After reading all your comments I think I will skip downloading this movie. Since I am in the profession myself I find it all to easy to be critical of the movies on this site. But they are generally of a better standard than most other erotic sites. Truthfully it's rare that I am not in someway disappointed by the way a movie has been shot and edited. If I keep any, I re-edit them to my satisfaction.) Few seem to be aware of the even the simplest rules of film making. But I come here for the girls. And Met-art has some of the best.
What a HOT girl and what an exciting dance... I liked the song either on this movie. It is a shame her horrible tattoo she has around that beautifull breast and I don't mean I do not like tattoos but on this one she should consider visiting one of those shows where they fix crappy tattoos.
It's killing me - what is the title/artist of the song in the second half of the video?
This video just makes me sad and annoyed. I don't know whether Leah is an attractive and erotic model or not. It is just far too dark to see. I have even tried reluctantly downloading the video and using my movie tools to increase the light/reduce the shadow and it is still fuzzy and murky. I for one think that this video, like much of the work from Charles Lightfoot, is a total waste of money and file space. My heart sinks every time I see Charles Lightfoot's name and his output just goes from bad to worse i.e. from mildly annoying to intensely irritating.
I completely agree. Charles Lightfoot is one of the worst photographers in the world. The man has no talent. Add unnecessary tight close-ups to the list of his failings.
I said it again...The seller
Check out the 2 Leah/Charles films posted on METArt-X before passing judgement. This looks like rehearsal for those (or parts of those). Considering the constraints imposed here on the 'action', I thought Leah and Charles did quite well -- tho at 12+ minutes it is far too long. And Charles did indulge in too many artsy-fartsy film school tricks to fill the time. But Leah sure is gorgeous - peaches and cream delicious - and she does know what to do with her hands, if she's allowed to.
What is this thing?
It's a movie?
I think that this is a porridge in which are distinguished only two candles for the cemetery.
Charles tell me well I do not understand anything.
I know you're a director of anvaguaridia.
But for now, in my opinion, this movie worth 0 - (zero minus)
Perhaps that's a current Italian way of saying "avant guard" ?
Leah is ruely a Rose-worthy Italian cupcake,lovely olive shin,butt, aaabs, and bOObirs. That said, she cannot strip, and therefore needs more directing, which she obviously did not get, and the choice of music in the second half was lousy (I am cursed with Mom's ear for music, she was a concert pianist)I can't give this more than a low 9, and that's based on styling which was good.
What a beautiful, round and curvy fuck baby... I am breathless... amazing sex appeal... well done Charles... just that you could leave solo guitar till the end of movie...
Keepin' it classy, I see...
Wow... Leah is so pretty... and drool-inducingly sexy. I really, really, really like what I can see.
Which brings me to my issues with this movie, Charles. First and foremost, light. I know you're trying to achieve a romantic, classy feeling for your films by using natural lighting. But please understand from the POV of your audience, when we have to squint to see the model and that doesn't help, it is incredibly frustrating because we know how beautiful the lady is and we want to SEE her.
Second, and please don't feel singled out, I've been raising this issue with your colleague Lupin over on SA for some time now ~ the issue of objects between the camera and the model.
I know that candle stand and the candles were beautiful ~ but when they appear in between the camera and the model, I respectfully request that you a) move the camera or b) move the object or c) move the model. I guarantee you, as beautiful and gorgeous as a candle stand might be, what we want to look at is NOT the candle stand, we want to look at the model.
Thank you for reading my criticisms and accepting them in the spirit they are offered in. Thanks as well for finding these incredibly beautiful young ladies and bringing them to us. (:
...better move the model...to another place...perhaps a "different" photographer?
The avi (divx) version seems to be missing. Could you check, please?
Sorry for the delayed response, I have reported this and I'm waiting for information from the tech wizards. Will get back to you asap!
Thank you, Rose. There is an avi file in the download section now.
This movie has generated a great deal of comment, some of it polemical. Here is my three ha’p’orth (or two cents): I have never made a film and I have no view on whether this one breaks any immutable rules of the art. It is visually more interesting than some; it is not among my favourites on this happily diverse site. I can see why other people might find it very good — and Miss Gotti very appealing. Most important, please do not let a few adverse reactions discourage film-makers from exploring different territories. And lots of really good work scores well below 9 in your ratings.
Avi is too heavy of a video format for a file that contains hardly any data.
"Fuzzy feeling" is better viewed in Flash.
Believe me.The Seller
(Let me tell you you´re a lucky man.I ´d never have expected movies like this or pictures like those to seduce K and be published here.
That said,I can see you do not accept advise.You are as Gordon Lightfoot´s "Don Quixote"(yeah,Miguel de Cervantes),stubborn and covinced
that your style,an "artsy" mixture of digital noise,shadow clipping,awful
white balance,high ISO´s and greenish casts is the best you can offer.
Go keep battling the windmills,with your Sancho Panza!
Don´t sell it.The Seller
Seller, I agree about your criticisms. But... let's take a step back for ten seconds and think about this so we can be fair to Charles.
First: Leah was introduced on Halloween, or last October. It's been about eight months. We know that usually when an artist shoots with a model he shoots multiple films and photosets within a session. The chances are very good that these films and photosets of Leah were shot in the same session, while Charles was still comparatively new here at MA and before he had the chance to receive and respond to multiple complaints about his lighting.
I am holding out hope that his later sessions will show improvement in lighting as he responds and reacts to our complaints. I think his more recent sets like the ones with Kylie show great improvement in lighting. Now, I hope his next efforts with Leah will as well. (:
Both of Lightfoot's photosets of Kylie Quinn at MetArt were excellent.
He also did an excellent photoset of Kylie Quinn at The Life Erotic.
