-be subscriber. Glad they’ve cut that crap.

And the good news for photo lovers who have never been is that they’ll be getting better versions of the older content -- and probably won’t even know that they are.

06-08-07  05:16am

Replies (4)
Review
33
Visit Earl Miller

Earl Miller
(0)

78.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Approx 300 well-known and new pornstars and models, North & South American & Euro
+Professional photography by a seasoned master with a signature style
+Huge archive: photosets & videos
+Videos in WMV or QT, “high” (wmv 720x404) and “low” for both formats
+No DRM
+4 ways to go through the site content: 1. model hair color (LONG lists, though), 2. name, 3. reverse chronologically for pics or videos, or by 4. “Penthouse” or “Amateur” or “Monthly Centerfold” or “Pornstars."
Cons: -Public area does not show much about new updates
-Updates come slowly
-Recycles content
-Pics rarely larger than 1280px; plenty max at 1024.
-Too many pics are overly retouched
-Lots of masterbation with toys
-Videos are of photoshoots, including hardcore (suck-pause-camera flash, slow-fuck pause-camera flash).
-A bit of weirdness in zip downloads: No “right-click save as.” Click the zip link, and you get asked if you’re sure you want to download the zip. (Click "Yes.")
Bottom Line: I’d been getting offers to rejoin at a special price, $14.95 for a month, so I finally thought, “Why not?” after being away 7 solid months.

The number of photosets added since I’d left? 56. That’s 8 per month.

The number of “new” photosets that were actually recycled content? 8, which was a whole month’s worth for me. They weren’t enlargements of older sets, either. Just “old” presented as “new.” As old as from early 2006 on, when the site started doing photos at 1280px. It’s been around at least since 2003, so you can imagine there’s a lot of stuff at 1024.

The “zip weirdness” makes me think of the old dial-up days, when a zip download just might have been something of an issue. Thing is, zip files (and the "last chance" button) got added to this site only within the past couple of years!

It’s hard to stay a fan of a site that just hypes itself but is obviously behind the times in image size, rate of updates, and the approach to hardcore videos. The recycling bullshit doesn't help, either.

But for a first-time, one-time subscriber, a membership at the TBP discount price of $19.95 might still be worth it if you don’t mind the limitations already described. There is a lot of exclusive content of hot babes here: Adel Sharp, Amy Reid, Andie Valentino, the blond Lena, Riley Shy, Georgia Jones, etc. as well as older stuff of Alexa Kai, Angel Cassidy, Tyler Lee, Jassie, Tera Patrick, etc. to name just a very few.

12-16-07  02:09pm

Replies (7)
Review
34
Visit Ero Berlin

Ero Berlin
(0)

83.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Attractive models. Many are “names” from the Euro porn side of things.
+All exclusive pics and videos (109 vids and 90 photo galleries)
+Vids play in Flash or download in 3 sizes: wmv 1280x720 or 640x360; or iPod. Nice quality!
+Model personalities come out in vids, sometimes a lot, sometimes just a bit. They speak in their broken and accented English, and come on to you. It’s sexy!
+Downloads quickly climb to approx. 730Kbps
+Navigation from models list page is easy
+Login maintained after closing browser and rebooting. Convenient!
+Visitor’s section gives you a good taste. Try the video samples!
+Good monthly price of $19.95, which might not last past Sept.
Cons: -Only 37 models
-Some photoshoot content is non-nude or semi-nude
-19 of the zip download buttons (no galleries to view) only download zips from other galleries. Why lead the user to think that a video has a unique photo zip when it doesn’t? Flaky!
-Pics are only 1622x1080 as portrait, 1080x723 as landscape, but sometimes they’re the opposite. A given pic might be one size in the gallery, but the other in the zip. It’s completely unpredictable. And annoying!
-Galleries open in small scrollable window instead of a whole page. But you can use the “move” button to drag window to top left of screen and then resize -- each time.
-Gallery thumbs are all 125x125, so you can’t tell if a pic is portrait or landscape without opening it, nor how much more there is to see vs. the thumb (not WYSIWYG)
-Gallery names sometimes don’t match zip names. Confusing!
-Photoshoots don’t always match content of videos
-Generally, there’s not enough light in both pics and vids indoors
Bottom Line: For me, Eroberlin has been long awaited. It was supposed to come out in the spring, but apparently there were considerable delays.

It kind of reminds me of FTV Girls. There’s non-nude or semi-nude content, sometimes a bit of lez content, and sometimes toys in the pics (often in the vids). There’s a fair amount of “public” shooting. They like to end one shoot and start another in the same gallery. And the regular photo sizes are about the same, too.

