Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Review A review of the site and any replies from other users.

Visit Met Art

Met Art (1)

PosterDude (14) 12-10-07  03:46pm
Rookie Badge  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (19), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
Pros: + Best site in class of glamore
+ High quality photography
+ Pictures in different sizes and zip packs for download
+ Very pretty models
+ Lots of Daily Updates
+ 3 image sizes for download small, mediem, large
+ good wed design
Cons: - Videos are boring
- No hardcore or even no spreading
- No response on emails
- Girl-girl photo and video has no sex touching
- Inconsistent shoot quality, photographers not equal
- No information about model
- Small browse pictures should start with lo-res first
Bottom Line: This is one of few sites I keep constant membership. It is best site on internet for glamore. Photos much better over videos. Videos of dancing and strip tease always to soft and get boring. Site has slowly shown more vagina but still no spreading and always leaves me wanting to see more explicit of model.

I email site with question and do not get emails back. Site used to have to many European girls only but now has more American girls to, that is good. I have joined other glamour sites that try to copy met-art but none beet this site.

Some photographers at Met-art make very good sets and some are not so good sets with blurry and graney pictures. They have good photographers and some bad photographers. They have very nice very large pictures, but sometimes larger pictures show quality weekness of some photographers. Also some photographers sets have no variation that model only stand hole set or model only sit hole set which is not good. I want to see odder poses. Please understand my bad English.

They should do glamore with more open vagina. Hair on vagina is nice but not hair by vagina lips and sometime model never show vagina. To girl sets should have girls touch more and kiss and spread more like real life girls do. It can still be glamore and sexy. Model pages do not give information about model that makes them seem distant and cannot touch.
Best glamore site but not perfect.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (9)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date


Drooler (220) I thought your review made important points about the quality of some of the photographers and images. When I see "Pasha" or "Slastynoff" or "Magoo," I think, "Oh, no. Not again!" Tim Fox and Voronin, on the other hand, are generally really good.

But frankly, I'm glad this site doesn't have "open vagina" or much spreading. There are plenty of sites that do already, and far more do than sites like this one.

And as for hardcore, well, can't we have some "softcore only" sites?

12-10-07  04:39pm

Reply To Message


PosterDude (14) REPLY TO #1 - Drooler :

Maybe I do not say right. Not asking for insertion but just more
pink and open shots can be just as sexy. Some of Met-art copy sites do this better, but those sites are not consistant as much updates or overall quality. Soft = playboy, but met-art should me playboy plus more pink to me better for me.

12-10-07  06:02pm

Reply To Message


PinkPanther (46) REPLY TO #1 - Drooler :

I'm surprised that they don't respond to e-mails because they are such a great site in other ways.

They definitely have their distinctive style, but they have enough variety to keep me consistently interested. While every shoot doesn't have me jumping for joy, I find that I have NO problem finding exciting stuff every time I log in, because the archives are so deep and there is so much posted each day.

I agree with the comments about the boring vids - Met Art could give lessons in how to make high-quality, REALLY boring vids - but the excellent photo-sets and consistent daily multiple updates keeps me a very happy member.

12-10-07  06:04pm

Reply To Message


jd1961 (95) I think the sets should open in small size too. Because with Met-Art, you have to check the sets before you download, because some of the sets are boring. Good review!
12-10-07  07:35pm

Reply To Message


jd1961 (95) REPLY TO #1 - Drooler :

Yes! Magoo...I can always tell his sets. Pretentious and boring.
12-10-07  07:36pm

Reply To Message


Drooler (220) REPLY TO #3 - PinkPanther :

I've had similiar experiences with them not responding to some of my emails, but I've had a few responses. Most of my emails were complaints about such things as PosterDude described in his review (photos that are too grainy, too dark, or overly processed), so I felt at least I was having my say. Whether they pay attention or not is hard to tell, but change usually takes time and persistence.

They really are a LOT better than they used to be, though. They used to segment the photosets (much smaller in image size) and add segments over SEVERAL MONTHS. That was awful!

12-11-07  01:47am

Reply To Message


Drooler (220) REPLY TO #4 - jd1961 :

They have a section, "Set Browser Options," where you can set the default size of the photos. It's a nice feature! I always have the default at 1024 (small) for quicker previewing of individual shots before I make the decision for a one of those at 43xx!
12-11-07  01:53am

Reply To Message


Drooler (220) REPLY TO #5 - jd1961 :

The name's funny. Makes me think of "Mr. Magoo" the cartooon character, but now instead of a steering wheel, he's got his hands on computer devices, Photoshop open, insisting on applying too much "image enhancement," making the women look really icky, and not even seeing what he's doing. Mr. Magoo in the Internet Age.
12-11-07  01:58am

Reply To Message


jd1961 (95) REPLY TO #7 - Drooler :

I forgot about that, thanks for reminding me! I have a lot of work left to do there, but I have been spending too much time laughing at the chat comments at the live cam!
12-11-07  04:28am

Reply To Message

*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.

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 0.02 seconds.