500 kb/sec is acceptable in general, and usually not too frustrating. 200 kb/sec is okay if just for a few photos, but a whole set, or even a single video, and it is frustratingly unacceptable.
I have had speeds with at least one site at around 1.4 mb/sec -- nice! Even if I don't like the videos or photos I have downloaded, the sheer speed at which they landed on my hard drive is almost enough to make up for it.
That's always a great answer lk2fireone -- I think too many of us base much of our lives around how others feel, without ever seriously considering our own personal feelings. I am a little lost as to why we put so much judgmental weight on people's professions, but we shouldn't let others intolerance and ignorance dictate our happiness, even when (if ever) it comes to dating/marrying a porn star.
Honestly though, I am in the "Not sure, it depends" category here. There have been quite a few models I thought I liked only to watch one too many behind the scenes videos, or read one too many interviews, to realize I really don't like a lot of them...but I am picky. I would think the porn could be a shared interest, though the fact that we approach it as fans, and the 'stars' approach it as a job, could lead to some problems.
This sort of goes back to a poll from over two years ago: "Would you date someone in the industry?" This poll was done before I even joined, but I will admit at least dating one is somewhere on my bucket list. :)
It certainly is creepy Toadsith, but also very likely a necessity in the porn business. This seems especially true because it is a quantitative rather than qualitative aspect, and there are some bizarre obsessions with numbers in porn (age, measurements, weight, etc.). Of course porn is almost total fantasy, and much of what we consume as fans is pretty much made up -- from models' names, to their 'backgrounds,' to the various fetishes and genres available -- so making up a girl's age should not be a surprise to anyone.
I disagree with you a bit on the "23 to 26" aspect, because even though many models do look better at that age, if they started in the business in their teens then they may now longer look that great, or even 'act' that great. A few years working in the business can really wear some of these women out, and force them to adapt a very typical, and sadly bland, look and act. I think most regular members at PU have expressed their pet peeves about these in the forum.
"Slow download rates," because if I can't download the goods then I'm not too happy. I understand this may not be the fault of the site itself, but its is still a pain when I can go to other sites and fill up my hard drives quickly.
After slow downloads it's navigation, because I need to efficiently and effortlessly find what I am going to download. A well designed site is when you don't notice the navigation; that is, it is so easy and simple that you don't even think about it. When navigation is poor, you end up wasting a lot of time and energy, and a hot video or photo shoot will not mean as much by the time you get to it. :(
Thank you Denner, and you're right about this site being "major;" it's very damn big...647 models! I still put most of my judgment in the solo content, as it just never felt like a really hardcore site. The fact that some models got down 'n' dirty with a dude was more of a bonus to me -- especially the ones I had previously only seen do solo or girl-girl work -- rather than my primary motivation for joining the site.
D'oh! I only looked (and looked and looked) on the photo set pages for a way to change the number of displayed thumbnails, never my profile page. I guess I am just used to the way a lot of other sites do it with the option in the photo sets.
Thanks for the kind words Monahan; I was worried I had starting rambling there for a while. It is a pretty big site, and I was trying to cover as much as possible (and I didn't even look at the review tips forum, so I am sure I missed something).
"Round tuit" almost sounds like a way of describing a girl's ass. Uh oh, I think you may have come up with a new site name...
Thanks lk2fireone! I could have sworn you had extended one of your reviews into a reply, but I may be thinking of someone else, though you do seem to frequently max out and extend your pros and cons sections.
I'll write your next review if you pay for the membership. ;)
I enjoyed the photos more than the videos, but I frequently prefer photos over videos anyway. The site tends to be more about its photographic content than its videos, so I was happy with many of the photo sets. The problem was repetition, where models seemed to repeat things done by nearly every other model on the site; panty stuffing, lots of toys, striptease, some mild spreading (what they call “explicit nude”), and even more toys. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate toys; in fact, they probably keep a number of women from picking up guns and coming after us guys for subscribing to so many sites, but I do get tired of them in scene after scene after scene.
Technically speaking, the photos are of professional quality, though obviously shot by multiple photographers and camera models, as they release three new models a week. A few models had some harsh lighting situations, where it looked as if only a small flash was used, or there wasn't much setup involved, but these are only a few earlier models, so don't worry. Some girls had what looked to be a little too much Photoshop work, where parts of their skin had a soft focus to it (more noticeable in closeups), especially when compared to videos, where cleaning up a model's complexion can be prohibitively time consuming. Additionally, some shots just were out of focus, or focus was neither on the face nor on the fun stuff. There were only one or two of these per set, but still annoying.
Navigation is simple and easy, with a good search function that can also break down by body and scene content types, plus links to videos, updates, top rated models, and the complete model directory. My one complaint for navigation was on photo set pages where I could not change the number of thumbnails per page, and it was set around twenty. Some sets are not too big, but others are and you have to browse through quite a few pages, but it is really a small problem, as you can still change thumbnail and picture size.
