pretty girl all the girls here are pretty and sexy I like long sets but I like lots of poses not 20 or 30 sets of the same thing mix it up that makes a good set I WANT MORE BEND OVER SHOTS BUT NO ONE CARES WHAT I WANT OR THINK
I WANT MORE BEND OVER SHOTS BUT NO ONE CARES WHAT I WANT
wrong, we do care when we see detailed request, as yours here.
it is good input for future work.
Need a lot more of Venere. Please and thanks.
I fear Venere has delaminated from us...:o(
She is indeed gorgeous both facially and body wise. Why we have seen so little of her? Maybe she was only a model for a short time, Maybe she was too hard to work with, and maybe she did want to much money or she met someone and got married or pregnant??? Who knows? Only the artists who worked with her know and they aren't telling so we will just have to take what we can get and move on. There are plenty of trees in that forest and that's why we pay our money. ;)
As for the dreamers that think they will change Metart because their $40 is so important... Get over it! Metart is one of the highest rated sites on the internet and gets more awards every year. They have thousands of customers on Met alone not to mention all their others sites. You are a small fish in a big ocean and you cannot change the tides by complaining.
I agree hipsot. Which makes it especially nice "K" that goes to such great lengths to publish sets that cover everyone's wants and desires.
Most members seem to be very happy with the daily updates, but there are always a few who don't like something about the photographer, the setting, and (or) the model.
I think it's actually kind of hilarious to the read some of the comments where members think the photographer and (or) model made a change just to please them.
What makes this so hilarious is that we have no idea when a certain set was actually shot versus it's published date, so how could anyone believe their opinion had anything to with the final published product?
BTW, Venere looks great. Thank you Rylsky
You said it. And no reason for anyone to bother voting, either.
I agree, Magwich. I believe that comments do have an effect, it's just that it's not an immediate effect. It's a cumulative effect ~ IF ~ if enough other members agree by thumbs-upping or by adding their own similar comment.
A single complaint, or a complaint by one single member over and over, but not supported by other members, isn't going to make a big difference. But if there seems to be a developing consensus, I believe that K and the photographers take note and sometimes change what they're doing radically.
I know of one photographer (not Rylsky) who has changed his characteristic photography style radically ~ SINCE the comment feature has been introduced, and a bunch of members complained about something he was doing.
So, comments do have an aggregate effect, under certain circumstances.
fer_realz I believe what you said is true and I attribute this to the great job "K" does.
Met Art more than likely has a vast data base for "K" to choose the daily updates from.
From this data base she can cater the sets to hopefully satisfy what she believes members want to see or fulfill the desires of those who comment on this forum.
"K" probably tries to slip in sets that were requested by members who sent her private request via email too.
I'm sure "K" lets the photographers know what members have been asking for if she sees a pattern developing. I'd guess this also has an effect on which sets she decides to purchase also.
I definitely agree with you that the abbreviated two letter photographer you mentioned (I think I know who you are referring to) has been very receptive in trying to incorporate the wants and desires of Met Art members the best he can.
The main point I meant to make in my first response is that the photographers are going to continue to do what made them successful and not be overly concerned or alter their style just because a few members want something different.
two letter photographer you mentioned (I think I know who you are referring to) has been very receptive in trying to incorporate the wants and desires of Met Art members the best he can.
Would you let me ask you about his name?
Rylsky, I didn't mention the photographer by name because I thought it would be out of place to mention his name under a photo set of yours.
I believe fer_realz was speaking of Deltagamma (of course I could be wrong).
I hope I did not offend you, please accept my apology if I did.
Actually, PDM087, while I agree that DG has been very receptive to members' comments (and thank you for bringing him up as an example, BTW), the photographer I was actually referring to is the "artist formerly known as 'Long-Shot Leo'" AKA Leonardo, who, after many members complained about his tendency never to include close-ups, has changed his style to include a much greater variety of shots including close-ups.
And this in the time SINCE the comment section was introduced... which leads me to believe the comment option is a viable method of influencing the photographers.
Please accept my apologies fer_realz.
It was wrong of me to make this assumption, I should know better than to speak for another.
No problem, PDM087, it was a natural assumption to make!
Thank you once again fer_realz. It still was not my place to make this assumption.
