PU - HLP General Partner Inc. - All Activity

RE: I Joined for the livecam chat

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:20:42 PDT

Met Art (16)

07-01-08 09:20pm

COMMENT REPLY by RiverW0lf (0)

To fonzie (3):

The live chat would be much more pleasant if the "administrators" were actually associated with the Met website. Instead they are paying members who are recruited by management to enforce the Met Rules. They also are given exclusive power to ban those in the live chat.

An administrator can ban you from chatting with the model for any or NO reason. They may not like your username or make up an excuse to 'ban' you. There is also an option they can use that bars your posts from being seen by anyone but you and the admin. You think you are still participating in the chat but no one can see your posts.

As I said none of the administrators actually work for Met-Art but are members, like you, in the free chat.

Most of the models are stunningly beautiful on the live cams and well worth the price of membership to the site.

Overall I would recommend the website but be aware the administrators of the live-cams ARE all male, despite some of the female names. administrator_natasha is definitely male, just as all the admins. The admins also have their own agendas beyond the site rules and will regularly ban someone they do not like.

View Thread (2)

RE: Mr Fountain's Review

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:53:40 PDT

Met Art (16)

06-15-08 11:53pm

REVIEW REPLY by Denner (138)

To Mr Fountain (24):

By golly....it works.
Thanks, Mr Fountain

View Thread (7)

RE: Mr Fountain's Review

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:22:07 PDT

Met Art (16)

06-15-08 01:22pm

REVIEW REPLY by Mr Fountain (24)

To Denner (138):

Hi,

Here's what to do:

When you go to the sign up page where you have to choose your user name and password. Enter nothing; instead, look to the bottom of the page and click on the link that says "click here to purchase our combo membership" and click it.

Then simply leave the met-art box as the only one checked (unless you want to check 2 of three or three of three). Then click submit The next page should say $19.99. Then proceed with selecting your username and password and submit the information and go to the membership sign-up page.

View Thread (7)

RE: Mr Fountain's Review

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:51:57 PDT

Met Art (16)

06-15-08 12:51pm

REVIEW REPLY by Denner (138)

To Monahan (27):

Been a member three times - have not seen that offer. But ok, it may have slipped among all that spammail, I still get.

View Thread (7)

RE: Mr Fountain's Review

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:28:26 PDT

Met Art (16)

06-15-08 10:28am

REVIEW REPLY by Monahan (27)

To Mr Fountain (24):

As a previous subscriber and a subscriber to their free newsletter I received an email from Met-Art offering a $19.99 per month deal. I don't think the price is available to "walk-ins."

But if this genre is your thing, they have a $99.99 per year deal which is a Helluva deal in comparison to the month-to-month price ($8.33 per month). After 3-1/2 months you get the rest of the year free.

View Thread (7)

RE: Mr Fountain's Review

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:23:29 PDT

Met Art (16)

06-15-08 09:23am

REVIEW REPLY by Denner (138)

To Jay G (31):

Thanks, Jay G.....I won't waste more time keep looking...

View Thread (7)

RE: Mr Fountain's Review

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:43:10 PDT

Met Art (16)

06-15-08 08:43am

REVIEW REPLY by Jay G (31)

To Denner (138):

I couldn't find Mr. Fountain's good deal, either.

I also couldn't find a $19.99 special and I've used a lot of Porn Users & Best Porn specials before and usually found them easily.

Usually you just click the link from Porn Users or Best Porn, go immediately to sign up link and look for the deal.

The sign up page asked for email address and info before showing the join page. Then after I gave the info, the join page showed up, but included no special deals at all except joining another site (not this one) for an extra $19.99 (not a good deal).

Maybe the deal talked about just expired. But I found no bargains at this site!

View Thread (7)

RE: Mr Fountain's Review

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:09:01 PDT

Met Art (16)

06-15-08 08:09am

REVIEW REPLY by Denner (138)

To Mr Fountain (24):

Where did you find the $19.95 price - I couldn't - my fault, probably. But guess I'd like to join again at that offer.

Fine review, BTW. And agree with your point about the missing variety in the vids - but it's a heck of a site for photosets.

View Thread (7)

RE: Video content

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:00:58 PDT

Met Art (16)

06-09-08 08:00pm

COMMENT REPLY by PinkPanther (28)

To artnoir (6):

I've gotta say that I finally - after 3 years or so of membership - saw a vid on their site that didn't make me turn it off in less that 1 minute.

