Yeah, they do say that. To me, however, that doesn't translate into "some of these models are not naked at all." Anytime where I have to dig through a long statement of purpose and parse a sentence, I think it should be clearer and more direct.
The secretive nature of the site (making you sign up for a free account before you can see anything) just doesn't agree with me.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Good photography, very beautiful models, zip file downloads, extremely high resolution.
Cons:
First of all, this site is about 90% non-nude. I don't understand the reason anybody would want 300 pictures of a woman standing around fully clothed - unless, that is, they were operating under the perfectly reasonable assumption that an adult site features nudity unless otherwise specified!
I found the pricing system ridiculous. You purchase all the work of a single model (around 2 gigs of content) for a flat fee (between $15 and 20). When you compare that to the amount of content on virtually any other site, the price is staggering. I thought I would try it and see if it truly was worth it.
Sadly, what I got were 12 huge (200-300 photos) sets of a pretty woman not taking off her clothes. Wonderful. Typically the model removes some clothes and is sometimes topless, but she's virtually always posed to cover certain areas.
Bottom Line:
This site needs to be much more up-front about what exactly you're getting. Their lengthy mission statement doesn't really cut it. I honestly don't see how they can justify the enormous price. It's a terrible deal and even though the models are uniformly excellent, it's just not an adult site.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
As hard as I try, I cannot think of anything really good to say about this site. The most positive comment I can make is that it uses CCBill, which makes it easy to cancel your trial subscription once you gain access to the site and realize that there is almost no content to download!
Cons:
This is an extremely poor site.
-Small pictures
-Low quality pictures
-Models are very average-looking
-20 Models total, some with as few as 120 pictures
-No zip files
-Membership signs you up to a sister site, which you then need to go and cancel
-Daily download limit (5gigs, which is amusing seeing as there probably isn't 5 gigs worth on content on the entire site!)
Bottom Line:
I was not expecting much here, but my low expectations weren't even satisfied. Basically, I joined for one single model that I had seen on ATK Exotics. Her pictures were exceptional in comparison to the typical photo sets on RareAsians. I assumed that there would at least be a few similar models, but no.
The bottom line is, there is almost no content on this site. A selection of 20 sub-par models does not a porn site make. I expect a minimum of quality photography (in focus, decent lighting, correct exposure), but again, that was too much to ask.
In my opinion, the 'official' review is much too generous. If you want Asians, you're much better off looking at Graphis Nudes or even ATK Exotics.
Yes, it's an invitation to 'model for us', but it is an invitation to submit content to the site. I think what I originally meant by that comment was that the models come to you, rather than you going out and hiring them from professional agencies. Either way, it speaks to your authenticity.
Thanks for the reply. You've got a really unique and high-quality site.
It's probably the style of sites that I join. Mostly very erotic/softcore/photography websites. I've never joined a hardcore site or anything too extreme. That could be the difference. I guess FTV gave me a pre-checked trial, but man . . . that's the last I remember and that was two years ago. Epoch might be the deal. I've used them maybe once. It's almost always ccbill for me.
>Well, I understand your point, but on the other hand I see LOTS of MUCH MORE
>deceptive practices (like PRE-CHECKED "trials" with outrageous renewal rates when
>subscribing)
Well, you've got me there! Any site that includes pre-checked trials is not cool. Again, I think we've had very different experiences. Until M&B, I had never joined a site with a pre-checked trial or anything like it. I'm aware that stuff like that is out there, but I've never joined a site like that.
Maybe it was a combination of the pre-checked trial they tried to get me to accept, or the really patronizing email from the support staff that treated me like I was an idiot who never joined an adult site before, or the trial that was so severely limited that it was almost useless - whatever the reason, I got a very negative impression of M&B and I can't recommend it to anyone.
Sites like that make me really appreciate the ones who do it well in a straightforward and direct manner.
>> wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain.
>Come on, $2 or so they're getting is not really a financial gain (they're paying almost all >of it or even more for the transaction itself).
The financial gain isn't from the $3.95 trial, but from the full subscription that kicks in after 24 hours. It's merely a ploy to hook you. It's a classic bait and switch, which results in them being *that* much more likely to get you to sign on for the full subscription.
Moreover, it's a matter of principal. There is absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be up-front about the whole thing. If I knew I was getting a limited trial, I probably would have tried it anyway. It just annoys me, you know?
