I agree -- a very disappointing set with nothing that's sharp. The only thing that's sharp is the huge amount of noise is every shot!
Thursday, May 25th, 2017 on Lomnia
Yeah, the members have spoken because she isn't shaved to look like a window dummy.
Friday, March 17th, 2017 on Etherna
One of the worst, most amateurish sets I've seen on here.
Thursday, February 9th, 2017 on Presenting Gloia
Since Matiss is, by far, the technical best on the site, I wish he would shoot some more natural girls for a change instead of every girl being completely shaved like a waxwork dummy. Give us some variety, Matiss!
Wednesday, February 8th, 2017 on Bentio
A smeary, blurred, false-sharpened, over-processed set. They probably look passable on a cell phone.
Friday, January 27th, 2017 on Presenting Kira
Actually, I've no problem with the hat. The problem is the lack of sharpness in all the shots. Just compare to Matiss' superbly detailed and sharp set today.
Tuesday, January 24th, 2017 on Minne
Motion blur throughout the set.
Monday, January 23rd, 2017 on Pemda
Oh, what a great set this would be if the images were sharp. But alas, another blur-fest. Where's Matiss when you need him.
Saturday, January 21st, 2017 on Astier
Dark, badly lit, the white balance is all over the place, and the images aren't sharp or well-resolved. Apart from that, a nice model.
Saturday, January 21st, 2017 on Fopyna
I'll just jump in here and say the model is beautiful and I love the bush. But it seems to be a rule on Met-Art that whenever there's a set with an unshaved model then the image quality has to be dreadful. Same here -- the images are shadowy and lack any sharpness or fine detail. Let's have Matiss assigned to some full-bush ladies!
Friday, December 9th, 2016 on Presenting Frankie
Yep, like all of Leonardo's sets. I don't know why he doesn't just shoot portraits, since faces are all he ever focuses on.
Friday, September 9th, 2016 on Tralir
Color balance is way, way off. But otherwise a great set!
Tuesday, July 26th, 2016 on Presenting Zlatka
A grainy, blurry mess.
Saturday, May 28th, 2016 on Inciu
There's nothing wrong with her - but the score isn't just about the model.
Wednesday, May 18th, 2016 on Megnis
Mostly out of focus. But a cute model.
Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 on Haberi
I'm surprised you could tell, because those "bits" are out of focus in almost every shot.
Wednesday, April 6th, 2016 on Ruone
Looks like one of those old sets dug up from the past. Nothing's sharp.
Wednesday, April 6th, 2016 on Falene
Matiss is the king!
Monday, March 28th, 2016 on Presenting Angel Celine
A very smug, "I know better" kind of comment, Yukon. I like the lighting myself (and shoot this kind of thing myself), but it's not what most customers want on a porn site, and this IS a porn site.
Sunday, March 27th, 2016 on Elmasa
I'm a photographer and - trust me - this is NO classic. He's pumped up the levels to compensate for lack of detail in the dark areas (i.e. the girl) and just produced a noisy mess with no blacks.
Friday, March 25th, 2016 on Syllan
I agree -- the new site doesn't seem to register ratings, it doesn't show image sizes (at least from what I can see) and yeah, you have to log in a second time to post comments.. Why have they pushed this on us for soooo long?
On another note -- what a GREAT set this is! Best I've seen here in a long time.
Thursday, March 10th, 2016 on Erjati
Lovely girl, but noisy, blurred images with no sharpness or depth of field.
Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 on Presenting Adel Morel
Matiss' image quality just puts all other contributors to shame. Nice set.
Friday, February 26th, 2016 on Incusen
The low score is likely because sharpness and depth of focus is poor, plus the pics are very noisy. But yes, anything less than 9/10 on here really says something, because most people just give 9 or 10 to everything.
Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 on Birdon
I guess he forgot that only poetic praise is acceptable here.
Sunday, February 21st, 2016 on Trinne
This is one of those sets where the photographer found the room more interesting than the model.