I’d say this site does better with the videos than the pics in quality and available dimensions. The vids have no quick-cut editing or effects or annoying techno music. The only sound is straight from the shoot (sometimes with a bit of someone off camera, but not much). You get a sense of being with the girl for anywhere from 8 to 30 minutes.

The only problem is that sometimes you have to contend with noise from unexpected sources. A helicopter. A noisy, and very persistent, fly. Things like that.

But pics are important, too, and on this count the site is pretty muddled up. Why not have at least 3000 pixels in size on the long end in both orientations and stop this mixing of different sizes all willy-nilly?

People might not like downloading a zip expecting a pic to be 1622, as it was in the gallery, and then finding out that it’s 1080 in the zip. I know I don’t.

So 3000 px dimensions all around would really help the site. And the score, which I've nonetheless bumped up from 78 to 83 after getting feedback from the webmaster.

It really is a damn nice softcore video site, so to be fair I've notched it up on that basis.

09-07-09  01:31pm

Replies (10)
Review
35
Visit Ero Nata

Ero Nata
(0)

62.0
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)
Review
36
Visit Erotic Beauty

Erotic Beauty
(0)

88.0
Status: Current Member for over 6 months (at the time of review).
Pros: +Very large, exclusive collection
+Professional photography
+Many beautiful models: Evelyn Lory, Jana Horokova (as Lisen), etc.
+Photosets usually 100-200 pics each
+two zip options (“hi” 3-4000 px, or “low” 1200)
+Daily photo updates from May 2005 (1 set per day)
+easy, straightforward navigation
+vids in DivX, WMV, QT264, mpeg (formats available vary by the vid)
+can rate both the model and the photographer on a 1-10 scale
Cons: -sometimes delays updates for a day or two
-max pic sizes vary greatly early in site history (1024px to 40xx 5/05-5/06, but most are 1500 or higher); nearly always 3-4000+ pixel size from 6/06.
-a few unappealing models
-sometimes too little light, too much shadow, blurriness
-a couple of photographers I don’t care for (esp. “Magoo,” who goes too far with the “artistic” effects)
-only 30 vids (the last in July ’06); transition effects sometimes overdone; some vids only 570px long
Bottom Line: Have been a member off/on since Nov. 2005; currently on a one-year membership.

This is a softcore nude photography site, mostly solo (but no toys), with a smattering of girl/girl lite. The vids obviously amount to just a little “extra” -- like sprinkles on ice cream.

For a softcore photo nut like me, it’s pretty close to the right formula. And there’s plenty of delectable ass to be found in the archives. Per diem, it beats 1byDay, W4B, and even Nubiles in the tushy quality/quantity index.

You might think of it as Met-Art’s kid brother or sister, as it costs the same but only offers 1 photoset per day (vs. Met-Art’s typical 3-5 per day). But it does give an option to join for $6.99 for 2 days, and with a good broadband connection, plenty of time, and enough piping hot caffeine, you could certainly make a killing here.

I’d do the same, but I don’t have that kind of self-discipline.

And I actually like the design and navigation here better than at Met-Art. It’s cleaner and less cluttered.

But on the other hand, Met-Art now offers three pic sizes in zips, and their 1024s do just fine and use less space than the 1200’s offered here. But that’s not much of a complaint.

Be sure to check out the browser options in the top right corner (default pic sizes; "enhanced" to show previous and next galleries; slideshow timing).

06-17-07  12:01pm

Replies (8)
Review
37
Visit Errotica Archives

Errotica Archives
(0)

81.0
Status: Current Member for over 3 months (at the time of review).
Pros: +Beautiful Eurobabes most of the time
+Daily updates from August 2005; fewer per month from June 2004
+zip files in 3 sizes (site began with 2000px as "large"; from mid-2006, large is usually 4000px)
+Full length videos in wma, avi, and Quicktime; they look good in full screen mode
Cons: -Videos are of the photoshoots. While they're not hyper-edited, they tend to be slow and awkward in the motion as you watch the model try different poses. You also see other people (photographer, etc.) in them.
-Incomplete updates are first posted (usually missing the zips); zips are added the same day, though. (A minor complaint, perhaps, but it's not good practice.)
-Lighting is sometimes too dark; sometimes too light. And sometimes blurriness is a problem
Bottom Line: This is a completely softcore site with NO TOYS. I consider that a plus.

It's also primarily a photo site. A typical month will have 5 videos and 15-16 photosets. The videos are subtitled, so you can brush up on your Czech ;).

