| Bottom Line: |
I noticed my review of this site expired and there are no current reviews, so I'm updating my old review. Very little has changed since 2014 except the number of sets has gone up a lot.
Femjoy is one of a few sites that I have an annual membership to. This is a site with photography that ranks up there with the best in this genre...perhaps THE best. The photo sets and models themselves are generally spectacular. In fact, there are a few exclusive models here that are the absolute pinnacle of beautiful female form. Translation: They have perfect, perfect bodies, pretty faces and bright eyes. The models are 18 to mid-20s, fit, clean, totally natural, mostly clean shaven and just drop-dead gorgeous. Very few piercings and next to no tattoos. The more recent models are very open and the site seems to e getting a little more explicit than it was in the early days. No problem with that!
Lets talk about content:
The site has been around since 2004. I can't get a good read on sets, but it is at least 4000 or so, plus about a video or two a week for at least the last few years. Of course the older sets tend to be a little more "observing a naked girl in the woods" but for the past few years, the shooting formula has been damn near perfect. Great mix of full body and close-ups in various poses. Sets and outdoor locations are great. Interaction is great. Lighting is consistently terrific. Posing is great. Nothing awkward or uncomfortable anywhere.
Just a reminder that this is soft core. There is no guy/girl sex, no toys, no insertions, etc., with maybe a little bit of masturbation and few girl/girl sets just touching and leaning. (If you want that in this format, go over to Joymii.) At Femjoy, you just get beautiful views of great looking models.
The videos are sometimes of the photo shoots and sometimes shot separately on the same set. The girls start naked or disrobe and are usually undressed by the halfway point. Any close-ups, etc are reserved for the last few minutes of the video and there is rarely any masturbation. These are not bad videos, but they are not terribly exciting unless you really want to see how a particular model moves. They come in multiple sizes and formats from standard definition (272p) to 1080p. Older ones are in 720p.
So..what's not to like? Well...there are STILL a few things that keep me from rating this site right up there with the best.
First, the navigation is still a little off. There are a few too many clicks to get where you want to be and not enough new-window options. When you click on a set from the home or updates page, a new window opens for that set and then all actions happen in that window. Click to see images, and a limited number of images appear in a gallery. Click on "show all" (nice pun, I guess) and all of the images appear. What, are we still in dial-up times? Just show me ALL the images when I ask to see ALL images, please. This doesn't sound like much, I know, but it is a little odd to navigate through. ..Then there is selecting a picture. When you click on an image from a gallery, it opens up in the same window that the gallery of images was in. You have to click "back to gallery" or pageback to return to the gallery page. This may also seem like a little thing but when looking through many images, it is unnerving because you will inevitably close an image and end up exiting the set. What SHOULD happen is that each set should open a window/tab and each image within that set should open a window/tab. Or better yet, the whole thing should be user selectable like several of the other top-tier websites are. To their credit, the navigation options once looking at an image are pretty good (larger image, next, previous and back to gallery).
And my last little nitpick is with the file sizes. There are three image size choices: "Quickview Edition" images are 800k wide. "Collectors Edition" images are 1200k wide and "Poster-Size Edition" images are 4500-5500k wide. Wait, what? (Insert captain Piccard meme here) Who the fuck looks at 800k images anymore? Even iPhones are 960 pixels wide/tall! My smallest computer screen is 1900 pixels wide. So the two smallest images sizes are waaaay too small to fill my computer screen and the only other option involves 5500 pixel, 2 meg images and a zip file that is a third of a gig! There is just something seriously outdated with this thinking. I appreciate the larger images, but they are a little too large to be loaded and kept exclusively. What is needed is a 1200, a 2000 and a max resolution (4500+) image size. I was told they were working on this in 2014. Apparently, they lied.
Bottom line? If you are into soft core and like young, showy, OMG beautiful girls, don't hesitate. Just join this site. This is one of the few sites that I would recommend for an annual membership because of the terrific soft core content. There is enough here to keep you entertained for months! |
