This set of the beautiful sexy Lucy Doll posing seductively on a table top brings back wonderful memories of a romantic candle lit dinner I had with an ex girlfriend many, many years ago, we spent most of the evening enjoying each others company and playing footsie underneath the table.
I can't remember what we had for a main course, but I certainly will never forget the dessert, "strawberries and cream", as she made me slip off her panties and eat it out of her freshly shaven pussy, afterwards we made mad passionate love on the table, the sex was absolutely amazing, although at the end of the evening I did feel slightly embarrassed and to this very day, I have never been back to that restaurant since! :)
I think Arkisi needs to photograph this lady - she's fabulous but these pictures are not sexy enough for her or me.
Glad I read some of the comments here. I was starting to think that the only comments ever posted were childish squeals of delight on every set regardless of quality of photography and content.
Perhaps I am a little harsh. But when I see comments like " I gave it a 10++" I will often only score it a 3, for balance sake, because compared with overall content it may only be worth a 7. This set I scored a 2. Just to have mercy on the model. Otherwise it would have got a 0.
Those fake talons are a real turn-off.
Seems like something wrong with my account settings???? Cant hardly make the model on these pictures from grainy posts. Any suggestions how to fix that?
Do not adjust your settings. The problem is with reality.It is Charles Lightfoot's preferred style, intended to look retro as in the old days of Playboy. He is not a bad photographer, IMO. It's not everyone's cup of tea. I'm sitting on the fence about it. I like his subjects, poses and themes, but I like sharp pictures, too. It suits some shootings more than others. This set is actually one of his better ones here for lighting and clarity.
too bad there is a big difference between high iso film grain and digital high iso noise.
Grain is... bearable. Noise is nerve wrecking. And noise reduction destroys details, colours, everything.
It has reached a point now where I can I can identify Charles Lightfoot's work by looking at the pictures:- dull, dark, dingy, grainy, noisy, and lifeless. Compare the quality of the photography on this set with Daniel Sea's Corasa by Albert Varin or Vivian's Lessina by Matiss and it is like night and day.
Lucy Doll did not help at all with her bored and tired look. Lucy, please come back with a different photographer.
Might as well skip medium and high-res, and just post the low-res shots. The effect gets worse the higher the resolution.
Finally some one else is getting "grainy and noisy" pictures. Amen to that!
What an amazing baby... pure delight... I think Charles is preferring the warm side of the spectrum at the cost some contrast and clarity. .. I also prefer warm side of the spectrum rather than cold but crisp. Some room for better light intensity and contrast administration. Otherwise a big thank you to Charles for capturing such beauty with excellent compositions.
I loved Lucy Doll and the way she was presented. I gave her 10++++++ for beauty,and Mr. Lightfoot the same for atr. he does need to improve his relations with his models.
I must say, CL is getting better - the best is likely ahead of us!
Is she pensive, melancholy, or just bored...?
As a new model to MA, what expression would you have on your face being completely nude spreading your legs and having a photographer take close-ups of your junk hanging out?
i take it youve never seen her NON-met pics let alone seen or even knew she does porno. matter of fact im kind of glad she doesnt smile so much. its actually a change of pace for her
I'd say it's probably nerve-racking, especially if it's a new experience and at times, the photographer and model may not vibe. These models show every vulnerability with such grace. I didn't see anything boring in these photos. This one in particular has gorgeous skin. Maybe a hint of Asian or Mistisa? :)
See my comment above
Wow! What a DOLL indeed! I love the sheer white lingerie. She has my hair too! I love it! :)
What a sweet little sphincter!
i was just thinking about her wondering when she was coming back! i still look at her 1st set every day. and wow @ #30, 31, 47, 67 are mesmerizing. such a pretty ass on this babe. love her!
I'm glad that this cute little Lucy Doll has come back for a second set!
Reading some of the comments already (and kind of anticipating them), it's clear that Mr. Lightfoot's photography is not to everyone's taste. For me, it's been something of an acquired taste. Acquired, with the aid of three very beautiful girls: Lucy Doll, Kylie Quinn, and Noel Monique.
Is Charles Lightfoot a poor photographer? I don't think so. This soft and subdued presentation is his style and it's clear to me that he's doing it by choice and effort.
