The Life Erotic (0)
|
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
Generally high quality material
Beautiful, natural models
Wide variety of sets, locations and models
Very "artsy" site
Good range of image sizes to view/download
Generally good video options
Navigation is generally good
Fast download speeds
Many popular European models
Good navigation |
| Cons: |
Very "artsy" site.
Very little eye contact with camera
Creative edge takes precedent over practicality
Landing page focus is on cross-selling live site
Entire site including all sets are very dark!
Many sets in black and white or oddly tinted
Many shorter sets
Many models only have a set or two
There are more tattoos here than other Met-art sites. (not always bad, but not good on otherwise beautiful models)
Seems like some is B-roll from other sites |
| Bottom Line: |
Stats (Deduced):
About 1500 photo sets
About 500 videos
About 320 models
1 new update a day
Some older sets are not exclusive
The site has been around since 2009 but some of the sets pre-date that.
The models are generally young and all shapes, sizes, ethnicity, hair color, some hairy, some tattoos, etc.
This site is, to a large extent, sort of an evolution of the "girl in the woods" theme with the idea that you are observing a model in a more natural environment instead of a studio environment. Often the idea is that the model doesn't really know you are there or doesn't pay much attention to you, the viewer. About 50% of the sets are solo girl in a straight modeling scenario. Many of these sets are of very, very attractive girls that are just standing or in other conservative poses. Another 40% are female masturbation sets that range from boring to pretty interesting. And the remaining 10% are girl/girl scenes. I need to say that the majority of these are very conservative sets with few money or close-up shots. (There are some Oh My God models, but they are not necessarily doing OMG things....) There are notable exceptions, though. It depends on the model, I guess. There also is a wide mix of eye contact. Some sets have models that never make any eye contact with the camera at all. Earlier sets are better, but the quality of those sets is not as good. Oh, most of the sets start out with the model(s) clothed. I noticed some models remained clothed for 75% or more of some sets.
The first thing that strikes me about this site is how dark it is. Everything is dark. The site, the sets, the lighting, the videos, EVERYTHING! Older sets are a little better in this regard, but you will generally think there is something wrong with your display. Newer images are dark, contrasty, very shadowy. Distracting. Annoying. Generally awful. I batched a couple of sets through Photoshop and auto-adjust increased the brightness in most images by 50% or more. That is a heck of a lot and it is not accidental. They are deliberately turning down the brightness on these sets. You have to work to make images this dark. Really work.
The second thing I noticed was how hard the webmasters are trying to get you to go to the live site. When you get to the landing page, you don't see a single girl on the site you are paying for. instead you get a full page of images from the two live-cam sites that seem to be taking over the Met-Art network. You have to scroll down to see the contents of the site you already paid for. The webmasters are apparently experimenting with where best to put these live-cam ads as they can be found in different places on the various Met-Art sites. This is the most intrusive placement, right at the top of the main page and present on every page on the site. Stop it! Really. Just stop.
Another thing is the almost complete lack of playfulness, compassion or interaction with the viewer in many of the sets. Some of these models have all of the expressions of a check-out girl at K-Mart, meaning none. Even models that normally shine are somehow less expressive here. This is not in any way erotic as the name implies.
And the last thing to note is how inconsistent many of the sets are. More recent sets seem to follow that dark theme for the most part, but some sets are not like that at all. Some sets are very short, some are filled with close-ups, some are not. Some girls are almost entirely fully clothed for the whole set, some are not clothed at all. Some have eye-contact, many do not. You can tell if you are familiar with other Met-Art sets that some of these sets seem like they might have been B-roll or too weird to put on Met-Art. For example, there is an outdoor set of Lorena, beautiful Met-Art regular, where she is entirely covered in red mud in every single image. Really? Has to be a B-roll.
Navigation is generally good. There is an options section that allows you to set defaults for image size, number of thumbnails on a page, etc. like some other Met Art sites. The search function has user defined tags, which helps if you are looking for a particular trait that others are likely to define, like ginger or spread. But it could be better.
Bottom line? Good site to visit once, I guess. I personally don't like it anywhere near as much as other Met Art sites like Met-Art itself or Errotica Archives. You can actually see the weird evolution/devolution from a site similar to Met Art in the beginning to a site that now looks more like a bad graphic novel than a soft-core porn site. There is a decent amount of material here and some of it is pretty good, but be prepared to sift through a lot of dark, odd and often slightly off pictures to find things that really float your boat.
I wish I could be more enthusiastic, but this site just doesn't live up to Met-Art standards. |
Reply To Review Review in Favorites!
|