Yes, it's by their usual video guy - Goncharov. Yes, it's got that same Cinemax synth-flute music. So what's the difference with their new vid - Marinan? Simple - the model has so much joi de vivre and is such a joy to watch that even the guy that has made more hideously boring vids of gorgeous women than anybody I can think of couldn't ruin it - or maybe he's getting better finally?

Ya never know!

View Thread (3)

RE: Wittyguy's Review

Fri, 30 May 2008 05:27:59 PDT

Met Art (16)

05-30-08 05:27am

REVIEW REPLY by Denner (138)

To Wittyguy (29):

Fine review, there...
Just my problem with this in many ways great site - the vids are far from the quality/erotica-feeling of the photosets.
And as a video-freak, it's too bad - because the photos are no less than GREAT.
BTW: Gave you a new trust....

View Thread (1)

RE: Video content

Sun, 11 May 2008 10:29:02 PDT

Met Art (16)

05-11-08 10:29am

COMMENT REPLY by Monahan (27)

To artnoir (6):

I totally agree. The videos on Met-Art are awful in many respects; especially that most are merely videos of photo shoots with nothing at all enjoyable about them.

The trend at Met-Art is moving toward more suggestive (sexy) poses away from just figure model poses in various stages of dress but they haven't moved into any insertions of any kind nor have males ever made it into any of their content.

The superior photography and the superior beauty of the models has been enough to maintain this site's success, but it will have to move out of the 20th Century soft core suggestive stuff a' la Playboy to a recognition of the models' sensuality.

View Thread (3)

RE: Video content

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:32:35 PST

Met Art (16)

02-03-08 01:32am

COMMENT REPLY by elephant (22)

To artnoir (6):

I agree I used to love looking through sexy nude photos of hot european babes, now I think its all a little boring at met-art, it needs vids and start concentrating more on this and they would get loads more people signing up, I won't say all but the majority of people would like also to see a good range of vids in this day and age of the models. And love it if met-art did a spin off site with vids and had the models not do hardcore, (that would be good though he he) but did a little more daring and more lesbian scenes, they would please a lot of people, cause lets face it the met-art girls are top notch and lots of them are on other sites doing slightly harder stuff. Just be good to see more passion.

Still thats my opinion, I know heaps just love the photos. I wish they'd also do more photos with girls doing sexy poses with clothes on too and stripping seductively, maybe flashing no panty shots outside like they do at mpl studios. Can't beat that in my book. well hot lesbian sex maybe does lol.

View Thread (3)

Met Art Comment

Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:07:55 PST

Met Art (16)

02-02-08 04:07pm

COMMENT by artnoir (6)

Video content

Met art is an absolutely fantastic site. I'm a two-time member and I have always enjoyed the site. Except for the vidoes.
Compare the photosets with the vidoes...they're just not good enough. The vidoes don't make justice to neither the model or the photoset itself.

Although the quality has somewhat improved over the years, it's still quite blurry and unfocused. I just wonder when it is time for Met Art (and similiar sites) to take the video art as seriously as photgraphy?

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

Met Art Comment

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:08:39 PST

Met Art (16)

01-28-08 06:08am

COMMENT by CactusJack (0)

Massive site

The grand-daddy of all soft core sites. Half a million high quality pictures of beautiful women for a great price. Not sure what else can be said. The cons: the whole site is very soft core, some of the pictures are really grainy and the movies will make you hate how long you waited for them to download.

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: HD Movies

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:06:13 PST

Met Art (16)

01-24-08 07:06pm

COMMENT REPLY by littlejoe (10)

To Denner (138):

check out femjoy, they have hd videos

View Thread (5)

RE: HD Movies

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:03:18 PST

Met Art (16)

01-22-08 02:03am

COMMENT REPLY by Denner (138)

To PinkPanther (28):

Only a few of their videos have some touch, some erotica and some sexy ways.
Most are rather boring, I agree.

View Thread (5)

RE: HD Movies

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:03:54 PST

Met Art (16)

01-21-08 01:03pm

COMMENT REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To PinkPanther (28):

You're correct, I just checked it out, the stream doesn't look so great.

View Thread (5)

RE: HD Movies

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:59:03 PST

Met Art (16)

01-21-08 11:59am

COMMENT REPLY by PinkPanther (28)

To Denner (138):

I checked out the quality the new streaming HD vid in the high speed choice - ucccchh! Blurry crap. I downloaded the vid and played it on Windows Media Player - looks good. Unfortunately I don't really like their vids, but it looked good. So far the streaming HD vid on their site is not a winner.

