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!!
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.
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.
I've had a lot of problems with Femjoy and Gamma recently. It used to be fine, but I've signed up twice recently (same credit card, etc as the past) and get a confirmation email. But when I tried logging in to Femjoy, it gives an error. Gamma support do not resolve this problem -- they just refund you without explanation. Very frustrating. So I've given up trying to signup for any sites through Gamma/Famehelp now :-(
Yes, sadly other sites that previously had safe billing have now moved to Gamma (Fame), which is one of those billers that employs PRE-CHECKED SUBSCRIPTION tricks to have you sign up for extra sites without realizing.
I've already had some bad experiences with Gamma (Fame) and will avoid any sites that use this biller in future.
Yes, Sean R has moved to wearehairy.com, although I sadly find that his sets don't have the same fine detail and apparent image fidelity there as they had on ATK (possibly due to something that wearehairy does in their post-production... who knows.) R. Williams, another ATKhairy favorite, has also moved to wearehairy, although not much content.
It's really, really sad how ATKHairy has sunk in the last year or two. It used to have 8 sets per day, and now it's just 2, 3, or 4 if you're lucky. And it's the same old models for weeks or even months on end, doing the same set every day, and mostly shot by amateurs like JSP and Foxy. Very sad.
I found the image quality very disappointing on this site when connected with Domai. Yes, the image sizes are big enough, but the resolution is generally quite soft. They look like old film shots that have been transferred to digital (as on Domai). I'm not sure if anything's improved since Met-Art took it over.
Tangub, I think you're probably right about the site having the highest res images around. However, people should know that most of Hegre's images are just wasted white space. There are some exceptions, but most sets consist of a model just standing there against a blank white or grey backdrop, with little variation. Explicit shots are few and far between, and the models usually only occupy a small amount of the frame.
Yep, I agree about the sets getting "a bit boring and repetitive". In fact, I'd say VERY boring.
Hmm, I think I'd rather do a 1 month subscription for just 1 month a year. Most of Hegre's sets are of a girl standing around against a grey backdrop - filling a small portion of the frame. He's the most boring, unimaginative photographer on the net. Great image quality, though!
Well, I certainly agree with your "Cons" list. Very few real updates, as you said. Most of the "updates" are from other sites who's content is far superior to what Girls Out West produces. Their photography is appalling and they seem clueless about getting models to actually pose.
I'm scratching my head as to why you gave this site a score of 90. I would rate it as low as I could, since it's one of the worst sites I've ever been to. Sorry.
Yes, it's true that many of met-art's sets are not very sharp at all. More specifically, they often have low depth-of-field (one part of the body is in fairly good focus while everything else is not.)
Lack of sharpness is also more apparent on this site because they offer very large images (sometimes 7000 pixels), so the softness is very apparent. There are, however, a few photographers who offer better sharpness, like Matiss. I just wish it was more consistently good across other photographers' sets. Still, most viewers just wax poetic about every set that's posted there, which makes me laugh.
Yes, it makes sense. But you still haven't told us what the new "large" will be. Is it 3000 pixels, 4000, 5000? Also, please, please make the new large directly viewable -- not via downloading the whole damn set. Thanks.
Nubiles: your reply is a little confusing. So what exactly is the size (in pixels) of the New large images? And can the new large be accessed directly without downloading the entire set as a zip?
I'll also chip in with a couple of "cons". I think that Met-Art gets too much praise for their image quality. Sure, there are some sets--maybe 15%--where the quality is superb. But the majority are just OK or even flat-out bad. There's so much badly focused, dark, grainy crap here, that it's a relief when you finally find a set that's worth saving. Unfortunately, it's the regular contributors each day who are the mediocre ones and the really pro photographers only show up occasionally.
Secondly, I have no problem with the site being soft core, but so many sets here are heavily processed to remove skin detail, hair, etc. What you're left with often just doesn't look like a real girl, and that's what takes me out of Met-Art.
Can you download individual high-def images yet? When I was last there, it was all-or-nothing for each set, which made me not want to bother with this site again.
2 Free K: Your comments are exactly the response that the DDOS attackers are trying to achieve. They want to shut down the site and prevent its business; you are helping in that effort. Any porn site that is relentlessly attacked like this is going to be down. They don't have the resources of billion dollar businesses like Wells Fargo bank, so stop making stupid analogies.
Yeah, the ATK sites have been up and down with this problem, but I'm sure these guys have been trying anything and everything to resolve it. I've had my gripes with their content, but they need our support in the long term. We need to fight the attackers, not the victims.
On the photos side, perhaps someone could post whether things have improved here?
When I look at their preview site, even the small weekly samples they post never look very sharp. And many of the models appear to be the same ones you see on other sites where there's better photo quality. So it doesn't make me want to sign up with Karups.
Hi Skippy, I wasn't sure if you were reviewing ATK sites generally in this review, or specifically ATK Premium.
The thing I've found with the secondary ATK sites (Premium, Exotics, Aunt Judy's) is that most of their good content is just a duplication from the primary sites (Galleria and Hairy). The primary sites also post MUCH more content each day than Premium, Exotics and Aunt Judy's. So there's little reason to sign up for the secondary ATK sites, except for a small amount of niche content which isn't very good.
On the performance side, I agree. Even when they're up and running, the response time is often slow. All the ATK sites are offline as I write this message, since they presumably all share the same server. I think there's been a number of DDoS attacks recently.
Funny, I did a month's subscription there recently (regrettably) but didn't notice the content aggregation thing. I guess I just didn't pay attention to where the content came from.
My issues with this site is that the images are not particularly good quality and you barely get to see each model in their nakedness; as soon as they're undressed, they are being banged by some dude, who never goes away. Waste of my time. This is strictly a hard core site.
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.
