MisterMark, as per gaypornolover, thanks for an excellent and comprehensive review. This site is vaguely on my shortlist, it has sets of a lot of models I like, so it's good to find out a bit more about it.
You mention it trails behind Met Art in terms of features and quality - do you feel it has any more eroticism to it? I felt Met Art lacking in that respect; not to do with the degree of explicitness per se, but more that there is little tease or cheekiness in it.
This is a network I've been tempted by, since I'm quite keen on nylons - but it is, as pat362 mentioned, very expensive. It also looks a bit samey, perhaps? I like something a bit different - perhaps something a bit artsy... but not at the expense of explicitness.
Aha, thanks for the info, Cap'n - I haven't joined the site since the new photographer started.
I actually quite like the style I see on the previews - but it is a little more glam/mainstream. If the previous photographer is no longer featuring, I think it's a shame not to have the two different styles - there was a more relaxed, natural charm to it.
I noticed they have a new photographer (I guess in addition to the main/current photographer, the webmaster, I think?) here.
So some of the newer sets, eg Ashley, Megan on the updates page, seem a bit more glam - I like it and although it's always been a good site, it's good to see a bit of variety here, in style and location.
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.
Agree, Capn - was a member here a few months ago and will likely join again at some point to catch up.
Some of the sets didn't quite work for me, but it's good to see a photographer's site evolve as their technique improves; more recent sets are definitely better. I found the same at Breath Takers, where sets from maybe 2-3 years ago were good, but didn't quite have the atmosphere of the more recent ones.
Brad, good to see you here and a great review - I liked FB, but like you I'd have liked to see it be a bit more erotic, especially given how lovely some of the girls are.
The site itself is exemplary in operation and agree that 'favourites' feature is good - would like to see that on more sites!
And just this week, I see a couple of really nice updates, I like the direction it's going in... I may not stay subscribed, but I will very likely visit again in a few months. As Cap'n says, still great value!
And apologies to the fine folk at FB for me just not getting the studio nude shoot concept; I think it's quite demanding of all involved - the model, the photographer, the lighting.
And then, even given the best models, equipment and expertise - not to mention pixel count - that money can buy, they can still be a bit boring - as Hegre Art seems to keep demonstrating to us. (So apologies too to Mr Hegre, for missing the point!)
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
- Exemplary site layout and navigation
- Bargain price, excellent value
- Pretty, natural girls
- Good range of ages and types of model
- Nice outfits and fun strips
- Decent update schedule: seems like 3 sets per week
- Zips in 3 sizes, favourites list
Cons:
- Photography and lighting variable; sometimes good, sometimes off
- Plain studio backgrounds, well, plain
- Could do with some more sets/locations
- Not all models will appeal to all folk
- Style is arguably not one thing or another
Bottom Line:
This site has been on my list to join for a while; as if the bargain price wasn't enough incentive, a friend of mine who's a member very kindly bought me a subscription (no affiliation, it was paid for! ;) ), figuring it was something I'd like - and, on the whole, he was right.
A quick look at the tour will let you know what this site is about: natural, girl-next-door type models, in fun shoots - some against a plain studio backdrop, some relaxing on the sofa, in bed, around the house. Some of the girls appear on other sites, and others are probably actual amateurs - these are real girls, and may divide opinions; on the whole, I like all girls :) but some folk may find some of the models not as glamorous as they are used to. But there are also some no-argument very pretty girls there too.
The members area is exemplary for a site of this size - the layout and design are simple and easy there are good search criteria for the approx 50 models, who have maybe 5-10 sets each. Sets are available as zips in 3 sizes, the largest a respectable 2400px. A great feature I've not seen elsewhere is your own list of favourite sets - you can add a set to your list and review it later. There are a handful of videos, some interviews, out-takes etc - these are fun but not a large part of the site.
The standard of photography here is generally good, although some of the shoots don't get it quite right in lighting, composition, etc. Maybe half the sets are against a plain studio background, which doesn't really work for me; although some exceptions are the really nicely done pin-up type shoots with retro underwear, make up etc. The other sets show the girls undressing at home, teasing a little before showing everything, albeit sometimes relatively coyly; I preferred these, although would like to have seen a few more locations.
The style almost works for me, but not quite; I find myself wishing it was either a little more glam and erotic - or that it was a bit (and I mean a bit, not hugely so) more explict in the context of the amateur-girl theme. For me, it's a bit on the fence - but looking at more recent sets, I do think they are starting to find the right niche/identity. But having said that, I still found much to enjoy here - some great, real girls (hopefully) enjoying themselves for good, clean fun. Maybe just a bit too clean - but it's nevertheless recommended, especially for the price.
