I third that - and also, although I've never joined, this confirms what I figured about the content at Hegre Art - I generally like softcore but it seems a bit lacking in eroticism. If you're after something just a bit more erotic, my favourite sites are probably Breath Takers and Petites Parisiennes, which are both worth a look.
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
- Unique, interesting themes
- Good, unusual photography style
- Wide variety of models, some well-known
- Good descriptions of videos
- Good value full trial available
Cons:
- Low res pics and videos
- Sparse updates
- Set names obscured & unhelpful zip names
- No tagging or categorisation
- Some sets too big
Bottom Line:
Yet another infuriating site!
I'll start with a couple of disclaimers. First, I'm not really a foot/leg fetishist as such; however I seem to have become a one by default since the genre (particularly legs) seems to cover eroticism, undressing, nylons and lingerie etc - in short, the whole picture - more than most porn. Second, I'm slightly biased since I'm familiar with the photographer, Ed Fox; I've just had his second book delivered and like his work in Leg Show magazine - which I get occasionally, one of the few printed magazines still worth a look with all the online porn around.
Anyway, at FF, you'll find a good selection of foot-oriented material; sets and videos cover various themes, such as:
- candids of eg girls getting dressed, putting on shoes;
- masturbation scenes, sometimes starting with the girl eg rubbing lotion onto her feet
- quite a few with sex toys
- some girl-girl scenes and a few b/g scenes
- scenarios, eg I liked a couple involving undressing/masturbating during phone calls
- behind the scenes
- some not explicit at all, purely focused on feet
- outdoor or other unusual locations
- plenty of dirty feet
Some themes I didn't like; smoking is common but has never worked for me, and some weirder S&M stuff, eg unseen strangers whose gloved hands abduct or molest girls. And many videos have music whereas I prefer without; however it tends to be ambient/electronic/experimental stuff which although sometimes offputting, is far preferable to the corny faux-sexy music we get so often.
It's worth noting that this is material that leans towards foot fetishism but doesn't focus solely (rimshot) on it - hardcore foot folk may find it strays a bit too much but it's a balance that works for me. And largely I really like the style; it's not as brightly lit as most porn so it may not appeal to some folk; but there is a documentary/voyeuristic style to it which is quite unique, and even the magazine type shoots have a starkness and realism that sets it apart from most glam. The light and shadows make it very erotic - but not at the expense of being too arty, which it's not, or too tame - although there's not much hardcore, there's plenty of explicit midcore.
And there are a great selection of models featured. Some I'm familiar with from the pinup/fetish genre, eg Angela Ryan, Emily Marilyn, Dita von Teese; some porn stars, such as Aria Giovanni, Ryan Keely, Jelena Jensen; and plenty of pretty amateurs that perhaps only appear here.
Roughly 570 photo sets and 230 videos going back to 2004; maybe 150 models. Photo sets are split between 'photos' and 'features' - I think the former are meant to be more candids, and the latter more glamorous, magazine shoots and the like - but it's a vague distinction and there seems to be quite an overlap. Updates are quite sparse at 1-4 per month; but this is clearly stated on the tour so I don't have a problem with that.
Site navigation is fairly standard; a general updates list, photos/videos lists in date order, a model index. Given the number of themes involved it would be nice to have some kind of tagging, but sadly there is none. The layout of the site means that the names of photo sets are obscured which is annoying, especially as zips do not have meaningful names; but at least zips are there and easily accessible. I found some sets too large, maybe > 200 pictures, and really could have been edited; more is not necessarily better. Videos are mostly WMV, some QT, and whereas there's no info about photo sets, most videos have a long and explicit description, particularly discussing the feet - Mr Fox is quite a fetishist.
The biggest issue, though, is the resolution; all pictures sets are just 1024x768 (or less on the shorter side). I'm really not a resolution fiend and don't expect the somewhat daft 80 megapixel sets that Hegre Art is now offering; but Ed Fox is a well-known published photographer and it baffles me that he can't/doesn't/won't muster more than even 1 megapixel. I'd at least like to look at them full-screen and 1024x768 is well under half the size of mine - at least 2000px would be far more appropriate.
Similarly, videos are fairly low; many are DVD size, but older ones seem to be about 450x300 px - although for me a video survives upscaling a bit more than a photo so I don't mind quite so much. But still, a bit of HD would be appreciated and hardly technically challenging to produce now.
As some others have pointed out, once you go to leave the site you get offered a link to a $3/3 day trial; I took this and felt a bit guilty since I did get some good content. But I'd really need a month to comfortably go through everything - I like the material so much that it's only the resolution issue that preventing me from buying a full subscription. And similarly that's what prevents me scoring this higher; even with all the other cons I would happily give this 90+ - but it's still good size archive of great material and hopefully 80 reflects this.
I spend more time on pictures, I think - there tend to be more in my preferred genres - but I do enjoy videos too, so I like to have a mix.
Although it depends how you count it? In terms of number of sets vs number of videos, I'd say maybe 70/30? But in terms of storage used, more like 30/70.
Good review, pat - this site quite appeals to me, especially as I've not got or seen any of the DVDs so it would all be new to me. I like even a modicum of production values - a little acting and story, no matter now ludicrous (arguably the more the better) make things more fun. I'm also tempted by Cinema Erotique - have you tried it?
