Elina in Steria
Dressed in a fetching white lingerie ensemble, Ukranian hottie Elina looks in the mood for mischief. She gets comfortable on a wicker chair and pulls aside her panties to allow a brief and tantalizing glimpse of her shaven pussy, with its tidy pink folds. Raising her legs in the air, she slides her panties down and off and sits spread legged with a ‘come and get me’ glint in her piercing blue eyes. Having stood up to remove her corset-style top and allow her ample breasts to see the light of day, the beautiful brunette lays down on the floor on top of a faux-fur rug. As she stretches her lovely lithe body, you don’t need to be a genius to figure out where this scenario is heading.
Ukraine
43 Members commented on Elina's gallery
viewer 10 months ago
What a beautiful woman!
Picture Lover 11 months ago
Has MetArt officially said why the sets are shorter? If not, with all this discussion/complaining about it, why not? I for one cannot understand why anyone would say an 80 photo set could be diminished by adding 40 mor photos EVEN IF THOSE 40 PHOTOS ARE DUPLICATES OF THE LAST PHOTO. Look at and keep the ones you want. Having said that, I also cannot understand why sometimes you do see several "near duplicates." If you are going to include a picture, shouldn't it be somewhat different than what's already there? That answer to that issue is not shorter sets (let's face it, make the sets just a single picture and the problem is perfectly solved) but a smarter choice of what to include.
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
Picture Lover, Rose has officially told us that MA has "relaxed" the old 120 photo set standard. The new shorter sets tend to be between 80 - 90 shots, i.e. approx 2/3 the old set.
I TOTALLY understand that some members such as yourself were complaining vocally about "overly repetitious" shots. While disagreeing that that is actually a problem, I can see why you feel this way.
The problem is this.
Some of us members such as myself, actually LIKE and ENJOY the "repetitious shots." I WANT to see nice sequences within a pose, more than only three shots, which seems to be the unofficial limit nowadays.
I LOVE going through a nice long 120 photo set and poring over every photo in a sequence, enjoying the slight but significant changes in the model's expression, her positioning of her limbs and body, the FEEL of enjoying a long, luxurious, loving look at the model in one single pose.
A member like you is free to skip as much of the "repetitious" sequence as you wish, choosing to click on only one or two, or save only one or two if you download.
On the other hand, once that sequence has been shortened to between one and three shots, members like myself who prefer the long sequences do NOT get to indulge OUR desires and enjoy the entire sequence.
I'm NOT saying you're wrong in the way you like to enjoy a photoset and I'm NOT criticizing you or the members that feel the way you do.
I am simply saying that, by indulging the wishes of members like you, MA is now contradicting the desires of members like me. When, had the old standard prevailed, you are perfectly free to pick and choose only those best shots that you prefer for yourself ~ while leaving me free to enjoy a long, lingering loving sequence of the models I love.
Picture Lover 11 months ago
Outside of that , what you said that Rose said (and Rose, I have no idea what you said on the topic) does not tell us why the sets are shorter. It merely states the obvious tells us what we already know—some of the sets are shorter. My question is WHY are they shorter. Has anyone from MetArt actually said why?
Rose 11 months ago
Hi Picture Lover, some of the sets are shorter because they were shot and submitted to us since the rules were relaxed. We used to insist that photographers submitted a minimum number of shots. We have relaxed that rule because many members complained that this led to repetition and to shots being included that would probably not have been there if the artists had been allowed to submit a tighter edit. The artists also told us that having this strict constraint meant they were sometimes including shots they didn't like, just to make the minimum number. So, the intention is to have tighter quality control and more artistic freedom for the photographers.
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
1) I agree that there were many complaints about "repetitive shots." I am not privy to the emails MA receives, but I do remember there were a lot of those complaints in comments.
My question: does "many complaints" mean "many members" making that complaint? Personally, I think it was a small but very vocal minority of members repeating that complaint over and over again.
2) I don't ever remember seeing ANY members ASKING for fewer shots in a set. They may have been asking for more varied poses and fewer repetitive shots, but "fewer repetitive shots" does not equate to "fewer shots."
3) I remember the artists always having the freedom to submit, and K publishing, sets that were in the 110 - 115 photo range. This was not frequent, but the 120 photo set standard was not set in stone, and occasionally we saw sets with fewer, and occasionally we saw sets with more, shots than 120.
In other words, those of us who are asking for full sets ~ I cannot speak for anyone but myself of course, but I think that most of us ~ are not asking for 120 photos EVERY SINGLE SET. We want the photographers to have "flexibility" and "artistic freedom" but cutting the set standard to 2/3 is going WAY over the line and ~ in my humble opinion ~ not about quality or artistic freedom at all.
