| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
26
|
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
27
|
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
|
Comment
28
|
ATK Petites
(0)
|
|
11-27-09 04:23pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
29
|
ATK Premium
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
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.
|
12-07-14 09:57am
|
Comment
30
|
AV Erotica
(0)
|
|
11-27-09 03:37pm
Replies (1)
|
Comment
31
|
Club Seventeen
(0)
|
|
11-07-13 04:36pm
Replies (1)
|
Reply
32
|
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
33
|
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
34
|
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
35
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Comment
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 :-(
|
05-21-24 05:07pm
|
Reply
36
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
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.
|
12-02-19 04:06pm
|
Reply
37
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
One of the things that really annoys me about Femjoy is that the thumbnails they post to represent each set is VERY misleading. Many of the sets are poorly lit, not very sharp, have the wrong color balance, and the model is miles away from the camera. Yet the editors on Femjoy take the best shot in the set (there's usually only one that's any good) and crop it significantly to look like the model is much closer. Then they pump up the light levels (which they don't do for the photos themselves) and adjust the color to a more accurate balance. As a result, the set's thumbnail looks very inviting, but you're really disappointed when you see the set itself. Don't be misled by their Updates page -- the actual content is rarely like it.
|
09-01-14 05:09pm
|
Reply
38
|
FTV Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Comment
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.
|
02-07-15 09:10am
|
Reply
39
|
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
|
Review
40
|
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)
|
Reply
41
|
Girls Out West
(0)
|
Reply of
Broncoviz's Review
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.
|
09-23-15 11:13am
|
Reply
42
|
Goddess Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Review
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.
|
05-13-16 08:08am
|
Reply
43
|
Hegre Art
(0)
|
Reply of
tangub's Review
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.
|
05-13-16 07:58am
|
Reply
44
|
Hegre Art
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
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!
|
02-13-16 09:10am
|
Comment
45
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
|
09-10-15 08:28am
Replies (5)
|
Reply
46
|
Karup's Hometown Amateurs
(0)
|
Reply of
Douggie's Review
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.
|
12-07-14 10:09am
|
Reply
47
|
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
48
|
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
49
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Comment
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.
|
07-05-15 01:54pm
|
Reply
50
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
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.
|
04-28-15 12:16pm
|