I think this site is well done and can serve as a model of how to shoot and capture content, if not necessarily what type content to shoot. Again, I approached this more as a solo girl site, not a hardcore one, though I really wish they had more girl-girl content then the minute amount that I found. But even the softcore content felt weak to me, but maybe I just expect more than stripping and happy-happy-toy-toy action when it is just a girl by herself.
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
+ Claimed 647 models! Yes, they are quite nubile; very hot, in their late teens, early 20s
+ Newer full length videos are 1280 x 720 @ 3500 kb/s .wmv (smaller sizes available in .avi, .mp4, .mpg)
+ No download limits, no DRM, download managers are allowed
+ 3 to 4 updates every day, and 3 new models every week
+ Newer photos are 2400 x 1600, with zips for each photo set
+ Download speeds of at least 500 kbs/s
+ Some models do hardcore content
+ Pretty clear breakdown at top of each model's page of what she does; from "topless" to "sex"
+ "Interview" pages give some info on each model
+ Navigation is pretty straightforward, and search engine works well
+ Billing through CCBill, with special PU discount of $24.31/month
Cons:
- Overall repetitive and boring feel, and hardcore in particular, at least for me (see Bottom Line)
- Virtually no girl-girl content (less than a dozen scenes, if that)
- Little anal or fetish content beyond vaginal and lots of toys
- "Bonus" content is negligible, and mostly to advertise other pay sites
- Navigation within photo set pages is a little annoying
- Individual video clips are not highest quality, only 1280 x 720 when you DL the whole video
- Photos are professionally shot, but a few look a bit too Photoshopped, or as if they should not have been been released at all
- Purely my personal preference, but a few too many European models
Bottom Line:
I originally approached this site as a girls only site, even though I was well aware that it had hardcore content. But come on, it's not the guys that are nubile -- it's the hundreds of hot girls! That's the one thing that is indisputable: the models here are young (late teens through mid twenties) and very attractive. Quite a few are American and new, but there are also plenty of Europeans (mostly Eastern Europe, in particular a growing number from Russia) as well as models that have been on quite a few other girls-only sites (Franziska, Sarah Blake, Kacey Jordan, Angelica Black), but none I would really call bona fide porn stars.
For those who like some variety in their model choices, this site might be a tad bland. The focus is on the nubile and skinny females in this world, but not necessarily of all races and elasticities it seems. I would not call the models themselves bland, but I really could not find any variety of girls that would include those of Asian, African, or Central and South American descent. It really was not an issue for me, as there is every hair color to choose from, most are shaven bare, though some still have pubic hair if it matters, plus tattoos and piercings, but nothing over the top. And if these girls simply are not in your preferred age range, you might want to check out their sister (mother?) site, Anilos, which looks to be much the same setup and price structure, though noticeably smaller amount of content.
So, how are all these lovely ladies captured? Well, the equipment and technology almost matches the beauty of the models. Newer videos are 1280 x 720 HD, but only in full length. Videos are broken down into one to two minute clips as well, but if you only download these clips, it's lower resolution. I guess this is good if you want to check out the content of a video before downloading the whole thing, but a letdown nonetheless if you just want that special clip. Videos are well lit, relatively well shot (no "Blair Witch" shake-'em-up contests), and have basically no apparent off camera distractions, spoken or otherwise. There are some interviews where the cameraman speaks, but it's only in interviews where I could find this happening.
Here's where my 81 score starts to really come in; though well shot, videos just did not do it for me. I would say the site is still photo-focused (more on that in a minute) but the videos are not too special for me. These ladies are eye candy, no doubt, but often somewhat reserved in videos, even in the hardcore scenes. I felt it was as much a case as just keeping the models comfortable (the solo, as well as the hardcore, content is never abusive or degrading, if you were wondering) as it was not asking enough of them. They enjoy themselves for sure, but not as much as I was expecting, and it felt as if it was too formulaic and toy focused to really make things stand out.
Yeah, I mentioned the photoflash problem in my review; either you have a videographer in the photos or the photographer in the videos. One at a time, please! I understand this in hardcore scenes (catching the dudes' cumshots, which can obviously be pretty much impossible to accurately recreate in separate shoots), but in solo and girl-girl scenes I think it would do wonders to not shoot the video and photos simultaneously.
Yes, great review! I am glad you are enjoying the site, hopefully based on some of my responses to your inquiries a few weeks back. :) I usually hate proselytizing, but I make a serious exception for ALS (okay, and most porn, but I prioritize my preaching for ALS!).
One of your cons mentioned one of my peeves -- voting. Goddamnit, a porn site should not be a democracy! It needs to be run by a qualified perverted tyrant who will just go ahead and release everything, and in order. But seriously, I remember some models, even ones from the last few years, with very little content due simply to not having the votes. I don't want to sound like Norm Coleman, but can we have recount? Just so we can see their material, please?
They do have some of the best photography and videography out there, at least in terms of using good equipment and proper setup, and then choosing models that will not require excessive Photoshopping. I wish other sites would take a hint, and try making their photography and models look a little more real, but they'll probably never learn.
It needs to been an extremely thorough tour or preview, but you don't know how thorough it is until you are a member, so reviews and comments are a must! I guess somebody eventually takes the plunge for the rest of us, but it's not me.