OK, stupid question from Mr Naive here... how would one go about shaving them anyway? I can't really imagine it... seems a bit of a precarious prospect :|
I have mixed views on the style of Hegre Art - although technically good, I find it a little bland. But for the resolution fiends, I notice that in the past few months, sets are available at 80 megapixels. A closeup would probably reveal more detail than you could see with your own eyes!
No to phone sex - I quite like the idea of it, but I suspect I'm too shy to, er, pull it off successfully. OTOH, I do quite like racy IM chat, it can be quite exciting.
I'm a big fan of pinup girls and retro-themed smut... although this isn't quite my area of interest :| a good review and a fun site, nevertheless - thanks!
That's a shame - as you say, the price was definitely a draw here. Not to belittle the work, it's fun and quirky - but not quite niche enough to demand the same price as other sites.
Still, I may drop by there again sometime, I do really like some of the models.
There are sometimes slip-ups here with broken links... I forgive them though, since it's a one-man operation and he's both affable and usually quick to correct anything once mentioned.
bibo, thanks for the reply, appreciated. I like the subjective views we see here but entirely understand wanting to stick to the facts!
And thanks for confirming my suspicions, that GOW is a bit raunchier than AW; I also like that it has some more b/g scenes; hardcore generally isn't my thing but I like a little when it's fun and genuine.
Any reason you didn't add a review with a score? Anyway, thanks for your views, this site is on my to-join list. What do you feel is better here over Abby Winters?
I did read your review pros, which is why it's more of a shame that you give such a poor score to this popular site for doing what pretty much every site does. Any sites you've joined that don't work this way are in the very small minority; and again, by this logic you will score almost every site listed on TBP at 50.
I am neither condoning nor condemning the practice of automatic rebilling; just stating that it's almost universal in the industry; I think every site I've joined rebills until cancelled. It's easily dealt with as Cap'n mentioned; and most sites make it very easy to cancel (difficulty in cancelling WOULD justify a poor score).
It's unfortunate that you perhaps weren't familiar with this when singing up to AW - although I see on their join page, each option has 'rebilling' stated very clearly next to it.
Thanks for pointing this site out - I'm planning to join one of the Japanese sites at some point and this looks to be the best I've seen so far. Not really into the extreme stuff, but it seems they have so much material, and good filtering, to make it easy to find something appealing.
As tangub said, that's a little harsh - suspect this may be your first pay site join, since it's pretty much standard practice with porn sites to do recurring billing and leave it up to the customer to cancel.
Whether or not you agree with it, you'll end up giving all sites 50 because of it :|
Not for me at all :| I can understand that it works for some people, and perhaps even some girls may like it (?) But although I don't idolise or put on pedestals, I do respect the models we see and like to see them treated with the same respect.
Some sites like Petites Parisiennes are very open to input and ideas for the sets, so I communicate regularly with the webmaster there. And similarly, eg FigureBaby and Holly Randall accept comments on sets, which I also see as feedback - and if the webmaster is engaged, I'm more likely to be.
But a couple of times I've emailed and got nothing back; in which case I just give up, got better things to do than flog a dead horse.
But as tangub said, being able to vet sites here cuts down on any really bad sites that specifically need complaining about.
'You take a good or great looking model, splash her with gobs of makeup and weird costumes to make her look like a freak, and you have photographs that could hang in a museum. But not one that I would want to visit.'
Actually, for me, this has some appeal. Much as I like natural looking girls, I also like a bit of an angle to porn, and the above suggests one where other East European sites seem to lack it. And from what I can see, it's relatively tame compared to eg Juliland - which tempted me but ultimately terrified me a bit too much!
Denner, do sets here tend to have any undressing? I'm not quite such a strip fiend as Cap'n, but straight nude from start to finish does little for me. And the videos, do they all have typically daft music?
tangub, another good review, of a site that's caught my eye, thanks! Although there are a few featured at PP, I've yet to subscribe to one of the sites that focuses on East European models, and may try one sometime. Based on your recent reviews, though, it's more likely to be MPL Studios - but have yet to find one that strikes me as genuinely erotic. I note from Denner's recent comment that you are planning to join Watch4Beauty; I will look forward to that review!
As with most others, I like a mix. I do indeed prefer a smile, but it has to be loaded with a suggestiveness; what I'm looking for is the allure, the devilish smile, the 'smoulder' that Capn suggests... this is probably why I don't, largely, go for the younger models because, beautiful as they are, they rarely have it.
So it's very specific to the model. Eg I don't generally like the pout, since it tends to be fake; but having said that it's common from my favourite model, Mosh, who does glamour/fetish/pinup stuff.
Good review, thanks. I will likely subscribe to one Japanese site at some time, so this looks like a potential; although it seems a bit disorganised. I'd like to see some mature content too and not sure if there is much here; have you tried any others? I am tempted by All Japanese Pass...
Another price issue... looks like this site has recently had a price rise; all reviews I see for it seem to show $19.95 but the only price I see on the site is $29.95. I'm quite keen to join, but would be even keener if it was $10 lower!
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.
