I saw it and expected better. I din't find it erotic, sorry. Most of the shot was simply too far away when a closeup would have worked better. Too many plain girls too
I think you've got it just about right with the length of video clips. Any shorter and it gets annoying. I admit it would be useful if there could be an option to download one long file but if this is a lot of work for you guys I understand why you prefer to focus on new content. The site is really user friendly. Cheers.
and its shows 4 separate video files, would I have to pay $11.96 to see all four or $2.99 to see all four as they are part of the same shoot, I presuming the latter after what you just wrote above but just confirming.
I was a member before but this is going back some 6 or 7 years ago I would think. Cannot for the life of me remember which login I would of used, it was for the girl/girl section of your site I joined could of been longer than 7 years when I think.
With the pay per scene I see some shoots are on separate scenes movies. Is it $2.99 a shoot or you have to buy the individual scenes separately.
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.
Abbey Winters occupies a niche which isn't of interest to me, so I have no dog in this argument. However, I do find the comments on photography interesting. I have noticed that a few other sites are trying to get away from the lights up full, f/16 or f/22 everything in focus simplistic photography, and bringing in a more intimate feel with shallow depth of field, more natural light etc (for example 21st sextury). I assume it's an attempt to differentiate themselves from the mass produced herd. To me it's a great improvement. Sadly, it seems that a significant number of consumers don't get it, and just think it's out of focus or underexposed.
Cool good to know. I find 720 HD still works great on my macbook. I tried TrueHd vs HD on another site and could not tell enough diffrence to justify a larger download size for trueHD. If used on a larger monitor, though I could probly tell.
Also, I noticed a differnce in which video player is used can effect the quality, with current HD.
The pay-per-view idea seems to be the perfect idea in my opinion... Too many times, I join a site only to find 2 or 3 girls or videos that I really want to see.
If you were ever to add a pay-per-view plan, I would sure take a visit! Just don't make the prices too ridiculous.
AW webmaster: Depth of field is one issue on AW, and continues to be. But that's not what I was talking about in this thread.
Yes, all other sites I compare to are viewed on the same monitor which is well-calibrated, and 1920x1200 resolution. I am a keen photographer myself, so I'm not talking out of lack of experience or judgement.
I can't point to a specific set, since I'm not a member any more, but if you look at the largest size images and think they resolve detail well for their size, then there isn't much hope. I'm not sure what you mean by "moderate compression", but if they're more compressed than 10 on Photoshop's scale, then that may be contributing to your problems. In addition, a lot of the shoots don't seem to pay attention to where the focus point is; you have the wall behind the model in sharp focus, but the model is not. Also, many shots appear to have slight motion blur due to too low shutter speed, so that may be contributing to the overall lack of resolution and quality too.
Honestly, I'd love to see a big jump up in image quality on AW because I've really liked the type of models used in the past. I'm not mouthing off for no reason. Perhaps you could show your large images to an unbiased professional photographer to get their opinion and advise.
REPLY TO
#4
from daniel bum:
(abbywinters's Reply)
After they made all those changes the quality of the videos started going down. Unattracted girls with no lesbian sex skills nor personal charisma, plus poor camera work has contribuited for me to lose interest on this site. Why don't they bring back the "good girls" from the past, Chloe, Gabrielle, Nadine, Gisselle, Alex T, Katherine F, Kara D, Carly T, Jilly, Marigold, Carla, etc. Oh, those were the days !!! I think that Chloe should have her own section with videos only performed by her and any other girl, THAT alone would make me sign again. And for the love of God, get a decent camera operator, somebody able to capture something, some clean a clear oral sex for instances would be nice, don't you think. We'll see, I only hope this site gets in the right track again.
Thanks for the reply but my gripe was not about content per se more lack of support something which been redressed here but neither of us should have to post here to resolve problems when it could have been resolved via your site not this one
Thanks for the information Garion.
MPG has to stop even, because it is large and of poor quality. I usually download in MP4 HQ (very good) and MP4 HD (the best, incredible image) but sometimes I get down into WMV. I think he should stay longer, but obviously I know that any change is for the better.
Thank you for the prompt response here. I'm glad you appreciate my feedback for it's honesty but, me being me, I guess I have to argue the point of it not being entirely fair.
Like the consumers of any product, what goes on behind the scenes isn't of much importance when it comes to what we're getting for our money. The lag between a shoot and it's publish date is something that is (or should be) invisible to your members. All we know is, we used to get x, and we've been getting "less than x" for months now. (That's an algebraic x, as in representing a variable, not an adult rating x, even though that does somewhat apply here.)
