Valeria A is as beautiful as ever. I like the 60's styling and the set on the who;e. I think the image quality leaves a little to be desired but any picture of Valeria is a good picture in my eyes.
Reviewing the comments, I see valid concerns on QC as well as valid points on "license" and style. I know the "focus" is subject to scrutiny, but I would offer this observation, as a serious photographer. It's not the focus that is frustrating here, it's fact that it's likely shot with a 2008 5D Mark II that was maxed out on ISO and slowest "useable" shutter speed. This may even be an old shoot that the photographer uncovered??? (Last bit conjecture on my part.) I do know the technical "oops's" that are distracting with it with reasonable certainty, because I've goofed on them too at times and probably will again. These would make ok/decent small prints, but with 100% zooming digital viewers and photo gear advancing 5 years from that camera's inception...they do look unfocused/blurry (which is actually lack of sensor sharpness and high noise reduction for that ISO setting, combined with camera and model movement adding motion blur from the shutter speed) and as one person put it...like a cam phone shot. (...as some cam phones are near the quality level of the 5 year old high-end DSLR's...not surprisingly.) This shoot was also taken in very low lighting...either very early morning, late, late sunset, or during dark, stormy overcast. My thoughts...a good spontaneous idea for a shoot, but the technical limitations were all stacked against the shots faring well here. As such, more a test shoot than something to charge admission to view. Model's great and I'm sure the photographer could outshoot me any day...some shoots just need more planning and developing than others...this one needed better lighting or a cleaner shooting low-light sensor to avoid the concerns that other have mentioned and be state-of-the-ART. :)
Late 60's - early 70's flower child look hmm?
A beautiful girl with a beautiful pussy.
C'mon guys! "Met-ART"?. We HAVE to expect the occasional "art" set every once in a while. If you thought you were signing up for "run-of-the-mill porn", or a "perfect photoset" EVERY TIME, I guess you WOULD be disappointed with this set. But as a "work of art", I can appreciate it. And Valeria is a visual delight whatever the focus or setting or "technical quality" of the pics. I expect no agreement on this issue, and a certain amount of 'opposing viewpoints', but that's how I view this set and I'm much happier for it. In 'most' shots, I thought the lighting was just about perfect. I have many great shots of Valeria's breathtaking vagina well in focus on other sets. This set is fine, I don't understand all the 'misunderstanding'...understand?? :o)
Good point, Rockhard. I'm not kicking too much about this set and I think there are better head shots of Valeria than in any previous series. Her smile somehow seems less forced and upon further review there are some really good pussy shots, #61, #63 and #64 for instance. And I really like the long hair over bare breasts shots with her nipples just peeking out.
I only enlarged eight pictures as there were loads and loads of near duplicate shots. Anyway, in all eight pictures I selected, the face was in focus and the pussy out of focus. Another rubbish set from this photographer - which is what I always expect.
Whats this??? another let down. Guys whats the point of seeing out focus pix???? i can imagine a better image than this. Life your game plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Every time I see crap like this set,to give it a name,my thoughts about
unsubscribing go in crescendo. I´m a relatively old member and really
hate my money being wasted specially if I go and compare today´s production with the high quality work delivered a few years ago.Too much
Met art network.Too many cooks spoil the soup.
Probably you´re not worried yet,but it´s going downhill.Valeria10,Met 0
Gswk - I fully agree. Indeed if you look at the other web-sites this site promotes, then you will hardly ever see out of focus shots ever. Indeed I have viewed more than 50% of ALS, a site promoted by this site, and I think I have only ever seen about 10 rubbish photos in the whole 50% of the site I have viewed. Actually this one set has more rubbish photos than you will probably see on the whole of ALS and probably most of the other promoted sites also. There is no doubt - this site is slowly turning into a rubbish site.
Those sites are pushing "porn" NOT "art". I was with ALScan a few years back, and remember nothing very 'artistic or creative' about any of the sets I saved from there, and in fact have dumped 90% of them since. If that's what you're looking for, please stay there and stop nipping at the hand that feeds your addiction.
