It sounds like you need to log in, which is why the file is just 'login.php'. I can't remember if you need to enter username and password with the download managers but I am pretty sure you don't. It's been a few months since I was a member so e-mail the site and see if they have a solution. Hope this helps.
Pretty close to my score and I have to agree with a lot of your points. The "search" feature is definitely weak, especially considering it only applies to the videos and the photo sets don't necessarily have the same content. The alphabetical order is annoying too, but I like to organize by release date since that is how they are numbered.
I never had any login issues with Firefox, so maybe your browser is the problem? I also love the 1920x1080 videos since that's my monitor's max resolution, so combined with the wide angle lens it can make for some interesting videos.
Lastly, I think the number of girls with implants can be counted on one hand, and breasts really are not the focus of the site, unless they change the "C" from crack to cleavage. My favorite models are generally not these anyway. I like the ones who look like the girl-next-door with a nasty imagination and they usually are quite slim with reasonable proportions.
That's odd, though I think I have read about this from other members. My experience is that you get a maximum speed -- for me, it could be up to 1.5Mb/s -- with single downloads, and it halves with two simultaneous downloads, and goes to about a third of the original speed with three, etc. I have FreeDownloadManager set at a maximum of four sections per download and it worked fine.
It's important to remember that InTheCrack limits the number of connections (I think it might be twenty), so certain download managers might not work with this, and I could rarely get more than three downloads going at once with FDM, but it still worked up until that number.
I seriously doubt anyone would likely ever tire of shooting her! ;) And it's nice to see a brunette in the top 10 -- are there any redheads there too?
It sucks that her earlier hardcore was the result of pressure, as this is the cause of much irritation for fans when they see models do shit that they feel is just trendy or dumb (implants, tattoos, etc.). Well, whatever you do, keep bringing her, and other top models, back for more!
This site is a marriage made in heaven, a perfect match of technology and perversion, and its for a good purpose. These are hot and happy models, the smiles seem genuine, and scenes come about only as a result of a girl's willingness and comfort level with the possible task at, or sometimes even in, hand. This means that some girls only really like to show off their smile and might wink at you, while others will show virtually everything and then some, and only wink at you using their asshole. Let me at least say that I know my smile is genuine.
Models are fit and thin, many with fully shaven pussies, few tattoos, and I have yet to find any breast implants (I still have a hard time believing this myself, so if I am wrong please say so). The first two dozen or so are Canadian girls (who I have yet to see anywhere else, but I like them), and the rest are a mix of amateur and somewhat well known Americans, eastern Europeans, and a few more Canadians. This really is not the place for the well-worn veteran, or high figure star, but most know how to show off the goods. The vast majority are white, which didn't really bother me, but I have to mention it, as I know there are prospective members out there looking for some diversity, and this site may not have what they are seeking. Still, much of the content may have you focused less on the outside than on the inside, in which case every model is pretty much the same color.
Nobody's perfect, and this site comes at a high price: $35 per month, with no rebilling or multi-month discounts. I will say you get what you pay for as there is much to enjoy and download here, but it is still a somewhat high price, though it has never risen in all the years I have been a member. Navigation is easy as the site is cleanly laid out, but the search engine is a little too simple. It only searches videos using whatever term or keywords you choose and/or a category out of a list of twenty-nine categories, with categories as diverse as “Beautiful Bums” or “Cervix Views” or “Treadmill”.
If you like your girls to have fun by themselves and view the fun at few inches distance or less, this may be Crack that's worth an addiction. There are no guys taking up the frame, and virtually little input from the crew – hallelujah! I mean little to no talking, no interviews, no heavy panting by the cameramen, and very little behind the scenes fantasy crushers. When anything even close to this happens in a video, the descriptions give ample warning – “male hands involved” or “you do heard the crew talk in this one” – and these are minor infractions compared to many of the other sites' self-centered douche bags as they guffaw and add commentary through countless photo and video shoots. Hey, that's our job!
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+ A near literal translation of its name; this site can define the closeup genre.
+ Nearly 300 naturally beautiful models in 325 shoots.
+ Excellent use of technology; newer videos (shoot #114 and above) are offered in 1920x1080 @ 9MB/s .wmv.
+ Great photography up to 2400x1900; near perfectly lit, lots of wide angle closeups, great colors and details.
+ Model action is pretty diverse and interesting; girl-girl, toys, weird insertions, anal, peeing.
+ Fully archived content all the way to the very beginning in 2001.