I appreciate that both you and Rylsky are true gentlemen.
has changed his style
let me say that I can't agree and call it "changing style". I think we can call it "addition".
No, I think I've seen a genuine evolution of his style. That is probably the term I should have used to begin with.
Well, we both stays on our point of view. That's great because "see the same thing but think different" is why we are humans.
True enough, sir! ( :
One further comment on Leonardo's style, at least on how I see it... he has always had several characteristic styles, even before the comments section. People have remarked often on his distinctive night shoots, and also on his shoots in the column setting. I believe I remember him having several others as well, including railing shoots. ( :
Deltagamma was a guest under my gallery some time ago, so it's no problems here.
Thank you Rylsky:-)
(I'm only guessing this is the photographer fer_realz was referring to. I could very well be wrong).
Nice try hipshot, but that won't stop them... They're easy to ignore anyway...;o)
This is a decent set of the lovely Venere, although too short in quantity. My only wish was that at some point the dress bunched up around her waist would have come off. Venere has a great figure as seen nicely in the last two shots 58 & 59, but the skirt hides it.
Venere is lovely,and Rylsky has concentrated on that, but he could use more back shots.The only comment I Have to make is Please use wax to clean the undercarriage. Razor stubble on the ladybits is not attractive I feel.Hhowever,Venere gets a 10+++ and Rylsky a 10++++
I go with the cleanup of the undercarriage. It was the only thing that was less that great about this set.
A waste of panties. A violation of the rule of thong. A lost opportunity -especially with that mind blowing tunic.
Ah... I guess I have to agree then...lol That fine little ass would have looked REAL good in a few (or several)shots with those delicate see-through panties still hugging it... They came off way too soon! Maybe we'll see them again...
Whats the rule of thong???? I thought they were quite attractive. My only complaint was I would have liked them to match the dress or be a lighter color.
Venere is beautiful.
I believe that if this same series had been shot today, Rylsky would publish it on his site.
Yep....I think I have to agree with that...
Venere kinda slipped under my radar, but going back over her previous sets makes me wonder why!? All four sets (one by Ron O.) have plenty of appeal for me! A very pretty face with absolutely gorgeous eyes and a beautiful and delicious looking body! But I have a feeling she isn't modeling anymore and this may be the last we see of her...and that's a shame!
And ladies..please take note... THIS is the length that ALL your dresses are supposed to be...;o)
Rylsky, you were right on the money with Venere A, she is awesome and really sexy!! The photos were really nice taken. But please, next time put more pics of this pretty girl. Thanks.
I hope to see more sets of her in the netx months to come.
What a waste of time! Sorry, fellow lookers may need to set your standards a little higher when it comes to poses.
Not Rylsky's fault!! Blame it on those puritanical shit-heads at M-A. They saw his previous set, and Venere's obvious excitement, and told him to tone it down. That's why this set is so bloody deplorable.
These models and photographers should remember that without our subscriptions, who is going to pay the rent? The power, the telephone, the internet et all?
Stuff it, who pays the wages at M-A? Where does the money come from?? Where does the money come from to pay the photographers and models.
From us, their subscribers, that's where!! And those dictatorial Nazi dick-licking puritanical poofter clods haven't gotten their bullshit morality off the Mayflower yet!!!
Rich...get a clue. This is an old set. "Things have changed" ;o)
What!!? What the hell does THAT mean rock!!?? Back to bed!!.....
Congrats, you get DACOTD.
A tempest in a teapot... much ado about nothing... much sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or, next to nothing.
Venere is pretty and sexy now.She can shave her pussy to give us a new look next time.
Buy a larger memory stick and do a proper session!
This is Rylsky. The memory stick is not the problem, but the model might be too expensive for her own worth. She's gorgeous, but we can't buy 'em all.
"too expensive for her own worth" ~ ? That sounds just a tad insulting, Relvis... is that how you meant it to sound?
"This is Rylsky" ~ exactly.
Since I bought a subscription to RylskyArt, I noticed that most of his sets on that site are about this length. Shortly after that, I started noticing that his sets on MetArt are compilations of two or even three shoots of RA length. For a very long time, Rylsky simply has not been submitting 120 photo sets to MA, unless it's a mashup of two or three shorter sets.