Friday, February 12th, 2016 on Totena
I agree -- this set is way below Matiss' usual standard. The shots lack sharpness and contrast. But people on this board still wax poetic about the model. Funny.
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 on Jordi
Would have been a nice set if her assets were in focus. But alas, not.
Saturday, January 30th, 2016 on Perdana
Poor sharpness, flat lighting, washed-out colors, and boring poses. Other than that, a great set.
Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 on Beura
...and almost every shot is blurry and out-of-focus. Awful.
Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 on Jaden
Back lit with no obvious light on the model. What a waste of time.
Monday, January 11th, 2016 on Odveni
Excellent image quality.
Sunday, January 3rd, 2016 on Tulde
I really hate these sets where almost nothing is in focus. A waste of time.
Thursday, December 17th, 2015 on Beries
Great bush. Just a shame that the pictures are so soft and shallow focus.
Thursday, December 3rd, 2015 on Lasai
Actually, most sets on Met-Art would be NC17 or "not rated". But they're still tame by porn standards. This set, however, is just plain awful.
Saturday, November 28th, 2015 on Posiva
Flat, drab lighting. Under-exposed, and horribly grainy. Nice job, guys.
Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 on Wame
Yeah, about 2 sites out of 64 million. And it is only porn that has made it a "niche". Most of the world's women have public hair in the real world.
Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 on Adirma
We're here for the girls, not landscape photography.
Friday, November 20th, 2015 on Presenting Naomi Keen
What an out-of-focus disaster! Was he drunk when he took these pics? What a waste of a beautiful girl.
Thursday, November 19th, 2015 on Presenting Taylor Sands
Wow -- if only all sets had this quality of sharpness, resolution, lighting. Bravo, Matiss!
Friday, November 13th, 2015 on Bluven
...and the focus, of course.
Wednesday, November 11th, 2015 on Clifey
Everything's from the back, and not very sharp.
Monday, November 9th, 2015 on Nesora
Too little, too late... and it's all out of focus.
Friday, November 6th, 2015 on Lanei
Actually, when I see the name Leonardo I know that little other than the model's face will be in focus throughout the set, and this one is no exception.
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015 on Fitula
Wow, this is a much sharper and highly resolved set than I usually expect from Rylsky. Bravo!
Thursday, October 1st, 2015 on Weten
Another great, pin-sharp, well-lit set from Matiss. If only other shooters on this site could produce work like this...
Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 on Sesine
Beautiful girl, once again wasted in this dreary, blurry set of images.
Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 on Ravita
What a joy to get a set by Matiss: well lit, super-sharp and resolved. Unlike most of the other stuff on MA.
Friday, September 25th, 2015 on Asciuta
Almost nothing is sharp or in focus in this set.
Friday, September 25th, 2015 on Presenting Iva
Wow, honest criticism by everyone - how refreshing :-) I usually just find everyone waxing poetic about the angelic beauty, no matter how bad the pics are.
Tuesday, September 22nd, 2015 on Letaja
She looks wonderful in the thumbnails -- great poses and a lovely lady. Then I click on the actual images... and nothing's sharp or in focus throughout the entire set.
Friday, September 18th, 2015 on Presenting Amelie Belain
Another photographer who always focuses in the wrong place.
Monday, September 14th, 2015 on Presenting Samanta Rose
Wow, pictures that are actually sharp. Such a rare treat on this site. Well done, Matiss.
Friday, September 11th, 2015 on Presenting Lola Marron
Nice girl, but let down by zero depth of field in the shots.
Tuesday, September 1st, 2015 on Presenting Alberta
Great girl. But this set badly lacks sharpness and depth of field (like so many sets on Met-Art.)
Tuesday, August 25th, 2015 on Manteli
Horrible muddy, blurry, purple images. What a waste of a rare girl with a bush.
Friday, August 21st, 2015 on Bidara
The trouble is not so much DOF, but that this guy always focuses on the face, even if the pussy is stuck out towards the camera. So that "point of interest" is completely ignored by Leonardo.
