In The Crack (2)
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
||+ A near literal translation of its name; this site can define the closeup genre.
+ Nearly 300 naturally beautiful models in 325 shoots.
+ Excellent use of technology; newer videos (shoot #114 and above) are offered in 1920x1080 @ 9MB/s .wmv.
+ Great photography up to 2400x1900; near perfectly lit, lots of wide angle closeups, great colors and details.
+ Model action is pretty diverse and interesting; girl-girl, toys, weird insertions, anal, peeing.
+ Fully archived content all the way to the very beginning in 2001.
+ Downloads are as fast as they are big: I have gotten speeds of up to 1.5 MB/s!
+ Little behind the scenes content, almost no off camera talking or interference.
+ Billing through CCBill.
||- $35/month is high, and there are no recurring or multi-month discounts available.
- Graphic, screen-filling closeups and certain content (queefing, douching, pissing, etc.) may not be every member's favored approach to porn.
- First eight shoots are video only.
- Earlier photography is smaller, around 1024x800.
- Lots of wide angle lens used, and unconventional photo cropping done; for example, some photos are 1800x1800.
- Though navigation is simple and clean, the search engine may be too weak for some, and it only applies to videos.
- Ethnically homogeneous; few really 'exotic' models, vast majority are white north Americans and eastern Europeans.
- I still wish there was a little more girl-girl content.
||I have been a member of the 'Crack on four separate occasions over the last few years, and every time I am more than happy to fork over the money and fill up my hard drives some more -- they keep adding models but never stray too far from the close-is-not-close-enough approach.
Yes, this site is deep within the glorious chasm of the female nether regions, and it is more than happy to bring you along! I love a good girl models-only site, but they take things to a unique macroscopic level of enjoyment and seem to revel in it the whole time. There are more than a few times when video camera lens are fogged up or hit by flying body fluids...and if you have to think about this and still ask, then this site may not be for you. In a more technical way of putting it, lots of wide angle lens are used, and though you see plenty of models stripping and posing, the emphasis is below the belt at distances best measured in fractions of an inch.
That having been said, I love the presentation of their perverted arts. For the last four years they have offered videos in beautiful 1920 x 1080 .wmvs at very high bit rates. They are big files, but the payoff is eye candy that only a handful of current sites can reasonably rival. As I stated above, lighting is excellent, never harsh, and only occasionally do they use an obvious additional light source, like a small pen light when, say, a model is rocking a speculum (again, not everyone's type of porn).
They do not slouch on photography either. These are great photos with bright colors, the same professional lighting and care in details, which are pretty important in this closeup work. They don't really use conventional sizes in photos; there are numerous square butthole shots (the literal “Crack” of their title), and quite a few panoramic shots of models relaxing on a couch or bed. But photos are still big and never so Photoshopped to make models' corresponding videos have glaring differences.
I find it easy and fast to get to the content, as download speeds feel turbocharged. I regularly get 1.5MB/s, so even the biggest videos – say a 30 minute video at nearly 2GB in size – came in between five and seven minutes, if that. Combine this with no download limit and your hard drive may start looking for a new owner. The flip side is that there is a limit of twenty connections at a time, so as to discourage members from using download managers, or at least stop people from queuing up tons of downloads (I can just hear badandy400 cursing at this one), but you still get lots of downloading down in a relatively short period of time.
(Bottom Line continued below.)
Reply To Review