Erotic Beauty (0)
|
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 3 months (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
-Extension of Met-Art
-Good quality photography
-Attractive models
-Download manager support, fast speeds
-Large sets zipped 100-150 photos per set (low, med, high)
-Popular models and artists
-Timely updates |
| Cons: |
-Database poor condition
-Mistakes in new updates
-Model name changes etc
-Very few videos (pro for some) |
| Bottom Line: |
Met-Models is possibly best thought of as an extension of Met-Art. Although it only offers one update per day it fits nicely in with Met-Art featuring a similar level of quality in both models and photographers. As a big fan of Met-Art I was often quite impressed by many of the sets from Met-Models, some of the better models also made their appearance on Met-Models first. The other good thing is that many of the models on MA will have photosets on MM, so as a collector you’ll want to check MM out.
Unfortunately the database holding all this beauty is substandard. Returning models may have different names, some name changes are minor others completely different. Many different models may be listed under the exact same name making voting useless (e.g. ALENA). I have seen some new sets with typos or mistakes on the cover sheet, naming a different photographer than the set indicates. If you want to search the archives you’ll be in for hell because of this poor database. They need some people to go through and sort it all out into correct model names and remove the duplicates. Not having model information also doesn’t help and is a bit disappointing. Another annoyance is the reluctance to use the Model’s name from MM or MA on either site if the model has been seen their first, this is possibly due to the backlog of updates. I’d like to see consistency across the sister sites so you don’t need to know what the model’s aliases are. I’ve tried contacting the website support with a list of duplicated models but they have not done anything or replied.
But the set quality is very good; navigation on the site is near identical to MA even though their non-member page looks very different. Main difference is models don’t have brief model bio. Works with download managers (Flashget), fast speeds, sets are zipped up and range from a few hundred MB to 900+ MB for high res sets depending on artist. Available in low/med/high res where low - 800x1200, med - 1365x2048, high – 8 megapixels+. Sets are quite large, typically 100-150 photos, similar size in comparison to Met-Art again. Videos are few and far between (35 total – and only 5 since start of 2007), good thing possibly for some. Leocont, Ingret, Nudero, Rylsky, Morenko, Rigin are recent popular artists who regularly post content on the site.
It’s really the ideal choice for fans of MA wanting more of either the models or the quality of photography with the biggest issue being the state of the database and lack of model info. If they fixed this up and added another update per day I’d be very impressed because at times I think the average quality of sets is probably better than MA in recent times. |
Reply To Review Review in Favorites!
|