Thursday, August 20th, 2015 on Sinuble
Would have been a great set if it had good sharpness and resolution. But it doesn't.
Monday, August 10th, 2015 on Nestila
Great image quality from Matiss! I wish other contributors' sets were even close to this.
Sunday, August 9th, 2015 on Machiro
Out of focus crap. What a waste of a beautiful girl.
Sunday, August 9th, 2015 on Restio
Lovely model. Just a shame that it's Leonardo shooting her instead of someone who cares about getting her assets in focus.
Friday, July 17th, 2015 on Cenyme
Cute girl, but horrible blurry photography with little clarity.
Friday, July 17th, 2015 on Presenting Helena
There's probably one shot that's sharp throughout the set. Fail.
Wednesday, July 15th, 2015 on Ploide
Ah, a man who knows where to focus the lens! Nice.
Monday, July 13th, 2015 on Nuolli
Another annoying back-lit set.
Sunday, July 12th, 2015 on Taebe
If only other contributors to the site could deliver this level of lighting and sharpness. Excellent.
Thursday, July 9th, 2015 on Necorsa
I agree. A full natural bush would be much better.
Wednesday, July 8th, 2015 on Semyra
So I guess focusing is just left to random chance with this "photographer".
Sunday, June 28th, 2015 on Presenting Odara
A shame the image quality is so bad. It looks like the shots were probably under-exposed, then they tried to compensate later by upping the shadows... but her bush just looks like a muddy blur in many shots.
Thursday, June 25th, 2015 on Nacha
Yes, another one of those sets where everything's orange and very little in focus. Very Met-Art.
Tuesday, June 23rd, 2015 on Lehre
Her skin detail -- especially around her pussy -- has been erased. It wasn't even done in a subtle way, leaving her looking like a digital creation instead of a woman. But you guys go ahead and praise the photographer, like you always do.
Sunday, June 21st, 2015 on Persoa
Wow, a rare Met-art set where the color, exposure, brightness and focus are all spot-on! We don't see enough of you, Antonio Clemens.
Thursday, June 18th, 2015 on Vasune
Very little in focus throughout the set, except the closeups. A waste of my time.
Monday, June 15th, 2015 on Dessiny
Yeah, I wouldn't call it mutilation either, but I totally agree with your sentiment. A completely shaved body does look like a mannequin instead of a real woman.
Friday, June 12th, 2015 on Eniel
Hey Met-Art, do you actually look at images before you pay for them? It doesn't seem so with this set.
Thursday, June 11th, 2015 on Anico
Why, oh, why did we have to have the alien eyes? Ruined it for me.
Wednesday, June 10th, 2015 on Itine
Would have been a nice set if it was in focus with good detail, but alas not.
Tuesday, June 9th, 2015 on Myrtone
Oh well, at least her face was in focus.
Monday, June 8th, 2015 on Nisarto
I couldn't agree more. It would also be nice if the pictures were sharp, but alas, no.
Monday, June 8th, 2015 on Cromie
Dark, flat lighting and not very sharp. The only good thing is that she has a bush.
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2015 on Scaque
Awesome image quality and resolution. This is what all the sets should look like.
Monday, June 1st, 2015 on Juedo
Dreadful quality. I would be too ashamed to sell these if I'd taken them.
Monday, June 1st, 2015 on Ereula
Her skin has been erased! You have ruined her natural beauty!
Monday, June 1st, 2015 on Dolome
I disagree. If someone is being paid as a "professional photographer", then they shouldn't be learning their skill at our expense. Also, no matter how nice a model may be, it's worthless if the pictures are crap like these. You can't rate a set on the model alone yet, alas, most customers on this site just give "10" to everything.
Thursday, May 14th, 2015 on Aranice
Yep, another waste of a lovely girl by Leonardo. Maybe he has tunnel vision and is only aware of her face.
Monday, May 11th, 2015 on Ezone
Another set where all her skin detail has been wiped out and turned into plastic in Photoshop. What a shame.
