Nothing is focused, everything is overexposed
Nope. Doesn't do it for me
Well done, Natasha. I doubt you'll last on this website, but you are a true artist.
Tash has been here since dinosaurs but she's not moving with the times. I find her sets too shadowy, too bland and they seem to miss a lot of girls best features (ie legs)
I love the model but there are no good shots of her face, no offence to the photographer but maybe the flash broke? the odd set like this is ok for a change but the set after was like this as well.
Words cannot really describe how gorgeous Kira is. I don't know how, but I somehow missed her first shoot. Now that I have seen both shoots, I have to say that IMO, she is one of the most beautiful models on Met..........top 10 in my book. As far as the lighting goes, I agree with what many have written here......I would have liked to have seen a bit more light, but that said, it does not take away from how stunning Kira is.
I also agree with some of you who have written about the close up vaginal and rectal shots. I don't need to see those in mass either.....I prefer more tasteful shots of the model from head to toe. There is a living breathing girl in that body, and while I realize that many of you would disagree with my thoughts, I still prefer shots that bring respect and dignity to the model. Nude photography can be done very respectfully and still be exquisite. It's my opinion that Natasha has done a good job in both shoots, when it comes to treating Kira with respect and still demonstrating her beauty. That said......I would like to see a few more nudes, although showing Kira clothed does not in any way, extinguish her undeniable beauty.
I can see both sides of the arguments made. In my opinion I thought a bit of fill lighting was required. I don't need the shots to be vaginal shots or rectal examinations either. I find that rather dehumanizing as there is a living breathing model who is due respect. Kira might well be one of the most beautiful models on this site and given the models on this site that is going a very very long way. That said I didn't think that there was a single shot of Kira where some part of her was not covered by clothes or a hand or by positioning of the pose. So after looking through a very long set I felt like I was being treated to a peek a boo show. Look I don't want any model doing anything that she is uncomfortable doing in front of a camera but this looks like we have a willing model and I would apprecaite seeing a bit more of her instead of feeling like I never really saw a fully nude picture of the stunning woman. That isn't a call for super explict. One of the shots that bother me more than anything on this set is taking a model lying her on her back legs wide and both of the soles of her feet showing. Very undexy and just ugh. I would like more actual nude shots however.
Bring her back for more. She is absolutely beautiful!!!
Just a little brighter, please. I myself don't care for close up vag shots. Give me more complete head to toe, but with adequate lighting to see her whole form without the shadows. This goes for all models.
Several people have complained about or defended the lack of pussy shots. I can live without them for 1 set. My complaint is that we do not clearly see Kira's legs, arse, face, breasts. I would guess she is very beautiful but we only get hints of that. Art-nude should allow us to appreciate the female body, even if the genitals are hidden. In this set it looks like the photographer, and maybe the model, hates display of the female form.
What an intriguing set of comments. These cover the full range of opinions and preferences. I do find it sad that those who don’t like one style are so degrading and negative rather than just moving on. I have enjoyed MetArt/SexArt because you do provide variety and innovation. If I don’t like a shoot – so what – don’t like it.
This model is very beautiful and she is aware of how to present herself.
The photographer has a certain style. Personally it appeals to me very much. Natural lighting, with its shadows, has a very specific appeal. A classic portrait (painting or photo) hopes to capture the beauty and ‘soul’ not the 20MB close up of a vagina (sic – not saying pussy because that is emotion and the previous is just explicitness). Don’t get me wrong some explicit shoots are great, just as some artistic shoots are.
Applause to both model and photographer.
Kira, your face lights up the shadows and the mysteries of your feelings are made powerful here. I love the shadow work, the sense of stealth, of rhythm, angles, glances and curves, purring passion, the movements caught in time. Shadow work is tricky, and most people don't know what to make of it, but here it works.
I'd say it works since it fires such a discourse here - if it was as "bad" work as the worked-up, self-appointed experts say here then it would've been dismissed but wow methinks thou dost protest too much. (Irony, folks.)
I applaud the model, the photographer, and this site for taking chances (who'd think such work would be risky, except when the marketplace is so saturated with "what sells": the dumbed-down, explicit, "leave nothing to your imagination" websites). A paucity of imagination, I say, and a certain taste. Some people like fast food, or burning spices poured over everything... and some of us still have our taste buds operating. Thank the gods & goddesses there's still a site that caters to us all and our tastes.
Thanks, therefore, for a powerful erotic fantasy.
Imagine, I do, a nipple in one hundred and two.
Looks like someone forgot to turn the lights on... horrible debut. Too bad, too. I can tell the girl is gorgeous. Sort of.
why we are here for.The seller
Speak for yourself - its not why I'm here. I think this photographer absolutely sucks. Not from a technical perspective, but because the photos are just too unrevealing. That doesn't mean the opposite extreme is required, just more than this.
