| User Reviews (2) |
|
User reviews consist of pros, cons, and other thoughts.
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
As a photo lover I just had to try this site and was not disappointed. There are some great models. Natural Looks. No airbrushing you get the totally natural look blemishes and all.
HQ photos ranging from 600 - 4000px and rarely with an option below 3000px. Photos available as a zip option. Search options include jump to model, search by hair color, search by category though this feature could be extended. You also have the option to vote for fav models. |
| Cons: |
The main downfall has to be the small number of updates. Last month was a total of 9 updates. Also total number of models is currently only 53 and they don't yet have large individual numbers of photo sets (on average 6 sets per model)with an average of 50 photos per set though some do go higher. The occasional photset is not quite to the standard you get used to on this site but it is the exception. |
| Bottom Line: |
Bottom line is that for photo lovers wanting natural looking girls where the photos are HQ and not touched up like so many other sites then you have to give this at least a 1 month trial. Not everyone will appreciate the natural photos which includes the odd stretch mark or spot which is air brushed out on most other sites but personally I felt it added to the individuality of the models. They weren't the all too often waif like models all fully shaven. This was more the girl next door type and trims were more common than most sites which was a bonus for me. Finally price wise I felt that it was slightly overpriced given the small number of models / photo sets and updates but no regrets on joining and will probably revisit in about a year when they have more updates. Sooner if they were more frequent. |
| Respond: |
2 Replies
- Add Reply
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+All exclusive content
+Photos, singles or zips, both in 3 to 5 sizes in each gallery; max is usually 4000px (and at least 3000px)
+All zips accessible from both gallery page and each model page
+Monthly archives going back to September 2006
+Some very fine American women, some well-known
+Some photos look great and most are clear
+Plenty of attention to the loveliness of ass (but not in every gallery)
+Good visitors preview
+Usually good server speed, but ... |
| Cons: |
-server occasionally takes a snooze break for a while
-Updates only 12-14 times per month and most shoots are in two parts (a part = an update), but at least the file numbers in part 2 follow in sequence from those in part one
-Only 37 models
-Models seem limited to 6 updates each
-A few of the models aren’t very appealing
-Some photos lack good color
-Blurriness not usually a problem, but it does happen a few times
-Lack of good light sometimes a problem
-Realism may not appeal to some (scars, bruises, rashes and zits are not airbrushed out) |
| Bottom Line: |
Allen Ginsberg once wrote "Under the World, There’s a Lot of Ass, a Lot of Cunt." Well, under my nose has been this site for the past 17 months, and there’s a lot of Ass, a lot of Bending Forward, a lot of Cheeks Beckoning.
The best of these, IMHO, are Addison Rose, Charlotte, Charmane Star (very squeezable), Hailey Young, Jamie Lynn (!), Jenny, Kacey, Karlie Montana, Kimberly, Kina, Lindsey, Marlie Moore, Nina, Sabrina Sweet, and Tiffany Brookes. Austin is also very beautiful, but you do have to accept that long scar on her back. But most of these girls have nice clean hineys, and man, do they ever offer them up!
And Alexandra has a nice clean butt, too, but the photos are not so hot color-wise.
Celeste Star, Hanna Hilton, and Ginger Lee are big favorites of mine, but most of the poses didn’t satisfy my lustful cravings. Wish they’d posed ALL of them as they did Lindsey in her “Bench” set, part 2. Damn!
And yes, this is a photos-only site, but why not, just as there are video-only sites?
Oh, it has also has 4 articles on sex and a blog on nude photography. What I read was long-winded and unfocused. Someone should send ‘em a copy of Strunk & White.
It’s great to find another mega-size photo site of American women. The only others I know of are Bare Maidens, which is too weird and even slower with updates, and Penthouse, which doesn’t do ass right nearly as often (though the photo quality is usually better). Anyone know of others?
Follow-Up:
They've changed to only twice-per-week updates. Reason? They want to develop the site with more features and are short on resources. For how long? Indefinitely. I've lowered the score from 86 to 80, which I think is more than fair to them.
I can explain. I'm a consumer, and I have a year long subscription to this site based on the good faith notion that it would update 3x per week. I don't like the "bait-and-switch" any more than the next person. It's not a good way to retain members (= financial resources).
I also do not agree that they even need to develop the site more outside of adding more content. It works fine as it is. New content should be priority #1.
Should they reduce updates to once a week, the score will drop futher as soon as they do. |
| Respond: |
0 Replies
- Add Reply
|
*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 (2) |
|
Ask a question, give quick feedback, warnings, etc.
|
RSS Feeds : All Torrid Art Activity - Torrid Art Reviews - Torrid Art Comments - Torrid Art News
