| All Activity |
A summary of all the feedback from this user. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
26
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
Parsnip's Reply
Let's make a distinction between "fine art nude" and porn. We are talking about porn in Abby Winters. Sure you could shoot f2.8 in fine art. But let's not deceive ourselves here.
|
08-24-14 08:34pm
|
Reply
27
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
abbywinters's Reply
OK AW, here's the thing. I have posted reviews of your site before. But nothing ever changes. I really want your site to succeed, because the concept appeals to me -- natural young girls without silly makeup and silly clothes.
But endless shots of just a pussy (or more often, a hand covering a pussy) are not appealing unless you can see the girl who it belongs to... in reasonable focus. You so rarely get both clearly in the same shot.. unless she's 50 yards away. No, I don't want you to shoot with wide angle -- it obviously distorts the body and faces. But I think you should be shooting at f16 in acceptable ISO ranges (below 400). This, of course, means you need strobes. Oh, just think of it... the wonderful, natural girls you get with the technical clarity of Sean R. People would be signing up around the world!! But as it is, sure, you can quote some good comments, just as any movie publicists can quote a good review from at least somewhere. Use lights! It doesn't make the girls less natural -- it just takes them out of the grainy, murkiness and makes them more real.
|
08-24-14 08:29pm
|
Reply
28
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
CatSteppings's Review
I suspect this review is a plant by Abby Winters. Either that or perhaps you've never visited many porn sites! The photography is absolutely awful; it lacks fine detail in most sets, and shot without decent lighting. It is true that the models are great, but that's not much use if the pictures are worthless. Often, the only clear in focus unobstructed picture of both face and pussy is the last one in the set where the model is standing.
From what I can gather, most of the photography is by ex-models from the site. They seriously, and I mean SERIOUSLY need some professional photographers on the site. If they did that, and increase new sets by about 400 percent, then they'd be a good site.
Great concept , poorly executed.
|
08-14-14 04:01am
|
Reply
29
|
ATK Natural & Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
Loki's Comment
Yes, they're claiming that "there's a shortage of unshaved girls", which sounds absurd. I did read elsewhere that ATK weren't paying their photographers on time, so perhaps those contributors are now holding back their work. Of course, we don't know the full truth of this, but my guess is that photographers like Sean R have a whole stash of great new sets ready but won't send them till ATK hands over the money.
|
05-01-14 07:57am
|
Reply
30
|
ATK Galleria
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Comment
I'm guessing this disappointment comes mostly from the video perspective. As a photos man, let me give you a different perspective...
The image quality at ATK Galleria is very good (on average) and the girls are HOT with a wide variety of niches every month. There are also more galleries each day on Galleria than ANY site I'm aware of. What really confuses me is how Nubiles gets such higher ratings than Galleria, when Nubiles has fewer updates, lower image quality, and hands in front of the pussy on almost every shot. I guess it's down to videos again, but I'd prefer Galleria any day of the week.
|
03-26-14 11:29am
|
Reply
31
|
Wet And Pissy
(0)
|
Reply of
LPee23's Review
I might add that for those of us more into the still pictures, they are mediocre quality at best on this site, and usually miss the best action. As for the videos, great quality, but far too much other stuff like dildos and glasses for my liking.
|
03-19-14 11:01am
|
Reply
32
|
FTV Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
EverNight's Review
I did a subscription here recently. The HUGE turnoff for me is that FTV Girls is one of those sites where you can only download the bigger images as a zip file -- the entire gallery or nothing. So it's a loooong download, followed by unzipping, followed by editing and copying, etc. I gave up after a while -- far too much effort.
Also, as the reviewer said, every set is repetative.
|
03-19-14 10:48am
|
Comment
33
|
ALS Scan
(0)
|
|
11-24-13 12:19pm
Replies (1)
|
Comment
34
|
Club Seventeen
(0)
|
|
11-07-13 04:36pm
Replies (1)
|
Reply
35
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
s1vus1's Review
I would rate AW much lower than "81" these days. I did a month recently to see if things have improved, but alas, they're worse. Yes, they use a lot of "Euro-girls" now, many of which are very hot. It's just that every other site uses them too, so AW has lost one of the few advantages they once had: unique models. Furthermore, updates are very, very poor for the price they charge. They try to fill in with those (low res) behind-the-scenes sets, and recycled "one year ago" sets, but sites like met-art or ATK have more sets in one day than AW has in a week... and the photography's better on those other sites too. Now that AW has more sets in bigger sizes, it's much more obvious how aweful their photography is, riddled with poor focus, grainyness, motion blur, etc. And as always, the "goods" are only seen properly in those closeups where the girl's face is missing. There's usually a hand or a dildo in the way. Sorry, AW, never again.
