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).
User Comment A note about the site and any replies from other users.

Visit FEMJOY

FEMJOY (1)

lk2fireone (194) 06-08-09  04:13pm
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (74), NO (1)

Femjoy models need more makeup in their photosets and videos.

This is a matter of personal taste or personal opinion. But:

I've been a member of femjoy about a month now. The site has some great-looking models, that you will see at other teen glamour sites. And the photography is high quality by top erotic photographers. But my gripe is that the models basically need more makeup to bring out their attractiveness. I'm not big on models (or people in regular life) wearing excessive makeup. But with a video or photoshoot, unless you use a minimum of makeup, the model will normally appear less attractive. Met-art usually gets it close to right, and the models usually appear to be attractive to very attractive. Femjoy uses less makeup on their models. The same models, the same photographer, and the photoset will be better looking at met-art than at femjoy. That is partly because of the makeup difference; also met-art allows more variety of costumes.

femjoy is almost entirely nude, very little use of clothing/costume, and any clothing used at femjoy is very simple. Femjoy is going for a very simple, natural style of photography with their models, and it detracts from the presentation of the models. I realize appreciation of a model's beauty is a personal taste, but if you see the models of Victoria's secret, or world-class supermodels photographed without makeup, and in old, cheap un-colorful clothes, it takes away a huge amount of the glamour and allure of the models.

There are a huge number of lovely models at femjoy, but the photosets don't bring out the eroticism of the models. The site is trying to present lovely girls as "the girl next door", with a very natural, simple style, but the style reduces the attractiveness of the models in the photosets.

Even if you are using the "girl next door" theme, which was probably first made popular with Playboy back in the 1950s and 1960s, for nude photography, you still want the model and photos to be as attractive as possible, with an erotic appeal. You don't want to take a good-to-great-looking girl, and produce a bunch of photographs that just look blah and unappealing. Met-art, in general, takes good-looking girls and makes good-to-great-looking photos. Femjoy takes the same girls, and makes photos that are less good-looking. That's a shame.

I see from the comments and reviews that other PU members don't necessarily agree with my opinion on the need for more makeup at femjoy. But I think my opinion has merit, and frankly, I'm surprised some PU member hasn't already expressed a similar opinion.

Reply To Comment

Comment Replies (4)

Replies to the user comment above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

PinkPanther (46) In this case, other PU members haven't expressed a similar opinion because you're just plain wrong!

Hopefully, you recognize that I'm kidding - well, to a certain extent anyway.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but the refreshing thing about Femjoy is the unsullied beauty of their models - they look great and their photography is very high quality and there aren't very many sites around where gorgeous women are shown without TOO MUCH make-up or too much photo-shopping, so Femjoy is filling a niche that is underserved. They would be fools to reverse course and stop filling that niche. In my opinion.

06-08-09  06:31pm

Reply To Message

2

lk2fireone (194) REPLY TO #1 - PinkPanther :

OK, I'm expecting a second vote of no confidence from Mr Fountain, on my opinion that femjoy models would be improved by more makeup.

But are there any PU members that agree with me? Or is this too much of a niche/nitpicking idea to concern my fellow PU members?

I don't have anything against natural. But makeup can bring out a girl's beauty. If you compare the photosets of the models below, I think the photosets of those models are, in general, better looking at met-art than at femjoy.

Photoshop is used more at met-art. As long as it's not overdone, it can add.

But that's a matter of personal taste. Just as two people looking at a list of models will probably not rank them all in the same descending order of beauty/attractiveness.


Angelina B(femjoy) aka Indiana A(met-art)

Anina(femjoy) aka Anna AO, Anna AS(met-art) aka Sinner and other names at metmodels

Brigita(femjoy) aka Natalia A(met-art)

Desiree (femjoy) aka Desire A(met-art)

And there are a bunch of other models that are featured at both femjoy and also at met-art, where you could compare the relative attractiveness of the photosets.

06-08-09  07:43pm

Reply To Message

3

shroom (4) Yes, you're right (about your opinion) : it has merit even though I don't share it at all, and exactly for the reasons you're expressing ;)

I think the less make-up there is the better it is. I usually avoid Met-Art because of the generic quality it brings : they're on quantity side instead of the quality one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that M-A is bad, but it really has nothing special.

That's what I like about Femjoy, that "Girl Next Door" feeling you're speaking about.
And more specifically, the artistic side they bring rather than the erotic one.

If I come back here, that's because they know how to picture nude girls without using artificial elements like make-up, toys...
And watching at the videos, I can clearly see that they enjoy being nude in front of the camera.

But indeed that's also a personal point of view, to each his/her hown :)

08-12-09  02:39am

Reply To Message

4

Admo (0) I would agree models can look better with make up.Some look better natural. So many variables. One critcism of Femjoy's beauties is there is not enough close ups of genitals whether dry or moist.Many have cunts clean shaven & some have bushy pussies. Either way I'm sure many would finger their vaginas & even climax. The site should maintain the same high standard but close ups of labias, some floppy or stiff make it exciting. Some shots show the anus but not all. Karol was a fab example of a woman on knees aiming her arsehole direct at the lens. All sets should include anus shots both open & some of a tight asshole!
09-16-10  09:48am

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.

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 0.01 seconds.