| All Activity |
A summary of all the feedback from this user. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
51
|
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
52
|
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
53
|
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
|
Comment
54
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
|
12-14-10 10:45am
Replies (4)
|
Comment
55
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
|
11-22-10 06:32pm
Replies (6)
|
Reply
56
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
HonestDave's Review
I'd like to point out that although some picture sets have a large size option, the majority do not -- even recent sets. Abby Winters likes to tease you with only making some sets available in a larger size. Also, the pictures are not up to the count-every-pore quality that some sites give.
|
06-18-10 10:15am
|
Comment
57
|
Zemani
(0)
|
|
06-04-10 02:48pm
Replies (1)
|
Comment
58
|
ATK Natural & Hairy
(0)
|
|
06-04-10 10:04am
Replies (2)
|
Reply
59
|
ATK Natural & Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
Ray O's Comment
Totally agree about the Sean R review. But I would add that, in my view, he needs to drop the hideous makeup and lipstick in so many shots. It completely spoils it for me when the model looks like a clown! And the clothes? I know some guys like the fantasy outfits, but do we have to have high-heel shoes in EVERY set? I find the clothing so, so corny which also takes me out of the shoot.
|
06-04-10 09:54am
|
Reply
60
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
SueAnn's Reply
Sue-Ann,
Regarding the bank problems, I've been told the same thing by AW before, but Wells Fargo Visa still gets rejected through GMBill. I've given up now, and it NEVER offers CCBill as an alternative.
Regarding the new site with big, high quality pics on every set... it is now mid February and it looks exactly the same to me with just the small pics on most sets. So when exactly will all this change?
|
02-13-10 11:06am
|
Comment
61
|
Need A Pee
(0)
|
|
12-09-09 11:55am
Replies (1)
|
Comment
62
|
Teen Dreams
(0)
|
|
11-29-09 03:30pm
Replies (2)
|
Comment
63
|
ATK Petites
(0)
|
|
11-27-09 04:23pm
Replies (0)
|
Comment
64
|
AV Erotica
(0)
|
|
11-27-09 03:37pm
Replies (1)
|
Reply
65
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
Thanks for the quick reply, RagingB !
|
11-27-09 12:33pm
|
Reply
66
|
ATK Natural & Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
Ray O's Comment
I have to agree with the various comments here. To add some of my recent thoughts (late 2009):
1. Although there are several new sets each day, most are of the same models who appeared in multiple sets over the last month. The only difference in a model's many sets are the clothes she wears on page 1. The poses, etc, are almost identical, which gets tedious.
2. Quite a few models used to have at least one peeing set, which gives some variety and excitement. But now, ATK keeps the pee sets for its "watersport" section on ATK Galleria, so we almost never see a model's peeing set on the Hairy site. Bring them back!
3. Apart from the hideous tattoos, piercings, bizzare makeup, wrinkled grandmothers... we also have to get high-heel shoes in most shots. It's so corny! Please ATK, give us more natural girls in NORMAL clothing who don't look like circus freaks.
4. And yeah, the image quality is quite good in about half the sets, but it could improve, and much larger size options would at least give us the scope of better detail. Some sets are way over compressed, with detail suffering badly.
Still the best hairy site, but much room for improvement!
|
11-27-09 12:19pm
|
Review
67
|
Girls Dot Com
(0)
50.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
Some pretty girls -- or at least they would be if you were able to see them clearly |
| Cons: |
Extremely poor image quality: they're the kind of picture quality you'd have seen back in early 90s internet sites.
Very limited content. The site boasts about having huge numbers of sets, but what they don't tell you before joining is that those sets are made accessible on a rotating basis. Only a few sets are accessible each month. So you can't even get to most of the old stuff. |
| Bottom Line: |
Don't waste your time! This site is paranoid about people downloading lots of its content, so it employs various techniques to prevent members from easily getting to everything. And trust me -- you wouldn't want to anyway, because the image quality is worse than that on most free sites. |
|
11-27-09 11:34am
Replies (1)
|
Review
68
|
abbywinters
(0)
75.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 3 months (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Lots and lots of content accumulated over the years, which is great if you're a first-time member
- The girls are young, natural, and generally very cute. Most have pubic hair like REAL young girls -- not shaved like the window dummies on most other sites
- The girls wear REAL (but still very sexy)clothes, not ridiculous costumes that distract you and make the experience unreal
- Lots of videos, with a choice of how to view them. Personally, I can't be bothered to spend an hour downloading a video that's the size of a postcard, but I quite like the style of some AW shoots. |
| Cons: |
- The majority of picture sets are a frustrating tease. Either the lighting and photography aren't up to showing the details (see below) you want, or the model doesn't pose very explicitely. Some sets DO get it right, and then it's a special pleasure
- My biggest complaint: image quality. Unlike several major sites these days, Abby Winters refuses to provide the option of large (e.g. 3000x2000 pixel) images on all sets. Instead, they only offer larger images on occasional sets, which means the ones you REALLY want bigger are only available in their "standard" size of 1472x981 pixels. The standard size wouldn't be TOO bad if the resolution and compression were handled well, but Abby's pics lack the fine detail of sites with similar image sizes, like ATK Hairy. I'm not sure what they do wrong to the images, because apparently the cameras used are professional Canon SLRs.
- Depth of field: Big problem on AW. They usually have the important "bits" out of focus. |
| Bottom Line: |
AW has some great content accumulated over the years, and the girls are uniquely natural and beautiful. If you're a first-time member, there's a lot of good stuff. But for returning members, I now find little new picture content worth saving; AW focuses far more on videos these days, with just one new picture set every couple of days. Of those sets, most don't have the resolution of sites like AVErotica.
Sadly, AW accepts feedback, but seems to not listen unless it is praise. I've given suggestions about depth of field in the past, and just get "maybe you should go elsewhere" responses. In most sets now, it's just page 5 on a 6 page set that offers some modest nudity. If they could at least offer higher quality images, then the few shots that are good would be golden!
Oh, and AW currently doesn't offer membership through the normal trusted brokers like CCBill, only through their own billing system... so some U.S banks refuse the transaction. Wake up AW!! |
|
11-27-09 11:05am
Replies (6)
|
|