I have never been a fan of Playboy for the women -- too much smoke, and not enough fire. I have to give the editors and writers credit for making a magazine that has naked women in it (well, usually partially naked at least) but I still prefer the articles!
Tastes change, and therefore arousal does as well.
For me, it isn't necessarily dependent on the format -- photo, video, or whatever -- but really the eroticism. And it's not desensitization, but a change in the eroticization of one thing over another. For example, I used to like hardcore content more than softer, solo girl stuff, but now it's the opposite. I was never desensitized, just re-sensitized to something different, and I can only guess what the future holds (hopefully fewer anti-porn laws?).
Of course, sometimes it is the format, and I simply like seeing certain things certain ways. Though I don't like hardcore as much as I used to, I would prefer to see it in video, instead of in a photo shoot. But I prefer solo, and sometimes girl-girl content, in photos more than video. A hot girl (or two) can really shine in a well shot photo set, but can come off like a real bitch or a real bore in a video.
PU first and foremost, then TBP for any extra fact-checking, plus their preview pages (and if they don't have any, I usually don't join). If I am lucky enough to get a recommendation in person from a friend or someone I know, than that's even better, but it's rare.
Granted, I frequently skip towards the end of photo galleries so the girl starts nude, but I usually don't go back to the clothed shots. The whole idea of "reverse strip" defeats the purpose of porn. I am not too fond of stripping to begin with, so ending with the model getting dressed would really ruin it for me.
No, and I don't mind either. Yeah, I'm spoiled by all the HD available (usually coupled with a terrible soundtrack of some sort), and I haven't even seen an actual porn film, at least not in a theater, only as they look after transfer to a DVD or uploaded to the web.
And thanks to "8mm" I really don't want to see any actual film footage...
Rocco Siffredi, the Italian Stallion, is one of the few living male legends in porn. He is comparable to Peter North in the U.S., but with a few mainstream credits to his name, along with a more aggressive approach to his "acting".
Thank you. I think you already know the answer to your question; you asked me about them just the other day concerning their content. Maybe its my favorite site because it was my first...whatever the reason, I still love it.
Overall I would say "better than it used to be," thanks to numerous improvements in technology over the past twelve years since my first join (thank you high definition!), plus lots more content, models, ideas, etc.
Of course, there are a few problems:
First, the site has either gone softer or harder since your first subscription. You could blame this on the need to stay in business (see below), but if you join a site and love its content, your feelings could be hurt when they trash it up or bring it up from the gutter. Sticking with a proven formula seems to be a big challenge for too many sites there.
Second, it has gone on to porn site heaven (which probably exists deep within badandy400's hard drives), and will probably never be heard from again. I understand saving the American auto industry is important to some people, but who cares when our favorite sites die? Where's their bailout? I am not sure what would be worse here though; a site stops producing new content due to economic reasons, or radically changes its content to stay in business.
Third, and in my view the most important, you just can't replace that first paysite. It is like your first car, or first kiss, spanking (giving or receiving), girlfriend/boyfriend, sexual experience, spouse, etc. This also applies to the first time you join any new site you quickly learn to love; every subsequent subscription, no matter how great, will never feel the same as the first.
Great poll question! Brings up some of the few positive memories I have of the '90s.
Looks cool, hope someone joins and does a review soon.
The only thing I didn't like was the way Nella (from ALS Scan, Met Art, Sapphic Erotica, etc.) looked with her jet black hair with bangs. I can't stand bangs! They make models look more like fake, plastic porn actresses than horny girls next door.
Well, as far as extreme spreading goes, it really depends on the model, but yes, generally they do it with fingers, not just toys and "devices". I would say about 90 to 95% of models use a speculum, and a few just choose not to, but the vast majority of them do use it in at least one scene. They all use toys (who doesn't?) and fingers, though I would say toys and other insertables get the maximum effect for the "quick pullout" shots they like to get, that is, where they get a temporary gape. :) And they love fisting, though that seemed to be tapering off slightly when I was last a member (December '08), but there is still plenty of it there.
As far as ALS Scan vs ALS Angels goes, yes, it is pretty much petite (regular ALS) vs thick and busty (Angels), but it is a subtle difference unless you are into breasts. Older models -- say, from 1990s through early 2000s -- with big breasts (C and up) are on ALS, but after that, they are primarily all on Angels. A few of these Angels girls made it to the regular site for some girl-girl shoots and an occasional Caribbean trip -- like Carli did for their 2007 Caribbean trip -- but they stay mostly on ALS Angels.
If you haven't been a member of either, and big breasts, or lack thereof, aren't a big deal, then I would recommend ALS Scan first. Yes, it is five dollars more, but there is so much more content there, due to archiving that goes way back, plus most of their content goes there, so they have more regular updates.
I hope this helps, but I haven't been a member in seventh months :( so maybe starting a comment and asking for a second opinion would give you a better idea, as I am sure some of our regulars are current members.
Karupspc looks like it has way to many Euro models for my tastes, so I will say this about Nubiles: they have more American models than I was led to believe, and to me that is a plus.
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.