I understand that you're playing devil's advocate in regards to what a "trial" is. Perhaps the word "trial" outside of the adult industry has a different meaning, but what does that matter? We're not outside of the adult industry. The bottom line for me is, I've done a lot of trials and the ones that are limited tell me so, so I expect that. You can say it's redundant, but we clearly have different expectations for trials. I consider a trial to be limited to length of subscription only.
I don't think we're going to come to an agreement, but it's a fun conversation, especially since the subject is porn :-)
Thanks for the comment. I think Fraud is warranted when you make every effort to discover the nature of what you're about to purchase and you find that you've purchased something else entirely. The vast majority of trial subscriptions I've purchased have all been full trials.
I'm thinking of rookiebabe, daisybeach, nakedhappygirls, perfect10, changeroomhunters, alyssadoll, rayspade, justnude, and countless others.
It doesn't really matter what you're buying, the company has a duty to tell you what to expect. In my book, when you go above and beyond a standard level of buying research (e.g. reading the fine print), and you STILL are given no indication, that matches the definition of fraud in my dictionary: wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain.
We're probably just arguing semantics and, like you, I'm okay if a site has a limited trial, but they usually tell you up front that it's limited. M&B did not.
Ugh - what a waste of time. The trial is SEVERELY LIMITED. Only a few galleries per model are available and for many models no galleries at all are available!!
I intentionally looked around the site - even read the fine print in the user agreement - to see if it was a limited trial. I found nothing. There is a word for this: Fraud.
What a waste of time and money. Stay far, far away from this site.
It's complicated. Perhaps a few of the models are professionals, but the vast majority are definitely amateurs. Most look very different from the standard sort of nude models we see on all those other sites.
My comments were mostly directed at the idea that these models actually take the pictures themselves. Perhaps they do, but I'm certain there is also a representative from the site "coaching" them through the shoot, helping with lighting, suggesting poses, and giving some artistic instruction.
Even if that's the case, you still have the fact that most of these girls are as amateur as it gets. It's a tough call, but the question of authenticity doesn't bother me too much. It's just interesting to debate.
To answer your question (finally), there's no place where you can submit photos directly to the site. There is a page where they invite you to model for them.
This actually makes it look like the models do, in fact, shoot themselves and then submit the results to the company. If this is how it works, I'm impressed. I have trouble merely taking a picture of myself and a couple friends at arm's length when we're out at a bar. Part of the requirements say "you must have one hand on the camera at all times."
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
-There is a nice variety of ethnicities, ages, and body-types.
-The women/girls have a very authentic quality to them.
-All picture sets (or Folios, as the site calls them) are available as zip files.
-A huge amount of content.
-ISMS recently abandoned its multi-tiered pricing scheme, so now all members get all the content.
-Decent quality videos, downloadable as .mp4s, with no DRM.
-Discounts available if you can locate a banner ad and link to the site through it.
-Some of the more popular Abby Winters models (such as Toni B) have some additional sets here.
-Very fast downloads.
-11 updates per week
Cons:
The single biggest issue here is that there is no good search feature. Basically, you can search by country and that's about it. Considering the many hundreds of models on the site, we should be able to search by age, race, body type, and more.
The other downside is that the pictures aren't huge, especially by today's standards.
Bottom Line:
Perhaps it's officially true: with today's fancy cameras *anyone* can take a great picture. Well, anyone can take an in-focus picture with decent lighting, if these girls do indeed shot themselves. I'm skeptical because there is a fairly uniform quality. When real girls shot pictures of themselves in the mirror or whatever, they're usually pretty terrible with red eyes, poor lighting, and such. I'm not convinced the site is authentic.
It IS, however, a great source of unconventional models. There are many races, many body types, and many ages. The vast majority are caucasian girls in their early 20s, but there are some women up to 50. Many of the models are not conventionally beautiful in the super-thin, fake-breasted, air-brushed manner that we're used to. They seem real with a joyful vitality.
Some of the models have more of an artistic sense than others. Some models just shoot their bodies in a straightforward manner, while others get more creative. The premise stays the same, but there is still a surprising amount of variety.
If you enjoy amateurs having a good time naked, this site is for you. It updates 11 times per week and the quality of the updates is consistent and doesn't overload you with a lot of generic junk. The personality of the models really comes through and they seem like real people.
I wish the site had a decent search option, but that hardly matters when you consider the uniqueness of the site and how it does so much right. Highly recommended.