|
04-24-12 07:42am
|
Reply
36
|
Karup's PC
(0)
|
Reply of
Karup's Reply
Good to hear. I hope you will also use a low enough compression that it doesn't strip all the fine detail out. This is a problem on many sites where they boast about big sizes, yet the actual detail is no better than smaller sizes due to too much filtering. I look forward to checking the site out in the future.
|
12-01-11 09:48am
|
Reply
37
|
Karup's PC
(0)
|
Reply of
Karup's Reply
Well it doesn't say what those concerns were. But the biggest concern for most of us is when exactly will Karup increase your images sizes to meet today's expectations (i.e. 3000x2000 or higher)?
|
11-30-11 06:26pm
|
Reply
38
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Review
The thing that keeps me away from Nubiles the most is that all the girls are completeley shaved. I mean, even if they had 1 out of 5 models that were natural then it would be nice. But there are none. It's another ALS if you ask me, but with inferior photography.
|
10-21-11 10:50am
|
Reply
39
|
Cosplay Deviants
(0)
|
Reply of
tangub's Reply
I'll second that. 900 pixels hardly even qualifies as "small" today. Wake me up when you have 2000 pixels or higher.
|
10-03-11 04:40pm
|
Reply
40
|
ATK Exotics
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Review
I'd have to agree with your review. What you say is also true of ATK Galleria -- despite the larger image sizes that they now offer, ATK's images often lack detail and look processed. I think at least part of this is due to over-compression.
ATK Hairy is probably the best quality, but it's still a mixed bag, some photographers being pros, while others are clearly amateurs.
|
07-19-11 08:15am
|
Review
41
|
Zemani
(0)
55.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Attractive collection of girls
- Good lighting and composition in most sets
- Site navigation is fine
- I guess the videos are OK, although check out other reviews for those... it's not my scene
- Pictures look OK at 1200 pixel resolution
- A few natural bushes, in addition to the usual dominance of completely shaved models. |
| Cons: |
- So-called "poster size" images (the "big" size option) are horrible quality with no fine detail in the vast majority of photosets. |
| Bottom Line: |
Sorry, but I just had to blow the cover on this site. The Best Porn gave Zemani's image quality an "A+" which is so, so misleading. (Misleading enough that I signed up in the hope that things were good there now, but I was very disapointed.)
You guys at The Best Porn should take a second look -- you said the images are so sharp even when you zoom in on the big images (which are 4000 pixels or higher.) Well that's because they've applied HEAPS of false sharpening. Maybe 1 or 2 percent of sets are OK, but the other 98% are full of digital artifacts like jagged edges and pixelation in the model's eyes that look like they upscaled the image from a smaller size. Last year I commented on the full-size sample images, and they have taken them off the site now, only offering small samples in pop-up boxes. I'm not surprised. Beware!
It's a shame, because if the images were high quality like Met-art (which they're not) then they'd have a great site because the girls, settings and compositions are just fine. |
|
06-21-11 06:26pm
Replies (2)
|
Reply
42
|
ATK Natural & Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Review
Well said, Messmer. I hope that ATK are reading this, because so many of us loyal members of their site are now pretty pissed off that so many of the girls are like circus freaks with gorilla hair everywhere, tattoos and piercings all over their bodies,too. ATK have a category called "Scary Hairy." These types of women should appear there only.
While we're on the subject, one GOOD thing about the new comment feature is that ATK gets to hear how bad its members feel about the amateur quality of the photography (Sean R excepted.) So much of it is badly lit, badly focused, and not especially well resolved, despite the larger image sizes now.
|
06-21-11 10:37am
|
Reply
43
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
Reply of
RustyJ's Comment
I checked out 21sextury this month, and the biggest (and most annoying) surprise was how small all the easily accessible images are. I mean, the ones you can view or download individually are tiny by today's standards. The only way, it seems, that you can obtain larger versions is to download an entire zip file of the gallery -- and that's only available on a few sets. It took AN HOUR to download one of these zips on broadband, then a further 30 mins or so to unzip it, etc... and all I wanted was about four shots in HD. Totally unacceptable.
