Very lovely Angelika ,love the purple fishnet's!!!
After a busy week, I finally got around to unzipping this set. A couple of observations, for what it's worth (and knowing that this long after the set went live, perhaps nobody will be reading):
1. I think it's reserved and understated, maybe partly because of Paramov's style, and perhaps partly because Angelika doesn't really show much personality. She seems to be a reserved girl, perhaps not shy but she doesn't let much of herself show through in her photos. Even her bio is understated. But to me, she's one of MA's most beautiful models, and Paramov's lighting does justice to her lovely face and body. It's elegant, almost stately. I'm not too bothered by the lack of close-ups. For me, not every set needs to be a gynaecology manual. But that's a personal preference. I understand that some members feel let down.
2. The clock in the background is a giveaway to how Paramov doesn't stuff around! Just 20 minutes from the start to the end of the shoot. I wonder if all sets are completed in this sort of time? What might the result be, if the model had time to relax into it more?
I like that you noticed the clock in the background. I think most of the sets on MetArt are completed in less than half an hour. Actually I think that most nude photography is done in that time - except (maybe) for the truly high-end photographers who have expositions in galleries and are well respected by the contemporary art-world.
Like most sets on MetArt this set is not art, it's porn. And I don't mean that disrespectful. The first purpose of porn is to make the audience cum. Paramov knows this and so does Angelika.
Imagine the two of them not knowing this. Angelika doesn't mind posing nude as long as her nudity serves more purpose than just causing ejaculations. So she wears lot's of different outfits and there are lot's of different attributes and light setups. Next to that there are lot's of different emotions Angelika has to express. In total they have spent let's say six hours to finally come up with a selection of 107 pics.
How would the above be received by the MetArt-members? My guess? A 6.5 if Paramov is really, really lucky.
Now he does the job in 20 minutes. He knows it's all about the naked girl throwing looks and spreading her legs. He has worked with Angelika before. He knows that if he tells her to crawl on a chair, sit down and spread her legs, she will do it slowly and he can take 40 pics of this simple action. Angelika knows she has to vary her look (into the lens, from her feet to the lens) and in just a few minutes almost half of the shoot is already done.
Now the majority of critique (including yours) boils down to Angelika lacking expression. I actually think she looks very focused and knows exactly how to look, but having said that: no-one is complaining about the fact that there is no variety whatsoever in the lighting of the set. This is normal: we want to see her skin, her body with as little shadow as possible.
One last thing: being naked and spreading your legs in front of a clothed photographer (and possibly some crew-members) will not feel very comfortable for many girls - even if they have done it 46 times like Angelika (according to Indexxx.com - which does not include every shoot btw). They will have to get into a certain mood and keep that mood going for as long as the shoot takes. Doing this for half an hour will be fine for most girls, doing this for two hours or more is a lot harder. This mood can be a lot of things. It could be arousal, but it could also be something entirely different. Take shyness as an example.
Imagine a girl that gets her kick out of posing nude because of the fear that she felt the first time she was naked in front of a camera. In order to get excited she has to feel this fear again and again for every single shoot. Otherwise she just can't concentrate and so with every shoot she forces herself to think: 'Oh my God, they can see me naked. This is so crazy, why am I naked in front of these people?' Next thing she hears from the photographer: "Great look girl! Keep on going with that."
But will this imaginary girl keep her fear if she has to be naked for two, maybe four hours? It's very doubtful. And that is why I think most MetArt-sets are shot in less than half an hour.
(I wanted to give this reaction a few days ago. This is not a critique to your reaction DeeDee, it's just something I was thinking about - and also because I wanted to see Angelika again - I just love her looks and shape.)
I have to say that of the Paromov sets I seen this is his best with one glaring omission. No close in work. But at least this time it is an elegant sensible setting befitting the models beauty and sans the usual useless props scattered about. Angelika is a beautiful woman with a great body but I'm afraid that unless she models for someone else we will never get a good shot of her pink bits!
It's really pathetic when the best one can say about a Paromov set is at least the model isn't holding a big clock or wearing a hat with blinking lights.
