| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from RustyJ:
It's so cheap that if I was you, I'd just subscribe and see for yourself. The content and the presentation varies quite a lot between the sites. On some sites I'm actually bothered bu their use of only wide angle in photography for example which would be the exact opposite of close ups.
But as I said, the sites obviously have different directors and shooting equipment so there's little bit of everything. All in all the best network I've found so far.
|
10-20-11 11:54pm
|
Reply
2
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Denner:
(monty4321's Reply)
It's a tough one, Monty - been having some conversations earlier with the Drooler - since we both been through this:
Where can I find some new and fine material for my taste???
Looking at your inputs above, I have a few suggestions:
Karups PC is a fine site with a lot of the above
A little more special, but great is Ero Berlin (a lot full body) - and most done in some really great sets and vids...
But check out previews....and come back anytime...
|
10-18-11 05:45am
|
Reply
3
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from dracken:
I think it really depends on which site in the network you're talking about. Gapeland seems to focus a lot more on close-ups, but I personally never had an issue with Asholefever, Lezcuties or Analteenangels. I think they run a pretty good mix of close-up and whole body...
The big difference I notice between them and other sites is that they seem to focus more on faces and have several close-ups of the girl's face. They also like to play around with angles and have shots where the girl is blowing some dude, but you also get to see her ass in the frame.
I'd say it's not the close-up that you think of normally when thinking of close-ups... I never had the feeling I was looking at an anatomical drawing of a vagina :)
Then again this is just my opinion.
|
10-15-11 10:58am
|
Reply
4
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from Denner:
Another good input.
And yes - apart from those loooooong close-ups 21Sextury.com has turned the site into an anal-site when it comes to both hc and solo....using those easteuro deals with those easteuro males like Timo - anal and anal and anal ect.
No wonder this user with no interest in anal material goes elsewhere...
|
10-15-11 06:48am
|
Reply
5
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from Denner:
Thanks monty! - you mention one of my main issues here - especially concerning 21Sextury.com.
Been a fan of that site for years, but the latest vids content has made me give up the site. Reason: Endless time of close-ups....
What's got into them/these producers???
Like monty says:
"Occasional close-ups are fine - but we need some fully body shots way more."
Well put!
More and longer full body shots in general, thank you. (BTW, glad to see that my ol' thread has come to live on this matter)....
https://www.pornusers.com/forum/forum_th...d.html?threadid=1977
|
10-15-11 06:43am
|
Reply
6
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from RustyJ:
(monty4321's Reply)
Actually it's quite diverse. It used to be more anal stuff I guess but there is everything from solo to girls only to normal intercourse. Of course there are many sub sites with anal as their main focus.
|
10-15-11 12:51am
|
Reply
7
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from RustyJ:
Yes you can, H.264 and wmv.
|
10-06-11 10:18pm
|
Reply
8
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from RustyJ:
It's right on the top when it comes to photos. Premium sites scenes have large photosets and the quality is very good. Some sites these days offer up to 21 megapixel images in zips that can be closer to a gigabyte in size so they might be even too large for some.
The artistic vision is not the absolute best but very good still.
|
09-14-11 12:46am
|
Reply
9
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from Tree Rodent:
What Denner says. Pictures are generally very good. For some reason in some shoots there are very few of them. I don't know why this is. The number can vary from 100-200 down to 30-50. Mostly I consider the photos to be very good. You also get screenshots for most videos (numbers of which can also vary). I agree with Denner on there being too many gynaecological close ups, but there's enough quality on here to make it my favourite network. I am currently on my second month of membership and will be going for a third.
|
09-13-11 06:18am
|
Reply
10
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from Denner:
First - take your time to go through the MANY reviews from other PUs - and the one from TBP - guess you'll find a lot of answers here..
Photos are top-quality in my opinion though not the big pix fan.
BUT: What strikes me as a member here a many times - on and off - are a couple of items concerning vids:
1) By all means: top viewing quality (the larger file, the better quality)
2) A - sad - tendency - to focus too much on close-up - both soft and h/c. I really miss some of the earlier full body/posing/strip.
3) And yes, anal has more and more focus here - too much for my taste (too).
|
09-13-11 05:43am
|
Reply
11
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from pat362:
It's true that anal is a main theme in many of their shoots but they also have a lot of content that is solo or vag B/G. I downloaded the most recent solo model update at Club sandy and there are 132 pics in the set. The resolution for the HQ version of those pics is 6048x4032 and it included asome of the shots you were talking about.
It's hard for me to tell you if you'll find enough content to make it worth it since I'm not sure if you want softcore, midcore or hardcore vag pics.
|
09-12-11 08:37am
|
Reply
12
|
ATK Exotics
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Review
from greg909:
I'd have to agree with your review. What you say is also true of ATK Galleria -- despite the larger image sizes that they now offer, ATK's images often lack detail and look processed. I think at least part of this is due to over-compression.
ATK Hairy is probably the best quality, but it's still a mixed bag, some photographers being pros, while others are clearly amateurs.
|
07-19-11 08:15am
|
Reply
13
|
ATK Exotics
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Review
from Capn:
Hi Monty,
Welcome to PU.
A well reasoned & argued review, if a little light on stats.
It sounds like your preferences are similar to my own.
Cap'n. :0)
|
07-18-11 11:27am
|
Reply
14
|
DDF Network
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from Monahan:
Huge quantity of outstanding, hi-res content, but it's more a video-centric site than a photo site.
|
12-22-11 10:53pm
|
Reply
15
|
DDF Network
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from Capn:
Basically in full agreement with the above posters.