Natasha Schon and Pasha were one of reasons why I subscribed to MetArt years ago. And I'm sad that I see theirs work so rarely today.
Maybe I'm a dreamer who prefers low warm ligth, shadows, blured curves of a woman body. Who prefers using of own imagination instead of explicit close-ups of vagina.
Yes, dreamers like me are probably a minority, but we're still here. So please don't comment and don't rate these rare sets if you don't like them. Just don't see them. There are thousands of other sets on Met-Art which match your tastes. If your comments and ratings push away artists like Natasha Schon, we'll lost our dreams.
Nothing wrong with "Old School" shots but lighting could have been brighter.
Very elegant lady...love the lines her body gives us.
Perhaps we could now look and ponder the photoshoot.
The shadow on the wall with the faintest hint of color. The willowy form of the leaves. The black leather sofa. The spotted pattern of the blanket. The cut, color, and texture of the dress. The strappy shoes. The glossy, healthy hair. The lipstick. Makeup appropriate for the lighting which flatters our model. The black panties. Not a fold out of place. Nothing extraneous except for the standing full mirror. All utilized to the fullest with good effect. Except for the undies -mostly lost potential there. The mirror serves no purpose but to draw attention to its neglect by our artist.
Note: numbers follow thumbnails, not the viewer.
The unsurpassable and a few that are merely great: 1 - gentlemen, this is intimate,2,15,18 & 19 (perfectly paired), 37 (throw cold water on me, please), 45, 53, 58, 69, 70, 86, 87, 111, 112 (that face), 118.
The unforgivable - for being so close to great: 22 - missing elbow, 30 -fingers and toes, 35 - fingers and hip, 43 - maybe the disembodied hand could be loaned to an image that is missing one, 44 - hand and top of head, 52 - great even without the hand, 60 - hand, 105 - knee and top of head, 107 - missing both an elbow and a slice of butt, 119 - the clutch killed the line.
#33. You may remind me I have a heartbeat, tease me, torture me, make me write bad checks. But do so with an intact cranium, please.
64,65,66,67,79,80. Enough. I respect not pandering to an audience. But this looks like mockery and contempt of why we come here. Sheesh. Don't slap us around.
A well deserved 10.
Consider it thusly: at least the artist got our attention.
"Beauty itself, doth of itself, persuade the eyes of men without an orator."
Shakespeare -- The Rape of Lucrece
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more."
Shakespeare -- Macbeth
Oh. Am I a bit slow on the uptake?
Note to self: "Verbally, do not duel with Dreadnought".
You are a wordsmith, Magwich. Very well written.
I still don't like Schon's work ~ if only because it feels like a tease to me. However, I cannot disagree that it is well done for what it is, and it is artistic.
It just frustrates me not being able to see what I want to see of her ~ very ~ beautiful models (she has some of the most beautiful models ~ you can see more of her work on The Life Erotic if you are curious).
I think a few shots like this with a model we know would have been great. A whole set like this of a new model does not work and is very unfair on the model. Please let's see her again soon in some more conventional shots.
A perusal of the comments below would suggest the model is not "new". And neither is the theme of unfairness. The standard of fairness here is somewhat peculiar. It is applied without reference to our model herself, respect for her own preferences, and as if she needed defenders. Hell, if our photographic artist could make me look that good, I'd pay her to shoot me.
My fellows, you shame me, for I am one of you.
"Natasha Schon, The lady of shadows". Fair Lady of Shadows, 'tis humble Magwich, at your service.
"I ask that you never use Natasha Schon again. – from another professional glamour photographer". Unprofessional malice from a professional glamour photographer.
"a beautiful girl and a horrible photographer". An opinion that this woman is beautiful must depend upon the viewpoint and vision of "a horrible photographer".
"Does this model even have a pussy?" Guess.
"Please hook Kira with a photographer who knows what the hell they're doing." There be no photographer with more knowing vision. A lack of knowledge does not logically follow one's dislike.
"it isn't fair to a new model". This is correct in a manner not intended.
"YOU DID THE MODEL A DIS-SERVICE". Many did.
"I like my fantasy without the visual challenge" If fantasy does not by it's very nature require the firing of at least a few neurons, let the rest of us be spared the poverty of "fantasy without challenge". And don't ask Magwich for a job.