I'd definitely recommend it to people who like softcore nude photography. The content buildup and the price of $19.99 a month make it worth it.

You can get a sense of the content by visiting the site and clicking "updates." That's a plus, too. (Wish every site did that.)

With better control of lighting and focus, and fewer of the somewhat boring videos, this site would have gotten a score in the 90's.

Follow-Up:
I've lowered the score from 87 to 81. Gallery thumbs partially "X" out too often; back then fwd buttons needed to fix that. Thumbs are too cropped, not WYSIWYG; must open to see whole pic. Too many pics of models looking away, or just writhing around. Not enough "spark"/errotic appeal, though sometimes there is.

05-03-07  05:16am

Replies (0)
Review
38
Visit Euro Babes Fever

Euro Babes Fever
(0)

68.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Zips
+Quick zip and page downloads
+Prompt, helpful support
+Usually lots of pics in a gallery
+Usually good/acceptable image quality of pics
+Beautiful Eurobabes (Bambi, Lenka Gaborova, Mili Jay, etc.)
Cons: -66 models total (plus 3 listed but NO content yet for them even after 3 weeks).
-Non-exclusive content.
-Login security code sometimes doesn’t show.
-Non-intuitive updates page. Not dated or alphabetized. Ordered by first time the model appears? Hard to keep track of where the new updates are!
-Pic sizes usually just under 1200px
-Some vids are crappy quality even at 640x480 (the size of the vids, all wmv). All are broken into segments (no single file of a whole vid).
Bottom Line: Photosets: To date there are 58 solo, 37 lez, and 10 hardcore sets.

Short video segments: 46 solo (with toys), 22 lez, and 28 hardcore. Add to that six “extra” videos in a separate section, all hardcore and all broken into 4-6 segments.

That's about 120 video segments! Wow. That sounds like a LOT. (Too bad they're each only about 2 min. long. and some of them look like they were chewed on by your pet bulldog.)

Under each model is a place for photosets (labeled "solo," "hc," or "girl/girl") and video segments. One “S” means one solo segment; one “HC” means one hardcore segment, etc. So "HC HC HC HC HC" means five hardcore video segments.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Uh- ... Ohhh, yeah!

So, once you log in (their support gave me their default login code since the variable code doesn’t appear sometimes), you try to figure out what’s new. If you can and it’s vid ... SEGMENTS, the quality is often poor. If it’s pics, the size is small and sometimes they’re non-exclusive and larger versions are at sites like Euro Pornstars, TeenDreams or even VivThomas.

And does this site really update every day? They claim to, but that's bullshit.

$30 for this?
Even once?

NO.

12-08-07  07:57am

Replies (4)
Review
39
Visit Euro Pornstars

Euro Pornstars
(0)

79.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Hot Euro stars in solo, lez, and hardcore shoots and vids
+Image sizes 1000, 2000, and 3500 px, zips or singles; many look great!
+Viv Thomas galleries in the large sizes. (His own site rarely goes over 1280px.)
+Videos good quality at 640x480 wmv or mpg; Viv Thomas videos better than at his own sites!
+Easy navigation mostly (see cons)
+Quick download speeds
+8 bonus sites without additional login, but no click back into EuroPornStars! (Copy a member URL to paste your way back in.)
Cons: -navigation: default image size is 2000px; select a different one and you’re taken back to the start of the gallery
-some content non-exclusive
-bmps for all singly chosen images, regardless of size, even if you clear your cache. A 3500px is usually 21-23 MB(!), so you have to download an entire 3500px zip to get jpgs, or save the bmps as jpgs
-a few Viv Thomas galleries are grainy, but some are great
-some images less than optimal in color quality
Bottom Line: This site started April 1st, 2007. It adds a video every Tues and Thurs. Otherwise, it’s pics, more hardcore and lez than solo. It updates every day. You can browse just pictures, just videos or, with the calendars, everything in the order they’ve been posted.

One really GREAT thing about this site for the visitor is that you can see every single thumb of every gallery, and two or more of every video. With the pics, you can pretty much see all of what you’d be getting! Bravo!

You do get full access with the $9.95 five-day trial. (I’ve been busy!)

However, there are no streaming video previews. And the models (“Our Pornstars”) list includes a few who have yet to appear; hopefully that means they soon will. (Mia Stone being one.)

For those who’ve never seen any Viv Thomas content, it’s definitely a “recommend.” It’s a “might recommend” for those who have unless they want bigger pics and more per gallery than what his own sites generally offer. Still, I think it deserves the score I gave, all things considered.