The admin has posted a few replies on the Rookie Babe forum. The issue where you cannot navigate the site while downloading (or have parallel downloads) isn't due to heavy traffic - it's an ERROR IN THE SITE!!! Apparently, the issue has been forwarded to the web programmer. Talk about amateur hour.
Also, I got confirmation that the old content will indeed show up at the rate of one set per day as part of the highly touted "daily update" schedule. Those of us who waited around for the new site to launch were rewarded with the prospect of getting the same old stuff all over again. Yes, it's higher resolution, but it's old content!
In light of these new development, I can definitely offer this advice: stay away until Rookie Babe gets its act together. For one thing, Zip files don't save you time if you can't do anything else while they're downloading (one at a time). Plus, there are exactly 31 photo sets (as of 4.23.09). That's hardly worth the increased subscription price (now $29.99 instead of $24.99). What a shame!
Oh, and CCBill is not yet available to new subscribers. Existing subscriptions remain active under CCBill, but new subscribers have to use an alternative billing source.
After missing three public deadlines for launching the new version of Rookie Babe, the site is finally public. It has received something of a facelift (although it looked decent to begin with). Sets are now available to download as zip files and the photo resolution is MUCH higher (between 3000 and 5000px). Finally! The video quality is much higher as well and available for download in a variety of formats including .mp4, .wmv, and whatever the iPod format is.
Now the bad news. This is probably due to the site just now being launched, but it's so slow. If you're downloading something, you cannot load another page. Simultaneous downloads are not an option right now. Hopefully that's just because the server is swamped.
The real bad news is the amount of content is drastically reduced. I suppose they will re-upload old content as they prepare it. However, after stringing along subscribers for over a month, you'd think they would at least build on what they already had rather than taking ten steps backwards.
I like Rookie Babe's content a lot, but this whole website transition has given me a pretty negative impression. I don't think they were completely honest with subscribers and posted unrealistic launch dates. Now that the new site is here, I'm happy, but where is the old stuff? If you're not a subscriber now, I say, wait for a while.
Stay tuned for a full review once the site starts functioning properly and allows me to navigate *while* downloading a file!
Ah! This is blowing my mind - a substantive discussion of an "adult" site. I love it.
RB - Maybe I overstated my position in my reply. I agree that it's very small. I think I mainly wanted to say that it's just one of those spinoff sites that Monahan mentioned. In my view, those are altogether different and not worth investigating. I've definitely seen those types of sites and they are annoying. I suspect that we agree on at least 90% of the issues we mentioned in our respective reviews.
Monahan - If you want help evaluating FigureBaby, figure-baby.bravoerotica.com gives you a massive amount of samples. I joined and rejoined FigureBaby because I happen to really like four or five of the most prominently featured models. So, for me, it was worth paying a premium. When I rejoined, it was to get about 20 new sets that I had seen them add in the months since my first subscription. In essence, my $18 was for 20+/- specific sets that I wanted. For me, the sets were worth nearly $1 apiece. However, now that I type this out, it seems a bit extreme. I think you're best served by visiting FigureBaby's site on BravoErotica and looking around.
Thanks again for the discussion, guys!
ps - RagingBuddhist - sorry for mistyping your name . . .
If you're looking for more of the same, you might check out Grace & Beauty, The Good Nudes, and to a lesser extent, Michelle7. I've reviewed them all on this site. They even share some of the same models. I've found that a lot of similar content goes by the name "fine art nude photography," which may help you with a keyword search. I hope this helps.
RaggingBuddhist gave a very nice review, but here are a couple things I would add based on your comment:
I wouldn't characterize FigureBaby as embryonic or adjunct in any way. It is what it is - a small and growing site of fine art nudes. There are maybe 100 sets with 50-80 photos each, so it's not ridiculously small. I get the feeling that the videos will never be a large feature of the site. If you read the mission statement, the goal is totally on high quality artistic photographs.
I would also add that the site isn't in a planning stage - it knows exactly what it wants to be. It's just small. It's basically the work of one photographer, who is probably also the editor, webmaster, and everything else. I think it will always be on the small side.
Here's my thought: a site can give you updates everyday, but then the quality of the updates suffers. MET gives us four sets of generic Eastern European models every day, but I'd rather have one set of a unique and interesting model. You can go for quantity, but FigureBaby offers models with character and personality. It's the classic 10 pizzas from Dominos versus 1 filet mignon from a fine steakhouse.
