Review Replies (19)
|
Replies to the user review above. |
| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
abbywinters (0)
Webmaster
|
Heya, Just wanted to say thanks for the kind words. We're working on releasing True-HD (we shoot at 1080, but only release at 720) soon.
|
08-12-14 05:52am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Cybertoad (Disabled)
|
Nice review, welcome to Porn Users.
I like the work at Abbywinters, but the shear huge price tag
keeps me away. The site seems to be lacking in so many areas including many reports of throttling. Half the review at TBP is cons yet everyone gives them extreme high marks. I wont join a site that take my money then tells me how I can download it. Especially at this kinda pricing practices. If they are going to have these practices the site should be 10.00 cheaper minimum. Of course these are just my own opinions and I am pretty picky on what sites I join.
|
08-12-14 06:27am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
AWpress (0)
Webmaster
|
REPLY TO #2 - Cybertoad :
Hi Cybertoad. It's true, we do cost more than a lot of sites. But then again, a lot of sites don't even shoot their own content, or feature overwhelmingly exclusive, amateur models. We like doing that, but it certainly isn't the cheapest way to run a site, thus the elevated price tag.
That said, we absolutely don't throttle our members, nor have we ever; not sure where that rumour came about from.
Edit: We've launched pay-per-scene on our site; it's a good option for those who aren't keen on signing on for a full sub. It's pretty straight forward; you buy individual scenes for $2.49, they are added to your digital locker (hosted on our site) and become yours to access forever.
|
08-13-14 02:43am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Cybertoad (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #3 - AWpress :
Hi there.
Thank you for the response.
I live by the premise in business a person can do two things.
1. Sell Lamborghini's for a living and sell 5 a year at 250K a pop and make money.
2. Sell Toyota Carmys at 25K a pop and sell 10x more and help consumers.
The person selling the Camry will become more well known for their product and not their downfalls if any.
A person Lamborghini's, has to be perfect every time.
I think AW is a great site, but for me it does not justify price tag as the perfection is not there.
Looking at TBP reviews there are allot of issues keeping the perfection at bay.
You have amazing unique women, I will give you that. But thats not all I look for in a site and is why my opinion was what it is .
Thanks
CT
|
08-13-14 09:08am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
greg909 (0)
|
I suspect this review is a plant by Abby Winters. Either that or perhaps you've never visited many porn sites! The photography is absolutely awful; it lacks fine detail in most sets, and shot without decent lighting. It is true that the models are great, but that's not much use if the pictures are worthless. Often, the only clear in focus unobstructed picture of both face and pussy is the last one in the set where the model is standing.
From what I can gather, most of the photography is by ex-models from the site. They seriously, and I mean SERIOUSLY need some professional photographers on the site. If they did that, and increase new sets by about 400 percent, then they'd be a good site.
Great concept , poorly executed.
|
08-14-14 04:01am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
abbywinters (0)
Webmaster
|
REPLY TO #4 - Cybertoad :
Hey Cybertoad, thanks for the clarifications. I'd be keen to hear what you (specifically) think we should do better.
|
08-14-14 06:58am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
abbywinters (0)
Webmaster
|
REPLY TO #5 - greg909 :
Hey Greg,
We don't need to plant reviews, we have enough good ones - we keep a list for fun here:
http://www.abbywinters.com/about/testimonials
It often amuses me that militant PU people shout down positive reviews of our site (and other sites here) - they cannot seem to accept that not everyone agrees with their own world view ("I don;t like the site, so no one else can either!"). I reckon we should let CatSteppings have his say, and perhaps you could post your own review?
Well, you have kind of done that - you don't like our photography. You are correct that some of our shooters have been models (we find we get better results from new models that way). I (Garion Hall, owner) am responsible for their training. They may not be the best shooters in the world (though, I think they are pretty good), but they consistently produce content that our customers enjoy (seems like CatSteppings is one of them) which is what really matters in my book.