ROCKHARD - I reply as follows. What this and other sites promoted by this site have in way of content (whether it is so called art, art & porn or plain porn) is not the issue, as I made clear above. What is the issue is that whatever the content, I do expect to see in-focus pictures and it is reasonable to expect to see this. The point I made and will make again, is that of the other promoted sites I have viewed (I used ALS merely as an example but could equally of named others) you hardly ever see out of focus shots. If you like out of focus photography then thats your choice and if 2013 is going to be the norm then you will be well catered for on here. I do not like out of focus rubbish third rate photos (whatever the site is trying to portray) and thus will continue to leave comments to this effect. Just because the site encompasses the word art does not mean it is an excuse to fill the site up with third-rate out of foucs photography. Finally, do you not think it odd that the highest scoring comments on this set all relate to the poor photography? I rest my case!
I think that 'content' is exactly the issue here! The contributing photographers here have "artistic license" to produce whatever THEY believe to be "artistic". If this is NOT what you're looking for, I fail to understand why you're here, unless you simply enjoy ragging on anything that doesn't "measure up" to your expectations. And on the subject of "out of foucs photography", if ALS was 'merely an example', here's another... I was with Twistys for over a year and saw plenty of 'out of focus photography'! The complaints there were justified by the fact that they don't promote the site as "artistic". I came here looking for something different, and this set is a good example of the difference between the two sites. If you're looking for a site where every photo is 'perfectly focused" where YOU think it should be, pack a lunch! And as far as the negative commenting about the photography in this set being the 'highest scoring'(?), are you familiar with the story of the Pied Piper? It's pretty hard to "rest your case" when you don't HAVE a case!
Nice looking girl and some pretty good pics.... for a cell phone!
The soft-focus is a bit annoying but somehow Valeria still looks great. I think Leonardo tried to get a bit too "arty" on this one.
I don't know why that should make such a difference, but it does...
out of focus pussy shots, boring poses, really sucks
It IS kinda 'artsy'...don't ya think? ;o)
Slightly-out-of-focus-in-part-of-each-frame (but not in other parts) is not "arty", its instead very distracting. As well as doing no justice to Valeria's incredible beauty.
For those who like true arty photography (and I am one of them), there are many other ways to create such images. Such as deliniated shots where one part of the frame is clearly out of focus while the rest is not. Unlike this set where you can barely notice the soft focus, which makes it incredibly distracting. Or better when photographing humans (as opposed to objects), the setting, the lighting, the poses & the costumes can be used to be create art.
This set frankly just looks like bad photography. Valeria deserves better.
I'd say you're too easily distracted Loncor. But thanks for your 'opinion'... I just don't happen to share it.
I'd say you're too easily supportive of and/or don't recognize poor photography, rockhard. But thanks for your 'opinion'...I just don't happen to share it.
Leonardo has done some good work in the past on Met; this just doesn't measure up.
I'd say that I appreciate the 'artistic aspect' of this set Loncor, whereas you're only looking for perfect pictures of the models body. "Poor photography" is a very subjective observation, and probably out of place on a site like this. The "effects" that the artist produces or is 'going for' are pleasing to some and not to others and 'reasonably' don't fit that 'label'. But I agree that Leonardo does good work, to this day, and occasionally works that I DON'T appreciate, but I don't expect every set from ANY of the artists/phographers to be to my liking. We see this set with different eyes, and neither opinion nullifies the other.
Well no, I'm certainly not "looking for perfect pictures of the models bodies". I appreciate creative, artistic use of soft focus in commercial fashion shoots, art photography as well as on Met.
But the way its used in this set I find detracts considerably from the appeal. I don't appreciate it, if it is actually intended to be artistic.
But yes, we do see it through different eyes. To each their own.
A lovely woman, with an adorable sweet smile. But overexposed and repetitive images.
poor focussing has done this set and Valeria A no justice .
You might have a hard time convincing HER of that!
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2016 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.