Gorgeous model. Shame about the photography.
Quite certain this is my first time posting a comment on this site after many years. I acknowledge the remarks made pertaining to quality of photography, there's possibly some truth to them.
Point is, i'm indifferent to the remarks made above. I do appreciate the independence of the photographer in creating something unique and purposeful.
I've had my experience in creating similar products and i did not have professional standard equipment in both lighting, camera or model, but i was deeply satisfied with the results. They are amateur in all respects but i stand by them very firmly. I'd like to add that I do believe in technical excellence, but there is a fundamental core to making something of worth.
That said, i'll say it again, i support this product. And yes my opinion doesn't carry significance. However, it is a voice and that is what it is.
Very disappointing set, over exposed, out of focus and Katie's absolutely gorgeous body covered up far too much.
This is not 'ARTISTIC' it's just plain poor photography.
Horrible attempted 80s soft focus... Mostly just looks like poor optics or poor focus.
Perhaps not an attempt at an 80's photo set but an old 2006 or before set
given away by the >>DATE WHEN SHOT
oldwood, Katie debuted here on MA in 2013... you expect us to believe she was posing 7 years prior to that?
Katie A you are gorgeous and so damn sexy right down to that beautiful soft vagina of your's. I just wish we had more shots of you in that tiny bra!!!!!!
This set is trash. Stupid production, bad photography, and stupid costume. Where is the nudity?
I saw mudity. Okay, there was mo gynaecologist view so far. Didn't miss.
I don't get it. One set every few weeks that isn't less mainstream than creative and *dang* poor rating.
Beautiful sexy women but over exposed images and pour depth of field control. A shame to have such a sexy women as not be able to control the camera.
I totally enjoyed this set. At first I was not sure about the blue tones....but as I looked further, I found it added a nice ethereal touch to the shoot.
Katie has always been stunningly gorgeous, and this shoot really highlights her eyes and face remarkably well. Lovely face....spectacular body...great smile.
What's not to like?
Goodness gracious, what a stunning set! Fantastic!
Everywhere beauty & beautiful colors, superb aesthetics, masterful use of the surroundings (see my comment / response to yesterday's Milena set), and unbelievably insanely sexy shots! Some of the most beautiful & erotic shots I've ever seen! Definitely one of The Best Sets of 2014!
At this point, the one thing I find more disturbing than the overall decline of the photography on this site is the fact that the majority of souls who seem to frequent this forum seem to approve.
Gorgeous models, poorly lit, overexposed, and WAY overproduced.
This 'artistic' kick is awful. This site should be about the models. They are why we are here. In the last year or two, many photographers here have allowed their egos to balloon, intersecting far too much 'style' and detracting from the overall depiction of the model.
Absolutely true. I think the reason could have something to do with the fact this bloated buffoon's are listed here as 'Artists'! The majority seem to be little more than walking ego's with a camera - (WEWC's)!
Katie is a Perfect 10, but this fact has not been a consideration by the snapper at any stage of this shoot. It's been all about his clownish idea of 'Art'.
"In the last year or two, many photographers here have allowed their egos to balloon, intersecting far too much 'style' and detracting from the overall depiction of the model."
Just out of curiosity... how long have you been a member? Because you don't seem to be putting this in perspective.
My challenge to you... check out the archives. I don't mean from a few years back... I mean, from WAY back, just about as far as you can go.
In the oldest sets here, going on for quite a few years, what we got was a whole ton of "art" with some nudity... but hardly any explicit. You were lucky to see one or two pussy shots in 120 + pics.
I rather like today's balance of explicit vs. art shoots, and I'm willing to put up with a few art shoots to get a whole lot of explicit. But that might just be me....
Contrast that with today's shoots and you see 9 out of 10 (unscientific estimate there, to make my point) are quite explicit for most of the set. A huge change from what MA used to be for a very long time....
That you think there's been more "style" in "the last year or two" is downright funny. You might want to take a walk through the history of MA, cuz you've got it 100% backwards. The site has definitely been trending toward less "artistic" sets and more generic "here's a naked girl presented with mediocre - but highly revealing - photography".
indeed. Nowadays it is all about pussy shots. If a set had 100 pussy shots with 60 close ups, it is 'great'. Even if it is a low quality, grainy, boring mess and the asshole shit encrusted.
vger_man, I am with you on this. I am sick and tired of the never ending sets of crotch shots. Many of these girls are exquisitely beautiful. I'd love to see more of their legs in classic cheesecake poses. their arms faces, torsos. Their whole bodies. The photos of Max Stan and Alan Anar from the 00's were the high point for me. Arkisi drives me crazy. He has some of the loveliest models on here and yet at 60% up to as many as 80% of his photos are in-your-face crotch shots. Makes me think that probably the picture of his wife on his desk in his office is a closeup of her pussy.
But you know many of the other photographers here used to have nicely balanced sets. Leonardo, Rylsky, Alex Iskan, and Antonio Clemens used to have a good variety. But now, even their sets are dominated by pussy pics. That makes me think that Met-Art got a new photo editor a few years back who is pussy=obsessed and either tells the photographers to have at least 50% crotches or he selects from a much larger set 120 or so photos 80 of which are pussy closeups.
Damn. Every set is nearly the same now.
And yet the guys who comment here for the most part seem to love the content. Perhaps that's what most men want to see. I don't know. I like variety.
