Photo #50 is exquisite. Pretty girl, face down in the sheet with her eyes closed in anticipation, bottom in the air with her legs beautifully parted. Superb!
What about that sweet clit!! Beautiful.
How come some of the pics look post-sex? Rylsky, you DOG!!!
Horrible Playboy look to everything he touches. Rylsky, bottom of the barrel, top of the heap, makes perfect sense.
Just about every set is so horribly over-processed that it becomes comical, truly in that we may as well be looking at comics of women.
Really REALLY needs someone with talent to handle the post processing.
Thank god there is at least 1 other viewer who agrees with me on this!
Although it's ok (and JUST ok) here, Rylsky's post processing is utterly atrocious on the whole. His images are so processed that they have an overexposed, flat, lifeless look. I love the comic book observation- so true. While the models he uses are wonderful, overall, I think his work is generally quite awful. It's refreshing to see I am not all alone on this one...
This is interesting. I've been a pro photographer for a long time, so I'm used to people making statements about technical stuff and being way off base. If you hate Rylsky's style, that's one thing- I'm fine with that. But "overexposed, flat lifeless?" First, I don't agree these images are overexposed. The lighting is a bit flat, granted. Arkisi always has much more directional light, which is more dramatic looking. But then you often have deep shadows, and sometimes a girl's hot bits are lost in the dark. I'd be interested in hearing Bored1's description of what he means my over-processing. My experience is these guys don't do ENOUGH post-processing. If done right, tweaking levels, color balance and contrast can make the images so much better, I've beat Arkisi up a number of times on this. Lately his sets are MUCH better in that department. I doubt my comments had anything to do with it, probably a coincedence.
I too have over 20 years rooted in professional photography, and particularly, photo editing. If you took the care to read my comment, you would note that I stated that while I felt Rylsky's work OVERALL was poorly processed, that I felt this set was actually above average for him. Although the images are slightly overexposed(midtones and highlights both shifted slightly higher) and that overall images were low contrast, compared to some of his other work, these images are actually fairly decent. As an example, I would call your attention to almost any set of Rylsky's with Jeff Milton. In all these sets, almost every image has some portion of highlight detail which has been shifted to the point of having no detail remaining at all-completely burned out. Generally, these sets also have unusually low contrast and saturation as well. I would call your attention to 'Presenting-Dennie' from a few months ago. Overall contrast has been reduced by at least 3 stops, and almost all images have large areas which are completely devoid of detail in the highlight tones. As I have stated, I have been in the business of editing images digitally for the last ten years, and I honestly have no idea what processing algorithm Rylsky uses to give his images his signature 'look', but whatever it is, it renders most of his images in a caricature style which is a very poor depiction of his models, which is shameful, as he shoots some of the most beautiful women in the world...
Bored, your name says it all. What a Sad Sack you are- if pictures like this bore you, I feel terrible for you.
Sounds like your life needs more sex, drugs or rock 'n roll. Or all three. :)
Not really on topic, complaint is in regards to poor editing, processing decision making,
NOT by any means, the lack of beauty flowing freely here on Met. :)
Vikki Mauri and Rylsky, you both have just shown some of your best work, as far as I'm concerned.
The range of poses and expressions, the angles and play of shadows and light, between innocence and intrigue, the almost painterly perfection and sexually nubile projection... The rich contrasts in the colors and shadows of the shots in the 70s were almost tactile, seemed to cry out for touching. Indeed I can almost say no photographs of Vikki Mauri would do her justice -- but that would be because photographs tease me mercilessly and leave me wanting more. To know her, to hold her, to watch her eyes light up in front of me, to get her to laugh, to sigh... Her sets always, always seem too short. We're left wanting more... and more.
Maybe that's what is behind the comments in this section - people have had their imaginations tweaked and left wanting more. That's, I think, a good thing. As a model, Vicki Mauri shows awareness of her body and the effect and effects it has on a camera and the appreciative eye. I particularly liked watching the evolution of an idea as the set progressed.
Rylsky, I'm impressed with the consummate skill, control and inspiration in the sets you have of her on your site and here.
Vikki Mauri, I'm just impressed and totally desiring you. And spent...
You know that feeling one gets after making love and it was everything you wanted and yet you can't just let go yet...?
Thanks for that, Vikki Mauri.