Is Lucy Doll bored? To me, she's going along with Mr. Lightfoot's style of presentation, which to me, is subdued and thoughtful.
I guess I've acquired the taste DeeDee, and don't forget about his latest girl, Zoey Taylor who is also spectacular. With real breast I might add. LOL
June 11th: So far we´ve had two photosets and one movie? from this artist
and only one set from Rylsky,for instance.
What a curse.Is it a punishment? What have I(and many others)done to deserve that? Is someone trying to rile up the audience the way it´s done with Paromov or Natasha Schon?
I´m personally convinced Charles Lightfoot is the worst photographer here and I´m not the only one who believes it,and if he worked with S.Hicks,maybe he did not pay much attention.
In my opinion,this greenish,grainy noisy mess is a pain in the neck.The scores aren´t very high,but if there are members who like it,at least do not make him the most featured artist.Good connections?
Just think I used to complain about Rylsky...My God!The Seller
I do think that was a meaningful comment and I think all members should read it.Mr Rylsky has had some shitty shoots(Berenice for one),but even Hitchcock had bad movies.I would much prefer to see Mr Rysklys photoshoots than Mr Lightfoots dismal performances.Lets get real.Sometimes Mr Seller you get it right.
Oooooohhhh Lucy, I do SO love it when a pretty girl displays her perfect navel like you do in the opening sequence... I could happily nuzzle for hours... (:
And Charles, thank you for arranging great lighting so we can see every lovely detail of Lucy in this set! I appreciate your listening to our critiques and requests. (:
And... THANK YOU for bringing upskirt back to MA!!! (: I'm a very happy boy right now... :D
Yes! Photos #2 to #5 are a special treat for navel admirers. A perfect little island in a sea of soft skin. Delicious!
You know,buddy,I hate to dissagre with you.As I said last week It´s not the content what I dislike.Lucy is oK,upskirt is yummy,and so on...
But the execution is poor.The skin tones are always greenish,for instance.
Take one hi rez picture,get it and then zoom inn all the way,and you´l see graininess,color noise,in the form of tiny colored particles that should not be there...and a shallow depth of field.Now do the same with others,namely Catherine,Arkisi or Rylsky...cristal clear,no noise,no grain.Can you see what I mean? I´m giving names for the demonstration purposes only.
I can understand there´re people who like the style,and that´s Ok,but do not think he listened.He keeps on doin´the same stuff.Why change when you submit
three sets in a row and Met publish it right away?
I prefer Gordon.His songs are really perfect snapshots of life itself.The SellerThe Seller
Hi Seller, thanks for answering my comment. I think I understand where you're coming from. I need to clarify what I meant in my comment.
Charles is still using natural lighting and so there's a lot more shadow and sludge than there should be, than there could be if he'd use some artificial lighting to bring out the fine details. However, I feel like his latest sets, this one included, show a marked improvement from his very first sets, in which almost all the intimate details of the models were obscured by shadows more often than not.
I feel like in these latest sets Charles is striking a much better balance between seeking the purely artistically satisfying shot (for his own sense of aesthetics) and making sure that the light illuminates the "strategic areas" that we his audience have unmistakably told him we WANT to see.
Has he completely changed his style? No. But I do feel he has come great strides to satisfying our needs as well as his own aesthetic ones.
"...Rylsky...cristal clear,no noise,no grain."
Now that's funny!
Give me Set name ,picture number,bibble.You often reply to me in a overtly despiseful way,but Never back it up with any example.
I know you´re an educated and respectful guy,and,if it all boils down to any kind of aversion or dislike towards me or my comments,I do not care whatsoever.But if you mean Rylsky is capable of producing an amorphous noisy sludge,please show me and all the others where it is.The Seller
I have no problem with you, Seller. I certainly don't despise anyone or anything related to this site. My comment was about combining Rylsky with grain and noise. I just took a look at the first photo in each of his four most recent sets. At high-res they all exhibit significant graininess. It's the result of a technical choice, he consistently chooses to use a high ISO setting. Not a major problem, but it is amusing to see him used as a counter-example to what you see as a problem with Mr. Lightfoot's work - hence, "Now that's funny".
