| User Reviews (1) |
|
User reviews consist of pros, cons, and other thoughts.
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Updated: |
05-18-09 04:50pm (Update History)
Reason: Site made positive improvments in response to review
|
| Pros: |
+Almost no toys or lez -- very much a softcore site
+237 models of all ethnic types
+Exclusive content, mostly, with some “seen-before-elsewhere” sets thrown in here and there
+Models as well known as Tila Tequila and Crystal Klein, as “classic” as Crissy Moran, Aimee Sweet, and Zdenka Podkapova, and as obscure as Juju
+Tons: 459 videos and 1084 photosets ... and 43 segmented video “confessions” (interviews of 13 models blabbing about sex, etc.)
+Interviews display the questions, then the model answers. No idiotic, faux-macho talking male involved.
+Vids can be viewer-streamed or downloaded (wmv) in 3 qualities – nice ‘n crisp “DVD” (720x480), “BIG” (480x352), or dude-where’s-my-broadband “MID” – and there’s Ipod mp4.
+ Only about 25% of the photo content has sets in 1024, 2048, and 4000+ pixels
+Zip downloads, once they get going, are an acceptable 4-600kbps
+Variety of browsing options (whole site, single theme, vids, models, etc.) |
| Cons: |
-75% of the galleries have pics no larger than 1024px
-Gallery thumbs are too small! Really small!
-In too many galleries, the girls never take off their 7x3 pixel panties!
-Zip downloads take a few seconds to start for the “rezziest” rez
-Videos are of photoshoot posing
-Older vids in “DVD” quality not as “crisp” as newer |
| Bottom Line: |
Pro or Con?: Banner-style “watermark” at the bottom of each jpg might not appeal to all, but at least it’s never overlayed on the model’s image
I first joined (“Finest Women” in those days) mid-2003, back when it had romantic touches of poetry and gallery names like “Love’s Infinity” and “Unbearable Desires.” I got pissed off in 2004 when I saw that they were redating/recycling earlier content. I’d finally left it for good in the middle of 2006 (was getting boring, slow on updates, and short on pic sizes), still in the Era Before Porn Users. And all through that, the company had been adding new sites with separate memberships.
Now all of those sites have been combined and recast as “themes” under the Finest Models umbrella. That explains the volume and variety of content. None of the galleries have fanciful names anymore, so they’re hip to the post-Bush-era cynicism. And the right side of every image, where they used to put the watermark that mentioned photographer Lawrence Gayoso by name, has been replaced by one on the bottom that just gives the site name. Sounds like “new management,” but since originally posting this review, I've been told that no such change has occured (see replies to this review).
I did wonder why a couple of galleries of models like Crissy Moran and Mindy Vega have been given the 4000+ pix treatment while most did not. Was hoping to see “super biggies” of Meriah Nelson, Francine Dee, and Zdenka. No such luck. The reason given is that their pre-2006 images were never edited in the larger sizes.
Still, it would be nice if they would redo at least some of the sets, should they have the larger originals to work with. There are sites that have done such things (1byday and ALS Scans to name two). It's work, but it's got to be less costly than all that's involved in a complete shoot. Then it would be an added plus they could advertise.
To softcore lovers, I could generally recommend this site especially to those who don't mind a fair amount of non-fully-nude content. |
| Respond: |
5 Replies
- Add Reply
- Webmaster Replied!
|
*Newbie reviews and ratings don't count toward a site's overall score/rank until the user reaches the Rookie status level (5 points). This rule is needed to help prevent fake (or heavily biased) profiles and reviews.
|
|
| User Comments (1) |
|
Ask a question, give quick feedback, warnings, etc.
|
RSS Feeds : All Finest Models Activity - Finest Models Reviews - Finest Models Comments - Finest Models News