View Thread (5)

RE: HD Movies

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:29:57 PST

Met Art (16)

01-21-08 11:29am

COMMENT REPLY by PinkPanther (28)

To Denner (138):

The newest thing in the e-mail is that they will be offering streaming HD in addition to the downloadable HD that they have been offering, then say that they'll be offering 15 vids a month, so we should be expecting to see them every other day. So far this month, they have posted 12 new vids - with a 3rd of the month left.

View Thread (5)

Met Art Comment

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:53:07 PST

Met Art (16)

01-21-08 08:53am

COMMENT by Denner (138)

HD Movies

Just got mail from the friendly people at Met Art - telling me, that they now will update movies in HD and more of them.
But todays update has no movies - guess I'd had thought about the timing in a message like this.....when they send out such a mail they should have uploaded an example of a new HD....
But let's see what the future will bring to this all-in-all great site.

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: Denner's Review

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:27:55 PST

Met Art (16)

01-12-08 12:27pm

REVIEW REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To PinkPanther (28):

This is the site for you then! But as I say, like it or not, it doesn't matter because there is enough material here to please everyone.

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:30:22 PST

Met Art (16)

01-12-08 08:30am

REVIEW REPLY by PinkPanther (28)

To jd1961 (78):

I find pics and vids of women in water very erotic - makes me think how much fun it would be to play slip and slide with her.

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:26:24 PST

Met Art (16)

01-10-08 01:26pm

REVIEW REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To Drooler (146):

There is one outdoor video I do like with Eufrat. The one where she is wearing a hat near an old building...the colors are real nice.

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:25:06 PST

Met Art (16)

01-10-08 01:25pm

REVIEW REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To Denner (138):

I'm starting to wonder if there is some deep symbolism with having a girl half submerged in water. It must be some sort of fertility goddess symbolism!

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:54:36 PST

Met Art (16)

01-10-08 11:54am

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (146)

To jd1961 (78):

I'd like to second this for the most part. I have seen a few outdoor sets that were good, but the problems in general are water and sand or mud or dark grit sticking to the girl's skin, or being clustered in tree branches and leaves, or an otherwise perfect shot but there's this tall grass blade upstaging her ass. (Man, how many times? I hate that!) And you may not see it unless you inspect at maximum size.

Add to that the uneven light, with the girl's face obscured in deep shadow, and usually her crack is, too.

Not to say that some of the indoor shoots aren't exactly peaking out the light meter. But at least the light can be controlled if the photographer cares to. Outside, it's a lot to schedule a model for a perfect day, for a shoot at high noon, with the grass mowed beforehand.

Oh, and then there is that fly alighted on the girl's butt, probably because it senses something nutritious in the vicinity. I'd rather not have to Photoshop out the little critter. There's going to be spot there that marks where it was. Anyway, that's another toughie for the photographer, getting those choice shots without uninvited guests from the Animal Kingdom.

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:38:56 PST

Met Art (16)

01-10-08 11:38am

REVIEW REPLY by Denner (138)

To jd1961 (78):

Yeah, jd - I have exactly the same thing with the water vids.....but a lot of the newer soft-girl-sites seems to have an urge for that kinds of shoots...alas.

By the way, our old mate, Drooler had a great line for this site:

Candy Land

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:35:14 PST

Met Art (16)

01-10-08 11:35am

REVIEW REPLY by Denner (138)

To congestus (12):

The newer ones are typical 200-250 mb (give or take) - a good size in my own opinion.

Older ones between aprox. 40 and 70 mb (again, give or take)

Enjoy if you join!
I did.....

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:18:27 PST

Met Art (16)

01-10-08 11:18am

REVIEW REPLY by congestus (12)

To Denner (138):

Thanks for giving such a thorough review. I have often looked at Met Art and considered joining but now I will give it a go.

One quick question.... what size (MB) are the video files for download?

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:16:10 PST

Met Art (16)

01-10-08 11:16am

REVIEW REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To Denner (138):

I agree with you about the outdoor shoots, I don't like those as much. Especially all those photo shoots done in water! But with all the material, and constant quality updates, it doesn't matter much.

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:56:49 PST

Met Art (16)

01-10-08 08:56am

REVIEW REPLY by Denner (138)

To Drooler (146):

That one really made me laugh....
Yeah, back in Candy Land, for certain!

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:33:37 PST

Met Art (16)

01-10-08 08:33am

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (146)

To Denner (138):

Oh, YES! You've been away for two years? You're in Candy Land! Enjoy!

