The troubling thing is, her site doesn't really say this - at least anywhere I could find. There's no mention of updates, but isn't that usually assumed when you join a pay site?
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.
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.
With the HD videos, you have the option of 256, 512, and 1024k. The bit rate varies from clip to clip. For the top quality videos, the range is usually between 900k and 3mb.
Basically, the HD videos are crystal clear. The other videos are deliberately lo-fidelity.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Since all voyeur footage is staged (it's highly illegal to tape someone in this manner without their consent), the real question we face is: does this *appear* authentic? Can we willfully suspend our disbelief without considerable effort?
An authentic appearance is something this site does well. We have a range of ages (20-35ish) and body types, simulating what we can imagine as a real locker room. Some of the videos feature women that are obviously models, and they show up again and again. However, many of the videos feature a wide array of women, which I think is a good thing. There aren't any obese women, but there are some with a more average "mom" figure.
Navigation is easy and there are plenty of videos to download. Some are in HD and some are standard. There is a choice of movie size for each video. Times range from a few minutes to a few seconds.
Cons:
Some of the staging is not believable at all. Most of the HD videos available take place in what is obviously a regular room (with a large window!) with a small row of lockers. The clarity is very good, but it doesn't have the appearance of authenticity.
You're pretty much stuck with .wmv format. A few videos are available in DIVX format, but not many. I haven't had many problems playing the videos, although a couple have some weird artifacts that obscure the image.
Bottom Line:
The content breaks down into a few categories with two main sets. There is a shower set where one or two women (or a man and woman) take a shower; there is a real-looking locker room set featuring many of the short black and white videos, and incidentally, featuring the most diverse array of body types; there is a totally unrealistic HD set where a model strips or gets dressed; and finally, there are some random extra shots of other parts of the locker room.
If you like voyeur footage, this is a decent site. The lack of variety isn't such a big deal when the content is high quality, which this is. It updates regularly, although you can download most of the content fairly quickly. I'm not sure if it's worth a repeat subscription.
Overall, the site does many things well. I recommend going through the tour, as it gives a very good sense of the member portion. If you like what you see, you'll like what's on the inside.
Um . . . I'm pretty sure ALL the videos on any voyeur site are staged. Surely you're aware that it is *completely* illegal to tape someone like this without their consent. Yeah, they make it look authentic with grainy video and weird angles - some shots even make it look like the camera is in a gym bag - but I assure you that this and all other voyeur footage is not surreptitiously obtained.
I think the real question is, does this site successfully suspend our disbelief to the point that we can pretend it's real without too much work.
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.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Browsing is easy, multiple image sizes are available, you can download image sets in zip files (at medium resolution only), movies are downloadable with no DRM.
Cons:
Less than half of the girls actually appear nude. Approximately 20% are fully nude, 30% are topless, and 50% are non-nude. Nowhere is this mentioned on the website - very misleading. The site claims "all natural girls," but many of the nude models feature breast implants. How is that "all natural"?
One can browse the site and look at each model's page and photo sets, but this is very misleading. Many photo sets are actually parts of larger sets, so it takes about three Daisy Beach sets to equal what you'd find on Hegre or MET.
Finally, the site is not a good value. You're required to purchase a 7-day trial for $19.99 before you can enter into a regular 30-day subscription re-billing at $19.99.
Bottom Line:
I feel like I was very misled as to the nature of the content on this site. If you don't mind the women staying dressed, then perhaps you would enjoy the site. However, what exactly is the point in that? Can't you find images like that for less than $20 per month?
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.
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
FigureBaby's most valuable asset is its diverse selection of models. This is one of the only sites I've seen that features what I consider to be "realistic" looking models - i.e. not incredibly skinny, not fake, etc. Many of the models work as life models (posing for art classes and such), so it's a very different style. This is really not an amateur site. The models are all professional, but as I said, they are not the same type as you find on most sites.
Cons:
The site is still fairly new and even though there are three updates per week, it's on the small side. You can probably download all the content within a few hours. Although the addition of zip files for downloading picture sets is great, you cannot select the photo size. You get medium-size with the zip files.
The models may also be a 'con,' depending on your taste. I recommend looking around at the site before signing up. FigureBaby is very good about giving plenty of samples so there are no surprises. I've found a couple of the women to be most unattractive, but it's purely personal taste and they weren't the reason I joined anyway.
Bottom Line:
With the glut of European model sites (MET, Hegre, DOMAI), it's nice to find an American site featuring models that look like people you might actually meet in real life. I've seen many sites with a similar goal, but FigureBaby is very consistently excellent both photographically, and in selection of models.
It IS on the small side, but the price is fair and it's definitely worth checking out.
The site is updated three times per week (M/W/F) at 3AM Eastern time. Most models have at least four sets, although two or three (Idaho, Ada Rose, and Birdy) have between 17 and 22 sets. I would say that the average is around 7 sets per model.
With zip files, it's definitely possible to download the entire site in a matter of hours. However, the content is quite good (I plan to review it shortly) and considering the cost, it's probably worth subscribing for a month.
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
This site features a nice selection of realistic-looking models. You won't find any super-thin models with fake breasts. The style is very similar to FigureBaby.com and both feature models Idaho and Dominique (aka Sienna). The style is somewhat artistic and very soft. These seem to be mainly American models, as opposed to the Eastern European models that dominate so many sites these days. There is quite a variety of body types, ethnicities, and personalities. Some models are better than others, but all of the models appear very authentic.
Cons:
The single most annoying aspect of this site is the lack of zip files for downloading photo sets. The site is very basic HTML on the order of something I could build myself in about two hours. Navigation is usually a bit strange as there are not always menus to take you where you're trying to go. My other main criticism is the quality of the photography. The pictures are simply not good enough for a pay site. They're fairly small, the colors are dull, and there is not as much clarity as one would hope. Some of the photo sets feature bizarre photoshop filtering that can only be described as "cheesy."
Finally, updates are infrequent. I've subscribed twice with over a year in between. I believe there were fewer than 20 updates during that time. I found very little new content and I cannot imagine subscribing for more than a month. Moreover, some of the photo sets I downloaded the first time were missing when I returned!
Bottom Line:
Grace & Beauty is a decent site if you're tired of Eastern European models. It's deeply flawed, but the price is decent and it's probably worth checking out. The biggest thing this site has in its favor is the diversity of models. These are definitely not your stereotypical "playboy" or "Hegre" models, nor do they have the youthful edge of Abby Winters or RookieBabe. They alone justify a month's subscription, if that's what you like.
Since FigureBaby is so similar, I can't help but compare these two sites. FigureBaby comes out on top in all categories (I've reviewed it as well), but at the same time, it's small. I recommend checking it out, but when you're done and you still want more, Grace & Beauty is a decent follow-up.
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 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.
Was a member approx. 4 months prior to this review.
Pros:
A modest collection of Kay Parker clips available for download. Other than that, none. I'm giving the site a 65 rather than a 50 simply because KP is so great.
Cons:
This is a very simple HTML website with 48 downloadable videos. All the videos are clips from movies and the quality ranges from poor to average. The format varies from clip to clip. Some are .mpg, but most are .avi.
Content wise, there isn't anything unique here. All of these clips are floating around elsewhere online and available for free. The only thing you get by subscribing is the ease of finding them in one place.
There is a rather pathetic little photo gallery filled with tiny, low-resolution pictures that were obviously pulled from a Google image search. Do one yourself and you'll find everything available here.
Finally, there do not seem to be any updates to the site.
Bottom Line:
The most frustrating thing about this site is that it should be so much better. Kay Parker is a classic and she deserves a decent site. This isn't it.
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.
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.
