ATK Premium (0)
|
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
Huge collection.
Many reasonably attractive girls
Network includes multiple sites, depending on what you signed up for.
Many models have different types of sets listed (masturbation, foot fetish, lingerie, etc.)
There are early sets of a few popular models here.
Site is multi-lingual
File download speed seems pretty good.
What you see in the previews is representative of what you get.
Every set is exclusive to ATK |
| Cons: |
Site is often slow
Site often crashes (lots of 504 server-database errors)
Pages time-out so you can't go back or refresh
Lots of cross selling
Can't tell how many images there are.
Can't tell how many videos there are.
Navigation is a bit more challenging than it needs to be.
Many sets are nearly identical.
Some sets appear to have been recycled (Sets in only small resolution from 2011?)
Since every set is exclusive to ATK, chances are good you will see it elsewhere on an ATK site. |
| Bottom Line: |
I'm having a hard time finding a lot to like about this website. Perhaps the best way to describe it is middle of the road. The models are your basic cross section of college-age Kmart or maybe Target shoppers. Some are attractive, many are not. None are truly stunning and almost none are truly hideous. This is a side effect of the amateur-type site status, I guess. There is a wide variety of body types from super skinny to...um...super plump, so if you like bigger girls, this might be a good site for you. These girls are all natural, ranging from nothing up top, to some giant melons, but breast size is proportionate to overall body type (i.e. fat is distributed evenly). There are no really fit or smoking hot bodies here, but a lot of nice 18-24 year-olds. The grace/awkward ratio is about even. Overall, there is a huge collection.
Navigation Is difficult. It is single threaded, and if you try to open multiple windows, the servers either throttle access or time-out...in other words getting through the images quickly is simply not possible. You can set how many thumbnails you want to see but, again, everything is single threaded so you have to wait to open a picture and then wait to return to the gallery.
The photography on this site is about average. The images are clear and consistent, but the lighting in the mostly indoor sets is not well developed or particularly flattering. You can tell that many of the sets with a model were shot on the same day in a different corner of a room or a different room in an apartment or hotel room.
The sets are a very standard formula. Girl starts out standing, clothes on, peekaboo, strip (often bottom first for some reason), show ass, spread, gaping spread, then depending on the type of set, on to other things like toys, masturbation, foot fetish, watersports, etc. "Artistic" is really just a normal set that they converted to black and white. Really dumb. This image shooting sequence makes many of the sets monotonous, even boring. In general, the girls do not look like they are having a very good time. It is all pretty much just straight show-me-the-money stuff, not very glamorous. Lots of gaping close-ups if you are into that. A handful of sets are girl/girl or guy/girl scenes but the vast majority are just solo.
Images come in three sizes, 682x1024 (who uses this?), 1080x1600 and 2000x3000.
Make-up is generally very good. No goofy eastern European eye shadow that I can find. I also noticed that the girls are generally very clean and well groomed. Mostly no pimples (anywhere), slap marks, bruises, razor burn, bad tattoos, etc. I don't think there is any or much photo-shopping...
The ranking of the models is a little odd. On a 1-5 scale (5 highest), there are a lot of unknown young models at the top of this list with only a few votes. Shyla Jennings is a 28th, Tiffany Thomspon is 15th. Early Zoey Kush is 94th. Early Jessie Rogers, complete with original Brazilian tan lines, is 62nd. Riley Marks is 85th. These model scores are not the sum of the scores of the sets, but a separate score for the models themselves. The reason I mention this is because it is not really possible to find the "best" girls or sets using the ranking system. You might find a model you like down in the 100-200 range. Oh, there are 657 ranked models. Surprisingly, most at the bottom are not bad looking, just victims of a bad photographer. Just reinforces my point about how useless the ranking system is. Might be more about the images than the girls.
There are quite a few videos of the models. Some masturbation videos are quite good, but many are just videos of the photo sets. Even a few guy/girl videos are just the photo sets, which is immensely disappointing. There are also a handful of behind the scenes videos...a big NOPE on those. Some of these girls you simply do NOT want to see before they put on make-up. Finding a video with the right combination of attractive girl and decent videography is very, very rare, but there are a few. Forget about anything hardcore, though. There are a couple, but it is extremely rare.
Perhaps the thing that taints my opinion of this site the most is the navigation speed and server response. When you try to open multiple windows, even to view images, the site times out. Oddly, download speed seems OK, though.
Bottom line? Well...if you are into amateur-ish solo photography, there is a huge collection here. Take a look at the previews and determine if this is the type of thing you like. |
Reply To Review Review in Favorites!
|
