Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
Alison Angel
(0)
|
Reply of
somedays's Comment
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?
|
03-31-09 12:50am
|
Reply
2
|
Alison Angel
(0)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
The videos are all in one part. I believe they're mainly in .avi format. The size is between 5 megs and around 50, so nothing too big or high res.
|
03-31-09 12:49am
|
Reply
3
|
Aria Giovanni
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Reply
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.
|
04-01-09 06:17pm
|
Reply
4
|
Change Room Hunters
(0)
|
Reply of
littlejoe's Reply
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.
|
04-06-09 09:52pm
|
Reply
5
|
Change Room Hunters
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
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.
|
03-31-09 02:30pm
|
Reply
6
|
Change Room Hunters
(0)
|
Reply of
Tom929384600's Review
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.
|
03-30-09 12:35am
|
Reply
7
|
Figure Baby
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
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 . . .
|
04-07-09 01:17pm
|
Reply
8
|
Figure Baby
(0)
|
Reply of
Chipster's Reply
Hi Chipster,
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.
~Xororos
|
04-06-09 10:14pm
|
Reply
9
|
Figure Baby
(0)
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
Hi Monahan,
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.
I hope this makes sense.
~Xororos
|
04-06-09 10:10pm
|
Reply
10
|
Figure Baby
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Comment
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.
|
03-22-09 09:56pm
|
Reply
11
|
I Shot Myself
(0)
|
Reply of
FeckAdmin's Reply
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.
|
08-12-09 10:00am
|
Reply
12
|
I Shot Myself
(0)
|
Reply of
uscue's Reply
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.
http://www.ishotmyself.com/public/genera...php?p=shoot_yourself
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."
Interesting.
|
05-28-09 11:59am
|
Reply
13
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Reply
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.
|
06-03-09 09:59am
|
Reply
14
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Reply
>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.
|
06-02-09 12:41pm
|
Reply
15
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Reply
Yeah, we're officially arguing semantics :)
>> 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 :-)
|
06-02-09 12:01am
|
Reply
16
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Reply
asmith12:
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.
|
06-01-09 09:49am
|
Reply
17
|
Naked News
(0)
|
Reply of
Horndog's Reply
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.
|
04-05-09 10:04pm
|
Reply
18
|
Naked News
(0)
|
Reply of
polacrilex's Review
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.
|
04-02-09 12:44am
|
Reply
19
|
Perfect 10
(0)
|
Reply of
james4096's Review
I agree 100%. I was very disappointed with the site. I'll probably write a review myself, although yours covers it very nicely.
|
03-31-09 11:55am
|
Reply
20
|
Rookie Babe
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Comment
*Update*
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.
|
04-23-09 02:28pm
|
Reply
21
|
WTF Hot Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
BadMrFrosty's Reply
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.
|
04-25-10 03:29pm
|
|
