| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
501
|
Lusty Grandmas
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from uscue:
(Capn's Reply)
For some sites I can see this argument, but in cases like these it's not really "bonus sites". It's a network that a person just happens to sign up for from one of the network sites.
The true "bonus sites" meaning should be when you join a site and it comes with one or two more. For instance, Exploited Teens used to come with Exploited Black Teens and Exploited Moms - all with the same strategy. Brazilian Facials comes with Big Butt Brazil and Real Sex Rio - all in the brazilian category and normally use the same models.
In every true instance of "bonus sites", I find that they are mostly related. Whenever you see many sites like here, it's not "bonus sites" that you're getting but rather a network you are joining.
|
12-03-09 10:03am
|
Reply
502
|
Martha's Girls
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Toadsith:
(Capn's Reply)
Pin-Up WOW does look pretty good, I'll add it to the list :-)
That said, Pin-Up WOW doesn't seem to feature all the post-production work that Martha's Girls had. It also seems to be focusing pretty strictly on emulating 1940s style pin-ups, while Martha's Girls recreated content from as early as the 1900s and as late as the 1970s.
|
10-27-12 10:31am
|
Reply
503
|
Massage Creep
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from rearadmiral:
(Capn's Reply)
I agree, but most networks usually have a couple of sites that tickle my fancy and I suspect that is the case with most subscribers. With this network, I joined for Jurassic Cock and everything else was just gravy. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that some of the 'gravy' was pretty damn good.
For me, a lot of it comes down to price. If I'm joining a network for one site then the price better be reasonable. Sometimes, as in this case, the price was very reasonable when I discovered Massage Creep.
Now if they could just persuade the girls to do more anal...
|
05-23-11 04:49pm
|
Reply
504
|
Mature.nl
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from messmer:
(Capn's Reply)
I agree about their need to be more selective, some of the models are a bit hard to look at! :-) Yet, rather they than some glossy Eastern European Model. To me it's all so artificial.
|
07-23-11 10:43am
|
Reply
505
|
Mature.nl
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Comment
from messmer:
You see, Capn, that's exactly the appeal of the site for me. Just as in Village Ladies most of the models are far from glamorous but that's how I like it: unlikely models doing porn. I am not enamored of glamour porn, that's why I got so little out of the original 21Sextury. What stops me from subscribing to this site is that last time I tried they were going to charge me CA $ 77.00!!
|
07-23-11 10:34am
|
Reply
506
|
MC Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Comment
from propaGhandi:
Hi Capn,
itīs a mixture of both ... 50:50 ... itīs not limited to one style like other sites do ... the girls are never fully clothed ... sometimes lingerie but not the boring strip down sets.
Cheers,
propaGhandi
|
05-28-10 03:47pm
|
Reply
507
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from lk2fireone:
(Capn's Reply)
Regarding "Surely you can roughly work out the models age from the time it was first published?"
My mind is focused on enjoying these natural beauties.
Taking the current age of the model, then subtracting the number of years the photoset was published to get the model's approximate age at the time of the photoshoot, somehow interferes with that enjoyment. If my mind could perform these calculations automatically, that would be different. But I have to think about the different dates to calculate, and why should I have to?
In that case, it's easier to ignore the exact age of the model, both current and at the time of the photoshoot.
I'm talking about my personal psychology. Someone else could easily have a different point of view.
|
01-10-13 08:24pm
|
Reply
508
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from lk2fireone:
(Capn's Reply)
I completely agree with you. You want to know the age of the model at the time of the shoot.
The truth is, at a lot of sites, there is no attempt to be accurate about the model's age. They give the model's age as 18 or 19, even when many of the models are at least in their early 20s. Because they know the customers want the models to be teenagers, which means 18 or 19.
But Metart seems to be an exception to that rule. They do try to give the model's real age. But I believe it's just a software problem that they are giving the current age of the model on the bio sheet that is downloaded with each photoshoot.
On the Metart site itself, it clearly states that the age shown is the current age of the model (not the downloaded bio sheet, but the online bio sheet).
So it's just a software programming error.
Years ago, the age shown in the downloaded bio sheet was the approximate age of the model at the time of the shoot. But I don't know specifically, if they were giving the model's age at the time of the photo shoot, or the model's age at the time the photo shoot was posted to the Metart site.
|
10-28-12 08:03am
|
Reply
509
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from lk2fireone:
(Capn's Reply)
I only sent one email to Metart tech support about the current versus shooting photo age of the model.
I sent the email on Monday, early morning.
This is Saturday, evening.
No reply to the email. I figure it got lost in their spam filter.
The problem still appears in the bio text file that downloads with a photoset. It still gives the current age of the model. Not the age of the model at the time of the photoshoot, or when the photoshoot was posted to this site.
Just a bit of sloppiness. Annoying, but minor. Because they did list, and keep a record at Metart, of the age of the model with almost all photoshoots. But I don't know specifically if that age referred to the age of the model at the time the photoshoot was shot, or if it referred to the model's age at the time the photoshoot was posted to the Metart site.
|
10-27-12 05:40pm
|
Reply
510
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from lk2fireone:
(Capn's Reply)
If they send me a reply to my email to technical support, I will let you know.
