Comment Replies (4)
|
Replies to the user comment above. |
| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
In this case, other PU members haven't expressed a similar opinion because you're just plain wrong!
Hopefully, you recognize that I'm kidding - well, to a certain extent anyway.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but the refreshing thing about Femjoy is the unsullied beauty of their models - they look great and their photography is very high quality and there aren't very many sites around where gorgeous women are shown without TOO MUCH make-up or too much photo-shopping, so Femjoy is filling a niche that is underserved. They would be fools to reverse course and stop filling that niche. In my opinion.
|
06-08-09 06:31pm
Reply To Message
|
2
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
REPLY TO #1 - PinkPanther :
OK, I'm expecting a second vote of no confidence from Mr Fountain, on my opinion that femjoy models would be improved by more makeup.
But are there any PU members that agree with me? Or is this too much of a niche/nitpicking idea to concern my fellow PU members?
I don't have anything against natural. But makeup can bring out a girl's beauty. If you compare the photosets of the models below, I think the photosets of those models are, in general, better looking at met-art than at femjoy.
Photoshop is used more at met-art. As long as it's not overdone, it can add.
But that's a matter of personal taste. Just as two people looking at a list of models will probably not rank them all in the same descending order of beauty/attractiveness.
Angelina B(femjoy) aka Indiana A(met-art)
Anina(femjoy) aka Anna AO, Anna AS(met-art) aka Sinner and other names at metmodels
Brigita(femjoy) aka Natalia A(met-art)
Desiree (femjoy) aka Desire A(met-art)
And there are a bunch of other models that are featured at both femjoy and also at met-art, where you could compare the relative attractiveness of the photosets.
|
06-08-09 07:43pm
Reply To Message
|
3
|
shroom (0)
|
Yes, you're right (about your opinion) : it has merit even though I don't share it at all, and exactly for the reasons you're expressing ;)
I think the less make-up there is the better it is. I usually avoid Met-Art because of the generic quality it brings : they're on quantity side instead of the quality one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that M-A is bad, but it really has nothing special.
That's what I like about Femjoy, that "Girl Next Door" feeling you're speaking about.
And more specifically, the artistic side they bring rather than the erotic one.
If I come back here, that's because they know how to picture nude girls without using artificial elements like make-up, toys...
And watching at the videos, I can clearly see that they enjoy being nude in front of the camera.
But indeed that's also a personal point of view, to each his/her hown :)
|
08-12-09 02:39am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Admo (0)
|
I would agree models can look better with make up.Some look better natural. So many variables. One critcism of Femjoy's beauties is there is not enough close ups of genitals whether dry or moist.Many have cunts clean shaven & some have bushy pussies. Either way I'm sure many would finger their vaginas & even climax. The site should maintain the same high standard but close ups of labias, some floppy or stiff make it exciting. Some shots show the anus but not all. Karol was a fab example of a woman on knees aiming her arsehole direct at the lens. All sets should include anus shots both open & some of a tight asshole!
|
09-16-10 09:48am
Reply To Message
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
