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 ATK Natural & Hairy

ATK Natural & Hairy (2)

Mort (5) 01-06-11  04:40am
Rookie Badge TRUST USER?   YES (10), NO (0)

Recent changes

Over the last couple of weeks, ATKHairy has started to increase picture sizes, and from a few photographers/studios they are of good quality, but most are still of a disappointing that does not do justice to the girls, and the sets and scenes are still repetitive and mostly boring.
The default pics now are too big to view comfortably on a monitor (even my 27" Dell) so are really not that useful, and with the poor depth of focus and digital artifacts (from too much jpeg compression?) they really are not worth viewing at their full resolution.
Videos are now sometimes available in more up-to-date formats, with the old WMV, and now SD MP4 nd HD MP4 formats available. Many of the links to the new formats do not work - as if they intended to put the files up, but something went wrong. Gradually improving though. Typical sizes from today's update: WMV 156MB, SD 189MB, HD 564MB to give you an idea. I have tried a few of the SD and HD videos, and they are a big improvment, but like the photographers, the videographers seem to be mostly just not quite expert enough to get the best out of the girls.

Most male orgasms in the "action" photo shoots are fake, very odd in a site that claims to be "natural"!

Overall, the better quality is an improvement, but it would be good to see fewer sets of pics and better quality, and videos that really get the best out of the girls.

Reply To Comment

Comment Replies (6)

Replies to the user comment above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

Capn (28) Yes there is evidence of some changes going on.

It is still primarily a pics site, & none the worse for that IMO.

The number of photosets per update is fine for me, but I do agree the pics are overly large now.

My main gripe is the number of pics.

Often they are about 250 pics per set, when 100 would cover the same ground perfectly adequately.

I think things are improving but it is still slow & not all the changes are for the better.

Cap'n. :0/

01-08-11  04:34am

Reply To Message

2

The Bishop (2) REPLY TO #1 - Capn :



No way the big sets are brilliant, I wonldn't want to see them been trimmed (I refer to Sean Rs work) best on the site - the site needs to add custom downloads for users to select their range of pics, but reduced choice is not the way to go!

Without Sean R the site wouldn't be so good, his stuff is crystal clear, and I think the 3000x2000 is a vast improvement, in slide show thay work perfectly well and in close the clarity is amazing.

04-05-11  05:27pm

Reply To Message

3

Capn (28) REPLY TO #2 - The Bishop :

Posting well over half a dozen repeats of the same pose in the same set is just laziness & bulking the set out for the sake of it. We are typically seeing sets of around 250 photos

IMO a properly edited set need not be over 100 phots & cover the same ground.

Cap'n.

04-05-11  11:34pm

Reply To Message

4

The Bishop (2) REPLY TO #3 - Capn :

Cap'n.,

I hear what you're saying but maybe it's me I like long sets with a good number of pictures within a particular series (e.g. full body shots standing or lying), as in slide show this has a nicer flow to it, rather than a sudden change where for example the model has changed pose drastically.

On another note I only look seriously at a few photographers, and some like R Williams who's work is excellent but with sets around 80 images and less there isn't the time to ogle the sets slowly as sometimes (actually mostly) you see too much on the first page - I like this to be a bit slower - personal preference fair enough.

As to bulking out I can't say if this is the aim as I don't go through all the contributors, for a start there isn't the time!

Sean R sets are the main reason I enjoy N&H for the reasons stated above, anything else hasn't come close IMHO - if you look at the voting on the site the vast number of models voted are by him.

Each to their own but sets around 100 pictures are way too short in my view - no pun intended!
Bishop

04-06-11  07:36am

Reply To Message

5

Capn (28) REPLY TO #4 - The Bishop :

Yes, I think a lot comes down to personal preference.
I find a lot of models shot by Sean R to be less than attractive.
Largely, I find a lot of his shots focus is detailed gynacology, which really doesn't appeal to me at all.

Cap'n. :0)

04-06-11  09:07am

Reply To Message

6

The Bishop (2) REPLY TO #5 - Capn :

Hi Cap'n,

I'd agree with you too, sometimes there can be a bit too much close stuff in Sean Rs work a bit on gynaecology side for sure, but this is offset with a good range of shots, hence I like big sets.
A criticism I had of his work was he never (or rarely) focused on the bottom, that is just showing lovely curvy cheeks (where the model possessed them!) instead overdoing the spread shots, and where there was nice shots there was never enough in the series, something youd probably favour!

Solo photography is by far the only niche Im interested in, and I feel its probably the most challenging for a photographer; it must be hard or impossible to repeat the same poses, then again it is pornography after all, and this is where Sean R wins for me as some of the angles are excellent and it is essentially hardcore solo I think anyway.

On the subject of looks, well I guess he can only shoot models that apply and given societys attitude to body hair Im glad there are still some out there willing to pose so Im glad theyre about though there is the odd one that has the old slapper look :)

Bishop

04-06-11  10:48am

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 0.02 seconds.