If you have some other specific feedback on the photography, I'd love to hear it - your point on depth of field is well taken, and it's a conscious decision we make. I am not always happy with the result. While we could shoot at f16 and wide angle lenses all the time (some of our competition does that - you won's see any DoF issues on inthecrack.com, for example), it's difficult to get that much light into the locations we shoot (often, the models own homes - which are small, especially in Amsterdam), and the result would be less "natural" looking images. So, we make compromises.
Of course, you don't want to hear excuses, you want RESULTS! Perhaps we have to agree that our site is not right for you - I am sure there are many sites whose content doesn't float your boat, and maybe we're one of them?
If you have other photography feedback, I'd like to hear it.
The number of updates, it's a tough issue. Of course, customers always want more, but there's a risk of "firehose of content", porn overload, where customers become complacent. We used to have more frequent updates (3-4 new items a day). When we reduced it, some people complained, but most were fine with it (others actually preferred it). As you probably know, all pay sites are dong it tough; it's difficult to compete with the tube sites. Everyone has ideas on how to do it best, and if there's one thing I've learned in the last 15 years, it's that every customer wants something different, and there's no way to win by trying to please everyone.
I see it as our job to "curate" the "abbywinters paradigm", stay clear to our vision and mission, and let customers choose if it suits them (or not). We do not aim to be "all things to all people", but we listen to feedback, and if it's in-line with our vision, we work to implement it. Indeed, a bunch of feedback has been offered here on PU, and we have implemented some of it (RagingBuddhist in particular was very vocal about some things).
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
|
08-14-14 07:18am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
abbywinters (0)
Webmaster
|
REPLY TO #5 - greg909 :
ok, well, this is topical - this just came in from a customer (not a plant):
------
Hey guys,
My name's [redacted]. I used to be a member on your site and I have to say I've always been a huge fan of what you guys have done/are doing - I love how AW has brought back REAL, natural girls, presented in real, natural settings. There's something so much more appealing about what you do than the general standard that's out there...these airbrushed, hairless, plastic-y bimbos with stilettos under harsh studio lighting, wearing make-up by the pound, that we are for some reason supposed to find attractive...needless to say, yuck.
I saw an AW picture randomly the other day of a model I found out was called Carmina, just a picture of her holding an aqua-coloured jumper/sweater over herself and I thought to myself, "God, abbywinters gets this so completely right."
Cheers, and keep up the good work.
------
|
08-14-14 07:20am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
CatSteppings (0)
|
REPLY TO #5 - greg909 :
I assure you I am not paid by AW to leave a review, just a long time customer (6 years or so). I am not a photography enthusiast, so if the photos on AW are bad, that's news to me, nor do I care. I don't get off on "good photography", I'm looking at the models. I prefer the amateurish nature of the site compared to some other sites I have visited over all. Maybe their photography is more on the not-quite-pro side of things, but it ain't rocket science and they use good cameras, usually natural lighting, and plenty of resolution (they offer XL high resolution photos besides the regular, on newer shoots the past several years). I also only view this stuff on a smaller Macbook pro and not a large monitor or TV, so maybe I haven't missed the ultra high 5k rez or whatever. The HD they offer and XL pics are enough on my system. Some shoots are better than others on here.
I think you're right, they do mostly have former models do the shooting, I may have called them pros in my review, but I think imeant the camera equipment is professional.
I think the non-pro approach makes it more real, like the models/shoots aren't part of some industry porn site (which of course, they are). Like the girls just got together to shoot some porn and have lots of orgasms (and once a month, one of them brings their boyfriend) .
I've got other porno from other sites, but still come back to this one alot. It's all subjective anyway, there is a lot other sites have not on here, and vice-versa.
Also , I am new to PU, and have not left reviews of other sites yet, I may work on that.
|
08-14-14 01:30pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
CatSteppings (0)
|
REPLY TO #1 - abbywinters :
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.
|
08-14-14 01:46pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
CatSteppings (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - Cybertoad :
Hi, I'm not sure if I have noticed throttling, but it may be there. I have always downloaded as opposed to streaming. I dont download more than a few shoots a day, if that, some days not at all. At this point I have way too much pornography on hard drives that if it's slow downloading I don't worry about it, and mark something as a favorite to download later. Their pricing does seem a bit steep, especially since they separate it into three sections, paid for separately. But they make it a little cheaper if you sign up for more than one section. Plus it does not include access to other porn sites like some site subscriptions offer.
