Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password? Create an account to share your experiences and more! E-MAIL   PASS   Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).

Feedback History A detailed history of activity from this user in all different categories.

User : greg909 (0)

Feedback:   All (66)  |   Reviews (3)  |   Comments (12)  |   Replies (51) Other:   Replies Received (54)  |   Trust Ratings (0) All Activity A summary of all the feedback from this user. Shown : 51-66 of 66 Page : Page 1 2 3    < Previous Page Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date Reply 51 Abby Winters (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 52 Abby Winters (0) My Final Visit I too just completed another subscription, which I think will sadly be my last. I'm not into the videos -- I've always joined for the pictures which, while not always very big, were often hot. Sadly, the picture sets have actually got worse. More sets have a larger size option now, but there's no point offering larger images when the quality is as low as it is on Abby Winters. Unlike quality sites such as Met-Art, AVErotica, Explicite-art, etc, the Abby sets look like they were shot with a cell phone! There's just no fine detail at all. Each picture looks either out-of-focus or shot with a shutter speed that's too low to retain sharpness. I'm not exactly sure what AV does to their pics to make them so soft and lacking detail, but it's true of every set. They made a lot of fuss about the new web page design, but hey, if the content isn't any good, then who cares. 12-14-10  10:45am Replies (4) Comment 53 We Are Hairy (0) Room for Improvement I like this site and really want to see it succeed, especially with so few quality hairy sites out there. But more and more, it's starting to feel just like ATK Hairy. Most of the models are the same ones that appeared on ATK a month or so before, and there isn't much turn-around. The same old faces keep reappearing. Also, although the image size is bigger than ATK, the fine detail in pictures just doesn't come anywhere close to what you'd see on Met-art or a few other high-quality sites. This might be down to poor photography, but at 3000 pixels, you should be counting pores on the skin, yet many sets on WAH just look soft in close-up. The poses are also getting to be quite boring. Every set is much the same, with corny lingerie up to the last page. As I said, I want this site to succeed and be good, but it's getting too repetitive and the image quality isn't among the top sites. I'll see how it looks in the future. 11-22-10  06:32pm Replies (6) Reply 54 Abby Winters (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 55 Zemani (0) Picture Quality Hmm, after reading reviews by you other folks, I checked out the samples on this site. Yes, very disappointing. The so-called "super high-res" 4000 pixel images appear to be just tiny images that have been upscaled to 4000. There's no detail in the images at all. I really wish more sites that cheat this way (calling pics "high res" when they're not) would be called out over it. Anyone can take a 1000 pixel image and rescale it in Photoshop to 4000 or 6000, but what's the point? We want REAL hi-res, i.e. images that were actually captured at 3000+ with their original fine detail. 06-04-10  02:48pm Replies (1) Comment 56 ATK Natural & Hairy (0) It's Not Improving... Just finished another month on Hairy. It's getting even more repetitive; how many identical sets of the same model can a guy sit through, no matter how nice she is? Just when you think a model has gone away, she comes back a couple of months later for yet more endless sets of the same poses. Sadly, Sean R remains the only photographer turning in sets with pro quality. All the others are either falsely-sharpened, have bad depth of field, bad lighting, or the images are overcompressed, giving unrealistic images. And the models? A few occasional cuties, but still too many bizarre tattooed skanks with body piercings and weird makeup. 06-04-10  10:04am Replies (2) Reply 57 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 58 Abby Winters (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 59 Need A Pee (0) The Photosets Just having checked this site out, I found the photosets very disappointing, quality-wise. The preview page says "1200dpi x 1200 dpi" which is pretty meaningless. The images are actually about 1200x900 pixels, which fills about half my screen -- not exactly HD by today's standards! Furthermore, most pics are somewhat blurry (with false sharpening). Also note that of the small number of photosets (33), most are of the same model, called Rebekah. Actually, I preferred the videos here, and I'm not usually a video man, so that may say something. 12-09-09  11:55am Replies (1) Comment 60 Teen Dreams (0) Photos So what's the actual dimensions of the photos here? And how far back in time do the "ultra HD resolution" photos go? Are they riddled with excessive false sharpening, which I seem to remember from a couple years ago. Just wondering if it's worth a revisit, although I don't care about the videos. 11-29-09  03:30pm Replies (2) Comment 61 ATK Petites (0) ATK Hmm, the weekly free samples for ATK Petites look just like a subset of Galleria to me. Just more of the same models. ATK really seem to be trying to draw yet more cash without really offering anything new. What's next? "ATK Old & Ugly"? 11-27-09  04:23pm Replies (0) Comment 62 AV Erotica (0) AV Erotica I'd like to add that while the model list is a bit repetitive, the photo image quality on this site is among the highest I've seen anywhere. I mean, not only are the images BIG in pixel dimensions, but the file sizes are impressive too, giving exquisite fine detail and no compression artifacts to spoil the pictures. Other sites with similar sized pics (which also have some of AV's work), like Femjoy, often filter their image files to death so that even huge pictures have no detail in them. Not so on AV Erotica! 11-27-09  03:37pm Replies (1) Reply 63 Abby Winters (0) Reply of RagingBuddhist's Reply Thanks for the quick reply, RagingB ! 11-27-09  12:33pm Reply 64 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 65 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 66 Abby Winters (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) Shown : 51-66 of 66 Page : Page 1 2 3    < Previous Page Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Cookies - DMCA - 2257 - Porn Review - Webmasters Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site. DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER. To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor. Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource. All Rights Reserved © 2003-2025 PornUsers.com. Loaded in 0.18 seconds.