Also, if I notice within a week or two that the downloaded bio now shows the age of the model at the time the photoset was posted (or it was shot?), I will let you know, by posting a reply to your post.
|
10-23-12 12:25am
|
Reply
511
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from lk2fireone:
(Capn's Reply)
That's been done. Thanks.
|
10-22-12 08:32am
|
Reply
512
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Comment
from cjd2004:
Looks like they are going down the FEMJOY/joymii route and doing it on a new site (sexart.com).
|
02-13-12 06:44pm
|
Reply
513
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from rearadmiral:
(Capn's Reply)
I was surprised that I like Met Art as much as I did. I probably should join Bound Gangbangs or something in case I start going into hardcore withdrawl. The strange thing is that I'm only moving mildly to hardcore after that with a membership at Nubiles. I haven't been a member for years and I'm looking forward to seeing what's new.
As for animals, I find their use in erotic photography to be distracting and even disturbing. That might say more about me than it does the photographer...
|
01-10-12 04:22pm
|
Reply
514
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Cybertoad:
(Capn's Reply)
Posing with is ok.
Posing in, on top, or
with massage oil, would be a whole other site :-)
|
01-10-12 10:15am
|
Reply
515
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from otoh:
(Capn's Reply)
Thanks for the reply, Cap'n. I agree about the thumbnails; it's not at all easy to find anything that leaps out from the sea of them while browsing.
After discussing the site with a friend, one other point occurred to me about the 'Met Art' look - that, by somehow desexualising the models, it somehow objectifies them even more; which bothers me slightly, since like I hope most folk here do, I have a huge respect for all the girls we ogle over. Would you agree, or am I just overanalysing? :|
|
12-30-11 07:15am
|
Reply
516
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Monahan:
(Capn's Reply)
That's why I dropped out a few years ago. But I've decided to try again taking advantage of their on again, off again $20 price, which is now available through TBP right now.
I'm a video guy and know that I won't get too much good stuff but I am interested in seeing if their photos have returned to their normally high quality.
I'll be reporting back once I've checked the site out in more detail.
|
03-05-11 01:13pm
|
Reply
517
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from Monahan:
(Capn's Reply)
Boy, you sound like me. I grew tired of the sameness. But worse was when the babe was a real turn on but the photographer was not into any eroticism.
The change to a bit more erotic stuff makes me interested in trying again.
|
12-05-10 11:56pm
|
Reply
518
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Monahan:
(Capn's Reply)
Interesting point.
I was a member about 12 months ago and have been thinking of rejoining just because the TBP price is very attractive. I hesitated only because I gravitate more to video than pix.
As for what galleries to check out, it's interesting that your issue seems to arise more from the HUGE volume of content than on anything else. My only issue is that there's so much content and their naming convention is so clumsy it's really hard to sort through the downloaded stuff.
This discussion has me thinking that it's about time that I plunk down $20.00 and give it another go.
|
12-04-10 10:01pm
|
Reply
519
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from gregdd:
(Capn's Reply)
Yes I do, but to see it you need to browse through the sets in the archive. The archive organizes everything by the date added in reverse chronological order, so you can see the freshest content first. If your just browsing through the models by name, everything is mixed and you'll see the old mixed with the new.
I have plenty of time and don't mind loading galleries to get a better idea of the contents, especially with the new additions. You may be different. I never thought you could get a clear picture of the gallery contents from looking at those cover shots anyway. I've certainly never felt like clicking on a gallery was a waste of time, even if the model or set didn't push my buttons. The site's fast so I can get through everything quickly.
My only real complaint is that there's not enough ass shots in some sets, but that's on the photographers. I'm a "legs and ass" lover. Hope I was of some assistance.
|
11-23-10 02:49pm
|
Reply
520
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Comment
from nbaby8:
I think Capn has seen too much porn in his lifetime. Eventually it does gets boring.... I've always thought Met Art was a good site for beginners who've just recently started to look at nude girls... But definately not for people who have advanced in porn tastes (or better yet described, Novice Porn Observer lol.
|
05-24-10 11:00am
|
Reply
521
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Comment
from artnoir:
I agree here. I've been a member two times in the past and it's Hell navigating this site. Not only are the thumbnails too small, but as you said, they blend into each other. And there's like hundreds of pages of that...phew!
|
05-15-10 04:10am
|
Reply
522
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Comment
from messmer:
Once again we're on the same wave length, Cap'n. I never actually joined the site because the tour gave me exactly the impression you describe above. Thanks for confirming it.
|
05-04-10 10:59am
|
Reply
523
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Denner:
(Capn's Reply)
Well, Capn - a rough estimate is that 50-60% of the photoshoots are done outdoors - BUT, Lately - I SEEMS like they are getting more and more indoor/bedroom/living room shoots... which as times go by that procentage seems to change.
And about indoor striptease: Oh, yes - I've found - out the the many shoots - some great indoor striptease photosets...
And bottom line: I think for photos this site is really worth a join, especilly if you have not been here before - you'll find tons of fine shoots - from way back, too - - and not all are just art. And the deal by TBP is ok/fine. You can spend hours in search for those special models to your liking....I have, six or seven times, at least - over the years - but again: I may seem repetitive after that first month, so..
|
04-18-10 07:49am
|
Reply
524
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Rick:
(Capn's Reply)
Hmm, yeah you're right. Interesting. Wonder if the conversion rate they use it out of date.
|
03-29-10 11:52am
|
Reply
525
|
Metcn.cc
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Lovechina:
(Capn's Reply)
really?
It is Models the same as the metart?
|
12-03-10 04:16am
|