Take the damn shirt off or stay out!
While some may be disappointed in this set, allow me to say that I am extremely happy to see Vikki Mauri again!
After 3 sets in 3 months I was about to put her on my short-list of the models I look forward to the most each month... then poof! She's gone!
I sincerely hope she's back to stay, and that we/I can look forward to new sets again & again! Vikki IS scrumptious, as I said before, adorable cute as can be, hot n sexy. Would love to wake up every morning next to someone like her! TY Rylsky! I enjoy the many pussy, face & butt shots, the close-ups like we/I am right there making love to/with her. But I do agree that her pretty & perky tits & erect nips need more attention, quite a turn-on those! And of course, TY Vikki Mauri! More pleeeze!
My goodness, I'd say Vikki has as much flesh down there as many guys do! Very erotic, I love her pussy lips.
Usually I'm not a fan of oiling up the model, seems so fake. But I have to admit, seeing all entrances lubed up in #85 gave me some ideas of what I'd like to do with her.
Beautiful babe with a lovely tight body & a wonderful set of perky nipples.
Vikki is also extraordinarily well endowed in the labia department - all nicely shot by Mr R as usual
Welcome back Rylsky!
Super cute...even with zero makeup!
how do you know? She is wearing make up in this shot. Very, very obvious amounts of makeup.
I completely agree with the other posters, who are disappointed with the posing in this set. I don't know if it's Rylsky or Vikki who's decided that because her breasts are small, nobody is going to want to see them, but, after 4 sets, it's clear somebody doest want the viewer to see them. That's bullshit!
Vikki's petite body is perfect. Yes, she does have a great little ass, and a gorgeous pussy. But her breasts are adorable too. Show her nude for more than a handful of photos, for god's sake.
I agree, I only watched this set tough but when i was going through it , i was waiting till she would let us see her full body instead of her bottom or her face. I dont get why she would think her boobs are to small or something like that (Dont know if she actually thinks that but it looks like that in this set). Me personally like girls with smaller boobs. Nice girl but i cant give this set more then a 7.
Vikki is very edible.
I agree with Billyboy. Her tits are small and very hot and beautiful, and they should be shown as often and proudly as those of any other model. Instead this set makes it appear that she, or the photographer, is embarrassed by them.
In pictures 3, 4, and 5, it's like she's joining me in saying "hooray for bottomlessness!"
Hate to disagree with both of you, but after 4 sets of almost all 'bottomless' with Vikki, I'm pretty much over it. Can I get a 'hooray for complete nudity'?
Her belly and breasts NEVER seem to get fair treatment from Rylsky, which sucks, as they are WONDERFUL!
she is completely nude at the end. Maybe you did not look past the first 20 pics?
Yeah, she's nude at the end, after 100+ pics, for a grand total of maybe a dozen shots. Yes, I looked at the whole set
Don't get me wrong, full nude is always the goal, but if they're going to start off with come clothes on, there are certain items I like to see removed first. :)
Im not disagreeing, bottomless makes a fine warm-up. Its a great lead-in for a fully nude model. The anticipation factor is great. But, after four sets, the milk in my cupboard is pretty well curdled.
For hells sake, just let us see this girl nude, full body, with no distractions, adornments, clothing, or other BS...
I'm not sure why, but bottomless shots get me every time. Its super sexy in my opinion.
That said; full nude is quite nice too. And some more of that towards the end of the set would be a plus.
I'm a lingerie lover, so I'm always a bit disappointed if I don't get to see some pretty panties! Lingerie and heels do it for me every time... to each his or her own, right?
Most of these photos were almost exactly the same. Like, just hold down the shutter release. Need more variety.
It seems that some folks missed the pics of her absolutely stunning pussy. Take another peek.
We have had four photo shoots now with this little Russian cutie and they are all rather similar, showing off her very pretty face, lovely bum and excellent legs. Vikki does however also some lovely small breasts with pretty nipples and the hint of a beautiful naval and belly. Whilst I appreciate the rearview shots of Vikki, I would love to see some frontal photos of her standing up without any jackets, panties or other clothing. Please Rylsky, can you please oblige or is Vikki reluctant to pose in this fashion?
Would have been great set with a cute Girl. But too many pictures with her eyes closed
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2018 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.