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.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
- Great models
- Lovely fetish wear
- Good quality photography
- Fairly unique content
Cons:
- Not many sets/videos yet
- Low-ish pic resolution
- More daft music on videos
- Perhaps needs to be more defined in direction
Bottom Line:
This is a follow-up to my review of hollyrandall.com - it's included with the membership, and was actually of more interest to me and one of my main reasons for joining. Functionally it's very similar to Holly's main site - it has the same updates/photos/videos/models indices that you'd expect.
First the bad: it's still a very new site, and with updates perhaps once or twice a week, there's not much material - looks like about 30 photo sets and 25 videos, and some of the earlier ones are borrowed from the main site. Format is the same as newer material from HR - 720 video and 1600px pictures - the latter being slightly disappointing for the site of a well-known photographer.
I do like the material, though. I found HR, although technically good, a little too mainstream/centrefold glam; I like my smut with an angle of some kind, which is lacking there. Here, though, with Ms Randall's skills applied to the fetish/pinup/alt genres, her glamour style works very well. There's a great selection of models, including Mosh, Vanessa Lake, Ancilla Tilia, Darenzia - dressed and undressed in a variety of latex, leather and regular lingerie.
Not all of it appeals; there's some S&M and smoking fetishism, neither of which really work for me; I prefer the milder fetishwear and alt pinups. So, perhaps at the moment it doesn't quite have a direction, but on the other hand, some content content is a bit more explicit - masturbation, some strap-on etc, than in other glam fetish sites, which is welcome.
Another tricky one to score. It's hard to recommend on it's own merits, purely because of the small amount of material. On the other hand, this is fairly unique content - and if it can just grow a little quicker, it will be a great site. Because I like the direction and the concept, I'll go to 80 - but do look at the preview area, a glance will tell you straight away if this is your kind of thing, and if the content justifies the current lack of material.
Great review, thanks - like readadmiral, I'm quite keen on the kind of public nudity this site offers and so it's definitely on my radar. But like tangub, I find $35 tends to push it down the list... if there were an offer or a good TBP price, I'd be more interested!
Again, thanks for the review - this is another site on my list as I quite like the level it's pitched at - from what I've seen it's explicit but not hardcore but there's an element of risky locations and no cheesy BGM (are all the videos without music?) both of which I like.
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?
Thanks for pointing this site out! I'm quite fond of tall, leggy girls, despite (because of?) being quite short myself. Looks like there could be some fun content here.
I enjoyed Breath Takers more than I thought I would; I'll be going back sometime. Possibly here first, if I figure out what the deal is :| Will update if I discover it!
Another vs match, sorry :| Am tempted by this site as an imminent join, but I can't figure out what the angle on this is vs Breath Takers. Both seem to have the same photographer, many of the same locations, and many of the same models.
I'm just wondering if (and webmaster, feel free to correct/chide me) it's just a way of spreading content over two sites to generate more sales? Or is there more of a thematic difference? I'll likely join sometime, but, it would be nice if there was a joint membership or cross-sell discount available.
Hmm... that rings a bell, and checking my sources, I think it shares at least one - not sure if it's the only - photographer (Michael White) with Breath Takers. Looking at the two, they seem similar - the scene-setting, nice looking lighting, locations and clothing/lingerie make them both of more interest to me than many other art-nude sites.
Just because I found it doesn't mean I get it... yet
Thanks Khan & staff for adding this... this site seems slightly baffling, which is probably why it appeals to me! It's on my list and will likely join up at some point... meantime I shall keep an eye on whatever it throws up to tempt me. Looks unique, at least :)
Meantime, if any fellow erotica enthusiasts have got there before me, would love to hear more...
I didn't find the girls fat - plenty of slim girls there, but also lots who are just regular girls and IIRC only a few I would class as chubby; but there are fun attractive girls across that spectrum.
But for someone used to/preferring the nude photo sites, especially the Russian/European based ones, I can see how the healthy, regular girls may seem a bit curvy?
This lack of pre-joining information is a shortcoming compared to, er, another Australian site I could mention - a shame since I love the slightly raunchier nature of your content :)
Hi Annie - firstly, thanks for the great work at GOW, I really enjoyed it, loved the models and wrote a review a while back saying as much.
Regarding the review above; BradlyH is right in that it's fairly subjective; although I have written my fair share of very subjective reviews too so I can't really fault the reviewer for that. Fantasy is perfect models for some; and more real, attainable girls for others.
I do feel ps2008 should have been more aware of the amateur nature of the models before joining; it's what GOW is about. However, in his defence, one of my cons in my review was your relatively limited tour; I think you'd be well served by showing eg the update schedule, model index, etc to browsing guests?
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.