Rose 11 months ago
You can read Jon's comment regarding this on the blog now.
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
Thank you, Rose. (:
Picture Lover 11 months ago
I don't think you understood a thing that I said.
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
You're right, Picture Lover, I did not read your comment carefully enough and I went off half cocked. Please pardon me, and please pardon me for misrepresenting what you in fact said.
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
Re-reading your comment, Picture Lover, I can see why you feel that way.
choseanameman 11 months ago
Not enought of her. Missing at least 40 pics.SAD!
RodanV 11 months ago
You've a new fan! Awesome lady!
Arimein 11 months ago
Elina is what I would call a simple beauty. Nothing derogatory in these words, just to say that she is beautiful and she catches the eyes. I like her nice, sweet photoshoots with Alex Lynn, and I hope to see more of her in the future :)
5Seadogg 11 months ago
I stand with Rose on this question as she is up to date, as I am not, and she has practical experience that I do not. Also since she is editor and head writer at My Erotica.com(a Met site) she is much more in contact with these issues.I read her site regularly, and love it. Now to Alex Lynn, who is valintely carrying on, even though Rose won't show him her aaabs. This is Elina's third set,and she still does not wear her panties around her ankle as she did in her movie "Little Silk Dress" by Alex Lynn. Here I have to say that more panty shots are needed, Elina has a beautiful figure, including bottom and ladybits and more shots are definitely needed here. I gave 10 to infinity to Elina for beauty, and the same to Alex Lynn for art.
chez22 11 months ago
What a gorgeous body on this young lady!!
cbsac1 11 months ago
As something of a newcomer to MA, I will cautiously offer the opinion that if you can't get the yin & yang of a model in 84 pictures, then you ain't gonna get it at all. I prefer the more edited, shorter sets, but respect the opinions of other members.
the_tdog 11 months ago
Yeah, who needs 40 more pictures of a gorgeous lady gettin' nekkid for us?
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
I know, right? I mean, it's soooooo harrrrrrrrddddd wading through not only one set of 120 photos of a gorgeous naked lady, but FOUR per DAY!!!
Won't someone PLEASE think of the MEMBERS and shorten the sets to, oh, I don't know, somewhere between 5 - 25 photos? That would make it so much easier and such less torture to sign on to this horrible torture dungeon EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!
Why the heck DO I show up every day anyway? (;
Checkers 11 months ago
Elina looks delicious in her corset-panty combo, my goodness. And OOF, what a view in #48. Magnificent, I say!
beetle 11 months ago
Yes #48 is breathtaking. Absolute sexy♥♥♥
Marcello 11 months ago
I don't like these shorter sets!
Wanderer 11 months ago
Alex, thank you for continuing to eschew the ANATT route and give us some delicious unwrapping. Wonderful set, even if Fer thinks it is too short. That panty clad bottom is just awesome.
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
Elina is a natural erotic poser, and her instincts work extraordinarily with Alex Lynn's and his stylist. This beautiful set would get an enthusiastic 10 from me were it a full set rather than a 2/3 attenuated set. The lingerie is a perfect compliment to her attitude, as are the lovely high heels.
Elina continues to get my personal favorite as a model and my personal 10 on her homepage. I am not rating this set which could have been so much more had it not been whittled down to 2/3 set size.
The Seller 11 months ago
It surely stems from the well-known photographer´s rule of thirds
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
A Modest Proposal
The controversy over the new shortened set standard on MetArt has caused no end of grief and agony lately, but the ironic thing is that the MetVerse already has at hand everything it needs to fully satisfy the desires of both those who crave shorter, more tightly edited sets of MetArt models shot by MeArt photographers without repetitive shots ~ AND those of us who crave the same high quality 120 photo sets of those models that we have been getting all along.
The proposal I am about to describe to you might sound totally unorthodox at first but would be well within the MetArt network's capabilities, and it would totally fit the MetArt network's amazing history of coming up with unorthodox but ingenious solutions to satisfy the desires of all their loyal customers. Consider if you will this history: after starting out as a soft glamor site that soon budded an "overflow" site that eventually became EroticBeauty, TheLifeErotic was originally conceived as a means of satisfying members' desire to see beautiful MA caliber models masturbating and having sex with other MA caliber models ~ while keeping MA itself clear of fingers and toys. Shortly thereafter, SexArt was conceived as a "take two" on this concept, while also including glamorous, high quality erotica depictions of couples having sex along with the masturbation vids. The new "beta" site design was seen as a way to bring all the out of date, frustrating family sites up to date and up to speed with the best of the best in the industry, and then when it turned out that some members of MA did not want to make the jump, MA "Classic" was retained to serve our desires while allowing the rest of the members to upgrade at their discretion. Love Hairy was conceived as a way to satisfy the desires of those members who had vocally decried the lack of unshaved but high quality erotica worthy of MetArt. Then when it was recognized that the unmet desire for kink/BDSM/fetish content would be the perfect niche for TLE to move into after a period of lack of focus, MetArtX was envisioned as a way for those members who wanted to see their beloved MA models pleasing themselves under the lenses of MA's expert artists, which allowed SA to focus on high quality couples/group sex.
