Beautiful girl...bad lighting ruins the beauty..
Thought these hazy boaring sets that show off very little were dead on Met Art now.
Or has this just been recycled from years ago.
one of the best sets ever posted
Predictable! When I saw this set was by Natasha, I knew there would be more comments then come with any other photographer. Those of you who are disappointed that there are no crotch shots just miss the whole purpose of this web site. It is MET-ART, not MET PORN. As for the lighting, this type of photography requires much more thought and talent then those who use frontal flash on every pose. This is beautiful art and I happen to really appreciate Natasha and her work.
Well if you call this art i would like to know if you look at porn and, if you do, is it your bog standard porn with average looking girls spreading their ### as wide open as they possibly can. Personally i tired of that kind of porn a long time ago and prefer my porn to look like art with beautiful pictures of beatiful girls in beautiful surroundings.
Deos the site have to have only one purpose for everyone? I think it can have many purposes for different people and I myself would not go around telling people what purpose they should be using the site for.
The lighting effects were, I suppose thought to be artistic. However, they were the opposite. This is an example of a very low grade set. Low grade for the photographer -- not the model.
Lovely ass :)
I consider Schon's style "feminine": shadows, lingerie, well-stuffed bedroom, lounging on the bed, etc. By contrast Clemens, Asolo, or Sironi have a "masculine" style: hard light, clear lines and poses, total nudity, model in a simple studio or outdoor setting, etc. (Some of her older sets are in this style.) I prefer the latter, but I appreciate Schon's style. For me the model is decisive here.
"Some of her older sets" meaning Nata B's older sets.
Schon takes photos of naked, shaved, beautiful women and always hides the vagina. I frankly don't understand why Schon bothers with photographing women, how about animals or flowers or something? I'm tired of it, honestly.
and that is why there are several images where you can see her vulva.
Not vagina. I am sure you have never seen one on a real girl...
"Artsy"... Very retro.. Nice, but not great.
I feel that Ms.Shon is extremely talented and understands directional natural light (Caravaggio's technique) as few photographers do. Richard Murrian is a classic example of how NOT to do directional light, filters, solarization etc. You could lose the model in all the crap if its used incorrectly. (I have a 4-year BFA and studied all this type of thing.)
I agree with you Seadog, not every set has to be almost clinical in detail! The set was done this way deliberately to convey a mood. The set does exactly what was intended. This is a great model and my bow to the photographer.
I join this site for high quality, high resolution images. I cant stand the filters and fuzzy images that make a set look like some blurry magazine photo from the 1950`s. Booo.
I enjoy occasional sets like this, that in my opinion are more sensual than sexual, and I find myself appreciating more than usual the beauty of the model and the skill of the photographer. Not just another pussy shoot.
Welcome back, Nata. You've been a favorite since '06. Sadly this set is kind of old-school MET with poor lighting and soft focus. I hope there are more sets coming!
Natasha Shon is one of the very best photographers on the web, and one of the very few here that know how to use Caravaggio's lighting techniques. She also uses very rich colors in the background. She's the best since Orson Wells in Citizen Kane" in my opinion, and Mr Welles did not use color. Sometimes Ms. Shon does make you want to yell "Natasha, get a room" but she really did a beautiful job on this one, no drooling on the camera lens.
a few sets back i said linin was the worst photographer on met but she does a better job than natasha schon.
Is this what a gold fish in a dirty tank sees?
the worst shoot ever. not met quality.
Nata is very delicious, but I do not like this photo set!!!
Others may gripe, but I find that this style of lighting allows for a play of light and shadow that isn't often seen in other sets. Nata's elegantly delicious body is displayed beautifully, though I will admit that some of the poses get a little repetitive in succession.
This model was in my favourites well before this shoot. When I saw in advance that another set was coming up BUT photographed by this photographer, I just knew in advance that the set would be a load of old tat. I predicted poor lighting, poor poses, very little on show and dull fog. I predicted this as this photographer only ever churns out this type of junk. My predictions were spot on. If viewers liked this sort of junk then (a) this photographer, (b) this set and (c) all the other sets this photographer has done, would score highly. Needless to say LOW scores are given on all three elements. I am scoring this set one point. Although this set is exactly what I predicted, it is stil dredful nevertheless. The set currently scores 7.16, but surely that is 6.16 points too high?
This is why I joined MetArt -sensuous beauty revealed through excellent photography. Well done, Natasha, and thank you!
Nata has a great camel toe, great eyebrows, super bum, and shapely breasts. The complete package imho.
She has the prettiest ass I have seen on here in quite a while. Hot Chica she is.
And face. And breasts. And....
How nice to discover that she has about ten previous sets, and I have never seen her before (member since 2005). I have a pleasant evening ahead.
Beautiful model but I found the lighting effects quite depressing.
Abso-bloody-lutely!! I don't know quite what era of the Dark Ages Natasha was striving for, but the green/black hues put me in mind of a dungeon below the French guillotine!! Perhaps the light in the window comes from Joan of Arc at the stake!! Depressing. Abominably so!!
All that said, Nata is undeniably beautiful, stunning figure, and Natasha really got what she was after - in spades:) So I doff my hat to her, and her perception. It took guts and imagination to create this set.
I disagree. I found the light beautiful. It accentuates her stunning, athletic body really well, and looks exactly like what you would see if you were there, alone with her in that bedroom, without fill lights and reflectors. Far from depressions; consider "sensuous," "quiet," or "natural."
Initially I did not like the set very much but the more I see it the more I like it. The quality of the natural light in some of the photos pleases me. The model is attractive.
This kind of material is not only depressive but deeply discouraging for the
subscriptors,in my humble opinion.Greenish rubbish.Repulsive.
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2016 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.