And the content? Well, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Of all the bizzare categories, there's not even one for regular gals with bush.
|
05-07-11 11:57am
|
Reply
44
|
ATK Natural & Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
The Bishop's Reply
Yes Bish, I've seen those gals, and agree that some are gorgeous. It's just that in the last 3 months or so, they generally haven't been, or else it's someone we've seen far too much of already. But I look forward to when there are!
|
04-26-11 02:06pm
|
Reply
45
|
ALS Scan
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
I, too, checked out this site recently since it gets good ratings here (and like messmer says, there are so few natural pubes sites that one is forced to these shaved-like-window-dummies" sites to get any variety.)
Anyhow, to give ALS some credit, a lot of the images are quite good quality. But the thing that struck me the most was that every single model (aside from all being shaved) has almost exactly the same figure and face. Sure, some are brunettes and some are blondes, but as I looked back through their catalog, I kept thinking that I'd already seen each new model because they are all interchangeable. So boring! This was pretty much confirmed in a couple of sets called "Prague Auditions" (or something like that) where the site posts models that auditioned for the site, stating which were rejected or hired. It seemed that only the ones who fitted their tiny range of looks got through... and all the ones that I found interesting and a little different got rejected.
Oh well, nice if you like that exact look repeated over and over, but it wasn't for me.
|
04-26-11 01:53pm
|
Reply
46
|
ATK Natural & Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
The Bishop's Review
Yes, I think that Sean R remains the only true professional photographer used by ATK. Sadly, most of his more recent sets are either of models that we've seen a million times already, or they're tattooed slags with makeup like a hooker. I'm hoping he gets some fresh, young, unspoiled talent again soon.
Oh, and I find it strange when people refer to hairy content as "niche", since most of the women in the real world have pubic hair. It's only niche in the porn world where models feel they have to be shaved like window dummies -- that's the REAL niche as far as I'm concerned. But everyone to their own fetish :-)
|
04-08-11 11:28am
|
Reply
47
|
Club Seventeen
(0)
|
Reply of
spazlabz's Reply
Oh, one other thing... much, much more unshaved girls please. The category is so neglected. I don't know why you even have a "shaved" category because almost all the girls are shaved anyway in every other category.
|
02-11-11 03:44pm
|
Reply
48
|
Club Seventeen
(0)
|
Reply of
spazlabz's Reply
I agree there is some quality content now, and the girls are the most genuinely teen-looking anywhere! But I do have some criticisms still, which I hope you can address:
1. The thumbnails are square and only show about 60% of the represented image. This makes it near impossible to judge what's in the image itself, without actually viewing it. This drove me crazy! Most other sites show full-image thumbnails, so why can't you guys?
2. There are so few sets where we get to see the girls in close, full-frontal without some obstruction in the way (usually a dildo or their hands.) Once undressed, it's straight to the dildo or fingering. Hey, some of this is OK, but almost every set is just annoying. A lot more straight head & pussy views of these great girls, please, without dildos or hands!
3. The site is very, very slow.
Thanks for listening.
|
02-11-11 03:38pm
|
Reply
49
|
AT Kingdom
(0)
|
Reply of
anyonebutme's Comment
Yes, great move for them to FINALLY upgrade the image size and resolution. Some of the new shots look great! (Hopefully, Hairy will do this too.)
Unfortunately, the Galleria site is so slow now that it's almost unusable. It takes about 30 seconds to bring up new pages and often times out completely. They need to fix this problem fast!
|
12-29-10 09:38am
|
Reply
50
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
abbywinters's Reply
AW webmaster: Depth of field is one issue on AW, and continues to be. But that's not what I was talking about in this thread.
Yes, all other sites I compare to are viewed on the same monitor which is well-calibrated, and 1920x1200 resolution. I am a keen photographer myself, so I'm not talking out of lack of experience or judgement.
I can't point to a specific set, since I'm not a member any more, but if you look at the largest size images and think they resolve detail well for their size, then there isn't much hope. I'm not sure what you mean by "moderate compression", but if they're more compressed than 10 on Photoshop's scale, then that may be contributing to your problems. In addition, a lot of the shoots don't seem to pay attention to where the focus point is; you have the wall behind the model in sharp focus, but the model is not. Also, many shots appear to have slight motion blur due to too low shutter speed, so that may be contributing to the overall lack of resolution and quality too.
Honestly, I'd love to see a big jump up in image quality on AW because I've really liked the type of models used in the past. I'm not mouthing off for no reason. Perhaps you could show your large images to an unbiased professional photographer to get their opinion and advise.
|
12-26-10 01:41pm
|
|
