| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
776
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from pat362:
(lk2fireone's Reply)
Is it possible that the videos Met-Art produces are bad because they consider themselves to be a mostly photo site and videos is just something they added to their library so that they could say they have some?
|
10-13-12 10:06pm
|
Reply
777
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
from cjd2004:
I think quite a few of their videos are unscaled - this would explain the visual issues.
|
10-11-12 03:26pm
|
Reply
778
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
from pat362:
I'll give you my theory. When you are doing photos then the talent of the photographer is the main reason why the pictures come out as good as they do. He or she may take thousands of pictures but they probably select only the best of the lot so viewers only see those. I don't know what most viewers would think if they were to see them all. Then there is the question of technology to consider because photoshopping can fix and alter many things on photos so that the end product looks very different then the original material.
When you're doing video then you need a great camera operator but you also need the model to have a certain level of talent and that is probably where things start to fall apart. A great photographer may not be a great camera operator so sites that are dedicated to phototgraphy may not hire a video camera operator so the end product will not be as good eventhough there was a talented photographer behind the camera. Then there is the model. The only example I can come up is in regards to models and movies. How many very beautiful and talented models who look simply amazing on photos are simply attrocious once they appear in a movie? A talent for taking a particular pose does not equal a talent for acting and you do need some of that to do video. Then there's also the technology aspect.
Although I am sure that films can be manipulated in the same way that photos can. The time and expenses to do that makes the venture unprofitable for almost anyone except mainstream tv/movie studios
|
10-11-12 07:14am
|
Reply
779
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Khan:
(lk2fireone's Reply)
As long as you're seeing trhe price you prefer, that's what matters.
|
10-03-12 10:03am
|
Reply
780
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
from Khan:
Visiting directly from our link, I'm seeing the $19.99 recurring special price. Perhaps you have an existing cookie that shows you a different price.
|
10-03-12 04:09am
|
Reply
781
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
from elephant:
This does sound good, shame I'll probably end up missing out I wouldn't join for the normal price as not into pics too much but is tempting, they do have some jawdroppingly cute girls there. You need a lot of spare time with Metart I always found in the past, its so vast it can overwhelm you, is still going strong though and has some great photographers so worth a buy for sure on this deal.
|
08-19-12 03:51pm
|
Reply
782
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#10
from Claypaws:
(lk2fireone's Reply)
Clear and in focus is what I like too :-) It is infuriating how often neither of those is achieved.
The exif data can be a useful learning aid to determining what might have influenced those properties.
My point about not having seen any exif data on MET sets is that exif data can also identify date of shooting. It is far easier to remove exif data than to alter it and sites could get into very deep water if they altered an exif shooting date to a more recent value. Hence, if exif data is present, I trust its validity. But sites may have perfectly honourable motives or causes for its removal and I am not suggesting that so doing implies any element of deception.
|
08-10-12 07:51am
|
Reply
783
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#8
from Claypaws:
(lk2fireone's Reply)
I realised you were making an amusing point but I took the opportunity to respond with a serious one. Some models do appear to defy aging, it is true. There probably is not a great amount of noticeable change in a fit woman between ages 21 and 26, which is possibly the age group most models fall into, even the "18 year-olds". And I also suppose that the ones who become very well known and successful also get very good at applying makeup which is inconspicuous yet covers blemishes and any minor signs of aging.
I hope these words too are clear. Thank you for the compliment.
|
08-10-12 07:33am
|
Reply
784
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
from Claypaws:
I do not know if this applies to Eufrat as I have never followed her. But most sites would buy a whole stack of photo sets from a photographer. A photographer does not hire a model and do one set of 50 pictures. He (or she) hires the model and shoots 5 to 10 sets. Or he hires her for two days when she is in the area and shoots 20 sets. If a site likes a model, I guess they might buy 3, 5 or 10 of those sets, or all 20. Some sites, like Nubiles, release their purchase over consecutive days. Others drag out the release over weeks, months or years. I would need to examine MET sets very carefully to see if sets released a year apart show any evidence of having been shot at different times. Have you ever seen any exif data in a MET set?
Of course, there are some very successful internet models, and Eufrat is probably one of those, Sophie Moone is another, whose careers go on for many years. They will be hired for multishoot sets repeatedly and you will see material shot years apart.
All I am saying is that things are not necessarily what they seem. Sites like to give the impression that they maintain a relationship with the models over years. Maybe they do with some. But I bet there are very few of those.
|
08-09-12 12:25pm
|
Reply
785
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
from Drooler:
If Eufrat is an android, then I've got a very leaky battery! She has grown completely into a woman of enormous charm and sex appeal. I'll NEVER get tired of her.
|
08-09-12 11:24am
|
Reply
786
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
from rearadmiral:
No idea. But... if you happen to find out that you're right would please let me know who the manufacturer is. Just out of curiousity, of course. Not because I want to order the "Gloria" model or anything like that...