The a la carte has been a good deal for me, since I have had an account for so long, that I still only pay .99 cents a shoot, instead of the increased $2.49 price per shoot for new accounts. I hope they do not change that anytime soon for the old accounts! Though I just signed up for a month subscription for the first time in over a year, since they have more I want to download lately. With ala carte they also keep purchases "forever" in a digital locker, which I have found handy. If I am only signed up a la carte, I download way less as well.
|
08-14-14 02:22pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
AWpress (0)
Webmaster
|
REPLY TO #11 - CatSteppings :
Hi Catsteppings,
Just ducking in to confirm that your 'grandfathered' $0.99 cent rate won't change; it's something that dates back to our earliest beta-tests of pay-per-scene.
|
08-15-14 06:43am
Reply To Message
|
13
|
Parsnip (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - abbywinters :
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.
|
08-15-14 12:14pm
Reply To Message
|
14
|
greg909 (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - abbywinters :
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.
|
08-24-14 08:29pm
Reply To Message
|
15
|
greg909 (0)
|
REPLY TO #13 - Parsnip :
Let's make a distinction between "fine art nude" and porn. We are talking about porn in Abby Winters. Sure you could shoot f2.8 in fine art. But let's not deceive ourselves here.
|
08-24-14 08:34pm
Reply To Message
|
16
|
abbywinters (0)
Webmaster
|
REPLY TO #14 - greg909 :
Hey Greg,
Thanks for your feedback, it's helpful.
g
|
08-25-14 09:24am
Reply To Message
|
17
|
CatSteppings (0)
|
REPLY TO #12 - AWpress :
That's good to know! It definitely has kept me revisiting the site whenever I have left for awhile. And I like the digital locker feature for pay-per-scene to keep past purchases organized, stuff I forgot I'd bought already.
|
08-27-14 06:55pm
Reply To Message
|
18
|
Sasha Bones (0)
|
I have been a member of AW since about 2006 off and on, through all the shoots and controversies and I can say the quality is unmatched. I joined strictly because I dig lesbians, and lesbians are great. Also dig 'em. That being said, there really isn't a site that does them better. You can find some that shoot strictly pros, with the fake tits, fake moans, fake orgams, pretty much everything is fake except the money being siphoned from your bank account.
I have to admit, i don't know if AW is high or not simply because I don't really shop around that much. but what I can say is, with the original content these guys do, they are putting out a product instead of combing other sites and paying fees to use others work. The models are the photographers in a lot of cases, but they are being paid for increasingly quality work so are pros.
What I don't like about AW is since the move to Amsterdam, many of the new crop of women don't spend a lot of time on oral but that is simply my preference so I notice when it is absent. I have paid on and off over the years, been through pretty much every rate change and am not paying ala carte. However I am paying 2.49, I don't remember being offered the .99 per shoot grandfathered rate.
Would definitely recommend this site, especially if you are a big amateur lesbian fan.
|
12-09-14 04:12pm
Reply To Message
|
19
|
CatSteppings (0)
|
REPLY TO #18 - Sasha Bones :
I agree with you, I still like the site very much. I've appreciated the a la carte option more lately since I don't view that many shoots a month and they save them on the account so I don't have to worry about backing them up on a hard drive as much.
One thing I hope they work on, is that they redesign the site to work better on mobile devices (tablets, iphones, etc) for streaming, or even have roku channel options. The site is still very well designed as a website for laptops and desktops, but could use serious improvements on other platforms. Some other porn sites I've viewed have a similar issue, especially if they have been around awhile.
Also, another reason to like the site, is that they still don't use photoshop AT ALL to "airbrush" the models' imperfections. Recently they had polled the users on their forum to take a vote on whether or not they should start using photoshop to do minor edits, and I think users voted to keep things as-is w/out photoshop. I thought it was cool they asked the customers what they thought.
|
01-01-15 12:39pm
Reply To Message
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
