Foot Factory (0)
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
||- Unique, interesting themes
- Good, unusual photography style
- Wide variety of models, some well-known
- Good descriptions of videos
- Good value full trial available
||- Low res pics and videos
- Sparse updates
- Set names obscured & unhelpful zip names
- No tagging or categorisation
- Some sets too big
||Yet another infuriating site!
I'll start with a couple of disclaimers. First, I'm not really a foot/leg fetishist as such; however I seem to have become a one by default since the genre (particularly legs) seems to cover eroticism, undressing, nylons and lingerie etc - in short, the whole picture - more than most porn. Second, I'm slightly biased since I'm familiar with the photographer, Ed Fox; I've just had his second book delivered and like his work in Leg Show magazine - which I get occasionally, one of the few printed magazines still worth a look with all the online porn around.
Anyway, at FF, you'll find a good selection of foot-oriented material; sets and videos cover various themes, such as:
- candids of eg girls getting dressed, putting on shoes;
- masturbation scenes, sometimes starting with the girl eg rubbing lotion onto her feet
- quite a few with sex toys
- some girl-girl scenes and a few b/g scenes
- scenarios, eg I liked a couple involving undressing/masturbating during phone calls
- behind the scenes
- some not explicit at all, purely focused on feet
- outdoor or other unusual locations
- plenty of dirty feet
Some themes I didn't like; smoking is common but has never worked for me, and some weirder S&M stuff, eg unseen strangers whose gloved hands abduct or molest girls. And many videos have music whereas I prefer without; however it tends to be ambient/electronic/experimental stuff which although sometimes offputting, is far preferable to the corny faux-sexy music we get so often.
It's worth noting that this is material that leans towards foot fetishism but doesn't focus solely (rimshot) on it - hardcore foot folk may find it strays a bit too much but it's a balance that works for me. And largely I really like the style; it's not as brightly lit as most porn so it may not appeal to some folk; but there is a documentary/voyeuristic style to it which is quite unique, and even the magazine type shoots have a starkness and realism that sets it apart from most glam. The light and shadows make it very erotic - but not at the expense of being too arty, which it's not, or too tame - although there's not much hardcore, there's plenty of explicit midcore.
And there are a great selection of models featured. Some I'm familiar with from the pinup/fetish genre, eg Angela Ryan, Emily Marilyn, Dita von Teese; some porn stars, such as Aria Giovanni, Ryan Keely, Jelena Jensen; and plenty of pretty amateurs that perhaps only appear here.
Roughly 570 photo sets and 230 videos going back to 2004; maybe 150 models. Photo sets are split between 'photos' and 'features' - I think the former are meant to be more candids, and the latter more glamorous, magazine shoots and the like - but it's a vague distinction and there seems to be quite an overlap. Updates are quite sparse at 1-4 per month; but this is clearly stated on the tour so I don't have a problem with that.
Site navigation is fairly standard; a general updates list, photos/videos lists in date order, a model index. Given the number of themes involved it would be nice to have some kind of tagging, but sadly there is none. The layout of the site means that the names of photo sets are obscured which is annoying, especially as zips do not have meaningful names; but at least zips are there and easily accessible. I found some sets too large, maybe > 200 pictures, and really could have been edited; more is not necessarily better. Videos are mostly WMV, some QT, and whereas there's no info about photo sets, most videos have a long and explicit description, particularly discussing the feet - Mr Fox is quite a fetishist.
The biggest issue, though, is the resolution; all pictures sets are just 1024x768 (or less on the shorter side). I'm really not a resolution fiend and don't expect the somewhat daft 80 megapixel sets that Hegre Art is now offering; but Ed Fox is a well-known published photographer and it baffles me that he can't/doesn't/won't muster more than even 1 megapixel. I'd at least like to look at them full-screen and 1024x768 is well under half the size of mine - at least 2000px would be far more appropriate.
Similarly, videos are fairly low; many are DVD size, but older ones seem to be about 450x300 px - although for me a video survives upscaling a bit more than a photo so I don't mind quite so much. But still, a bit of HD would be appreciated and hardly technically challenging to produce now.
As some others have pointed out, once you go to leave the site you get offered a link to a $3/3 day trial; I took this and felt a bit guilty since I did get some good content. But I'd really need a month to comfortably go through everything - I like the material so much that it's only the resolution issue that preventing me from buying a full subscription. And similarly that's what prevents me scoring this higher; even with all the other cons I would happily give this 90+ - but it's still good size archive of great material and hopefully 80 reflects this.
Reply To Review