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:14:03 PST

Met Art (16)

01-10-08 08:14am

REVIEW REPLY by Denner (138)

To Drooler (146):

Hey old friend
What a great reply - it's a review in disguise...
I certainly agree about the vids, but man - I'm turning to photos again - and concerning the photos - no argue from this fellow PU. They are great and keep roling in - that's one of the fine things about this site - new stuff - all the time.

Thanks, again

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:08:50 PST

Met Art (16)

01-10-08 08:08am

REVIEW REPLY by Denner (138)

To PinkPanther (28):

Thanks PP
- for a very..........well, I just can't find the right english word for it - but something like: a constructive and helpfull reply......
Great to have folks like you as a fellow PU.

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:54:53 PST

Met Art (16)

01-10-08 07:54am

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (146)

To PinkPanther (28):

"I honestly can't think of another site that gives their members more high quality material on a regular basis."

I really agree! It's my top favorite site for that reason. Some days, I never get anything, but that happens with every site. It's kinda weird that I've never reviewed it.

Denner's review is great. He mentions pic sizes in detail. Actually, there are sometimes sets that land in the 2500-3000px range for the largest size, but they're still "nicely proportioned."

About the vids, one thing I'd like mention, as I've recently gone on a hunt there, is that some of them are of photoshoots, so you don't get a sense of interaction with the model much at all (she's working with the photographer) and the camera is flashing. Two recent ones of Nikky Case are like that.

I did find vids from the following that didn't show camera flashing and were more properly "real" videos: Tim Fox (esp of Evelyn Lory!), Gubin, Majoly, and Volkov. Can't say it's going to be true every time with them, though.

And sometimes the vids are just not very professionally done. Saw one of Elle B, who's really a doll babe in photos, lying on the grass and turning to quickly pick bits of soil off herself and generally looking awkward and kind of annoyed. Seemed a bit "at two with nature" in that one.

Probably my favorite photographer on there is Tim Fox. Some of his sets of Evelyn Lory are so exciting that I just lose my mind!

View Thread (15)

RE: Denner's Review

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:49:17 PST

Met Art (16)

01-10-08 06:49am

REVIEW REPLY by PinkPanther (28)

To Denner (138):

No doubt about the value - multiple photo-sets every single day mean that there's always something exciting that I haven't seen before - their archives are deep, deep, deep.

Add the vids (which I'm mainly NOT a fan of) and the cam shows, which sometimes have smoking hot models, and you've got one helluva site.

I honestly can't think of another site that gives their members more high quality material on a regular basis.

View Thread (15)

RE: If you like young models posing nude :-)

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:22:37 PST

Met Art (16)

12-28-07 07:22pm

COMMENT REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To mr smut (13):

Mr. Smut, the photos come in 3 different sizes.

View Thread (1)

Met Art Comment

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:57:19 PST

Met Art (16)

12-28-07 04:57am

COMMENT by mr smut (13)

If you like young models posing nude :-)

This site is a monster with lots of content and countless beautiful and young models. I once was a member and was impressed by the sheer amount of photoseries and movies you can download.

Picture sizes are more like quality to make print-outs of what you like than to be watched on your screen. That is one of the biggest cons.

Why I left is quite simple to say because this site features nude photography only. No spreading or insertions nothing like that but when that's what you are looking for you should go for it and maybe buy a bigger HDD as well.

I also found Trista (a.k.a. Jassie) one of my all time favorite ALS Scan models posing nude for photographer Michael White and she looks so damn' gorgeous plus she wore a little patch of pubic hair.

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: Met-Art Newsletter

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:41:10 PST

Met Art (16)

12-28-07 04:41am

COMMENT REPLY by mr smut (13)

To jd1961 (78):

Hi jd1961,

that's true I remember to have gotten such an offer. Guess I'll re-sign for the newsletter using my new mail address.

Thanks,
Smut

View Thread (1)

RE: jd1961's Review

Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:40:11 PST

Met Art (16)

12-15-07 12:40pm

REVIEW REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To PosterDude (14):

I know what you mean about ALS. I think my high score is more because of the hugeness of the site, there is so much stuff here that every time I visit, I discover (for me) new material. The ALS photos are definitely of higher quality, probably the best of all.