I know it sounds like I work for the site or something, but I'm just impressed with it because it has a genuine philosophy. You can certainly wait for it to grow, but due to the nature of the site, I don't think there will ever be an "explosion" of new content.
Hmm . . . The videos on Voyeur Russian look a lot like the videos on ChangeRoom. Maybe Russia does not regulate this sort of thing as closely. However, I'm wondering what your basis is for determining that they're real, as opposed to staged? Either way, the site looks interesting - thanks for the tip.
I believe that is standard quality. The Gold membership gets you higher quality downloads, although I'm not sure if you can stream them at that resolution. I've never really been interested in streaming their videos. If you're going to log on everyday, download all the segments, and watch them from your hard disk, I'd say the gold membership is worth the extra $5. If you're going to stream, maybe the standard membership is the way to go. Either way, you can't beat the price.
I believe Cupid's Dart no longer exists. It redirects you to a gallery posting site, which then links you to Hegre, MET, Errotica, and all the related sites. Too bad - it was decent.
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
This site is very similar in content to both FigureBaby and Grace & Beauty. All three feature figure models in photos that are more artistic and sensual than sexual. They also share a few of the models (Idaho has photos on all three, Leona and Lara are on TGN and G&B, and more).
The photographs are reasonably well composed and the models have that certain authenticity, as if you could expect to meet them on the street. The best thing in this site's favor is the quality collection of models.
Cons:
The sets are small, as are the pictures. With all the quality, high resolution images offered by photography sites these days, this quality level is kind of inexcusable. There are "high res" versions of some of the pictures, but this is laughable when you compare the to what MET calls "high res."
The content is very soft and artistic. As I always say, this is actually what I like, but I know some will be disappointed that the images aren't more sexual in character.
Bottom Line:
Seeing as this site does not compare favorably with FigureBaby and Grace & Beauty, I cannot really recommend it. The best I can say is, if you subscribe to the aforementioned sites, download all the content, and still want more, TheGoodNudes is an adequate stopgap until the other sites fill up with updates again.
Was a member approx. 3 months prior to this review.
Pros:
This is the private collection of a photographer who has, over the course of his life, photographed a fair amount of women. The content is entirely exclusive and, for vintage photography, it's pretty decent.
The models appear realistic and authentic (more on that below). Even though the compositional and posing style is similar to vintage Playboy, the models are clearly amateurs. In many instances, they seem like neighbors wives looking for a thrill - demure, but slightly adventurous.
Cons:
There are no updates, so I can see no reason to use anything but the trial. I believe there are less than 80 galleries (7 of which were unavailable for the duration of my subscription), so one can easily get all the content in a few hours. Of course, there are no zip files either.
The photography ranges from decent to 'not so great.' I believe some of the pictures just haven't aged well - maybe they weren't stored properly through the years.
Most of the models are merely topless. This wasn't necessarily a problem for me, but it might be for some. Essentially, there's nothing here you won't see in 50s/60s era Playboy.
Some of the models are not conventionally attractive. Typically, I like models that appear realistic and authentic. However, I draw the line at breasts covered in bright red stretch marks (granted, only two models were like that).
Bottom Line:
If the idea of paying a nominal 'trial' fee for a small, but unique collection of softcore vintage photos sounds good to you, by all means, give it a try. It was worth my money.
However, the site is very small, the photo sizes aren't very large, maintenance seems to be non-existent, and the idea of subscribing to such a small, non-updating site seems, to me, a bit ridiculous! If all you want is some vintage photography, there are plenty of sites out there with far more content, better content, and an actual update schedule.
Actually, the videos are available in a variety of formats. You just need to adjust your video preferences. Usually, it asks you if you want a Mac or PC format as one of the menus as you're browsing for videos to download.
Furthermore, I would argue that, while .H64 availability is frustrating, two days is plenty, so long as you keep up with the show during your subscription. Yeah, it would be nice if you could download every show they ever did in the highest quality format, but when you look at the price, it seems reasonable to me. But, that's just my opinion.
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
If you're a fan of softcore erotica and you're looking for something different, this could be it. If you log on and watch the intro video, you'll have a pretty good idea of what to expect. A woman reports on the news and slowly takes off her clothes (or sometimes it's lingerie, or even costumes). If that sounds intriguing, you'll love the site. If not, well, that's pretty much the entire site.