I’ll be happy with more Viv Thomas content this good, and considering the volume of his work, there could be a lot!

The 8 bonus sites are stream only, each with 10-30 HC vid & gallery sets, mostly mediocre in quality. The pic sizes vary wildly from under 800 to over 2500px -- usually smaller. No updates in months. Most are of Americans. There’s even Ron Jeremy, fatter than ever! (Jeez!)

Follow-Up:
NB: The VivThomas content on here can be good to very poor in quality. Their sets of Annette Dawn and Dora Ventner (Oct. 07) are fuzzy and have poor color compared to the originals. And the Erica Campbell (Nov. 07) is shitty beyond expectations. The 2000 and 3500px shots -- this is what severe myopia looks like.

Considering the company -- New Sensations -- I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Rescoring from 82 to 79. (Thanks for the ripoffs!)

09-16-07  11:20am

Replies (2)
Review
40
Visit Eva's Garden

Eva's Garden
(0)

77.0
Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: +HQ exclusive photography and many excellent Euro models; a few models are so-so
+Daily gallery updates from October 2006, and 8 more in Sept 06
+Option of individual pic or full gallery downloads, both in 5 different sizes: 1mpx (1000px), 3mpx (2000px), 6mpx (3000px), 12mpx(4000px), or 22mpx (5000px).
+HQ videos in wma, avi, mov (Quicktime), iPod, mobile, and psp. The free, full-length avi sample is 1280x720 (388meg), absolutely sharp, and concentrates on a belly-down pussy massage. Mmmm!
Cons: -only 16 videos to date
-some galleries are too dark, have blurry pics, or are too small or not that interesting. Some models work the camera better than others, and too often the models are looking away. Gets overly glossy sometimes and stops looking real.
-recent price increase. I joined for 1 month, non-recurring for 19.90 five weeks ago. Now it’s about $30 a month.
-there are some galleries early in the site history that don't have 5000px sizes, in spite of the site's claims.
Bottom Line: This is a completely softcore site. Many of the best Euro beauties are here, including Lola L, Iveta B (as Sarah), Marina/Euphrat, Ellena (as Katy), Stracey (as Bijou), etc. As a visitor, you can get a one-pic preview of all of the models, galleries, and videos.

A lot of care has been put into the design and functionality of the site to make it visually appealing and flexible for the user’s needs and interests. In this regard, it’s among the best.

However, while it’s very glamorous, it tends to lack sexual magnetism in too many of the galleries. Whoever’s directing the photography needs to work on getting more of that across. I was actually bored by some of the photoshoots.

In sum: technically and stylistically, it’s great, but it needs more of that visceral spark that I know these models can set off.

Follow-Up:
I've downgraded the score from 88 to 77. The pic sets are very stylish, but BORING. Day after day, they just don't grab me, and many other sites do better. "Might recommend" is the most I can say.

05-05-07  05:30am

Replies (0)
Review
41
Visit Eve Angel

Eve Angel
(0)

89.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Huge collection, from April 7, 2005, of EXCLUSIVE pics and videos of Hungarian supercutie Eve Angel and friends; some of the friends are hot, too
+All galleries available in zips at 2048px or 980px
+Videos are good quality at 640x480, 1.5Mbit, WMV or QT; 384 or 768Kbit WMV or QT also available. No DRM.
+Calendar organization helps a lot with navigation
+TBP discount is a sweet deal for the first-time subscriber
+Good previews of models and content volume for the visitor
Cons: -Lags behind in updates; “daily” certainly does not mean “on time, every day”
-Individual pics download as 2048px bmp’s only
-View a gallery, then must click one way or another to return to zip download page (esp. tiring for a first timer, esp. with large galleries)
-Some of Eve’s friends are “funny valentines”
-Section of collected galleries and vids of Eve is a confusing, disorganized mess
-On login, annoying upsell page for meeting people in my locale; click to continue to Eve’s site
Bottom Line: Actually, it was discovering that Mia Stone had made several appearances here that got me speed typing the signup form back in 11/05. Several other wonderful Eurobabes have guested here as well, though the ranks have been thinning to where it’s only Eve this month. Up to Sept. 19th, anyway. It stops there. My subscription ends today.

Would you be happy with that?

I’m not, of course, but I still recommend this site for its substantial existing content. I would have rated even higher if, in addition to corrections of the con’s, there was less darkness in some of the pic sets, less prolonged toy sucking and shoving (not my thing), and removal of those small enlargements in the calendars. (They stick to your cursor and are very, very distracting and annoying!) But it has improved since ‘05: the added smaller sized zips, fully controllable videos (not just play & stop), and the TBP discount (a very nice price).