View Thread (2)

RE: jd1961's Review

Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:31:54 PST

Met Art (16)

12-15-07 06:31am

REVIEW REPLY by PosterDude (14)

To jd1961 (78):

Nice Review. I agree met-art is best glamore site, but sometimes want more explicit. Me and you have Met-art and alsscan reversed. For me alsscans have higher photo and video quality width better glamour plus hardcore. We agree both sites are top of class and I agree with your nice met-art review. Just not so high score.

View Thread (2)

Met Art Comment

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:30:40 PST

Met Art (16)

12-14-07 07:30pm

COMMENT by cblodg (9)

WOW

What more can I say! I've been toying with the idea of joining for a while now. Am I ever glad I did. The number of models is staggering to say the least; and very tastfully done!

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: PosterDude's Review

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:28:39 PST

Met Art (16)

12-11-07 04:28am

REVIEW REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To Drooler (146):

I forgot about that, thanks for reminding me! I have a lot of work left to do there, but I have been spending too much time laughing at the chat comments at the live cam!

View Thread (9)

RE: PosterDude's Review

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:58:36 PST

Met Art (16)

12-11-07 01:58am

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (146)

To jd1961 (78):

The name's funny. Makes me think of "Mr. Magoo" the cartooon character, but now instead of a steering wheel, he's got his hands on computer devices, Photoshop open, insisting on applying too much "image enhancement," making the women look really icky, and not even seeing what he's doing. Mr. Magoo in the Internet Age.

View Thread (9)

RE: PosterDude's Review

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:53:32 PST

Met Art (16)

12-11-07 01:53am

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (146)

To jd1961 (78):

They have a section, "Set Browser Options," where you can set the default size of the photos. It's a nice feature! I always have the default at 1024 (small) for quicker previewing of individual shots before I make the decision for a one of those at 43xx!

View Thread (9)

RE: PosterDude's Review

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:47:19 PST

Met Art (16)

12-11-07 01:47am

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (146)

To PinkPanther (28):

I've had similiar experiences with them not responding to some of my emails, but I've had a few responses. Most of my emails were complaints about such things as PosterDude described in his review (photos that are too grainy, too dark, or overly processed), so I felt at least I was having my say. Whether they pay attention or not is hard to tell, but change usually takes time and persistence.

They really are a LOT better than they used to be, though. They used to segment the photosets (much smaller in image size) and add segments over SEVERAL MONTHS. That was awful!

View Thread (9)

RE: PosterDude's Review

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:36:45 PST

Met Art (16)

12-10-07 07:36pm

REVIEW REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To Drooler (146):

Yes! Magoo...I can always tell his sets. Pretentious and boring.

View Thread (9)

RE: PosterDude's Review

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:35:19 PST

Met Art (16)

12-10-07 07:35pm

REVIEW REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To PosterDude (14):

I think the sets should open in small size too. Because with Met-Art, you have to check the sets before you download, because some of the sets are boring. Good review!

View Thread (9)

RE: PosterDude's Review

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:04:43 PST

Met Art (16)

12-10-07 06:04pm

REVIEW REPLY by PinkPanther (28)

To Drooler (146):

I'm surprised that they don't respond to e-mails because they are such a great site in other ways.

They definitely have their distinctive style, but they have enough variety to keep me consistently interested. While every shoot doesn't have me jumping for joy, I find that I have NO problem finding exciting stuff every time I log in, because the archives are so deep and there is so much posted each day.

I agree with the comments about the boring vids - Met Art could give lessons in how to make high-quality, REALLY boring vids - but the excellent photo-sets and consistent daily multiple updates keeps me a very happy member.

View Thread (9)

RE: PosterDude's Review

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:02:18 PST

Met Art (16)

12-10-07 06:02pm

REVIEW REPLY by PosterDude (14)

To Drooler (146):

Maybe I do not say right. Not asking for insertion but just more
pink and open shots can be just as sexy. Some of Met-art copy sites do this better, but those sites are not consistant as much updates or overall quality. Soft = playboy, but met-art should me playboy plus more pink to me better for me.

View Thread (9)

RE: PosterDude's Review

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:39:32 PST

Met Art (16)

12-10-07 04:39pm

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (146)

To PosterDude (14):

I thought your review made important points about the quality of some of the photographers and images. When I see "Pasha" or "Slastynoff" or "Magoo," I think, "Oh, no. Not again!" Tim Fox and Voronin, on the other hand, are generally really good.

But frankly, I'm glad this site doesn't have "open vagina" or much spreading. There are plenty of sites that do already, and far more do than sites like this one.

And as for hardcore, well, can't we have some "softcore only" sites?

View Thread (9)