Needed to be just a little closer up..
Super-hot girl in a set that looks like it was shot with a Polaroid Insta-matic camera from the 1970's.
best model, bad photographer
Great to see Lizel once again. I have been watching her on various sites for 6 or so years and she ages incredibly well. Still sexy with a fantastic figure. I agree however that she could do without the painted eyebrows and the heavy eye make-up!
Nice model, lousy photographer. Sadly, he is not alone on this site.
Met-Art survives despite its photographers, not because of them.
Lizel changed her facial appearance. Why....who knows. Her eyebrows, her makeup.....her face looks tight now. Just compare her look with much earlier shoots. She had such an INCREDIBLE natural beauty to her. A gift. She still does...underneath all those alterations.
Sorry Lizel...the redirected painted eyebrows and new makeup don't work on you. Just look your natural self.
Lizel is one of Met Art's best models. She's one of the reasons I continue to be part of this site. I love her tan lines, and other things. I'm from California; I can't help it!
Lizel is one of the hottest models in Met, I agree she needs a better photographer. She is finally working with someone besides Georg Shoes, I hope she gets to Rylsky or someone. She is obviously one of those models that are touchy about who they will work with fully nude.
Eh, not every photo set needs to be a porn set. I'm as much of a fan of sharp views of a well-shaved pussy as anyone, but it's okay to have a few like this mixed in. It's not bad for what it is. The graininess was an artistic choice to use a high ISO setting. Gives it a bit of a dreamy early morning look. Not really intended for viewing at max res, just take in the full view.
Okay, commence with the "thumbs downing" cuz, ya know, variety sucks. ;)
Really?...so is that new rule?...sets with clear, crisp, sharp images are considered porn sets??
Well bibblefuss, have a look at pic 13. Not even in focus. Shouldn't be in the set.
I said "It's not bad for what it is" - but it's a long way from perfect.
Most sets here would be improved by losing at least a few images.
oh no, it has a purpose. Even a cute girl can look stupid if the photo is shot at the wrong moment.
Not really exciting - all these photo sets!
I think this model is one of the best 10 on this site, it is therefore such a shame that she cannot team up with one of the better photographers. This photographer is actually pretty good for scenic photography and thats where his work should be aimed at. Unfortunately, quite simply, he just does not cut it to be a nude model photographer - even for a tame site like this. Just take picutures 83, 88 and the last one for example (although I could have listed another 112), the model is so far away just what was the point of taking the shot? Considering this is a nude model site for over 18 then I rate this set as very poor at best.
Lizel is a gorgeous, sexy woman, and I always enjoy seeing more of her!!! But this set (and others by this photographer) are not good. I view photos on the site here in the high res version, original size, and I click back and forth between fit screen and original size. The first photo I opened in this set was #2. There is some kind of horrible digital filter/digital noise/soft focus that was applied to these photos. Her face in #2 is just fuzzy and grainy. Most of the other photos look the same when viewed original size. Very disappointing, and no one else to blame but the photographer! I'm not a big fan of the nude, clothed, nude sequence either.
I've never understood how they can post sets that are 'out of sequence'.... It would almost have to be deliberate I think....(????) Anyone have an explanation????
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2016 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.