Clearly, the MetVerse has a long and honorable history of satisfying "niche" demands, while simultaneously keeping the original version of MetArt itself sacrosanct and pure. And the fact is, the exact same thing can be done to satisfy this new demand for shorter, more tightly edited quality photosets of MA models shot by MA artists ~ only this time, no new website need be started from scratch.
Consider: the MetVerse ALREADY publishes four quality, short, tightly edited photosets of MA models shot by MA photographers. On Erotic Beauty, Errotica Archives, Goddess Nudes, and Domai.com. All that need be done is to consolidate these four sites, retaining all their archives for the new site, and keep the acquisition of new material for the consolidated site exactly the same as for the four individual sites. The members who have been vocally complaining about "too long/too repetitious/boring" sets on MA could be extended an automatic membership in the consolidated site at the same rate they've always paid, and those of us who wish MA to remain the same as it's always been could stay on MA and not have our desire for the long, luxurious sets we've grown accustomed to and love so much, ignored to satisfy the desires of a vocal and genuine minority. Both sides' needs could be satisfied, a clear "win-win" solution.
This modest proposal would satisfy the desire of both sides of this controversy. No member need feel ignored or shortchanged, or that their desires have not been heard. The MetVerse's grand tradition of finding innovative, creative but high quality solutions to satisfying the needs of all its customers would live on proudly.
Several possible objections
1) Errotica Archives is an "Artist Site" so should not be included
Actually, since Erro retired, it has been being curated by the same content manager as MA, currently K. She has over the last year been bringing more and more MA artists and models over to EA, and this would be a huge plus in proving that members to the consolidated site would not be being cheated either of MA models or artists.
2) EA and EB are curated by MA (K) but not Domai and Goddess Nudes
This is true, K has communicated to me that she doesn't manage their content. However, I don't see why there could not be a joint curatorship of the consolidated site (which I would suggest be named Domai Goddesses) where K would choose two sets per day, as she does for EA and EB, and the current content manager of Domai and Goddess Nudes would choose two sets per day, one for Domai and one for Goddess Nudes.
I hope MA members on both sides of this controversy over set sizes will give this proposal consideration and if you agree with me in part or whole, I hope you'll contact MetArt directly to say so. Their email address is support@metart.com.
Dark_Storm 11 months ago
It's a fact of the economic times we live in, fer, rather than raise the price, products get down-sized all the time. It may or may not be the case here.
It tends to happen eventually to places that offer "lifetime" memberships. Get too many of them and the company's incoming cash flow stagnates, while the costs of production and overhead keep on rising. In those cases, something's got to give, otherwise the business ceases to exist. I've seen a multitude of gyms, spas, etc. that have used this business model and have closed up once they started offering lifetime memberships.
I have no idea if that is what's going on here, but it certainly is a plausible explanation worth considering. It's also what makes your proposal of consolidating four (or so) sites (each with their own income stream) into a new, single super-site (with a single income stream) to be economically implausible. While it would be great for the consumer (four times the content for the same price), it makes no sense economically for the business to do so, unless they raise the cost of renewable memberships accordingly, which no doubt would lose them a substantial number of current members and further weaken the company's economic viability.
Personally, I'm in the "less is more" camp. Provided we are given a reasonably complete photographic tour of the model's body (and they get rid of the repetitive, blurry, obstructed, and/or light-hazed/lens flare shots) and I'm a happy camper.
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
Thank you for sharing your opinion, D_S. I agree with you that it is probably a business decision based on their business model. However, I do think that MetArt is not a bag of cheetos. If I find my unit size of cheetos is smaller this month than last at the same price, it doesn't really bother me to shop around to other companies that produce cheeto-like products.
I've done my fair share of shopping around in erotica, and there simply isn't anything remotely CLOSE to MA quality AND quantity out there.
MetArt is significantly different than Cheetos. They have excelled in the industry for years by selling consistent quality AND quantity.