And an excellent video of Kylie Quinn at The Life Erotic.
I guess I'm spoiled, because I was expecting the same kind of workmanship with this video of Leah Gotti.
My apologies if I was too harsh in my criticism.
Your comment fulfills my expectations about you,my friend,you´re not only a gentleman,but a gentle man.
I do not expect Charles to change significantly,in light of his first and,for certain,quite rough replies to members in defence of
his "art".Mr lightfoot can´t hear himsef singing out of tune.
As long as these "Sundown Syndrome images" keep lowering Met´s standards of quality...there´s no need for a change whatsoever.
Let´s see if "The Oracle" is right once more..:)
Don't you think his latest sets with his newest models are at least slightly better in terms of lighting, Seller? Just curious if you see a little improvement too, or if it's just me... (:
To be honest and fair to you an Charles,got to admit in latest sets as the last featuring Kylie I was clearly able to recognise the sillouette of a woman,once I run my editor,got rid of the geen cast,reduced the noise,cranked up the exposure,correct the color temperature...in one of the pictures.
Sort of a Gil Grissom´s job,but I saw an improvement,must say.
Still waiting the DNA for confirmation purposes:)
What´s the point of a comments section inside a Porn website?
Answer 1:Nowadays is mandatory a comments section everywhere and everybody has one.
Answer 2:For members to express themselves and send feedback.
You failed.Answer 1 is the correct answer.I´m sorry.
Anyway,if we see a whopping ton o´garbage published in our cherished Met,there´s no comment harsh enough to post.
People has to do their job.Charles´job is being a quality photographer,an K´s work is live up to what Met´s logo clearly reads:
"Fine photography since 1999"
But not for one second more LOL!The Seller
Hi Seller, Answer 2 is correct. It's not mandatory! We have one because we want members to be able to interact and express themselves, and because we need to know what you think... it's important! I can assure you K reads all the comments, we share feedback between all members of the team, and it gets passed on to the photographers. All our artists are respected professionals, and while they may not all be to your taste, K has to take notice of all members' preferences – but the majority of them welcome feedback and appreciate the critique, both positive and negative.
Nice to hear from you,Rose,and very pleased to see your kind reply,indeed.
Let me explain myself better,and forget irony to get my message clearly to you the way I want to.
Not everything in life is a matter of taste.Some things are not debatable.For instance,"fine photography",is not debatable.Not only taste.There´s much more involved.
Met Art is hugely known.Your audience comprises of a wide array of people,from olympic dummies that show their stupidity daily,to knowledgeable and intelligent people,to proffessionals that scrutinize your material pixel by pixel.We´re all glued by our love for the beauty of the naked female body.And this website is the best beyond doubt in this matter.
There´s a tacit consent among proffessionals about what is or what is not "fine" or "quality" photography,aside from its content.That is something beyond debate.You can say you´re an abstract painter,and you can spread the colors with a watering can and pour some condensed milk and then remove the sludge and yet be well considered,even famous.But this bussiness is different.
This set is not "fine photography",any honest proffessional could tell.This is not a matter of taste,and if Met Art wants to please this segment of demanding people,then it´s useless to publish low quality material and include this author in the "avant garde" group.That does not work.
So the dilemma is either finally drop the "fine photography since 1999" thing,or simply be a bit more demanding and meet the quality standars or ever further.Easy!
Whatever the purpose of the comments section,Rose,by the way,thanks.There´re amazing people here,whose faces I do not know,and yet some are good friends of mine,I´ve been very happy commenting here,and plan to keep doin´it.
Thank you and congratulations.Specially those abs!!The Seller
Your argument makes no sense, The Seller. "Fine photography" is absolutely subjective. The works of any great photographer aren't exactly the same. Every photographer applies his or her own touch, according to personal preferences or the preferences of their audience. I happen to think that Charles Lightfoot's style is disappointing. Consistently, I find that his tinkering diminishes the impact of the photos or video. But my ego isn't so enormous that I think my tastes should be considered the objective standard. If there was a vote where the rest of the world's photographers all got together and said "The Seller's tastes are the objective standard and any deviation denotes lower quality," I certainly missed it!
You did not get my point.If you read carefully,you´ll realize I´m
not talking about style or taste,but technical aspects only.A proffessional will tell you nobody wants digital noise,graininess,loss of focus,overexposure or the opposite,color casts...independently of the content of the picture itself.
Consistently with my own assertion,I tell you,Charles´style is something that I like.I like the idea of natural lighting and cozy
or romantic atmospheres,but the way he does it and the technical final outcome is what I dislike.My ego is normal,and I do not try to impose my tastes or whatever.You got it wrong.My only goal is to have fun with my friends and the rest of members and enjoy the material this website offers.Please note I give you an explanation because you happen to be an educated and respectful guy.I´m not gonna bother replying to schizophrenics who use my handle to insult me,those ought to be kicked away right now.Hope you got my point correctly.Bye.The Seller
Thanks, Seller.... I understand your point, although I don't entirely agree. But I enjoy the debate! I hope Charles will decide to join in, as he sometimes does. He has an excellent pedigree as a photographer (worked with the late, great J. Stephen Hicks) and the choices he makes about his work are conscious decisions, so it's better for him to respond rather than for me to put words in his mouth. Anyway, I also enjoy the discussions here, and I appreciate your intelligent and amusing contributions :-)
"People have to...etc" sorry again
Whoever did the soundtrack has a tin ear.
Whoever did the lighting has a blind eye.
As far as the model is concerned, she is attractive.
MA is supposed to be lovely models presented erotically.
How about showing what the model looks like? And add some erotic flavor to the images, instead of a lot of darkness.
10 for the model. 1 for the presentation.
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2017 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.