<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
	<title>PU - Jimmy Canon - New Reviews</title>
	<description>Porn Reviews by the People.</description>
	<link>http://www.pornusers.com/review/jimmycanon/</link>
	<copyright>Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.</copyright>
	<item>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">pornusers_33091</guid>
		<title>Jimmy Canon Review</title>
		<link>http://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=33091</link>
		<description>&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot;&gt;

			&lt;tr valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
				&lt;td align=&quot;center&quot; width=&quot;190&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pornusers.com/review/jimmycanon/&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.thebestporn.com/logos/jimmycanon.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Enter Jimmy Canon&quot; width=&quot;158&quot; height=&quot;135&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;
					&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pornusers.com/review/jimmycanon/&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;Jimmy Canon&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (0)&lt;br&gt;
					&lt;br&gt;
					03-26-09&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;12:43pm&lt;/td&gt;
				&lt;td&gt;
					&lt;b&gt;REVIEW = 70&lt;/b&gt; by &lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pornusers.com/profile.html?id=4708&quot;&gt;mbaya&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pornusers.com/profile_activity.html?id=4708&quot;&gt;344&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;br&gt;
					&lt;br&gt;
					&lt;b&gt;Pros:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;
					-Bill through Epoch.&lt;br /&gt;
-Five day full access trial to 17 sites &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pornusers.com/review/pornstarkey/&quot;&gt;Pornstar Key&lt;/a&gt; network for $9.95.&lt;br /&gt;
-Can use download managers.&lt;br /&gt;
-No dead links, DRM or download limits.&lt;br /&gt;
-Photos are available as a zipdownload.&lt;br /&gt;
-Recent photos are 933x1400. Not bad, but not the best either.
					&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;
					&lt;b&gt;Cons:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;
					-Almost all photos are portrait. About 10 per cent are landscape.&lt;br /&gt;
-Too much artsy glamour model type photography  for my taste.&lt;br /&gt;
-Only about 5 per cent are explicit nudity.&lt;br /&gt;
-Compared to other photo sites it is very small, about 100 photo sets, about 100 photos per set.
					&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;
					&lt;b&gt;Bottom Line:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;
					This photo site started only last June. It advertises itself as an attempt to make pornstars and other models look natural. It succeeds at that goal. They are not overly made up, but they are seldom truly sexy either. The style of photography is one of not really showcasing assets; it is more like photos from an art class. Specifically, it takes a lot of photos to see a breast and pussy shots may not even exist in a set. Most photos are either side shots or the girl is a least mostly clothed. The sets and outfits are just ok and some are rather dull. To be honest, I am not a really big fan of photo sites, but prefer videos. However, the photos on the site inthecrack are much more explicit and fun, the artistry and variety on mattsmodels and simonscans are both much better and the girls are considerably more natural on abbywinters. This is no way in the same category of quantity or quality that those sites have. It definitely needs a lot more growth, some better looking models, as well as more interesting photography. As part of a network it is ok, but there isn't much reason to join for this site.
					&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;
					&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pornusers.com/out.php?id=19236&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;Visit Jimmy Canon&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=33091&quot;&gt;View Replies&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pornusers.com/replies_add.html?id=33091&quot;&gt;Add Reply&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;

			&lt;/tr&gt;
		&lt;/table&gt;
		&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:43:08 PDT</pubDate>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