+ Downloads are as fast as they are big: I have gotten speeds of up to 1.5 MB/s!
+ Little behind the scenes content, almost no off camera talking or interference.
+ Billing through CCBill.
Cons:
- $35/month is high, and there are no recurring or multi-month discounts available.
- Graphic, screen-filling closeups and certain content (queefing, douching, pissing, etc.) may not be every member's favored approach to porn.
- First eight shoots are video only.
- Earlier photography is smaller, around 1024x800.
- Lots of wide angle lens used, and unconventional photo cropping done; for example, some photos are 1800x1800.
- Though navigation is simple and clean, the search engine may be too weak for some, and it only applies to videos.
- Ethnically homogeneous; few really 'exotic' models, vast majority are white north Americans and eastern Europeans.
- I still wish there was a little more girl-girl content.
Bottom Line:
I have been a member of the 'Crack on four separate occasions over the last few years, and every time I am more than happy to fork over the money and fill up my hard drives some more -- they keep adding models but never stray too far from the close-is-not-close-enough approach.
Yes, this site is deep within the glorious chasm of the female nether regions, and it is more than happy to bring you along! I love a good girl models-only site, but they take things to a unique macroscopic level of enjoyment and seem to revel in it the whole time. There are more than a few times when video camera lens are fogged up or hit by flying body fluids...and if you have to think about this and still ask, then this site may not be for you. In a more technical way of putting it, lots of wide angle lens are used, and though you see plenty of models stripping and posing, the emphasis is below the belt at distances best measured in fractions of an inch.
That having been said, I love the presentation of their perverted arts. For the last four years they have offered videos in beautiful 1920 x 1080 .wmvs at very high bit rates. They are big files, but the payoff is eye candy that only a handful of current sites can reasonably rival. As I stated above, lighting is excellent, never harsh, and only occasionally do they use an obvious additional light source, like a small pen light when, say, a model is rocking a speculum (again, not everyone's type of porn).
They do not slouch on photography either. These are great photos with bright colors, the same professional lighting and care in details, which are pretty important in this closeup work. They don't really use conventional sizes in photos; there are numerous square butthole shots (the literal “Crack” of their title), and quite a few panoramic shots of models relaxing on a couch or bed. But photos are still big and never so Photoshopped to make models' corresponding videos have glaring differences.
I find it easy and fast to get to the content, as download speeds feel turbocharged. I regularly get 1.5MB/s, so even the biggest videos – say a 30 minute video at nearly 2GB in size – came in between five and seven minutes, if that. Combine this with no download limit and your hard drive may start looking for a new owner. The flip side is that there is a limit of twenty connections at a time, so as to discourage members from using download managers, or at least stop people from queuing up tons of downloads (I can just hear badandy400 cursing at this one), but you still get lots of downloading down in a relatively short period of time.
I would rather them devote a separate site to a more hardcore-inclined model. If their intent is to attract customers who don't necessarily want to spend all their time looking through a macro lens then the current possibility of using Lexa makes sense, I just won't be joining.
When I filled out the poll, I had to look up her sets -- she currently has four -- as she was pretty forgettable as far as my favorite ITC models go. Yes, super hot, but content that is too boring for me to have remembered her. If they can make more money, good for them, hopefully it can contribute to the main site (as if needs any improvement! :) ).
Recently I logged on to the site and there was a poll concerning the possibility of creating a sister site of a single model, a Czech girl named Lexa (not to be confused with an earlier Canadian model named Lexy).
I am not too wild about spin-off sites, even if I love the original, as I do so strongly with InTheCrack. In this case, they are considering her because of positive member feedback and because they consider her one of their most attractive models. I have no problem with the latter; she is a raven-haired beauty with flawless skin and a body to die for (if looks could kill...). I mean really, if she alone was what decades of monitor technology come down to, then it would be a good thing.
My beef is with the former, as I don't really understand what all the feedback could be about, unless it is based solely on her looks. Again, she is gorgeous, and probably near the top of their models in that regard, but she is almost totally a softcore model. I am talking little, if any, masturbation, with some mild spreading, no toys, nothing nasty, and mostly just stripping and nude posing.
I originally joined the 'Crack for the action and the unique perspective on it, as much as for the eye candy of the models, so I am a little disappointed that they would consider a separate site for someone so unwilling to do what so many of their other models seem to have little trouble doing.
Any feedback about this from members, past and present, would be appreciated.