My suspicion is that he is more picky than most other photographers in the shots that he selects for publication.
In a word, Bullshit. Maybe I'm looking at different sets from Rylsky that you are mate, but he has posted crap images to M-A, just as most other shooters have.
I haven't, nor would I EVER subscribe to Rylsky-Art for two reasons.
Firstly, for his insane penchant to immerse his models in water torture in the name of art, and secondly, because I made the crack-pot decision to join Arkisi's Eternal Desire, only to find his sets range from under 40 to sometimes over 90, images per set.
Either way, I consider my subscription to E-D a waste of money because of the set size, and because he frequently submits far superior work to M-A, than he does to E-D. Conversely, his videos are better on E-D than M-A.
FWIW, Rich, the water set craze has mostly died down and while they still appear, they are ~ very ~ few and far in between, even on RA.
~ thank heavens, I am not a fan of water shoots either.
Hi First,youb forget that Rylsky didn't start the shower thing,its been around for a long time,Rylsky just has a lot of models that like to shower in a dark basement. Second I don't belong to ED either, Mainly because EA,RA,and SA are so much better.Third,I was a member when it was justMost Erotic Teens(as CaptJim) and they didn'd have the bandwidth to put on more than 2 pgs at a time or two min movies, so we watched serials.And I agree, 60-70 pgs makes the photos choosy, and that's the only problem I have with Met,They seem to think bigger is better.(But then they are from California
I'm sorry but it's not the quanity that counts but the quality and content. The same people who complain about short sets are the people who complain about too many duplicates. More photos tend to make some girls/sets boring and repetitious which of course I don't mind if it's a model and photographer I really like. :) But it does tend to reduce the overall quality because a lot of shots get put in to meet the quota rather than because they need to be in the set.
I guess that I am a complainer today? I don't think that there is a magic number of photos required for a set to be good. There was another set today that had 120 pics and was too long. I have seen sets that were even larger, and yes, I agree that the size made them less exciting. I will say that I can't ever recall there being that issue on a set from Rylsky, to his credit.
As with Venere, having only four sets here just made me want to see more of her. Is that a complaint or just my desire? I would like to think that overall I am fairly positive in my comments here.
Another "bullseye"! I much prefer the size of RA sets over these 120's here at MET... And some go as far as 170's!! Ridiculous!
My personal take on the 120 shot standard here at MA... I think it is often wasted, because most of the photographers haven't yet figured out the luxury it gives them of "telling a story" more fully than they could if constrained to only 40 or 50 shots.
Think about it... 120 shots is more than enough to establish the setting and the mood with fully clothed shots, followed by a luxuriously paced strip.
Not every set need to be constrained by this particular standard, but if done right, the 120 shot paradigm is a wonderful opportunity to do just that.
Additionally, with full 120 shots, there is more than enough "space" to utilize undergarments, be they the "everyday" panties and bra that myself and a few other members like so much, or be they more elaborate and "dressy" lingerie... garter belts, lacy, silky bra and thong and hose and heels ~ or even pantyhose would be nice from time to time! ~ just that one can fully exploit the use of any of these under a dress or a skirt or a full outer outfit.
I still don't understand why more photographers have apparently not caught on to this opportunity, because this kind of shoot could be marvelously erotic... in more ways than one.
I certainly agree that it's often -if not always- wasted... 16-20 shots of the same pose is very annoying. Even if some are on pg 1 and others scattered throughout... It's still the same pose.
I still don't understand why more photographers have apparently not caught on to this opportunity, because this kind of shoot could be marvelously erotic... in more ways than one.
My bet is 90% economics and 5% is girls dislike LONG time for 1 set in multiple locations (story of a girl eat fruit, take coffee in restaurant, reading magazine...then go to "regular" set).
Please count everything, imagine it is your wallet, read what prices now on adult market content, read model agencies and fees.... You'll never made even 1 set with a story after that.
Oh, Rylsky, I'm not talking about a multiple-setting shoot... I'm talking about in a single setting.
Starting the model out with full clothing... say, a nice dress, with nice lingerie under, maybe some heels, etc.
Just depicting her disrobing at her leisure, from fully clothed to fully nude, showing all of the steps along the way.