|
08-09-12 10:36am
|
Reply
787
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
from tangub:
I reckon Carina A. (aka Suzie Carina) must be another android when you think her most recent update here was April 2012 and I have old ATK galleries of her stashed on my hd that were dated 2002. She looks a bit older than in those old pics, (I'm sure she couldn't have been any older than 18 in those) but you'd never guess the difference is 10 years.
|
08-09-12 10:12am
|
Reply
788
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#9
from exotics4me:
(lk2fireone's Reply)
This is all starting to be confusing after seeing Khan's post about them getting a higher price. Maybe it has something to do with my browser having been to Met-Art through a promo email a few days ago? The original link you posted was also giving me the $19.95 price. Ever since I joined Met-Art, in 2010 I think, for a full year subscription, they've sent me some really good deals.
|
04-19-12 11:27am
|
Reply
789
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#8
from Khan:
(lk2fireone's Reply)
Not a biggie.
FWIW, when we (me and some other staff members) visited the link you posted, we saw a higher price (29.97) than what you mentioned in your initial post.
|
04-19-12 10:40am
|
Reply
790
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
from Khan:
We're currently talking to MetArt to try and arrange a permanent discount for PU. They tend to want to only run discounts for a short while but we're asking them to consider it.
In the meantime, I must remind everyone that MetArt has specifically asked us not to allow links to discounts they post elsewhere so *please* don't post those links here.
|
04-19-12 10:27am
|
Reply
791
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
from tangub:
PU did have a half price $15 discount last November for thanksgiving but as far as i'm aware that was just a limited time offer. I've had a membership there since then at that price (i'm actually paying about $17 per month with regional pricing) but after 5 months i'm just about done with the site and ready to move on to something else.
|
04-19-12 01:28am
|
Reply
792
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from Denner:
(lk2fireone's Reply)
You are probably right about the capture of location. I was actually thinking about an other join - but when the "normal" price also is the 29.97 in Euro - it comes to about $41,60.
But I agree with you - also as being one of the more popular site at TBP/PU, TBP could try to get a general discount for members - like they did in the past.
|
04-19-12 12:12am
|
Reply
793
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
from exotics4me:
Don't know if anyone else tried it or if a deal was worked out, but I'm now getting the $19.95 price going through TBP.
|
04-18-12 10:04pm
|
Reply
794
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
from Denner:
The link only brings me the usual $29.97.....
But even worse it's now also regional pricing, no matter what I try - also using the TBP link. Then it's Euro 29.97. And again it's CCBill.
I'm out of there.
|
04-18-12 11:26am
|
Reply
795
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from Cybertoad:
(lk2fireone's Reply)
Hi Ike,
Yea I did dabble with a thought of a higher score. The repetitive stuff in my head made it hard for me to give it over what I did.
But it was not easy if that helps. I guess I was thinking in 12 years, maybe a tad more cutting edge should occur. How they would do that ? LOL I have no idea, but my brain tells me would be interesting to see where they would branch and how. It was Kinda like watching happy days back in the 70's/ At first it was like wow what a concept going back to the good old days, wen cool was cool. But seasons went by and cool became eh its cool. I think in repetitive thinking I am there with this site, its cool ...... but kinda thing. Hope that helps you have an idea where I got the score from.?
|
09-23-11 07:12pm
|
Reply
796
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#7
from Drooler:
(lk2fireone's Reply)
I have the same issues with hard drive space, but I do manage to look at them twice. Just not a third time ...:)
|
09-10-11 09:21am
|
Reply
797
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from Drooler:
(lk2fireone's Reply)
Yes, I've seen the same kind of thing with same model, same photographer, different in level of appeal. It's been hit or miss with Barbara D photosets. BTW I've seen her at Errotica-Archives and, as Xana, at FemJoy. Her sex appeal comes off OK at FemJoy (IMHO), and second set of her at Errotica, the cowgirl, is pretty hot.
|
09-10-11 03:15am
|
Reply
798
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from flst2000us:
(lk2fireone's Reply)
Hi there,
Yes my internet connection is about 50-Mbps down and the same up. I store all of my collections on a 10 Terabyte NAS.
No I used the old method of checking out each collection as I wanted only girls I’m interested in. But at times had over 50 Downloads going at the same time and Met-art just did not seem to care. My friend was on the site at the same time and never noticed any slow down so they must have a ton Internet connections.
Hope that helps
|
05-20-11 09:41am
|
Reply
799
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from MisterMark:
(lk2fireone's Reply)
Thanks for the props. I am just trying to be as straight forward as possible.
|
05-16-11 02:18pm
|
Reply
800
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from tangub:
(lk2fireone's Reply)
Thanks for the reply lk2, i see your point but for me not being particularly into videos or hardcore content i would never be interested in paying 200 bucks for Nubiles, for me its just a join for 1 month kind of site, download the softcore photo sets i like then cancel whereas Met would probably keep me interested for several months. Another interesting thing is i don't get hit with regional pricing if i join from the email link but i do trying to use the discounted link here at PU/TBP which means i probably wouldn't join Nubiles anyway unless i can join for the dollar price.
|
04-10-11 05:42am
|