We love having new users, especially if they genuinely want to contribute to the site, so welcome to PU! This sounds like more of a review than a comment, so consider doing a review.
On that note, mbaya's review from a few months ago (currently the latest one on the InTheCrack page) is a fine example of a good review in length and style, though different opinions are always welcome and acceptable. So feel free to to do a full review (here's the forum on what a PU review should include), but we do prefer that members justify their scores and opinions, rather than just hating/loving a site for no reason.
Though they don't really offer a lot to sample, I love how you can browse through their whole collection for free and read the video descriptions. I still check their site to see which videos have certain material when I am about to watch them. I just wish they would say what is also included in the photoshoot section (might entice me to join again, since I do love their photography).
Yes, you definitely get your money's worth for the first month, but after that it seems like a small discount or something would be in order if you were to continue as a member.
Their content does seem like a pretty good investment though, because even as HD video and hi-res photos become the standard, their older stuff is still unique enough and decently shot to be worth saving.
Yes, I was surprised mbaya did not mention price in his review -- $35 is not exactly cheap, despite how beautiful their content is. Even if they had better search functions, I would still give them a score in the 80s with their current price.
Good review. I am thinking of rejoining soon to "catch up" on their previous material. You'd think they were founded by a bunch of horny doctors in the way they capture female anatomy, but it's still interesting and entertaining for closeup porn.
1.) Guy-girl hardcore, no; some girl-girl, but mostly solo girl stuff
2.) No, their site currently says "your inthecrack membership now includes ALL videos in ALL sizes." (I was just pissed off it took them so long to implement this.)
Was a member approx. 6 months prior to this review.
Pros:
+ CLOSEUP exclusive content! This site lives up to its name
+ Clear, well-lit photography, w/ newer vids in HD
+ Hot models (though they certainly don't focus on faces) who get creative: speculums, anal, peeing, toys, veggies...
+ Photos available to all members, and now, finally, all video as well
+ Some girl-girl
Cons:
- Pretty high price
- More girl-girl needed
- Closeups this closeup may not be for everyone
- Took them way too long to drop their token video system
- Older models have smaller pics
Bottom Line:
Love closeup photography? Well, this site is so far in the crack it's practically in the hole; this site takes the genre so far that any closer and these girls' cheeks and lips would be smudging the lens. Their bigger photos (1600x1200, some 2400x1800) are huge, and you can easily end up staring at a crack (or hole) bigger than your monitor, or even real life. You will probably spend a few hours just admiring the pics, or at least getting a detailed lesson on female anatomy.
It's a blessing that they finally dropped their stupid pay-per-view token video system, especially considering the price. The fact that they were doing this for so long - screwing over members who had already paid (and losing potential business) - is probably the biggest reason for not giving them a higher score. I first learned of this site after a friend showed me a video, but I was let down when I found out they were separate from the regular membership. Still, their photography can practically stand on its own, though their vids are also quite entertaining (queefing vags, winking assholes, masturbation, pissing). I personally prefer shorter clips (5-10mins) than longer, boring vids, but it does mean more DLs.
I think anybody who joins this site already likes this stuff, but there are a few who probably think this is aimed at gynecologists and dermatologists, so it doesn't have universal appeal, but few sites do. For those who do like their porn up close, then this really hits the mark (crack?).
Always good to hear someone is having a lot of fun with a new membership. Just don't have a heart attack -- unless it's worth it, and the way your comment is worded it just might be.
Justification for a high score, as well as lots of exclamation points, is what reviews should be about. We are all biased in some way or another, but I think a 100 or 99 can be validated, especially with the higher character counts that are allowed for reviews.
These reviews barely even read as advertisements, they just come across like every spam subject line we have had to read as we empty out the junk mail folder.
Is there a way to temporarily block reviews for this site until the flood of enthusiasm recedes some?
Hmm...this is the third review in just as many days for the same site, and the scores from these three range from 99 to 100. They are also all by three brand new users who have joined PU in the last few days and only reviewed this site.
If it wasn't for the newbie ratings, super high scores, and countless exclamation points, I might consider these to be at least somewhat legitimate.
Maybe I am wrong, and this site has gotten really popular in the last few days.
Welcome to PU and thanks for the review, but I was wondering if you could give a little more insight into your score and review. For example, in the Bottom Line you wrote that the site is "the superior one" to five other soft core but you didn't explain why or how it's superior. Just some suggestions, and welcome to PU.
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.
