Simon Scans Review by turboshaft

Welcome GUEST! CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

Learn how you can participate in our weekly raffle for cash prizes!

User Review

A review of the site and any replies from other users.

Simon Scans (1)

Active

turboshaft (24)

01-31-10 10:14pm

TRUST USER? YES (41), NO (0)

Status:

Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.

Pros:

+ Claimed 653 models, in 4200+ sets, 464,000+ images--all archived
+ If you like the solo girl niche they stick with it; no guys (except maybe in the BG in public nudity)
+ Healthy variety of British, Ibizan, and Eastern Euro models in many shapes and sizes
+ Newest vids are 1280 x 720 HD .mov @ 4.9MB/s
+ Navigation is easy enough, despite missing content
+/- Near constant use of toys; a pro for me, but I know some hate this

Cons:

- Pictures overall are good but small; newest ones are 1850 x 1230 max, older ones can be quite small
- Basically no model info beyond what you can learn from the photos or videos
- A lot of sets are missing content
- Not very many videos; treat this as a photo site
- Photographic style may annoy some; Simon frequently uses short DOF (more in BL)
- Very little girl-girl content
- Lots of models are less than hot
-/+ Lots of models are less than fully shaved; a con for me, a pro for others
-/+ I don't think Photoshop is used beyond cropping and adding a watermark; beware this is not as good as it sounds

Bottom Line:

I wanted to like this site a lot, I really did. It has all the right basic ingredients to make me happy: lots of young girls with lots of toys, while the guys stay behind camera with their mouths shut. Plus these are mostly British girls I have never seen with a few Euro ones I have seen thrown in. So what's the problem?

Well, sometimes even when you have all the right ingredients and follow the directions the recipe didn't turn out quite as well as you had expected. A lot of the girls didn't shave : ( and many more that didn't exactly just step off the runway in a Paris fashion show. I don't want to sound like a heartless asshole (that's what the forum is for) but there are quite a few models who could benefit from skipping the fast food. I am not saying any of the girls are really obese but don't expect to find one skinny little model after another here--as I said above, many shapes and sizes. It's really a matter of personal taste and I prefer the skinnier girls myself but that's just me. As far as the looks, well, that's personal taste too and I guess there's nothing anybody can do about that but there are plenty of hot girls--both skinny and not so skinny.

Besides the shape of its models the site could do some improving in terms of actually providing content that isn’t there. As other reviewers have mentioned there are models that have missing photo sets and videos; you see a link to a set on the model’s page (usually three medium sized thumbnails) but when you click it there is just an empty SS page with the banners and links at the top but no content below, and the same with some videos. Annoying because nobody wants to pay for empty pages and those thumbnails would frequently get my engine revving only to have it stall out when there was an empty set.

When I actually saw the content I noticed a couple of things. First, the photos, despite making up the vast majority of content, were on the small side; 1850 x 1230 is the newest and biggest resolution available. I looked for links to bigger zips or maybe a hi-res option all to no avail—these biggest photos don’t even fill my screen. Second, the photos themselves have some attributes that really divide us here at PU. I don’t think any Photoshop is used beyond cropping and watermarking but before you jump for joy be aware that not all girls are created equal, especially when you jam the camera in between their legs to check out what’s under the hood. Ass zits, razor burn, and stray pubic hair may be a turn on for some but not me and I really wished somebody had cleaned these shots up at least a little. There are plenty of models that really don’t need any digital work done on their lovelies but there are still many that do.

(Bottom Line continued below.)

Reply To Review

Review Replies (7)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg #	User	Message	Date
1	turboshaft (24)	(Bottom Line continued. Sorry my reviews are getting so long.) Also Simon (assuming he does all the shooting) frequently shoots short depths-of-field, meaning not a lot of the photo is in focus, so focused face but not ass, or focused ass but not face, but not a lot of both if the model is on her back or stomach. Other sites do this but it seemed to be very apparent here for some reason and it can get annoying. Clean sets and proper lighting seemed to used in almost all photos though older shoots seem to have shots thrown in that should have been deleted, like everything is out of focus, a flash didn’t fire, or something else, but for some reason they are there. I also found one little problem that irritated me in some sets; dust on the sensor. This happens in digital photography in between lens changes when dust gets on the camera’s image sensor and shows up in every photo (usually in the same exact place) until cleaned off. It sounds insignificant but to me it just seems unprofessional when everything else is done professionally (lighting, sets, verifying the model’s age). If your looking for videos you should keep looking as a lot of models have none and those that do may only have two or three, but not one for every photoset. Older videos are smaller, around 480 x 360 .mpgs @700kb/s, but again not in great quantity so don’t get your hopes up. Not once did I ever hear or see Simon or any other male help for that matter, so it makes for a lesson in restraint to all the hands-on two cents-adding douches out there who want to ruin my video, uh, ‘experience.’ The girls are often shy and quiet too, and since they claim the orgasms are never forced none of the models really get that vocal or overly physical when masturbating but they seemed happy and I wasn’t complaining. If SS really get their act together and release bigger photos with the links improved and videos for every model then they can get a score in the 80s, but until then members will have to put up with the relative narrow reach of their current and fully archived content; almost entirely solo girls (girl-girl is rare), many of them amateur, armed with lots of toys.	01-31-10 10:16pm Reply To Message
2	badandy400 (103)	REPLY TO #1 - turboshaft : Holy crap dude! This is a long review! My experience of this site is that if someone likes Abby Winters they will likely enjoy this one too.	01-31-10 10:32pm Reply To Message
3	Drooler (218)	Wow, what an excellent review! I wouldn't worry about the length; anyone who really wants to know what the site is like should summon enough brain strength and/or patience to read it carefully, because it really gives a thorough description. I've been a member several times over the years. I'm a "toy hater," but a babe lover, and I've joined to get pics of girls like Euphrat and Peaches, though not very often.	02-01-10 12:28am Reply To Message
4	turboshaft (24)	REPLY TO #2 - badandy400 : Thanks, and yeah it's long, pretty soon I'm going to have to sit on exotics4me's couch and discuss my addiction to writing long reviews. I swore to myself that I would try and keep this one short...	02-01-10 10:53am Reply To Message
5	Capn (28)	REPLY TO #4 - turboshaft : Well,..Wow! You have to call that one comprehensive! ;0) Thanks. Cap'n. :0)	02-01-10 11:44am Reply To Message
6	Drooler (218)	REPLY TO #1 - turboshaft : Thanks for the very in-depth review. I was thinking about putting a comment on about the site, but this reply will do. I'm not a photographer, but I agree that the depth-of-field problem needs to be addressed. There are a some photos there that would have been great if not for the limited area of focus. That was a bummer for me, especially with recent material of Cherry. But I also noticed some real improvements in the site since I'd last been there. The navigation is exemplary now. It's very easy to find things and get them. The overall design has been simplified, so you don't have to stop and scratch your head over what to do next, which I thought was the case with earlier designs. (There have been at least two.) Also gone is that annoying login page, which required typing in a code that was particularly difficult to read. Now you just use the login box that comes with the browser. Have it remember the password and you're in quick! So although I'm not into the toy play, I must say that the site deserves some recognition for making some important, positive changes.	03-27-10 08:13pm Reply To Message
7	williamj (9)	The review about sums it all up. The video are average at best. Its a fun one month site to visit every few years.	06-03-11 11:31am 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.