Met Art (1)
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
||I'm not going to go into to technical aspects of the display contents because all that is clearly spelled out in the Best Porn page.
I will say that the image quality on photo sets are as good as it gets. Sharp, crisp and retention friendly with even the highest zoom setting. The number of Models appear endless, that is if you're smart enought to negotiate the dated archives, something I've yet to accomplish.
Models are listed under alphabetically labeled tabs, which I liked.
The most sterling feature, and one sadly absent in many other major sites, is their Flash Player.
This allows one to play the clip before downloading -- something I find essential.Plenty of picture sets with up to and over a hundred frames per set.
The site's reported to have thousands of videos, unfortunately I wasn't able to find them. No DRM or restriction on downloads.
No problems logging in -- as well as enjoying freedom from unexpected shortcomings after doing so.
||1) Video content, although of excellent quality, as a rule provided poorly orchestrated scenes.
2) As mentioned, I couldn't access the number of videos reported...could've been my ignorance.
3) Picture Images and videos, although offering ample nudity substantially lacked eroticism.
3) Too many closeups dwelling too long on a single scene in the video clips.
4) Sizable watermarks on videos.
5) Archives going back to 2005 produced the same material as offered in 2010. That is to say the number of selections is kind'a limited.
||I, personally, don't particually care for Met Art.
Although Met Art and Erotica Archives came as a combo at $30, as I've said before that if I had it to go over I'd decline the offer. Both are beautiful sites, but in my mind Met Art is over-rated.
It's fair to say, to the connoisseur, the exquisite photography alone might be worth the cost. But I'm not into precision photography.
The site never delivered what I expected, although, again, it could've been something I wasn't doing; But then again, it shouldnt've been that complicated --even for me.
Reply To Review