Petites Parisiennes Review by messmer

Welcome GUEST! CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

User Review

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

Petites Parisiennes (4)

Active

messmer (137)

01-24-11 10:48am

TRUST USER? YES (76), NO (1)

Status:

Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).

Updated:

05-09-11 03:23pm (Update History)
Reason: Upped to original score because refund was promptly issued after a Billing France mistake.

Pros:

59 models by my count, (I might be off by a couple) who are generally quite appealing. Most have at least seven picture sets and 6 - 8 videos.

HD videos being offered at 720p and 1080p.

Picture sets being offered zipped at 1000, 2000 and 4000px.

Multiple downloads possible.

Detailed search, once you have figured it out, allowing you to search by every possible criterion, from body shape to setting of shoot and everything in between.

Original concepts in some shoots.

Regular daily updates alternating between picture sets and videos.

Cons:

I hate to say it but I found most of the sets very bland, and even those containing lingerie were far from what I expected from the camera of a lingerie fetishist.

Many of the shoots are ill-lit, greyish in tone or too soft. (See Anais update, January 11, this one was definitely not ready for prime time unless the photographer was being artistic.) The wrong color is often used in the studio shoots. One model who was shot in front of a blue background looks ghastly, like a drowning victim.

The same question might be asked when it comes to focus. Is the photographer doing it for artistic effect or is it a mistake that the head of the model is blurred while the genitals are in sharp focus, and vice versa. One sample set even contained a foot in focus while everything around it was blurred. Affectation or artistry?

Many of the 4000px photo shoots I downloaded lacked detail and looked more like enlargements than Ultra High Resolution.

Videos are only between 2 and five minutes long.

Bottom Line:

Okay, I could have kept on going about many of the videos being nothing but an actual photo shoot being filmed, or that most picture sets look more like screen caps when it comes to composition and positioning of the models, or that the navigation is highly confusing to the newbie, or that the file naming could be improved, but I think you get the point by now that I liked very little about this site.

I also believe it is in search of an identity:

There is artistic nude modeling, there are outdoors, exhibitionist shoots, there is lingerie etc.

I would say there are eight different categories in all, because most models have that many sets, all with a different motif from the others.

This would make it awfully hard for anyone, no matter what their taste, to like this site for very long because with only 50+ models one can download one's personal niche in a day or two.

Of course if you are less discriminating than I and like every setting, or if you tend to download models rather than themes, then you would be fine for the month.

I did like a lingerie set or two (talking about my own niche) but even there I was greatly disappointed. A flimsy wrap or nylons and garter belt in a handful of pictures does not an erotic set make.

Especially if so many pictures of the short sets (60 - 90 pics approx.) are out of focus in important places.

I did like the originality of having some models start out nude and then get dressed in their finery, rather than the other way around.

I also enjoyed the way their short interviews were conducted (4 - 5 minutes) by giving the model a handful of cards with questions on them and they could reply, or not, if they felt like it. No pressure put on, no offensive questions by the interviewer .. a nice change.

A change of a different kind: one model even confessed that she wasn't all that keen on sex. Her honesty is to be admired but doesn't exactly get the juices flowing.

Bottom Line:

I would say this is a softcore site for the artistically inclined, because all of that "softness" and out of focus material MUST have been shot that way intentionally (see the site's Forum for the exquisite equipment used by the photographer) and would appeal to a special, more refined taste than mine.

I really hate to say this (thinking of my good friend's review below) but I got more good material out of the sites I like to complain about than out of this one, and wish once again that I could give away a membership that others who like experimental photography might enjoy more than I do.

Added on the second last day of my subscription to this site (Feb. 20):

If you like crisp, clear, well-lit pictures with natural flesh colors do not waste your money on this site because you won't find them here.