Elegance and distinction are epithets when used on Paromov.The Seller
Aggravating. When are we going to see this young Lolita in a set where someone other than Paromov is behind the camera. This model could be a superstar if teamed with a really good photographer! But it ain't gonna happen with this guy.
After these four sets of today, I can honestly say that this is getting ridiculous. Eliminate the comment section, - this is not what the majority of us viewers want to see.
And WHAT makes you think you are the majority of anything? If there are so many others that disagree with us where are their comments?
@ hotte - Funny how you rail against it, yet participate in it. Now THAT is what is truly "ridiculous".
Is that irony? I think that might be irony.
Free tech support hint: Use button that says "Hide Comments," then you won't have to see them. It works, I tried it. It will work for you, too. Easy solution.
How about we eliminate one member of the comment section? That one who claims to speak for the majority of viewers would be a good start.
I don't recall voting for anyone to represent my views or filling out a questionnaire, do you Checkers?
Nope, strangely enough, I don't recall that at all. And even if so, I certainly wouldn't have voted for this clown.
Hotty:Pesky fly.Obnoxious troll.Don´t know why he´s not been kicked out,like they did with my friend Doug.
If MET ever feels like getting in a kicking-out mood again, I know who I'd nominate.
Dark eyed beauty with a bit of attitude, lovely smooth body & a superb bottom!
When Paromov puts the model center stage and trusts her to carry the set, rather than relegating her to being one of his many props, great things happen. Sometimes, less really IS more.
Wow, is today the day of great models with boring sets?
I'm afraid you are right.
Lately we've seen quite a few sets with a model admiring herself in a mirror, and I like it quite a lot. After all, if one nude woman is good, two nude women doubles the fun. This one, in particular seems to break the fourth wall, as we see the lighting rigs, and even Paromov himself makes an appearance in #49.
I like that Paromov was channeling Ingret just a little in having Angelika put on those sexy stockings. Of course, Ingret would have included the matching garter belt, so we can't have everything can we... (; Also nice would have been a matching set of stilettos, IMO.
Otherwise... what can I say about statuesque, confident (sexy), flawless Angelika? As perfect a specimen of perfection as ever and some really nice posing. Lovely set, Mr. Paromov, please do bring Angelika back for plenty of visits in future. We do love her here... (:
Pure beauty... adorable... many thanks for these beautiful pictures...
I want to line up at center behind Angelika (#91). Hut, hut! Quarterback sneak! ;-)
The New York Jets tried a "butt fumble" once, but it was very different.
Uh oh, false start! :)
Back field in motion. ;-)
I'd like to get called for holding. :)
It is lacking eroticism .
Totally agree, mostly the images have no sexual spark, I don't know why, posing lighting location its not Angelika's fault that's for sure. However just love her bottom 8)
Angelika has always been a cool, elegant and composed model who gives us only the occasional glimpse of a smile. There is just sufficient in the way that she looks at the camera to set the imagination working regarding what you would find if you manage to get behind that natural reserve. I had a girlfriend who was very similar who, all too rarely, would suddenly display a passionate and vibrant side to her personality which could be quite spectacular and extremely tiring. In the meantime, I am more than happy to use my imagination to appreciate the full beauty of Angelika, particularly with plenty of standing shots to show off her wonderful figure. I also love her photo shoots when she wears her hair up to reveal the graceful elegance of her neck and shoulders. As far as I'm concerned, a great job by Paramov.
Anjelika is very pretty, but too repressed.Real eroticism is a mental state projected by the model through her modeling persona. that's whats lacking.The fact she is erect means nothing in the erotic dept.
P.S. the howling you hear is not Rose chasing her girlcrush,it's a full moon,and the werewolf of London wants to hump Rose's leg.
Her leg, nah, methinks he wants to see her abs!
bite me :-) :-) :-) that was a werewolf joke :-)
Absolutely adorable Angelika D.
Lovely face, lovely body.
But this set just lacks something.
I agree, she doesn't have her usual zest and appears to be bored in this set but she is nevertheless an angelic vision.
It is lacking 30+ more photos!
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2017 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.