As individual model sites go, Eve’s is either tops or close to it. There hasn’t been any recycling of content, as is the case with Mya Diamond’s site, and there are far more updates per month than at Lara Craft’s. And Eve herself is a divine beauty and seems to be a beautiful person, too.

BTW, if you’re looking for b/g hardcore, there’s only a very small handful of it here, in 2005. Eve herself goes only so far as to tease a guy with her dominatrix boots and getup. (She’d quit real hardcore by then.) There is a fair amount of lez stuff, though.

09-29-07  05:59am

Replies (8)
Review
42
Visit FC Nudes

FC Nudes
(0)

60.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Nice-looking photographs (but see below)
+Photos are exclusive (at least, as far as I know, for now!)
+Clear, simple navigation
+Nice quality videos (720x576 wmv)
+Beautiful E Euro girls
+zips of galleries (your choice of 800 or 1024) and videos
Cons: -Photos no larger than 1024px on the large end
-Webmastering problems (doesn't allow login in IE7 as does not display security code); missing thumbnails in a few places for both pics and vids; incorrect zip file for gallery in one place
-Ridiculously large watermark that gets very much on top of the models sometimes
-Excessive brightness in some galleries
Bottom Line: There are 17 models total, with 5-7 photosets of each. There are videos of 8 of the 17 models, although the lesbian ones overlap. The videos are broken into segments of aprox 3-4 min each.

Considering the pic sizes, the godawful watermark, the webmastering problems (pretty typical of this company), and the number of galleries (close to 90), but also the good quality of the videos, I can't say that this is a really good site, although it has a few pros. I didn't get much of it myself.

If you've got $19.90 that you just want to burn and don't mind the problems described, go ahead, but there is a lot on the web that is a better value overall.

They should up the photos to at least 1600 and ditch that silly, self-indulgent watermark. It really practically upstages the models.

Follow-Up:
Having just re-read exotics4me's review of this site, plus the replies section, I've decided to reward these clowns with a lovely 15 points off my original score. And having those shills come in to write those positive reviews a few months back just showed how low they can be.

I've stayed away from sites from this company for several months now and will continue to do so.

04-19-07  12:09pm

Replies (0)
Review
43
Visit FEMJOY

FEMJOY
(1)

90.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Regular updates of 2 photosets per day from Nov. 2006; one per day before then
+Usually very beautiful European women and great photography
+Exclusive content
+Archive from June 2004
+3 pic sizes: 800, 1200, and 3-4000px, in zip or singles for photosets going back to May 2005 or so; earlier sets max at 2-3000px
+More recent videos at 1280x720 in WMV or Quicktime
Cons: -awkward navigation (but you can get used to it, and some features you might come to like)
-occasional excessive darkness or light, or blurriness where you don’t want it
-middle size on earlier galleries is 1000px
-a few galleries are only 25 or so pics
-“Best of” links are just to sets that were published earlier, but first-time members might like them being pointed out
-sometimes a sluggish server response, but it’s been improving
Bottom Line: FemJoy has become one of best softcore nude photography sites out there, pretty much on a par with MetArt. The models include Nikky Case, Susana Spears, Bambi, Peaches, Jana Mala (here as “Jane”) … and others with aliases too numerous to mention.

Since I first joined in Sept 2005, it’s had a makeover: a more visually appealing design and better organization. The navigation is a learning experience, though.

As a member, you open to the latest updates. Click one, and the next page has links to rate the gallery, download zips of it, make a comment on it, or just go somewhere else in the site! But what about that gallery, which you haven’t even seen yet? Why not just go straight to it, and put the gallery-related stuff in it?

The actual gallery opens in another window of one to several pages, or you can “View All” on a single page.

Choosing pic sizes depends on where you click on a thumb (top = largest, middle = 1200px); this feature I like now, but for a while I didn’t even realize that the little thing at the top of the page was a “visual” explanation of it. (Too cryptic? Your call.)

Another thing is the models index. You can either search by name, or FemJoy name, or you can view ALL of the approx 400 models at once, alphabetized, on one page! Even if they just put them in A-D, E-H, etc. visually separated sections, there would less “overload.”

FemJoy: excellent quality content + some interesting features + a few quirks.

Follow-Up:
Since I wrote the above review, they've recently changed to a more tasteful and visually appealing design that's also easier to use. Just wish they had more ways of searching for models, like, say, ATK Galleria does. The model list is so long, it's staggering. (Kinda like being in the orgasmatron in Barbarella.) One thing is clear: they are doing a lot to make this site better.