The models are pretty but could look a lot prettier in someone else's hands. Subjective, I know, that's why I am really looking forward to some future review(s) to see how far off I was in my assessment.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (10)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg #	User	Message	Date
1	otoh (52)	Oh messmer, I'm sorry this didn't work as well for you as it does for me! I guess the lingerie may not be as overtly fancy as some... but I found it sophisticated and sexy... I guess, er, French is the word I'm looking for. And the shallow focus on some shots is I guess a matter of taste - but I do really like the lighting, for me it seems more natural than the overly-studio-lit shots of most porn sites. You'll also find that the more recent interviews - and other videos - are often longer, closer to 10 minutes. Anyway, it looks like we just see some things differently; although soft, I find the pics at PP far more erotic than the endless nudes at the bigger art nude sites. But, most crucially - don't do yourself out of any taste - you are indeed a man of refinement, as borne out by your liking of lingerie, preference for girls out of their teens, and a little (or more) hair in the right places :)	01-24-11 03:41pm Reply To Message
2	messmer (137)	REPLY TO #1 - otoh : LOL. I am glad you took things the right way, otoh. I was really upset that I had to write such a negative review, knowing how much you enjoyed the site, but on the other hand, when writing a review I had to be true to myself so I was in a bit of a quandary. And a special thanks for that last paragraph of yours. :-)	01-24-11 03:47pm Reply To Message
3	otoh (52)	REPLY TO #2 - messmer : No probs... anyway, you've still got a while for the it to grow on you :) (And do give Eva and Marlene's sleepwear a chance...) Meantime, I shall continue to find the more, er, esoteric sites to comment on and review...	01-24-11 04:49pm Reply To Message
4	messmer (137)	REPLY TO #3 - otoh : Isn't the quest nice? :-) And I just got finished checking Eva and Marlene's sleepwear (couldn't leave that one alone after your remark) and it is beautiful, as are the models. Trouble is the sets as well as the video (Eva's) still seem too soft and colorless to me. But as you said, it's a question of taste. I guess I am used to brighter lighting and color even though I hate the saturation of the true glamor sites. Were you ever a subscriber to AllOver30? I got into an argument with the moderator because I kept complaining about their gray and washed out looking videos and she thought they were just fine and thought I was a bit of a s... disturber for whom one couldn't do anything right. Somebody owes somebody an apology. Maybe we both owe each other an apology because we forgot that what's great for one is washed out for another. :-) PPs style is definitely too "washed out" for me. I am used to brighter and crisper. But I am truly glad that the site gives you and thousands of others what you are looking for! Just one more curious question in parting, what did you think of the January 11th update of Anais?	01-24-11 06:48pm Reply To Message
5	otoh (52)	REPLY TO #4 - messmer : Well, I haven't subscribed to All Over 30 - I likely will at some point, and/or Anilos - but the videos of AO30 I saw in TGPs just looked poorer quality than KarupsOW, rather than having colour/lighting issues. Good point about the image set of Anais on PP. I think the photographer was going for a retro look - not sure about the US but here in the 70s, gents magazines featured a lot of soft focus (as well as a lot of pubic hair!) I'm not quite sure it works here... but in the context - that of a single photographer posting daily updates - I'm happy for him to experiment a bit! OTOH, the lighting and colour still very much appeal to me. But oddly enough, another strong area of interest for me is retro-style pinups, which by nature are generally bright and saturated - although a little edgier than that sounds, maybe leaning towards fetish. Look up Viva Van Story and you'll see what I mean. It's a shame there's not much of that sort of content available... the closest is maybe Pin-up Wow, which I may be tempted by sometime. Anyway, genuine apologies if I sent you in the wrong direction, but it is fun to compare :)	01-25-11 04:09pm Reply To Message
6	messmer (137)	REPLY TO #5 - otoh : Just a quick: no apologies necessary, otoh, ever! I enjoy trying new things and I also realise the fact that while our tastes may run parallel in certain respects, there also have to be differences. This was one of them. Keep recommending or condemning away, just keep telling it as you see it! That's what PU is all about. User's HONEST opinions about how they feel about a given site. It makes good reading, too. :-)	01-25-11 06:15pm Reply To Message
7	mbaya (356)	I have to agree that this site was a disappointment. It was beyond boring As you said, it was bland.	01-26-11 08:49am Reply To Message
8	messmer (137)	REPLY TO #7 - mbaya : Thank you, mbaya, sometimes I wonder if it is just me? :-)	01-26-11 09:22am Reply To Message
9	Capn (28)	REPLY TO #8 - messmer : I'm sure it isn't just you. I know I am late on this, but comparing recent reviews on this & a couple of goes around the public area, I am more inclined to agree with you, M. It seems to be struggling for an identity. Too many artsy pretentious sets for me by the look. Just stick to one formula & refine it. Too many flaws in too many areas. Cap'n. :0/	05-15-11 04:38am Reply To Message
10	messmer (137)	REPLY TO #9 - Capn : Hi Capn. I think this is a site you either love or dislike greatly. I am seeing a lot of fervent defenders, with some trusted users among them, so I'll just add .. it wasn't for me! :-)	05-15-11 12:34pm 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.