You speak of "economics" ~ well, here on MA, the 120 photo set is the "standard." Since most artists feel they need to submit 120 photos anyway, it simply seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong about that, not being a photographer myself) one could easily show a full progression from fully clothed, to fully nude, within 120 shots. Unlike on RA where you are generally constrained to 40 - 70 shots, so you need to "economize" on what you depict.
Plus, I doubt one would get as many complaints about "repetitive shots" since there would be that many more steps along the way to shoot.
seriously, my goal is to make you feel that girl want to do things for you and forget about photographer. so success here is when you believe she was happy to show you how sweet she is. nothing else matters.
You speak of "economics"
I speak about I bet WHY it's hard for ANY photographer to produce this style our days and have any profit. And you can also think (when you plan to see 40 sets of 1 model) will you want to see striptease with nice dress, with nice lingerie under, maybe some heels, etc performed by this model for 40 times?
Remember, I'm NOT advocating a photoset shot like a mini-movie, with multiple settings and multiple wardrobe changes.
I'm advocating for a photoset on a single location, with ONE wardrobe.
Probably not 40 times in a row, no. ( :
However, I am pointing out why such a thing is POSSIBLE within a 120 picture standard ~ which IS the standard here on MetArt, where it would be more difficult under a 40 - 50 picture standard.
And, given that members frequently complain about these 120 picture sets that they are "repetitive" or "boring" or repeat the same shot over and over again...
if you are going to submit 120 photos anyway....
wouldn't it make more sense to start with the model fully clothed and show the whole process of disrobing, since you have all those 120 shots to do it in anyway?
With 120 photos, it just doesn't make much sense ~ to me ~ to photograph a fully nude model over and over and over. That's gotta be boring for the photogs as well as the models as well as the members! Might as well show more variety of shots by including full clothing ~ in my opinion.
This was very good to read detailed comment from you. My only request is to find real examples of real photographers+models on any site here in MA network (to not promote or advertise any site outside MA territory). If you will find it - good, if you will not - you will get the answer why sometimes we can imagine Paradise while we sleep or reading Bible Stories but we've never seen it. Mostly because of reality kills perfection of dreams.
Rylsky, I will be paying attention and if I see such a set I will post the link on your blog on RylskyArt.
Will you admit that there are often complaints from the members about "repetition" and "repetitious poses" when there is a set of 120 photos of a fully naked model and nothing else in the setting?
I know how many choices now have anybody who want to pay for erotic site. That's why I highly appreciate when RA is in member's list. Now I see RA grows and grows, it tells me that we are on the right way, most of our members choose to "stay tuned".
Thank you very much.
I meant shots, sorry
Rich, it seems like the only thing you do here is bitch and complain and argue and degrade. Go somewhere else if you don't like it.
Sounds like someone else we know huh??....lol
or maybe he paid for a membership and write such comments is exactly what he paid for. he's free to do whatever he want for his money even if it looks strange. the only thing thing he will not get is response. I am here just to protect RA member's freedom to pay money for whataver member want, same freedom as Rich's.
I have my own experience of subscriptions. I see what was your reasons, looks like you think it is the one and only way of thinking.
My reasons was:
1. METART: the style of photography (even pictorialism was standard here), 2-3 models that I loved to see.
2. former METART photographer's personal site: his style, 1 model that was his exclusive and not presented on MA.
3. Stephen Hicks's site: because of style, because of his tips and his answers to members questions
It was NEVER because of quantity photos in a set.
Let me say that RA members have their own reasons, now it looks like you hate me (it's OK!) but it also look like you hate members as well just because of their OWN reasons.
I know you for a long time and I know your points and thoughts, but it was never before: so much hate to RA members.
When you talk about fascism - please read what it means: exactly what YOU declare: join my opinion or die. Wise man said that next fascism will come to this world with words of "anti-fascism".
Venere is a very pretty young lady. Beautiful visage with exquisite blue eyes. Gorgeous feminine figure. She is something of a mystery to me. Only four sets. She is not a RylskyArt model. Who is that girl behind that pretty smile? :)♥(:
That is interesting. Venere has been published in several galleries on Erotic Beauty during the past four years. She even did two wet studio shoots which were published on EB.
Aphrodite .... for a goddess no comment.
Gorgeous and delicious!!!
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2016 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.