If you haven't been there before, it is worth a one hit membership to get a taste of what they are about.
They do have some fine models & good material, but they are catering towards the glamour end of the spectrum.
Cap'n. :0)
|
10-19-11 09:35am
|
Reply
16
|
DDF Network
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from Wittyguy:
In short, this site will probably give you what you're looking for. If you can't decide for sure, all of the sites under the DDF banner have an $8 two day full access trial if you want to test the waters.
As for makeup, you'll probably see a lot of that here (DDF does high end glamour porn) but it's generally not overdone. Otherwise, I think you'd be satisfied with the site given how much content they have (clips available on vids, some anal (depending on which sub-sites you join) and a good variety of stuff to ogle.
|
10-17-11 05:03pm
|
Reply
17
|
DDF Network
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from anyonebutme:
It's a great site, but they do pack on the makeup thick.
|
10-17-11 05:00pm
|
Reply
18
|
Karup's PC
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Review
from Capn:
A solid review there, Monty.
This is one of my favourite sites.
Cap'n. :0)
|
12-04-11 03:36am
|
Reply
19
|
Karup's PC
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Karup:
(monty4321's Reply)
Hey Monty,
It was my/our pleasure and I'm glad we could come through for you. And by the next time you join, you should be even 10x happier as a result of new feature that (at this time) is very close to being launched & implemented. :)
Regards,
Jeff
|
11-30-11 03:22am
|
Reply
20
|
Karup's PC
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from Karup:
Hi Monty,
Jeff from Karups here. Sorry for the trouble. Can you please forward any of your previous e-mails to me at?
jeff (at) karups dot com
I'll be happy to assist with whatever you need, as well as look into why your e-mails weren't responded to. We're in & out of the support e-mail addresses everyday, so there must be a logical explanation for it.
Regards,
Jeff
|
11-03-11 03:20pm
|
Reply
21
|
Karup's PC
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from Denner:
Monty, since I recommended this site on your request let me say this:
Karups PC is like so many major sites with a long background (since 1997):
Newer material is of course much better than what you find from early 2000, before and a little after.
But generally Karup's PC is still getting better and better regarding both vids and pix quality. Though I also get 1500x1000 checking my sets, they're absolutely fine for full screen viewing.
Like vids, like pix you can't only rely on actual size regarding viewing quality....at least in my experience...and this user is considering yet another rejoin.
|
10-26-11 05:58am
|
Reply
22
|
Karup's PC
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from Hooliganzo:
Sets after around 2007 offer the 1500x1000 zips. I think it is the bare minimum for good resolutions. I use my tv as a monitor which I run at 1920x1080. Images in full screen at this resolution on a 40 inch tv look good. The older sets look decent between 2004-07. The sets 2003 and before are pretty poor.
If you like to zoom in you can zoom in a little with the 1500 sets and still look good.
|
10-24-11 12:14pm
|
Reply
23
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Comment
from kinkyking:
Exactly!! This site was a total disappointment, the poses for me are everything, specially the vagina shot and not all the models have them. The overall on photo sets are lame, too many "regular" poses that you can find in any free site. In fact, I don't mind if they are regular or ugly woman, as long as I can see a very good photo set, because the truth, there are a lot of sites with stuning models with to much make up and after a some years watching porn...I'm tired of these...
And after these, my problem now if it's worth to pay for ATK, because I don't want to waste my money again.
|
01-25-13 08:16am
|
Reply
24
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Review
from messmer:
As opposed to you I found most models beautiful, and to contradict my other friends would love nothing better than to see them in fancy lingerie. Nothing wrong with the girl next door looking sexy!
As others mentioned, you probably appreciate sites like Twisty's and DDF which I dislike heartily because one can't see the models' faces for all the heavy powder. But, that's fine. We all have different tastes and it is good to see your viewpoint. Gives me more tolerance for views other than mine. :-)
|
02-07-12 12:38pm
|
Reply
25
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Review
from BubbaGump:
I just signed up recently, as well. I didn't pay much attention to the video content as that is not my area of interest.
As far as photo quality, I definately have seen examples where focus issues are present. I don't recall seeing any glaring exposure problems, however, and I am pretty anal about things like that. Then again, I ddin't go through every set.
For me, I don't really find the girls unattractive, I think it's just that they are not over-glamorized and elements such as makeup are kept in check so as not to detract from the natural theme of the site.I certainly wouldn't meet any of these girls on the street in person and think they were ugly. Most men would find them pretty if they walked by them on the street and passed them, IMO. I think we are just so used to seeing the heavily airbrushed and post-processed porn with heavy makeup and lipstick, lingerie, and heavy facial cake powder, that when we do come across models in porn that are not made up in this way, we tend to rate them as less attractive when compared to the pro studio standard of perfection. As an example, have you ever seen a news-babe off the set, without being under the soft, flattering lighting and without the professional broadcast studio makeup? The results are quite dramatic. They can look like totally different people and much more 'average.'
Sites like this are the anti-thesis of high fashioin nude glamour and are more about bare natural beauty, IMO. Seeing a glamorized model with fancy lingerie and makeup, sporting a full bush and underarm hair would be totally out of place, IMO.
Anyways, I am not arguing and don't mean to negate any opinions. Just offering a different perspective. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. However, if you come from a site like DDF or other glam sites to a site like this, I can see how one might be inclined to equate the lack of polish to a lack of beauty.
|
02-06-12 08:07pm
|
