Holly Randall (0)
|
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
Lots of popular porn stars and models of all ages, shapes and sizes but a lot of D-cups and above. (i.e. curvy girls)
Perhaps one of the last "Glam-core" porn sites but with a lot of extra stuff like insertions.
Very high quality all-in-focus images
Mostly solo but some G/G and B/G
Good quality videos that include masturbation.
Several newer sets/videos that are full-on hardcore.
Several download sizes/formats for images and videos.
2+ updates a week.
Affiliated with the Met Art network
Great navigation (search on Model name, tags, etc.)
All sets dated. |
| Cons: |
Number of images in a set is sometimes rather small.
Some of the porn-star models are rather mature...
Some older sets seem a little monotonous (same shoot sequence formula).
Some newer sets may be unreleased older sets. |
| Bottom Line: |
If you don't know who Holly Randall is, she is a 2nd generation past nude model and current erotic photographer. She and her mother both shot for Playboy as well as several other magazines like Hustler. They practically invented that trademark large format everything is in focus image style that was/is common in those publications. She has shot for websites as well, like Twistys. She has won all kinds of awards for her photography and videography - awards she totally deserved.
I haven't been a member of Holly Randall since 2012, so I thought I would join to see what has changed and to collect the best of the 6 years of material that has accumulated since I was last here. I was not at all disappointed. The sets, models, make-up, lighting and image quality are all excellent, just like I remember.
The glam look is still there, too. I really like that done-up look and whoever is doing the doing-up here, um, knows what they are doing without over-doing it. Models you know, like Connie Carter and Candice Luca, look like a million bucks. Every pose is perfect. Nothing is out of place or overlooked.
Just take the best from Met-Art or Femjoy and turn up the glam a little bit. That's Holly Randall.
Couple of things I really like about this site.
In almost every set, there is nearly 100% eye contact. None of that voyeur, girl-in-the-woods or innocent looks into the distance crap. These women are all looking at you because they know exactly why you are looking at them. Nice power play.
There are a few close-ups in every set, but they are almost unnecessary because the sets flow naturally and already show everything. Some photographers on other sites (Met Art, for example) tend to add close-ups into sets as sort of an afterthought. On Holly Randall, the girl is making eye contact and striking many different poses with progressive levels of openness. Also, and this is huge, Holly knows how to use depth of field so EVERYTHING you want to see is in focus in almost every image, from her eyes to her high-heels and everything in between. None of that six shots focused on her face and one identical shot focused ONLY on her not-face nonsense. (I really don't like it when a photographer uses depth of field to tell you where to look.) Here you get the whole picture, all in focus and you get to look wherever you want in every image.
What's new since my last visit is the affiliation with Met Art, which has brought an updated and improved web site. Holly Randall is not on the Met Art pull-down sites menu, though....not sure why.
The site has been around since before 2009, but that is as far back as the sets go. Figure 15 sets a month for over 9 years, that's about 1600-1700 sets. Of course, the older ones are not in today's image resolution, but they still aren't bad. Around 2012, the site started to go a little harder. Many sets include an image or two with spreading, fingering, insertions and/or masturbation and the more recent sets almost always have them.
So....what's not to like? Well, there really isn't much. Some tiny things, really. Like although navigation is generally the same as it is on other Met Art sites, you can't set your preferences so images in a set show up in a new window. Big deal. Maybe a few of the porn-stars are a little past their prime (but Holly makes them look awesome). Not a deal killer. Occasionally, images are a little grainy or soft. Might be because they have ben resized? Not sure. Also not a deal killer. Ok, here's one. The sets are sometimes pretty small. Some are only 40 images or so. But when that happens, the images you get are usually very good. Most sets are at least 50 images and some are nearly 100. And lastly, there may be some photoshopping here and there, but I don't think it is obvious.
Ok, bottom line. If you like glam-style images of past and preset popular models and porn stars (like the images from Twisty's), then this is a site you really have to visit. Unlike Twisty's this site is easy to navigate and is managed by a highly reputable group. The only reason I am only giving it an 85 is because of the more mature models/pornstars that are not my taste.
It has taken me a couple of weeks to sift through all the material that has accumulated on this site since my last visit several years ago and I downloaded a lot, which says a lot.
Go ahead, give it a try! |
Reply To Review Review in Favorites!
|
