| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
26
|
Club Seventeen
(0)
|
Reply of
spazlabz's Reply
I agree there is some quality content now, and the girls are the most genuinely teen-looking anywhere! But I do have some criticisms still, which I hope you can address:
1. The thumbnails are square and only show about 60% of the represented image. This makes it near impossible to judge what's in the image itself, without actually viewing it. This drove me crazy! Most other sites show full-image thumbnails, so why can't you guys?
2. There are so few sets where we get to see the girls in close, full-frontal without some obstruction in the way (usually a dildo or their hands.) Once undressed, it's straight to the dildo or fingering. Hey, some of this is OK, but almost every set is just annoying. A lot more straight head & pussy views of these great girls, please, without dildos or hands!
3. The site is very, very slow.
Thanks for listening.
|
02-11-11 03:38pm
|
Reply
27
|
Cosplay Deviants
(0)
|
Reply of
tangub's Reply
I'll second that. 900 pixels hardly even qualifies as "small" today. Wake me up when you have 2000 pixels or higher.
|
10-03-11 04:40pm
|
Reply
28
|
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
29
|
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
30
|
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
31
|
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
32
|
FTV Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
EverNight's Review
I did a subscription here recently. The HUGE turnoff for me is that FTV Girls is one of those sites where you can only download the bigger images as a zip file -- the entire gallery or nothing. So it's a loooong download, followed by unzipping, followed by editing and copying, etc. I gave up after a while -- far too much effort.
Also, as the reviewer said, every set is repetative.
|
03-19-14 10:48am
|
Reply
33
|
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
34
|
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
35
|
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
36
|
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
37
|
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
38
|
Karup's PC
(0)
|
Reply of
Karup's Reply
Good to hear. I hope you will also use a low enough compression that it doesn't strip all the fine detail out. This is a problem on many sites where they boast about big sizes, yet the actual detail is no better than smaller sizes due to too much filtering. I look forward to checking the site out in the future.
|
12-01-11 09:48am
|
Reply
39
|
Karup's PC
(0)
|
Reply of
Karup's Reply
Well it doesn't say what those concerns were. But the biggest concern for most of us is when exactly will Karup increase your images sizes to meet today's expectations (i.e. 3000x2000 or higher)?
|
11-30-11 06:26pm
|
Reply
40
|
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
41
|
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
42
|
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
43
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
Reply of
Nubiles Captain's Reply
So did it happen on April 12th?
|
04-16-16 09:23am
|
Reply
44
|
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
45
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
Reply of
Nubiles Captain's Reply
Has it happened yet?
|
08-10-15 03:08pm
|
Reply
46
|
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
47
|
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
48
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Review
The thing that keeps me away from Nubiles the most is that all the girls are completeley shaved. I mean, even if they had 1 out of 5 models that were natural then it would be nice. But there are none. It's another ALS if you ask me, but with inferior photography.
|
10-21-11 10:50am
|
Reply
49
|
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
50
|
Wet And Pissy
(0)
|
Reply of
LPee23's Review
I might add that for those of us more into the still pictures, they are mediocre quality at best on this site, and usually miss the best action. As for the videos, great quality, but far too much other stuff like dildos and glasses for my liking.
|
03-19-14 11:01am
|