I don't see what I want to see in these photos...just an expensive glamourpuss who's totally self-absorbed. :(
When I look at pictures of extreme close-ups of a pussy, I think it looks kind of strange. There is no beauty in just the vagina. Pull the camera back and you see a beautiful woman attached to that strange looking pussy and you fall in love. So much of the eroticism comes from the gleam in their eyes, the knowing smile, looking back at the camera while on their knees inviting you to join them on the bed. No close-up gynocological shot can capture that desire. This set, while tame by Met-Art standards, is beautifuly photographed. Just remember, the second part of the name of this website is "Art." This is a very artistic set and I would be so luck as to have a woman as beautiful as Kira in my bed and in my life.
There is no meaning in the sentence "there is no beauty..."
Stupid set. Horrible colors and lighting.
WOW! Lots of opinions based on stupidity or personal preference. I made my living for years selling my work to various publications so from a pure academic view...Model=10 Photographer=1 TAKE SOME CLASSES ON LIGHTING TO GET THE CORRECT SHADOW EFFECT YOU WANT. YOU DID THE MODEL A DIS-SERVICE.
Shall we ask the model? I do not accept appeals to one's own authority. Only Pythagoras could get away with that.
Time, the teller of all tales, will announce the return, and her continuance, if she so desires, to reveal more of her charm. One fine woman is she! Time will tell.
The Lady is whom she is. The photogragher same-same. We will garner each set as they become available. There are those fools whom complain, and most do......
Beautiful model and interesting set. From deep in the archive???
Reminds me of times gone by...
I don't think it's from the archives, I think Natascha Schon is still an active photographer. You'll see more of her stuff over on The Life Erotic than here nowadays though.
In my opiniou, this is artistic and beautifully done with a very beautiful model. This represents the "Art" in "MetArt" and I hope that Natasha does not change her unique style.
Oh wow, beautifully done. I love the subtle sexy lighting and posing. The photographer is spot on!
Great lighting. Not sure why the other members never seem to appreciate that.
Because they're pussy hounds...;o)
I've been an off/on subscriber to MetArt since '05 or '06. Over the years, I've subscribed to more sites than I care to count. I'll never re-subscribe to most of them. There is a reason MetArt is my most visited site. All of you photo-graphy "experts" can take a hike over to teendreams or something.
Who is pretending to be a photography expert? These shots may be artsy, but they fall short of belonging on a porn site. If I wanted crass, tasteless photos then yes, I'd subscribe to those other sites. But this doesn't cut it. This photographers sets bore me to tears.
Next time pay the freakin' power bill!
Sorry but we want see art but ''naked'' art ^^or we subscibe somewherelse for this ..
Sure you are good photographer , comme back and , do uss a great job (naked)
Kira is a perfect "10" and could be a supermodel. I'm sure we'd all love to see her a lot more!!!
But photographer Natasha Schon has no sense of lighting, And as a woman herself who obviously doesn't love or fantasize about women, she'e embarrassed, or doesn't know how to pose Natasha sexually or suggestively, or both, for viewers who love beautiful women. I ask that you never use Natasha Schon again.
– from another professional glamour photographer
Sorry but I have to agree, If this was a one time thing done for dramatic effect I wouldn't be so "vociferous" but when a photographer insists on doing something like this every time despite the bad scores and loud displeasure of those that are paying her bills this is deliberately thumbing her nose at her audience and for me it says "I am better than you and if you don't like it Tough" From the scores I'd say this is a product that the members don't feel worth paying for.
The model is awesome and with someone more sensitive to the audience they are playing to she could be high in the ratings. It is sad when someone so beautiful is wasted by an incentive artist.
Couldn't the set be redone without all the in the shadows effect. I like my fantasy without the visual challenge. Regarding Art Ive seen erotic fantasy pictures where the models are drawn instead of photographed but there you can see the details of their bodies in so much as a painted picture allows you. If you want to see erotic art for art's sake look up Boris Vallejo, Chris Achilleos, or Frank Frazetta. Personally I don't get the low light thing here. I don't like airbrushed, waxed models with big fake boobs, and faces that scream Whore! I like the girl next door in all her natural glory, that sat in class next to me in college, displaying all her beauty as the nature meant my eyes to see it....without the bad lighting.
What a total waste of film and time, that set truly sucks
Err, Film???, Today it's all digital!!!
I agree though a real waste of Kira's beauty
Not worth downloading!
Please hook Kira with a photographer who knows what the hell they're doing and you'll see a significant increase in her rating !
Pic sequence 105-110, mmmmm..... Looking forward to more from Kira.
Wonderful, extremely erotic. Especially #99. To fantasize about ...
Too much spreading on the sites of Metart can get kind of monotonous ...
88 gets my vote. A beautiful image of a beautiful model
Natural light is no bueno
A couple of brilliant portraits. Less successful as erotic art.
very nice artful work! i like your style and work with light!
Is this supposed to be art? Artistic ambitions are commendable, but this photographer should keep them within reach of her talent.