05-31-07  06:43pm

Replies (0)
Review
44
Visit Finest Models

Finest Models
(0)

69.0
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)
Review
45
Visit FM Teens

FM Teens
(0)

84.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Many fine young Russian (?), Ukrainian (?) women with LOTS of sex appeal
+Exclusive content
+Pics at 1010x1515; good (albeit quirky) size choice
+Very good image quality from Issue 9 up: very few pics are blurry, dark, or color compromised. At least from that point, it seems to be a real priority.
+Zips
+Speedy server!
+No DRM
+Visitor’s preview: good samples of the lovelies and a taste of the clunky way it’s organized, too
Cons: -Organized, but very awkwardly
-In issues 1-8, images are really amateurish.
-Big watermark gets on the goods!
-More g/g than I care for
+All vids in avi only; a smallish 576x320; some look pretty cheesy.
-Too much body covering with strings of beads, frilly see-through garments, puzzle pieces, bath goo, smeared-on foodstuffs, knick-knacks balanced on butts, and flowers. Lots of flowers, sticking out of butts, etc. (Why the high price? The FLORIST! These are GOOD flowers. Not cheap!)
Bottom Line: Here’s what it’s like getting photo zips here. I login and work down to an issue, #13. Two models, but no names, so 2 clicks back up and over to the model rating page, the ONLY place where the names are. Oh, they’re BOTH named Natasha! Ok, “Natasha lighter” and “Natasha darker.”

Back to the issue #13 page, scroll down a few screens, then open to the pages of a gallery of “Natasha lighter.” The address bar shows “13-12,” which helps. Issue 13, Gallery 12. Ohh, nice! Get this one! Then alt-left arrow to get right back to the “gallery list” page -- the only place the link to the zip is. (Click the “home” button inside the gallery and you’ll lose your place; you’ll be at the TOP of the issue page and have to scroll down again, looking for that number 12. No, they don’t label the galleries by number, either.)

Extract the zip. A folder named “images.” Open that to find another folder, named (drumroll) “images” (cymbal crash).

The above, times 20 issues and counting x the number of galleries you download.

It’d be a helluva lot easier if they’d 1. put the model names and gallery numbers where they’re USEFUL, and 2. flatten the navigation. See, you have to go one step above the photo galleries to access the videos, too. It’s “old fashioned” web design, up and down the tree.

All the same, I was very pleasantly surprised by how much I got from this site. And at least content quality improvement is getting priority.

But that watermark has got to go!

12-12-07  06:27pm

Replies (6)
Review
46
Visit Foot Fetish Daily

Foot Fetish Daily
(0)

84.0
Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: +Exclusive content
+Large collection of photos and videos
+Quite a few "name" models who appear elsewhere
+Fast download speeds (1-1.5 Mbps)
+Zips of photos at 3000 pixels from 2008 to present
+Some zips of photos at 1500 pixels (earlier)
+Videos in wmv HD (1280x720), wmv standard (640x360), and MP4 (more recent); wmv standard for earlier; many videos stream also
+166 "hi def" videos are hardcore b/g or g/g videos; but there are lots more of interviews and solo footsie fun
+Allows use of download manager
+Foot fiend navigation niches: find only the stuff for dangling shoes, or tickling, or food, or another of many choices.
Cons: -Navigation is too complicated; well, the site is too complicated, really
-Inconsistencies in video formats available even in the same part of the site history
-Quality of wmv "standard" videos not so good
-Photos in 1500 pixels not in zip files once they began offering "full scene" zips in Jan 2008
-They don't make it clear that the "full scene zipped photo sets" usually contain ALL of the photos of a model, even the ones that are shown in earlier sets such as "Meet" and "Living" and "Self-Sucking" and so on.
Bottom Line: I'm not much of a foot fan, but overall I liked the content of this site. In fact, my hunt for nice pictures of girls showing their asses was my "sole" (a-hem) purpose in joining.

The photos from 2008 on are nice quality, if not super professional. There are plenty of hot models (Veronica Rodriquez, Ashley Jane, Jynx Maze, Marlena, Sammi Rhodes, Elle Alexandra, Emma Mae, Georgia Jones, Nikki Brookes, etc.). And it's all exclusive material, and it goes all the way back to 2004. (Wow, the quality sure has improved since then!)

