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 (65)  |   Reviews (3)  |   Comments (12)  |   Replies (50) Other:   Replies Received (53)  |   Trust Ratings (0) All Activity A summary of all the feedback from this user. Shown : 51-65 of 65 Page : Page 1 2 3    < Previous Page Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date Comment 51 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) Reply 52 Nubiles.net (0) Reply of Nubiles Captain's Reply I'm assuming that your lack of response means this STILL did not happen. 04-28-16  09:55am Reply 53 Nubiles.net (0) Reply of Nubiles Captain's Reply So did it happen on April 12th? 04-16-16  09:23am Reply 54 Nubiles.net (0) Reply of Nubiles Captain's Reply You've been saying this for about 8 months now. When exactly will the new size be active? 02-16-16  08:25am Reply 55 Nubiles.net (0) Reply of Nubiles Captain's Reply Has it happened yet? 08-10-15  03:08pm Reply 56 Nubiles.net (0) Reply of Nubiles Captain's Reply 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. 07-05-15  01:44pm Reply 57 Nubiles.net (0) Reply of PinkPanther's Comment 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? 07-01-15  07:33am Comment 58 Nubiles.net (0) Image Sizes Has Nubiles started to post decent sized images yet? Last time I was there it was still only 2400 pixels. 03-17-15  10:00am Replies (0) Reply 59 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 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) Reply 61 Village Ladies (0) Reply of poppadopolis's Review Wow, 1000 pixels. Even your phone takes much bigger pictures than that. I won't even bother going to site for a look. Thanks. 12-07-14  09:09am Comment 62 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 63 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 Review 64 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) Comment 65 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) Shown : 51-65 of 65 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 © 2003-2024 PornUsers.com. Loaded in 0.2 seconds.