Like the style, or not, you wont find sets like this anywhere else. Hey, I am sure you guys will get your wish and get the gynecological shots you crave. For myself, I appreciate this set, real "Old School" Met, and I'm sure the model and photographer should be proud of this set, even if the appeal is limited to a small set of appreciative fans.
See, from my point of view, one sees pussy shots all the time, and it gets kinda repetitive, after all these years. Once a month, or so, a set like this ought not to have you guys waving torches and pitchforks baying for blood. I see a lot of sets where you can "tell what the girls had for lunch" and I think they're kinda meh.. but hey, I get the appeal for y'all hot blooded guys.
MET-ART, thanks for keeping a bit of art on site! Thanks Natasha, and especially Kira, you have good taste in photographers.
It's not about gynecology, it's about seeing every inch of a beautiful girl.
I agree in one respect since I have no desire to be a gynecologist. But the lighting & poses are horrible!
You're setting up a false alternative. Photographers like Sironi & Asolo don't fit into either extreme, and that's why they're what I call classic. If you post "women's porn" for a mostly male audience, the reaction is predictable.
false dichotomy, perhaps?
All I'm saying is just once in a while a set like this is needed, even as an acknowledgment to where things began back in the day.
Sure its soft core, but I disagree on the lighting and poses being horrible. Tell you what, go back to the archives. If you like XXX meat shop porn you're gonna hate the content back then. I'm not sure how far back they go, but that's the style of content I like to see just once in a while. Feel free to rip into me on this subject but please keep it respectful for the photographer and especially the model, who clearly has chosen the kind of images she wants us to see. Gotta respect that.
To each their own, but I also agree that XXX meat shop porn is not the only other alternative. There's an in between. I'll also cite Asolo. If not for photographers like that, I'd cancel my subscription, because this is lame.
Waste of time. I can go to a non nude site and get the same crap.
Too vociferous a beating of the artist from some quarters, I fear. I think she excels in a stunning display of her model's boobs. Can she now be persuaded to focus a bit more of her attention on her model's labia? Would be nice.
That isn't very likely James... she's been around for years and hasn't done explicit shots. I don't think she's likely to start now. ( :
Kira is a stunningly beautiful girl in every sense. A sensuous mouth, lovely face and wonderful smooth full breasted body.
She has been sensitively & subtly photographed in this set which I think is merely a taste of things to come. In advertising parlance it is known as 'tease & reveal'. I am sure, therefore, that we will be seeing a lot more of this girl very soon, in every sense of the words.
Only if shot by another photographer, bikeman. Which isn't very likely. Most of Schon's models stick with her exclusively.
Not all the girls want the XXX package.
how about at least one X!?
Natasha Schon, The lady of shadows, I didn't even look at the credits till around #33 but by then there no need there was zero doubt who the photographer was. This is her trademark. Dark shadows, little detail and NO intimate shots. Does this model even have a pussy? You'll never know by looking here. She has a mounds but that is all you can see.
The new girl is lovely and has a wonderful body but this is more an art set not a nude set. No need to be shy, the shadows are her clothes. Technically she may have been nude but for me she never was.
There are 8 sets of this lovely girl on The Life Erotic site (she uses the same Kira W. name there), sadly all done by Natasha Schon, but I have to admit there's a couple of good ones between them, which are much brighter and more detailed than this collection. So I suggest you to check them out hipshot, this young lady is a phenomenal natural beauty with a perfect figure and an awesome red hair, unfortunately it's hard to analyze her, thanks to Natasha's very weird style. She definitely deserves a better photographer, but I don't think she'll work with anybody else other than NS. Just imagine what could a Rylsky, deltagamma or Catherine do with her... :(
It is interesting the difference in two female photogs. Catherine stops just short of the models cervix. To appease us? And still gives us some artsey farty shots in the same set. When Met told Natasha she wasn't a photographer but was an artist, I guess it went to her head, I am surprised some shots are not in sepia or some other monochromatic experiment. Because of the lack of lighting now wonder we get autofocus. It's a shame Kira might just have some promise but with our luck she will next go with Paromov and we will get her in a costume next. She is a Ukrainian so maybe Sailor can send some of his girls to rescue her. I am being so catty tonight I better find a liter box to spit up this hairball. Last thought about the mounds, sure it is an almond joy, you know some days you just feel like a nut. Meow....
PS. This may be art but it isn't fair to a new model.
This set is what happens all to often on Met Art a beautiful girl and a horrible photographer.
I agree - Very frustrating
Agreed - absolutely love this girl, but I want to see more than R-rated photos in the sets.
I absolutely agree, Met-Art should have no place for this kind of photography, it is an insult to a beautiful lady!
I hope she is happy.
...should she not be?
And are you speaking of photographer, or model?
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2016 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.