| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Comment
I've had a lot of problems with Femjoy and Gamma recently. It used to be fine, but I've signed up twice recently (same credit card, etc as the past) and get a confirmation email. But when I tried logging in to Femjoy, it gives an error. Gamma support do not resolve this problem -- they just refund you without explanation. Very frustrating. So I've given up trying to signup for any sites through Gamma/Famehelp now :-(
|
05-21-24 05:07pm
|
Reply
2
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
Yes, sadly other sites that previously had safe billing have now moved to Gamma (Fame), which is one of those billers that employs PRE-CHECKED SUBSCRIPTION tricks to have you sign up for extra sites without realizing.
I've already had some bad experiences with Gamma (Fame) and will avoid any sites that use this biller in future.
|
12-02-19 04:06pm
|
Reply
3
|
ATK Natural & Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
Loki's Comment
Yes, Sean R has moved to wearehairy.com, although I sadly find that his sets don't have the same fine detail and apparent image fidelity there as they had on ATK (possibly due to something that wearehairy does in their post-production... who knows.) R. Williams, another ATKhairy favorite, has also moved to wearehairy, although not much content.
It's really, really sad how ATKHairy has sunk in the last year or two. It used to have 8 sets per day, and now it's just 2, 3, or 4 if you're lucky. And it's the same old models for weeks or even months on end, doing the same set every day, and mostly shot by amateurs like JSP and Foxy. Very sad.
|
03-19-18 01:46pm
|
Reply
4
|
Goddess Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Review
I found the image quality very disappointing on this site when connected with Domai. Yes, the image sizes are big enough, but the resolution is generally quite soft. They look like old film shots that have been transferred to digital (as on Domai). I'm not sure if anything's improved since Met-Art took it over.
|
05-13-16 08:08am
|
Reply
5
|
Hegre Art
(0)
|
Reply of
tangub's Review
Tangub, I think you're probably right about the site having the highest res images around. However, people should know that most of Hegre's images are just wasted white space. There are some exceptions, but most sets consist of a model just standing there against a blank white or grey backdrop, with little variation. Explicit shots are few and far between, and the models usually only occupy a small amount of the frame.
Yep, I agree about the sets getting "a bit boring and repetitive". In fact, I'd say VERY boring.
|
05-13-16 07:58am
|
Reply
6
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
Reply of
Nubiles Captain's Reply
I'm assuming that your lack of response means this STILL did not happen.
|
04-28-16 09:55am
|
Reply
7
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
Reply of
Nubiles Captain's Reply
So did it happen on April 12th?
|
04-16-16 09:23am
|
Reply
8
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
Reply of
Nubiles Captain's Reply
You've been saying this for about 8 months now. When exactly will the new size be active?
|
02-16-16 08:25am
|
Reply
9
|
Hegre Art
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
Hmm, I think I'd rather do a 1 month subscription for just 1 month a year. Most of Hegre's sets are of a girl standing around against a grey backdrop - filling a small portion of the frame. He's the most boring, unimaginative photographer on the net. Great image quality, though!
|
02-13-16 09:10am
|
Reply
10
|
Girls Out West
(0)
|
Reply of
Broncoviz's Review
Well, I certainly agree with your "Cons" list. Very few real updates, as you said. Most of the "updates" are from other sites who's content is far superior to what Girls Out West produces. Their photography is appalling and they seem clueless about getting models to actually pose.
I'm scratching my head as to why you gave this site a score of 90. I would rate it as low as I could, since it's one of the worst sites I've ever been to. Sorry.
|
09-23-15 11:13am
|
Reply
11
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
Reply of
Nubiles Captain's Reply
Has it happened yet?
|
08-10-15 03:08pm
|
Reply
12
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Comment
Yes, it's true that many of met-art's sets are not very sharp at all. More specifically, they often have low depth-of-field (one part of the body is in fairly good focus while everything else is not.)
Lack of sharpness is also more apparent on this site because they offer very large images (sometimes 7000 pixels), so the softness is very apparent. There are, however, a few photographers who offer better sharpness, like Matiss. I just wish it was more consistently good across other photographers' sets. Still, most viewers just wax poetic about every set that's posted there, which makes me laugh.
|
07-05-15 01:54pm
|
Reply
13
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
Reply of
Nubiles Captain's Reply
Yes, it makes sense. But you still haven't told us what the new "large" will be. Is it 3000 pixels, 4000, 5000? Also, please, please make the new large directly viewable -- not via downloading the whole damn set. Thanks.
|
07-05-15 01:44pm
|
Reply
14
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Comment
Nubiles: your reply is a little confusing. So what exactly is the size (in pixels) of the New large images? And can the new large be accessed directly without downloading the entire set as a zip?
|
07-01-15 07:33am
|
Reply
15
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
I'll also chip in with a couple of "cons". I think that Met-Art gets too much praise for their image quality. Sure, there are some sets--maybe 15%--where the quality is superb. But the majority are just OK or even flat-out bad. There's so much badly focused, dark, grainy crap here, that it's a relief when you finally find a set that's worth saving. Unfortunately, it's the regular contributors each day who are the mediocre ones and the really pro photographers only show up occasionally.