You can also watch interview videos of the girls telling you about their sexual experiences and turn-ons. Beyond that, well, you can watch a lot of them getting down to gentle foot-and-pussy play with another girl, and/or foot/pussy fucking with a hardened male.

But there are problems with consistency in the offerings and with how things are presented. You can get hi def versions of many videos, but not all. You can get zips of some sizes of photos, but not all. You see the thumbs of only the hardcore photos, but actually the zip file has hundreds of photos that include the softcore and solo foot stuff of a model. You click the "Hi Def" movies link, but that's not all of the hi def movies. And the foot niches drop-down menu appears on some pages, but not on all of the pages you'd like it to. You may find yourself opening multiple tabs or windows just to keep part of the navigation at hand, which means that you're having to compensate for less-than-stellar web design. And in so doing, you'll wind up making the experience of the site more complicated.

About the complexity of the site, some may say that it just has a lot of navigation options, which can only be a good thing. After all, you can look at content that's only "Kick Ass Feet," or only "Flowers Exclusive," or only "Mark Archer Exclusive," or only "Barefoot Confidential." But do these terms mean anything to you? The term "exclusive" got me thinking they were different from what I was seeing on the page until I realized (by looking at the bottom of the page) that each entry is color-coded for these terms. Oh, well, now that's nice. Flowers is blue; Mark Archer is green; Kick Ass is pink; and Barefoot is purple. Well, I don't have to learn the color system, but I have wasted my time by wondering if I should.

Plus, there are 16 bonus sites included, but each one contains only 8 galleries and/or videos. Some are only videos ... And some are really old stuff (but not all). And you're given an offer in the bonus sites to join the "Kick Ass Network" for only $14.95. The "Kick Ass" bonus section includes that offer as well. So there's "Kick Ass" bonus and "Kick Ass" network and they're probably not the same thing. You know what? Fuck it.

I mean, I've already spent $30.

Anyway, I do recommend this site for its abundant quality exclusive content, but be forewarned that if you're not careful, the design and complexity could lead you to needless distraction.

12-28-11  04:18pm

Replies (4)
Review
47
Visit Fucked Hard 18

Fucked Hard 18
(0)

88.0
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
+No DRM
+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 ...

Bitch.

(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)
Review
48
Visit Girls In Nature.org

Girls In Nature.org
(0)

72.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +beautiful models (mostly); Ukrainian, mostly if not all
+impressive photography
+quite a lot of the shooting is done indoors, regardless of the site name
+exclusive content
+images at over 4000 px (except for April 2005 and before: 3000 px)
+allows use of DownloadThemAll
+OK price if you view it as an “archive” site
+Videos are avi, 1280 x 720, softcore posing, music for the sound track
Cons: -pages of gallery thumbs can be very slow at loading sometimes
-a total of only 185 galleries; the site goes back to January, 2004, so clearly “daily updates” are not part of the idea here
-no zips
-images only available in one size (HUGE)
-navigation is a bit of learning experience and is somewhat cumbersome
-few updates per month (sometimes only one; sometimes NONE)
-some models have different names than at other sites
-galleries in 2007 and before sometimes do not include the model’s name
-too many girl/girl sets
-a few of the models are not very appealing
-only 32 videos
Bottom Line: Photographer: If you’re a MetArt fan, you’ve probably noticed the name Sergey Goncharov amongst the photographers. Girls in Nature is his own site of exclusive softcore photography.

Navigation: After you log in for the first time (and “Style 1” works fine), the home page just lists, with thumbs, several of the most recent galleries on a very long page. It’s better to go the “collections,” which are organized by year. For a given year, you’re given a list for each month on separate page. You can start from the top of that list and then click, page by page, through the thumbs of each gallery for that month. I’ve found that it’s useful to open the first gallery for a month in a separate window so it’s easy to return to the list for the month when it’s time to go to the next month.

Models: Several of the models have also appeared at other sites, but as is especially typical with the ones from "out east" there, they go by different names on different sites. Here’s a list of some of them as they are named at Girls in Nature: Anna or sometimes Anya (Atena A at MetArt; Paulina at FemJoy); Irisha (Katrin B at MetArt); Karina (Karina J at MetArt); Meris (Sofi A atMetArt); Suri D (Monyka at FemJoy).

I feel satisfied enough with the site content, but it was a chore with the navigation, the need to use a download manager, and the server response, which actually got so bad that I had to quit a couple of times and return later. All such things considered, it’s a “might recommend.”

