Teen Dorf (1)
|
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
-Content is dated.
-Zip files for photosets.
-Easy login: username, password, captcha (easily read letters).
-No site timeout.
-Streaming options: low, medium, high quality.
-Download options: low, medium, high quality WMV.
: MPEG.
: QuickTime.
-Little or no photoshopping in the photos.
-No download limits.
-Updates 1 photoset or video approximately every 10 days. |
| Cons: |
-Only 1 size for photos.
-If you want to download individual photos instead of the full zip, you sometimes get a "show.php" file instead of the photo file you are trying to download.
-In some videos and photosets, it can be hard to see what the face or body of the model is like. This is true for outdoor scenes, where the
cameraman/photographer does a poorer job than if the scene is indoors.
-The index listing pages are cluttered with thumbnail photos advertising other sites.
-I found very few cute teen models at this site. |
| Bottom Line: |
The theme of the site is interesting: young teen couples having sex in a natural way. But many photosets and videos are lacking. They are shot in an amateur way, especially the outdoor scenes.
The best way to improve this site would be to fire the photographer and video man and get someone who knows how to take a photograph, how to shoot a video. If you're shooting outdoor scenes, get a shooter who knows how to take a photo, how to shoot a video so the model is shown clearly and attractively.
In some outdoor photosets and videos, the face and body of the model is hard to see clearly. The camera is only a few feet away, but the model's face is not shown clearly, because of focus or lighting or shadows or some other reason.
-How a photographer shoots a model can make a huge difference in how attractive she appears. There is no effort to make these girls look more
attractive (from lighting, makeup, costumes, whatever). Even the two models I've seen at other sites that I thought are attractive, did not seem special in their appearances at this site.
The audio track is often poor. A boy and girl are in a meadow, nothing but plants and dirt around, and you hear loud microphone noises, you also hear what sounds like a jet plane overhead, but the sky is clear except for clouds. Maybe it's the wind you hear, because it's windy, and the
microphone noises are loud to begin with. But when you hear the couple speaking, it's not loud enough to make out the actual words. You can often hear the camera clicking in the background for a photoshoot of the video, and the cameraman and photographer walking behind the couple that are being shot can be making noises as well (footsteps).
The lighting outdoors is hard to control, and the model is in and out of shadow, it's distracting.
The indoor scenes are better shot than the outdoor scenes. You have less noise from the microphone, better closeups of the model and the sex action, better control of the lighting. The outdoor scenes are a nice idea in theory, but the photographer/cameraman need to improve his technique to make the outdoor scenes work well.
In a few scenes, where the boy and girl are playfully teasing each other before they start kissing and getting down to business, their acting is good enough that the scene is interesting, even though you can't
understand the actual words they are speaking(German, maybe?). But in other scenes, the prologue to the sex is just wasted time. Porn actors are not often noted for their acting ability, especially in low-budget shoots like these.
The site theme is "natural teens, natural love". This translates to teens making love in outdoor scenes: in a field or meadow, by a lake. If you've been a member of femjoy or zemani, you will have seen videos where, in addition to a lovely nude model, you also see some great outdoor scenery. At this site, the scenery is there, but it's not shown to advantage.
Bottom line: I found no photos worth saving, and only a few videos to save. |
Reply To Review |