Secondly, I have no problem with the site being soft core, but so many sets here are heavily processed to remove skin detail, hair, etc. What you're left with often just doesn't look like a real girl, and that's what takes me out of Met-Art.
|
04-28-15 12:16pm
|
Reply
16
|
FTV Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Comment
Can you download individual high-def images yet? When I was last there, it was all-or-nothing for each set, which made me not want to bother with this site again.
|
02-07-15 09:10am
|
Reply
17
|
ATK Galleria
(0)
|
Reply of
2 Free K's Comment
2 Free K: Your comments are exactly the response that the DDOS attackers are trying to achieve. They want to shut down the site and prevent its business; you are helping in that effort. Any porn site that is relentlessly attacked like this is going to be down. They don't have the resources of billion dollar businesses like Wells Fargo bank, so stop making stupid analogies.
Yeah, the ATK sites have been up and down with this problem, but I'm sure these guys have been trying anything and everything to resolve it. I've had my gripes with their content, but they need our support in the long term. We need to fight the attackers, not the victims.
|
12-21-14 06:19am
|
Reply
18
|
Karup's Hometown Amateurs
(0)
|
Reply of
Douggie's Review
On the photos side, perhaps someone could post whether things have improved here?
When I look at their preview site, even the small weekly samples they post never look very sharp. And many of the models appear to be the same ones you see on other sites where there's better photo quality. So it doesn't make me want to sign up with Karups.
|
12-07-14 10:09am
|
Reply
19
|
ATK Premium
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
Hi Skippy, I wasn't sure if you were reviewing ATK sites generally in this review, or specifically ATK Premium.
The thing I've found with the secondary ATK sites (Premium, Exotics, Aunt Judy's) is that most of their good content is just a duplication from the primary sites (Galleria and Hairy). The primary sites also post MUCH more content each day than Premium, Exotics and Aunt Judy's. So there's little reason to sign up for the secondary ATK sites, except for a small amount of niche content which isn't very good.
On the performance side, I agree. Even when they're up and running, the response time is often slow. All the ATK sites are offline as I write this message, since they presumably all share the same server. I think there's been a number of DDoS attacks recently.
|
12-07-14 09:57am
|
Reply
20
|
18X Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
Funny, I did a month's subscription there recently (regrettably) but didn't notice the content aggregation thing. I guess I just didn't pay attention to where the content came from.
My issues with this site is that the images are not particularly good quality and you barely get to see each model in their nakedness; as soon as they're undressed, they are being banged by some dude, who never goes away. Waste of my time. This is strictly a hard core site.
|
12-07-14 09:21am
|
Reply
21
|
Village Ladies
(0)
|
Reply of
poppadopolis's Review
Wow, 1000 pixels. Even your phone takes much bigger pictures than that. I won't even bother going to site for a look. Thanks.
|
12-07-14 09:09am
|
Reply
22
|
ALS Scan
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
ALSSCAN now have you enter your credit card details while still in the porn site's domain (Metartnetwork). Yes, I know it's an HTTPS transaction, but why is the site taking credit details themselves? They also have pre-checked cross sales. None of this makes me trust them very much. Met-art still has you enter your credit card AFTER you reach CCBILL.
|
10-23-14 08:25am
|
Reply
23
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
One of the things that really annoys me about Femjoy is that the thumbnails they post to represent each set is VERY misleading. Many of the sets are poorly lit, not very sharp, have the wrong color balance, and the model is miles away from the camera. Yet the editors on Femjoy take the best shot in the set (there's usually only one that's any good) and crop it significantly to look like the model is much closer. Then they pump up the light levels (which they don't do for the photos themselves) and adjust the color to a more accurate balance. As a result, the set's thumbnail looks very inviting, but you're really disappointed when you see the set itself. Don't be misled by their Updates page -- the actual content is rarely like it.
|
09-01-14 05:09pm
|
Reply
24
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
Parsnip's Reply
Let's make a distinction between "fine art nude" and porn. We are talking about porn in Abby Winters. Sure you could shoot f2.8 in fine art. But let's not deceive ourselves here.
|
08-24-14 08:34pm
|
Reply
25
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
abbywinters's Reply
OK AW, here's the thing. I have posted reviews of your site before. But nothing ever changes. I really want your site to succeed, because the concept appeals to me -- natural young girls without silly makeup and silly clothes.
But endless shots of just a pussy (or more often, a hand covering a pussy) are not appealing unless you can see the girl who it belongs to... in reasonable focus. You so rarely get both clearly in the same shot.. unless she's 50 yards away. No, I don't want you to shoot with wide angle -- it obviously distorts the body and faces. But I think you should be shooting at f16 in acceptable ISO ranges (below 400). This, of course, means you need strobes. Oh, just think of it... the wonderful, natural girls you get with the technical clarity of Sean R. People would be signing up around the world!! But as it is, sure, you can quote some good comments, just as any movie publicists can quote a good review from at least somewhere. Use lights! It doesn't make the girls less natural -- it just takes them out of the grainy, murkiness and makes them more real.
|
08-24-14 08:29pm
|
