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

Visit Exploited College Girls

Exploited College Girls (2)

Active
84
TheSquirrel (53) 06-19-13  06:23pm
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (52), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: No DRM, download limits, or pre checked cross selling.
Beautiful amateur girls in a good variety of shape size and colour.
Genuinely amateur and individual content with its own style.
Exclusive material and most of the girls will not be seen elsewhere.
Good lighting considering the niche.
Good streaming.
Good download speed.
Zipped pics.
Named files.
Girls listed chronological and alphabetically.
Inviting home pages and easy navigation.
Still updating.
Easy log in, site remembers your details, with only an easy to see word to copy.
Good customer oriented feel.
Cons: Poor rip off exchange rate with CCBill sign up.
Male lead can be a bit irritating at times.
One type of material.
No network of bonus sites.
A few too many fake breasts, and especially tattoos.
Condoms becoming more common.
Blurred face of male can sometimes spoil action.
Some bad camerawork and views at times. Can be amateurish.
New pics look like screencaps.
A polarised niche, you either love it or hate it.
Bottom Line: It's just an opinion but Exploited College Girls, takes this niche and nails it brilliantly. The girl next door types are the type you wish really were living next door instead of that rottweiler, but you know you'll never get that lucky.

There is a real amateur feel here and a lack of gloss, but the girls are so beautiful they don't need much gloss, they just need someone competent enough not to fuck up capturing them on video, and merely need to look their natural gorgeous best. This is where ECG scores. It is professionally lit, edited, and photographed well enough to be erotic, with the girls looking stunning. For me it's an excellent blend of professionalism and DIY amateurism, which isn't easy to do, because so many times you see beautiful girls being made to look unbelievably unsexy, by lousy lighting, bad excessive makeup, awful camerawork with awful unflattering angles, shot by morons you wouldn't trust to shoot a rock without blurring the picture.

The recent shoots are dated and I counted 286 girls a few weeks ago. Membership gives bonus access to Backroom Casting Couch, (on a quality par with ECG), and Net Video Girls plus some free movies. This isn't a network, it's a standalone DIY site, with quality material, and beautiful girls. Given the one man and his camera thing, it's done in a professional enough way to show off the girls to maximum effect, plus you get plenty of build up, dressing, undressing, and walking around naked and semi naked.

This is just my opinion, but I think the guy does a great job, even though he may not win any humanitarian, or upstanding church goer of the month awards...or maybe he might, we don't know who he is, as his face is blurred out, something that is annoying and can detract from the action. Backroom Casting Couch is the same.

New video spec is 768x432 at 4000-6000 kbps and slightly older ones are 640x360 at 3000-5000 kbps, with the oldest being 576x324, but this isn't about HD pristine quality with models looking like they've been dipped in bronze, it's about one man and a camera, and at it's most high tech, one man and two cameras, with occasional help from a mate.

Old pictures sometimes look better than the new ones, because the new ones are screencaps rather than genuine photos. Old ones are genuine photos, and some of the bonus video footage was behind the scenes, where you could see these being taken. I love that sort of stuff, but sadly newer updates don't have any of that, although the main videos always have a certain behind the scenes flavour due to the nature of the content.

If you're a pic fan, this is not the strongest side of ECG. Examples of picture spec are 1400x930, 1600x1200, 1280x857, 1280x720, and 1400x788.

Some PU'ers have referred to the male lead as a douch bag, but given the abuse, both verbal and physical, some girls receive on mainstream sites, this is relatively mild by comparison, and there are no dirty tricks on sign up or cancellation, no drm, dl limits, regional discrimination, or pre checked cross selling. What you see and are led to expect is very much what you get. In fact the whole site is easy to use and is customer friendly. You can't say that about many.

The login is easy, and your membership details plus password are remembered, with an easy to see simple word to copy. Models are listed both chronologically and alphabetically and navigation is easy, with quite detailed previews of what an update is like, plus a long written summary about the shoot. You may not like the main man's tone, but you can't say he doesn't put in the effort. Photos are zippped, download speeds are fast, and files are numbered.

I found streaming facilities to be excellent even at peak times, when on other sites (VideoBox for instance) it's impossible to get a picture. A recent addition is the split screen view, where you see both the model's face and the other end at the same time, which is okay, but sometimes the two screens seem to get in the way of one another. There are a few scenes with condoms which are becoming more common.

When I recently visited the sign up page then closed the window, I received a $5 off offer if I joined now. That worked out at £17.44 for 30 days, which I accepted. When I went to cancel my subscription I received another cut price offer, which I was unable to accept as I currently don't have the time to download.

If this is the future of porn, with semi amateur girls, and semi professional shooting, done on a budget, I would be happy with that. I don't think it is, but what he is doing, with the niche, style of shooting, reality behind the scenes feel, lighting, camerawork, number of updates, price, and personalisation of site, works for him, and for me too as a customer. This is very close to how I would want to see reality porn with sexy looking amateur girls, I don't believe for one moment that is easy to do. Even the pros get it wrong more often than not, so hats off to ECG.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (6)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

Capn (28) A well weighted & considered review, my friend.

I may be tempted to take a look myself.

I suspect it would be the hardcore nature that would put me off though.

Cap'n. :0/

06-20-13  11:25am

Reply To Message

2

TheSquirrel (53) REPLY TO #1 - Capn :

Thanks Capn, yes hardcore is a big part of this site, with the reaction of the girls having sex for the first time on camera quite a prominent part. There are some softcore pics, with stripping, some updates have no pics, some have softcore only, and some have hardcore.
06-20-13  02:20pm

Reply To Message

3

Capn (28) REPLY TO #2 - TheSquirrel :

A real curate's egg then ;0)

Cap'n. :0)

06-20-13  02:35pm

Reply To Message

4

TheSquirrel (53) REPLY TO #3 - Capn :

Yes, but it is far from cookie cutter porn. The use of the split screen is another thing that varies. I think it is used more now than it was a couple of years ago. It's effective at times, but sometimes imo it detracts from the action.
06-20-13  02:51pm

Reply To Message

5

mr3633 (9) Thank you for the detailed review of this site. I've been keeping this site on my radar and will give it a go at some point.
06-21-13  06:17am

Reply To Message

6

TheSquirrel (53) REPLY TO #5 - mr3633 :

For me ECG and Czech First Video (part of Czech AV), are the only sites I know (along with Backroom Casting Couch) that do this sort of thing, and do it well. There are plenty of other audition type sites, but for me these three are head and shoulders above everything else in this niche. Most of the others are phony and have some very regular and professional models pretending to be amateurs, or have truly dire quality.
06-21-13  05:16pm

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 0.01 seconds.