| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
I thought your review made important points about the quality of some of the photographers and images. When I see "Pasha" or "Slastynoff" or "Magoo," I think, "Oh, no. Not again!" Tim Fox and Voronin, on the other hand, are generally really good.
But frankly, I'm glad this site doesn't have "open vagina" or much spreading. There are plenty of sites that do already, and far more do than sites like this one.
And as for hardcore, well, can't we have some "softcore only" sites?
|
12-10-07 04:39pm
Reply To Message
|
2
|
PosterDude (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #1 - Drooler :
Maybe I do not say right. Not asking for insertion but just more
pink and open shots can be just as sexy. Some of Met-art copy sites do this better, but those sites are not consistant as much updates or overall quality. Soft = playboy, but met-art should me playboy plus more pink to me better for me.
|
12-10-07 06:02pm
Reply To Message
|
3
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
REPLY TO #1 - Drooler :
I'm surprised that they don't respond to e-mails because they are such a great site in other ways.
They definitely have their distinctive style, but they have enough variety to keep me consistently interested. While every shoot doesn't have me jumping for joy, I find that I have NO problem finding exciting stuff every time I log in, because the archives are so deep and there is so much posted each day.
I agree with the comments about the boring vids - Met Art could give lessons in how to make high-quality, REALLY boring vids - but the excellent photo-sets and consistent daily multiple updates keeps me a very happy member.
|
12-10-07 06:04pm
Reply To Message
|
4
|
jd1961 (0)
|
I think the sets should open in small size too. Because with Met-Art, you have to check the sets before you download, because some of the sets are boring. Good review!
|
12-10-07 07:35pm
Reply To Message
|
5
|
jd1961 (0)
|
REPLY TO #1 - Drooler :
Yes! Magoo...I can always tell his sets. Pretentious and boring.
|
12-10-07 07:36pm
Reply To Message
|
6
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #3 - PinkPanther :
I've had similiar experiences with them not responding to some of my emails, but I've had a few responses. Most of my emails were complaints about such things as PosterDude described in his review (photos that are too grainy, too dark, or overly processed), so I felt at least I was having my say. Whether they pay attention or not is hard to tell, but change usually takes time and persistence.
They really are a LOT better than they used to be, though. They used to segment the photosets (much smaller in image size) and add segments over SEVERAL MONTHS. That was awful!
|
12-11-07 01:47am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #4 - jd1961 :
They have a section, "Set Browser Options," where you can set the default size of the photos. It's a nice feature! I always have the default at 1024 (small) for quicker previewing of individual shots before I make the decision for a one of those at 43xx!
|
12-11-07 01:53am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #5 - jd1961 :
The name's funny. Makes me think of "Mr. Magoo" the cartooon character, but now instead of a steering wheel, he's got his hands on computer devices, Photoshop open, insisting on applying too much "image enhancement," making the women look really icky, and not even seeing what he's doing. Mr. Magoo in the Internet Age.
|
12-11-07 01:58am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
jd1961 (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - Drooler :
I forgot about that, thanks for reminding me! I have a lot of work left to do there, but I have been spending too much time laughing at the chat comments at the live cam!
|
12-11-07 04:28am
Reply To Message
|