Many photographers here have cheerleaders. And cheerleaders of stuff that is less-than-great are more likely to see snarky comments from me. I apologize for any offense. I'm sure my explanation won't change your enthusiasm for Mr. Rylsky's work. And that's okay.
Thank you for your kind reply,my friend.I like to learn from my own mistakes.
I´ve just loaded the first picture of "Presenting Marit",last Rylsky´s set published,and the first of the present set into Photoshop CC.I can see some slight graininess at 600% in the picture by Rylsky.I can see gross gaininess at 200% in the picture by Lightfoot.Check it out.Both images are approx.same file size.Slightly higher in Charle´s picture.Considering file size is about 3700 x 5600 pixels,zooming at 600% renders a considerable enlargement of the pixels themselves,and the microcristalline structure of the lens begins to be visible.
In Rylsky´s,I do not think it´s due to ISO,because artificial lighting is clearly noticeable,used in order to soften the features in Marit´s face,along with natural light.I do not think cranking up ISO settings was necessary in these light conditions.
In the case of Charles,it´s more likely the reason,as he uses only natural lighting.
But,bibble,my friend,is natural to perceive some aberrations when we zoom in nearly to subatomic level,where Newtonian physics make no sense and Heissenberg´s uncertainty principle is King:)
Last,but not least I saw some pics by Arkisi,Catherine and Matiss
and the outcome was about the same as Rylsky´s,being Cathy slighty better.
I´m not as enthusiastic for Mr Rylsky as you say,but I believe Rylsky is impeccable.
But Charles,stubborn,wants to resolve a catch 22 question,and it makes his outcomes waaaay worse in terms of quality,though I really like his style.
Thanks.A pleasure talking to you.The Seller
"In Rylsky´s,I do not think it´s due to ISO,because artificial lighting is clearly noticeable,used in order to soften the features in Marit´s face,along with natural light.I do not think cranking up ISO settings was necessary in these light conditions."
Unless he's adding the grain artificially in post-processing, the ISO setting is the only explanation. As you say, it is unnecessary for the lighting he uses, which makes it a very strange choice.
In any case, I'm not zooming in to "subatomic" levels. I never zoom in beyond the resolution given to us and I infrequently look at the hi-res options. I'm really not looking for it, yet the grain is quite evident in his work. As I wrote, it's really not a big deal, but I still find it amusing that anyone would consider his content "impeccable".
Sorry..two sellers are way too much to deal with
This photo set is much better than the first one! Nice!
Transparent lingerie! Is there anything sexier than such lingerie through the small firm nipples shine and stand out?
I say no! This is absolutely erotic!
And if the girl is so beautiful and sexy like Lucy and the photographer is if C. Lightfoot, then we have a mega photo set.
Absolute highlights: the firm nipples, the stunning labia and Lucy's shapely ass.
I am excited.
I'm with you. For all his faults (and they mostly lie in the lack of direction) Mr. Lightfoot is rapidly becoming a favorite artist.
Such a beautiful girl but o so boring.Iam afraid that on whole Mr Lightfoots style leaves me cold.Zero to both for this set,Lucy looked bored to death ,what price a smile.DISMALall round.
Never considered the girl is SCARED? ( lack of direction, of which building trust in the artist is a large part, some of these models are willing, but scared at working nude.)
she does porno movies. with a big smile. im not sure if i can mention BRAZZERS or REALITYKINGS but you can see her there. if anything shes just trying to be serious and seductive for metart.
"Scared"? Seadog, sometimes your reliance on hyperbole gets a tad ridiculous, my friend.
I personally don't think Lucy looks either bored or scared. I do think she's following Charles's direction, and I don't think there's a lack of it either. I think they were simply going for a sultry, sizzling look rather than the cheerful, bubbly, innocent girl next door look. Personally, I feel the sultry look suits Lucy's personality better than the bubbly, innocent look, which would look fake on Lucy.
Just my two cents' worth.
Nervous, perhaps - but certainly not scared, Seadog. Charles Lightfoot is a professional and very experienced photographer, who certainly knows how to create a relaxed and happy atmosphere on set. It's a prerequisite of our artists that the model must feel happy and comfortable at all times :-)
"What price a smile" indeed... your comment brought me a smile + a chortle, which quickly escalated to a full belly laugh... thanks, bro! :D
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2017 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.