11-11-09  02:41pm

Replies (4)
Review
49
Visit Glam Deluxe

Glam Deluxe
(0)

73.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +51 models, predominately Russian, some hot! (188 galleries)
+Photo quality has been improving, especially in 2007
+Most photos are between 2000 and 3500px on the long end
+Good server speed
+Login first requires typing in use-pass and a displayed code, but after that, just clicking the member’s entrance gets you straight in.
+Prompt technical assistance
Cons: -No zips!
-Only about 12 photoset updates per month in 2007
-Photos in only one size
-Some earlier photos as small as 1024px
-Ugly watermark on pics
-Videos? Most links to videos in the models index are inactive.
-Videos? They’re slide shows! (Actually, they’re called “flix” on this site.)
-Only 23 “videos,” 7 of which are of the same model (Nadja)
-Sample file sizes: 16mb (wmv), 18mb (DivX), 124mb (Quicktime). The quality doesn’t seem THAT different.
-Not totally exclusive
Bottom Line: I wonder if the term “flix” here is somehow intended to distinguish them from actual videos. As they are really awful, I also wonder who would want them. They are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside three video format enigmas, especially Quicktime, which is about 5 times larger than the wmv or avi versions with no discernible improvement in quality.

The pics, on the other hand, are making me happier and happier as the quality is getting better, and some of their recent models are really beautiful and hot, including
Abigail (Anastasia atNubiles)
Darina (Emanuelle at Nubiles)
Francesca G (Olga at JustTeenSite, Ofemija at FemJoy)
June (aka Bianca, Ekaterina, Kamea, Katya, Tatyana)
Kayla
Lea (Masha at TeenDreams)
Victoria (Ira H at MetArt)
Yana, and of course
Helena (of Helen’s Planet).

One set, of their “Abril,” is the same as one on My Precious Virgins (as “Gaby”) – hence the “not totally exclusive.” Could such a thing happen again?

I do wish that the thumbs didn’t cut out part of what is in the actual photos, which sometimes is the case. “What you see is what you get” (WYSIWYG) would be a better approach.

That foamy green-colored watermark looks completely out of place on the pics, too. Yech!

And it’s about time that they at least provided zips (they do at their Helena's Planet) and 2 pic sizes (the current large size and one half that size). That would help the score.

01-03-08  06:47am

Replies (9)
Review
50
Visit Goddess Nudes

Goddess Nudes
(2)

84.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +$5 US for the first month’s membership; recurs at $9.95 per month
+Updates regularly, M-F, one gallery per day
+138 galleries posted so far
+All photo sets are in two sizes: small (1400 px portrait; 1600 px landscape) and large (usually over 3000px, sometimes over 4000, and sometimes even over 5000 pixels)
+Zips are available for all sets in both sizes
+Server downloads at about 340kbps where I am, which isn't a huge pro, but it's not a con if you ask me
+Content is largely exclusive to this site (not the same as on Domai), though some scenes may match with content found on Domai or on other sites
+Discounts to members who add Domai (1 year "non-recurring" is $89, compared to $109.95 as listed at TBP. There’s also a monthly plan starting at $21, but that's far more than the $9.95 starting price at TBP. It decreases by $1 a month, but hey ...)
Cons: -Content index is one looooong and growing page of links to thumbnail pages
-The 22 earliest galleries have no thumbnail pages, just zips in both photo sizes
-A few galleries are not exclusive and can be found at least partly at Erotic Destinations
-Some galleries don’t have that many pics
-Some galleries are boring "nude art" stuff
-Some models might not appeal
-No model index
-A few models have names that are unique to this site (Anya of MPL is "Irin," Paloma B of MetArt and MetModels is "Alima," etc.), but this is doesn’t happen that often.
-Limited visitor preview
Bottom Line: Eolake Stobblehouse, the guy who has been running Domai for many years, is now offering up this new site, which launched late last October. The last time I was at Domai, it worked pretty much the same way, but the "large" pics weren't as big as they are at Goddess Nudes.

I think this is a great deal for people who like nude women, in photographs, very large, and who don’t mind going on a little "treasure hunt" for some real gems. Admission charge: Only $5. Skip an order of cheese fries and go for this, I'd say.

I really got inspired to write this review after seeing today's post of Marketa Belonoha, in a set I'd never seen anywhere before, starting off in a fuzzy pink top and wedgie shorts and showing off her cuteness and curves in 96 pics. As Denner would say, "Wauw."

But there are some other nice surprises in here, too.

Oh, I didn't mention videos yet. There aren't any. It's a pic site.

I like pic sites. This one rates pretty well 'cause it's a good value.

04-08-10  03:16pm

Replies (3)

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.

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.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 1.12 seconds.