MetArt (0)
|
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
-PU discount of $19.99/month (recurring).
Occasionally a cheaper discount will pop up if you search the internet.
-Tremendous backlog of softcore galleries.
-Many of the most beautiful models in softcore porn appear at this site.
-Zips for all galleries. Choice of definition of low, medium, high for zips.
-Huge number of professional contributing photographers.
-Although this is a huge site, the search engine is helpful: can search by model's name, title of the photoset,
photographer, model's attributes (Hair color, Eye color, Ethnicity, Breast size, Age, Weight, Height, Country, etc.).
-Get 4 updates per day (except for the first of each month, when you get 6 updates). |
| Cons: |
-The cons are basically minor. This is the largest, finest softcore photo collection of models on the internet.
-In spite of shooting attractive models for the video, the videos are mainly boring. The last couple of years, some effort has been put into making the videos more erotic: the models are now allowed to touch themselves in a softcore manner. However, not only are the older videos boring, but most of the newer videos are boring as well. It's hard as hell to make an interesting or erotic softcore video.
-Member's can comment on each gallery or video. However, the members seem to form a fan club, where each model is described as wonderful or amazing in looks.
-If you post a comment that a model appears at a competing paysite, that comment will be deleted. MetArt should have enough confidence in their appeal and worth that useful comments about the model's appearances at competing paysites should be allowed.
-Lack of diversity in the models. |
| Bottom Line: |
On 2017-01-25, the stats are as follows:
Models: 3,285
Contributing photographers: 272
Galleries: 16,678
Videos: 1,362
MetArt came online in 1998. It's original title was Most Erotic Teens. It featured softcore of young teens.
(So "Met" came from M for Most, e from Erotic, t from Teens.)
(And "Art, because this is supposed to be erotic art.)
MetArt started off as softcore erotic photography, and has not changed drastically since its beginnings.
Currently the models are now allowed to touch themselves, to add a larger element of eroticism. But MetArt is still one of the softer softcore sites on the internet.
MetArt in recent years has added a network of other porn sites: It currently has about 15 porn sites.
MetArt is the largest of the sites, in terms of content.
The basic appeal of the site is the backlog of attractive young women (mainly teens, at least when they were first photographed). The models are featured in galleries and videos. The videos are mainly boring, a waste of MetArt's time and money. But many of the photosets are outstanding. The models are not only attractive to beautiful, but they are photographed by a wide range of professional photographers. The settings are indoor, outdoor, with money spent on the photoshoots and videos.
Many of the photoshoots could be hung in an art gallery or museum.
A minor problem: The site could be too softcore for some PU members tastes. This is softcore only. No sex (except possibly two girls in a photoshoot who are touching each other, but not in a hardcore way). No man in a photoshoot with the girl, or in a video with the girl.
Another minor problem: Many of the photos in a gallery are similar to each other. I remember back in the days of Playboy and Penthouse (in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s), when the magazines featured a model with 12 photographs or less. But the individual photos were separate from each other, often in a different location, different costume, something to differentiate each photo from the others.
The MetArt galleries show a model in one photo, she moves her arm slightly, and that's a different photo, she moves her leg slightly, and that's a different photo...so you get a gallery of 90 - 120 photos where the girl is snapped moving into different positions on a bed or room, and most of the photos are almost duplicates of each other.
If the girl has truly outstanding beauty, you can focus on the girl. Otherwise, the gallery gets boring fast.
Unless mere onscreen nudity is enough to turn you on. Which I believe most PU members have gone beyond.
One problem with MetArt is the sheer size of the backlog: You have so many beautiful models, with a large number of outstanding photosets by professional photographers, that you become bored or less appreciative of physical beauty.
If MetArt had fewer galleries, with fewer models, I believe the members would appreciate it more.
That's my take, anyway. However, the MetArt members do seem to form a fanbase, where almost every model and gallery is described as outstanding, wonderful, fantastic, amazing. Personally, I don't believe every model is fantastic. There are models that could be described as plain. Or ordinary. And there are galleries that have serious defects. Except that you will find member comments describing those galleries as outstanding or wonderful.
In conclusion: I believe MetArt is the best softcore collection of nude teen photos on the internet.
Based on
-the amazing amount of galleries posted, since 1998.
-the quality of the models: most of the models are attractive to lovely.
-the quality of the photosets: the photosets are filmed by many of the world-class erotic photographers.
-the outstanding update rate: 4 updates per day, except for the first of each month, which has 6 updates.
-the outstanding level of customer service. The finest customer service of any site I've ever belonged to: fast, responsive, helpful in most cases.
-Excellent download speeds. I normally get 4-5 MB/s, which is close to my max download speed limit of 6.25 MB/s.
-Download zip file of a gallery is automatically named with Site name-Date posted-Gallery title-Model name-Photographer name-definition (high, medium, or low).
Giving the site a score of 94. The boring videos, the sameness of many photos in a gallery, and other quibbles take away from a perfect score of 100.
But if you are in a generous mood, you could say the site deserves a score of 99 or even 100. |
Reply To Review Review in Favorites!
|