Perhaps you two are at the wrong site. Sounds like Playboy is more your style? Beautiful girls, great photography, real tits and arse, and you'll never have to suffer 'crotch' shots:)
After 70+ years on this planet, I have a pretty liberal view on pornography, and no matter that M-A purports to be 'soft-porn' I see no pornography in the naked human form. Seeing a woman turned on and enjoying her shoot is a wondrous thing. So I am pleased when a photographer gets his model involved in the shoot, instead of just using her as an object, or as a means to an end, as Latika has here.
If 'crotch' shots are so offensive to you, turn your viewing to Catherine, Angela Linen, Natasha Schon, Goncharov and there are many others who are ignorant of the pleasure derived from seeing a beautiful woman whose red-hot pussy is wet with desire.
I agree, When a set stops being about the model and starts being about art or at least the photographers concept then I loose interest. This set had all the ingredients to be "special" had the photographer shot crisp clear full color photos. This is an erotic nude site and we come to see erotic nude women. IMO Katie is one of the most lovely girls here and is plenty erotic without special effects and soft grainy photos. Why so many of the artists here are so enamored with this washed out poorly focused "dream world look" is beyond me. Give us the full beauty of the model and let us create the dream in our own minds. I can assure you that Katie needs no special effects to create dreams for me!
I completely agree with you.
I'm with you, By man. Yet another overexposed, fuzzy, out-of-focus mess.
How about crisp and clear photos with a natural color saturation for a change? Huh? Or will that offend someone's delicate "artistic" sensibilities? Poor photography should never be excused as being "art".
so, are you ripping flora a new one for her low quality shots?
Flora? This set is by Erik Latika.
These photos are not Flora's, but Erik Latika's. Flora takes clear photos, but hers suffer from terminal beige-ness and lately have come with an accompanying video of the exact same thing all over again.
However, my comments, above, about the dearth of crisp & clear photos lately applies to the majority of the rest of the MA photographers. We keep getting fuzzy, overexposed photo sets from multiple sources.
if you think that Erik's set is bad, because of the light, you really must hate Flora, with their destroyed contrast, their complete lack of detail, enormous grain and bad processing.
That is, what I tried to say.
@ vger_man - I don't understand why you came into the comments of another photographer to try to tell me what my opinion of Flora's work is, or my opinion of Flora, herself.
Let me set you straight, veej. I've never met Flora, nor spoken to her, nor corresponded with her directly in any way. I therefore have formed no opinion of her personally. It would be ignorant of me to do so.
My opinions and objections to her recently published works are as I've stated. I try to be clear on my likes and dislikes when I critique other's works. That's the whole point of having a comments area on a website. If a photographer cares about their audience's opinions, they can see what works and what doesn't and tailor their future work-product to better fit what their paying audience likes to see.
I have NEVER said that I "hated" Flora or her work. If that's YOUR opinion, the say so, as it is not mine. ALL of the MA photographer's have done what in MY opinion has been good AND bad work. When I find something I don't like, I try to be as specific as I can be about what I find objectionable, so the photographer knows where my opinion came from and can react or not react to it accordingly. They are free to accept it or dismiss, it as they choose.
Within the last two months or so, I gave a lengthy opinion over on one of Flora's recent videos about exactly why I didn't care for Flora's last three video/photo set pairs at that time. All six pieces of work were the same model looking basically the same in all six, with little variation. K was kind enough to pass my thoughts along to Flora and replied that Flora was kind enough to listen to my commentary and seriously consider it. It disposes me to think well of Flora to think that she accepted one member's opinion and gave it serious consideration.
So, I have never SAID I hated Flora, nor IMPLIED I hated Flora and my opinions on her work product are as I've stated for the good or for the bad. If your opinion differs, then say so, and quit trying to put words in my mouth!
An ethereal beauty in a stunning setting. Her eyes are amazing – shot #49 is absolutely killer! And then - wow - I was not expecting those naughty crotchless panties! For me, this is a winner...
I have to say I'm with Rose on this one. Too many of the complainers have missed the point
The point being that Katie A is a truly lovely model in a perfect work of art. I gave 10 to infinity all around for the pure beauty of the set.
I've read about forest nymphs from time to time, but I'd never seen one before.
"Dryad" might be the term, I believe...
What a great set! For those with imagination, Katie appears to be a magical ice goddess. She is so beautiful and the outfit compliments her eyes so well. She truly looks supernatural.
Very unique, creative photo set of a beautiful woman!
E. L. shows how to make boring pictures of a super model .......
Princess Katie! Always magnificent. The blue of the outfit matches those magic blue eyes. A perfect outfit for Katie and the setting is nice too. However I really hate the back lit washed out shots at the beginning. I hate lens flair shots and all those poorly focused soft shots ruined what could have been a great set. Katie is too lovely to hide in that glare! Katie's beauty pulled it through barely but it was a terrible waste of talent, location and model.
Love the see - through outfit. A nice gothic tone to this set.
It's a beautiful set but the ambience is so cold .If it wasn't for Katie A ,I would have frozen to death looking at it .
Katie is met art royalty ,so pretty,so sexy.To see her in this blue parachute looking totally pale looking like Little Blue riding hood leaves me speechless ,there a couple of nice shots but what a waste,two new tattoos I think,I will look forward to next time.
Yep, she has two tattoos about panty height on either pelvis bone. They're bows, like on a present. You can see them unedited on her sets by Arkisi at EternalDesire.com.
...and I forgot to mention Antonio Clemens has shoots with them clearly visible as well over on Stunning18.com, they each have a new set of Katie today (12/3).
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2017 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.