And I do not agree with you that their quality has been low for giving us so many images. I really, really do not. There are isolated sets that I don't think are quality ~ but by and large, K has been doing her job of picking the best of the best in the entire industry very, very well.
Cutting quantity does NOT equate to improving quality. If the product was low quality to start, cutting the quantity simply gets us a lower quantity of low quality product. If it was high to start, it simply gets us less quantity of exactly what we want to see and have been seeing all along.
If MA's revenue isn't sufficient to continue bringing us what they've been bringing us all along, I honestly wish they had asked us which we would prefer ~ increasing dues, or cutting quantity. I suspect I would not have been happy with the results of such a plebiscite ~ but at least the members would have been given a choice.
the_tdog 11 months ago
I personally don't have a "lifetime membership," I pay by the month and have been happy to do so, but I am not happy to see the downsizing of the sets at all. If the "lifetime members" have already paid their money, you'd think they'd go about trying to keep those who keep paying month to month happy.
The Seller 11 months ago
Awesome
Mike1 11 months ago
I don't understand much of that - but I've noticed a lot of the sets now are very tame (although with the occasional great set) - the older sets seem to have better content where we see a little more, open labia etc. I certainly think going back to the older quality sets would be better. The tamer ones are not so good - just look at the views / page impressions - it's clear what the viewers wish to see.
Rose 11 months ago
Hi fer_realz, as you sent this suggestion to me by email and I told you I thought there were major practical reasons why it was impossible but I had forwarded it to Jon, it might have been nice to allow him time to respond to you first, if he wished to do so?
the_tdog 11 months ago
I know I don't write to the comments daily like others here, but I wanted to weigh in and say that I really, REALLY don't like the new "shortened" sets. The longer sets were something I valued with this site, and I feel like the quality of MA has degraded in the past month or two because of this new "standard." Just some random customer's $.02
Lots2admire 11 months ago
Met universe has gone down hill at a rapid pace since they've expanded to such a large family of sites. The servers are lacking consistently and downloads are at a snail's pace here in the U.S. most of the time. Grown too big for the britches as one might say..................
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
I believe the business calculation was made that what today's erotica customer wants is video and they have been systematically cutting the entire MA Network's photo set size down.
As evidence, it looks like the MetArtX standard photo set is already down to 80, and they have been beginning the shift to 80 - 90 on SexArt and TheLifeErotic as well.
On the "non-premium" family sites, including the Artist's sites (ErroticaArchives, RylskyArt, Stunning18 and EternalDesire) as well as EroticBeauty, GoddessNudes and Domai, they have been cutting the photo set standard from around 70 - 80 down to 50, with the latest several days on Domai featuring sets in the 30 and 40 photo range!
When I discovered the MetVerse, the beauty of it is that I could get so much MORE than in print mags... and of such high quality. Now it seems the drag is back down to print mag quantity of images.
The Seller 11 months ago
I heartedly second the intelligent proposal nicely described and detailed by our most talented commentator-writer,and simultaneously invite Met-Art´s powers-that-be to nominate Fer_realz candidate for the position of Met-Art´s Network Oracleship CEO.
Provided I retained Paromov´s Fan club presidentship,of course (a not so modest proposal...)
The Seller
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
In principle I see no reason to dispute presidency of Paromov's Fan Club with you, Seller... so long as I have your support for my candidacy for president of Alex Lynn's fan club! ;) Whattya say bro, we got a deal? :D
The Seller 11 months ago
It´s a deal!
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
Hot DAWG! We ON, Seller! LOL
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
Hi Rose, I had always intended to send this suggestion to you and CC Jon (which I did) but I had always intended to share the suggestion with membership as well when the opportunity presented itself.
I understand that you think it's a bad idea, and I know that Jon trusts your instincts implicitly so I assume he is going to agree with you. As I said on my other comment on short sets tonight, I don't see this as THE answer, it is just ONE possible answer to satisfy both constituencies among the membership.
I want to encourage discussion about this issue so that more members will contribute their viewpoints ~ hopefully, all members with an opinion will comment or send an email to MetArt directly to let you know what they think. My sharing it with the membership as soon as the opportunity presented was always what I had intended.
Thanks for asking though, Rose. (:
Rose 11 months ago
I didn't actually say I thought it was a bad idea, I said I thought it was not possible, for various operational reasons; and as that is a practical and technical question for Jon, it seems pointless to post it as a general question to members when his response is likely to be "that's impossible."
In any case, Happy Halloween, my friend :-)
_fer_realz_ 11 months ago
Thank you, Rose! Happy Halloween to you as well! :D
Wanderer 11 months ago
I think that's an oxymoron!