Surprisingly, the news reporting is actually decent. It's a fun way to stay up on current events. The video quality is excellent and available in a variety of formats for both Mac and PC. You can download the two most current programs in very high resolution, or you can download the last 150 days shows in your choice of low/medium/high resolution. However, you'll need to buy the "gold" membership to get the very high quality videos.
Additionally, various years old segments are available for streaming, but not downloading.
Cons:
I'll try to address some common complaints so that prospective subscribers know what they're getting:
The show is not really about sex. Some people may not find it erotic in the slightest. There's no romantic component and, more than anything, it feels kind of silly and carefree. It's actually a fun site, but it's not about sex.
There are about 20 downloadable pictures for some of the anchors, but for some bizarre reason, they're only semi-nude. You won't see things that you see in the video. Think of Demi Moore on the poster for "Striptease." The pics are really more like a bonus than anything else.
It's impossible to tell who the actual current anchors are. You'd think Michelle and Yukiko were still involved, but they're not. This is a bit frustrating. Not all of the anchors are amazing. Some have fake breasts and some are very skinny, but mostly they're pretty hot.
Finally, not everyone is nude all the time. If that's a problem, you'll be frustrated by the site.
Bottom Line:
I've subscribed off-and-on for years and I've always been pleased with the content. There is a real sense of teamwork and friendship between the anchors, and you get a real sense of their personalities.
The video quality, as I said, is outstanding and the download speeds are fast. Add to that the extremely low cost of membership, and you can't lose.
The fundamental question is, do you find the content stimulating? I suspect that for many, the answer is no - it's just too soft and has nothing to do with sex. However, you may find it irresistible.
There are a few specious notions floating around this forum, so please post a response if you want clarification on any point.
The videos are exclusively softcore. You'll see her slowly remove some sort of costume and then writhe around for a bit. Essentially, the videos are probably derived mostly from photo shoots. They follow a similar path from clothed to unclothed, without anything graphic. Some videos feature other models, but it's not like a simulated sex thing - it's like two models posing together in provocative positions.
There aren't a ton of videos. I believe they've added six so far this year. When I was a member, I believe there were less than 50. The early videos are very small and poor quality. The later videos are still small by most standards. To give an approximate idea, early videos are between 2 and 10 megs(!!), and later videos are between 40-90 megs. Videos are really not what the site is about. They're more like bonus content. Overall, if you're mainly looking for videos, you're going to be disappointed.
If you want to see Aria in high quality videos, your best bet is to check out her DVDs. They are equally soft though, if that's a problem. The ones I've seen are actually more like experimental erotic films. All incredibly tasteful, high production values, a bit strange, and almost artistic.
Was a member approx. 4 months prior to this review.
Pros:
As with any solo model site, everything rides on the model's ability to adopt a variety of personas and appearances, lest we grow tired of her image. All solo models should take a lesson from Aria because she does it right. Amazingly, she has a good 10 different looks and each of these have a nice variety of variations. In sum, we don't get tired of seeing her.
Her site is organized into different styles (e.g. glamour, artistic, fetish, amateur, candid) making browsing easy. Plus, there are a lot of interesting features where we really get a sense Aria as a person - even if it's fictional (tough to tell). She keeps a diary, does some interviews, and presents some photo diaries of her adventures (non sexual adventures, that is).
Aria has employed a number of different photographers over the years, so there is compositional variety in her photographs, although her images tend to be very clear, bright, and colorful. Many have an almost cinematic quality.
Cons:
The most frustrating thing is that even though there are many galleries with many pictures, there are no zip files.
The video files are small and lo-res. Additionally, they are sometimes mislabeled so that you try to download a .mov file and you end up getting a .avi or something like that. The videos themselves aren't particularly amazing either, but it's better than nothing.
The older galleries feature small, lo-res pictures. The more recent the gallery, the better the image quality. With the huge amount of pictures, this isn't a huge deal, but it's worth noting.
It's difficult to tell how often the site updates. It's not exactly clear, but I believe the site still updates with some regularity.
A small portion of the content is not exclusive. Aria has been featured on a variety of sites DDGirls, Perfect 10, and more. Many of those sets end up on her site as well. That's not necessarily a bad thing though. It saves you the trouble of joining other sites just to collect Aria's pics
Bottom Line:
Although her site isn't quite as slick as Alison Angel's, Aria Giovanni has one of the better solo sights that I've yet seen. Even though the pictures all feature the same model, she does a fantastic job creating variety. There are some issues (e.g. lack of zips, low quality movies), but there are more than enough positives to justify a membership.
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.