Too much nudity? On a porn site? While I'm well aware that tastes vary, I can't imagine you'd get too many people asking the models to keep their clothes on. I think it's great that your site never pushes the girls to go beyond their comfort zone, but, at the same time, Abby's isn't a non-nude site. It's also not one of those sites where people wait months for a model to "finally flash some titty". Again, that points to the final product. We're used to seeing naked bodies and, for quite a while, the nudity just hasn't been there. Before the AW forum got skewed by the people passionately defending the site against the slightest criticism, I used to browse the posts quite regularly - and I can't say I ever saw anyone complaining that the girls were "too naked". What I have seen, however, are posts on here and other forums, mirroring the same complaints. The most common and recurring complaint is what's been defended as being "the tease factor". Last year and beyond, I never saw anyone mentioning long video shoots with the nudity coming in the last few minutes or huge picture sets with the skin showing up in the last few pictures. Other than the one that mentions how attractive a model is, I don't think the quotes I sampled from the other forum misrepresent that thought at all. I included that quote only because it mentioned other issues that seem to be on the minds of members, and former members, of the site.
I will agree with you that model attractiveness is subjective and that it's impossible to please everyone. In that regard, I would ignore the complaints and stay the course as that's a battle you'd never win anyway. Personally, being the amateur fanatic I am, I've never had a problem with how they look - except when they're clothed and talking for too long.
So... if you say the drought is almost over, I guess the only thing to do now is sit back and see if the comments and reviews get better. I certainly look forward to it. I'd like to see things get to where I'd feel like renewing again wouldn't leave me as disappointed as I was the last time I joined.
REPLY TO
#5
from badandy400:
(abbywinters's Reply)
I see. I assure you I see everything I download. I queue up my download manager manually specifically to avoid downloading this multiple times and downloading the same video under different formates.
I will try to be more clear about what I am saying. When I was going through the site I went by date, not model so that may affect this, I am not sure. Anyway, as you said the update was coming 5 days later and I believe you since that sounds about right. On the update of the scene the stuff shown previously is also shown on that page. So if you go through by date you will run into the same video usually twice and sometimes more.
Granted after a while I noticed a pattern and was able to avoid some of that it was still a bit annoying. I was not downloading the videos twice though, that is not good for you or me. I dont want to store two of everything and that also means twice the bandwidth for you, so i understand if you had concerns there that i downloaded everything twice! Also, by download manager would flag the download if I had already downloaded the file, so the download never began. However, if I was not using a manager it would not be difficult to end up downloading a good number of files twice. Perhaps there is a better way of browsing your site, but the average person does not know the site as well as you would so they would not notice certain things that you would.
I am not downing the site for that, I just want people to realize that they may need to watch for this to save them the trouble and you the bandwidth usage. Thank you for reading my review though and if there is anything else you would like to clarify please feel free, after all it is about your site!
Im very impressed the site replys to reviews. and ive taken note of what you seid and i agree with the g/b statement and made changes to my review and ponits accordingly 90/92. Also changed a few other things.
The search engine needs some tiny changes.
1) selecting multiple search criteria is a bit fidly and the control selcting could be improved. (not realy a problem just an idea)
2) split the search criteria for videos and images. so rather then having videos with images have video only. (its hard to explain)
3) Do more G/G T3 scenes 1 a week isnt really enuf
4) try to sort out the public lists (dont ask me how i dont know where to start!) Its a great idea but its getting really big now and 37 pages is alot.
The fact that you are the only site that does (girl cum) is a massive bonus. This is a huge niche that lodes of guys love and none of the other sites have added it into there niches not even review sites. Its a shame that you dont have many G/G scenes with it.
> I have no idea how reliable those stats are, nor what market segment they apply to.
I'd say that it would be a good idea to research this kind of stats BEFORE implementing such a restriction, wouldn't it?
> We know that 100% of our subscribers have JS enabled.
Sure, as you throw away everybody else :-)
> I am not sure of the details of your case
My case is very simple - content of your site isn't unique enough for me to mess with yet another "protection system that magically solves all the problems and doesn't cause any problems except for one single customer".
With about 4-5% of all the users having JavaScript disabled
(see for example here: http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/November/javas.php ) I don't see how it can possibly affect only single user if you're speaking about many thousands users. Something doesn't really add up here (could theoretically be that only one user out of 100 having problems complains, but it doesn't look too likely, does it?)
11-13-0705:31pm
*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
