Ratings & Reviews
|
All the reviews and ratings from this user. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Review
1
|
abbywinters
(0)
75.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 3 months (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Lots and lots of content accumulated over the years, which is great if you're a first-time member
- The girls are young, natural, and generally very cute. Most have pubic hair like REAL young girls -- not shaved like the window dummies on most other sites
- The girls wear REAL (but still very sexy)clothes, not ridiculous costumes that distract you and make the experience unreal
- Lots of videos, with a choice of how to view them. Personally, I can't be bothered to spend an hour downloading a video that's the size of a postcard, but I quite like the style of some AW shoots. |
| Cons: |
- The majority of picture sets are a frustrating tease. Either the lighting and photography aren't up to showing the details (see below) you want, or the model doesn't pose very explicitely. Some sets DO get it right, and then it's a special pleasure
- My biggest complaint: image quality. Unlike several major sites these days, Abby Winters refuses to provide the option of large (e.g. 3000x2000 pixel) images on all sets. Instead, they only offer larger images on occasional sets, which means the ones you REALLY want bigger are only available in their "standard" size of 1472x981 pixels. The standard size wouldn't be TOO bad if the resolution and compression were handled well, but Abby's pics lack the fine detail of sites with similar image sizes, like ATK Hairy. I'm not sure what they do wrong to the images, because apparently the cameras used are professional Canon SLRs.
- Depth of field: Big problem on AW. They usually have the important "bits" out of focus. |
| Bottom Line: |
AW has some great content accumulated over the years, and the girls are uniquely natural and beautiful. If you're a first-time member, there's a lot of good stuff. But for returning members, I now find little new picture content worth saving; AW focuses far more on videos these days, with just one new picture set every couple of days. Of those sets, most don't have the resolution of sites like AVErotica.
Sadly, AW accepts feedback, but seems to not listen unless it is praise. I've given suggestions about depth of field in the past, and just get "maybe you should go elsewhere" responses. In most sets now, it's just page 5 on a 6 page set that offers some modest nudity. If they could at least offer higher quality images, then the few shots that are good would be golden!
Oh, and AW currently doesn't offer membership through the normal trusted brokers like CCBill, only through their own billing system... so some U.S banks refuse the transaction. Wake up AW!! |
|
11-27-09 11:05am
Replies (6)
|
Review
2
|
Girls Dot Com
(0)
50.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
Some pretty girls -- or at least they would be if you were able to see them clearly |
| Cons: |
Extremely poor image quality: they're the kind of picture quality you'd have seen back in early 90s internet sites.
Very limited content. The site boasts about having huge numbers of sets, but what they don't tell you before joining is that those sets are made accessible on a rotating basis. Only a few sets are accessible each month. So you can't even get to most of the old stuff. |
| Bottom Line: |
Don't waste your time! This site is paranoid about people downloading lots of its content, so it employs various techniques to prevent members from easily getting to everything. And trust me -- you wouldn't want to anyway, because the image quality is worse than that on most free sites. |
|
11-27-09 11:34am
Replies (1)
|
Review
3
|
Zemani
(0)
55.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Attractive collection of girls
- Good lighting and composition in most sets
- Site navigation is fine
- I guess the videos are OK, although check out other reviews for those... it's not my scene
- Pictures look OK at 1200 pixel resolution
- A few natural bushes, in addition to the usual dominance of completely shaved models. |
| Cons: |
- So-called "poster size" images (the "big" size option) are horrible quality with no fine detail in the vast majority of photosets. |
| Bottom Line: |
Sorry, but I just had to blow the cover on this site. The Best Porn gave Zemani's image quality an "A+" which is so, so misleading. (Misleading enough that I signed up in the hope that things were good there now, but I was very disapointed.)
You guys at The Best Porn should take a second look -- you said the images are so sharp even when you zoom in on the big images (which are 4000 pixels or higher.) Well that's because they've applied HEAPS of false sharpening. Maybe 1 or 2 percent of sets are OK, but the other 98% are full of digital artifacts like jagged edges and pixelation in the model's eyes that look like they upscaled the image from a smaller size. Last year I commented on the full-size sample images, and they have taken them off the site now, only offering small samples in pop-up boxes. I'm not surprised. Beware!
It's a shame, because if the images were high quality like Met-art (which they're not) then they'd have a great site because the girls, settings and compositions are just fine. |
|
06-21-11 06:26pm
Replies (2)
|
|