Thursday, May 7th, 2015 on Castea
Poor focus and resolution. Plus all of her skin detail has been painted out. Apart from that, pretty girl!
Thursday, May 7th, 2015 on Lestret
She would have looked great if she'd been photographed in focus. As usual, only the face is in focus.
Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 on Presenting Anita Bellini
I agree, absolutely. Photographers here keep throwing out this back-lit garbage. Check out the USC 2257 notice at the bottom of the page: someone needs to remind photographers that this is porn, not fine art.
Saturday, April 25th, 2015 on Trinda
Friday, April 24th, 2015 on Confira
Another damned backlit set. Waste of time.
Friday, April 24th, 2015 on Saffine
Again, the set is wasted for me as everything's blurred and murky. Looks like the shutter speed was too low, among other things.
Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 on Presenting Kassi
Would have been a nice set if the shots were sharp and focused. But alas, they're a blurry mess.
Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 on Afegy
I think what yin-yang means is that 7000 pixels are wasted on such badly focused photography. There's very little fine detail, so they may as well be 3000 pixels.
Saturday, April 18th, 2015 on Presenting Rozi
I wish photographers would set the right color temperature so that we don't end up with sets like this.
Friday, April 17th, 2015 on Zoneva
Yes, lovely girl. But such a lack of good detail and DOF. What a shame.
Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 on Hendre
Pretty girl. It's a HUGE shame the photographer blasted away her skin detail. Now she looks like a plastic digital creation instead of a person. Just look at her pubic region.
Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 on Vanno
I hope she has some sets where she's not heavily backlit and washed out like this one.
Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 on Presenting Jezabel Vessir
Would have been a nice set if the photography was sharp and detailed. But as usual, it isn't.
Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 on Kirea
What a blurry, out-of-focus mess! Another waste of an attractive model.
Sunday, March 22nd, 2015 on Tinea
I totally agree. Dramatic light and theatrics are great in fine art photography... but not in porn. Remember what genre you are shooting for! Also, 7360 pixel image are wasted in this soft, blurry photography with no fine detail.
Sunday, March 22nd, 2015 on Presenting Prima
I agree -- not sexy at all. It's made even worse by wiping away all their body detail through airbrushing. They look like a pair of clothing dummies instead of real people.
Wednesday, March 18th, 2015 on Fenica
Wow, this set is unusually sharp for Rylsky.
Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 on Inicea
I hate stockings. Get rid of them immediately.
Monday, March 16th, 2015 on Prameny
All her skin (and other detail) has been blown away in Photoshop. It's like looking at a plastic person through fog.
Wednesday, March 11th, 2015 on Storich
Yep, he's clearly ignorant to feedback. Even shots where she's got her pussy spread and close to the camera... he focuses on her face. Unbelievable.
Saturday, March 7th, 2015 on Oggi
I will. Very little is in focus throughout the set. Soft images. Too many shots are against heavy backlight, making the model look dark and washed out. Her eyes don't engage the camera in most shots. I could go on...
Friday, March 6th, 2015 on Iluvia
After a while, I just gave up trying to find a shot that was in focus.
Thursday, March 5th, 2015 on Sinelua
Blurry with no fine detail anywhere.
Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 on Conosce
Badly focused. Badly lit. And the model was too far away in most shots.
Monday, March 2nd, 2015 on Ryza
Well said. How can anyone have an open crutch right up to the camera and then say: "Oh, I'd better focus on her face". WTF? And it's not just once, but most shots. This set also seems to suffer from camera shake, and there's even a shot where something gets in the way of the camera or else it's a shutter synch problem where half the image is missing. I mean, don't they even LOOK at these pictures before they post them?
Saturday, February 28th, 2015 on Indize
Out-of-focus, blurry and grainy. It amazes me how much discussion people have about the model when you can't even see her clearly.
Thursday, February 26th, 2015 on Presenting Lucy Kent
Wow, a rare set which is both sharp focus and the photographer hasn't obliterated her skin in Photoshop. Fabulous! I wish all sets were this good.
Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 on Chlora
Shot 92 would have been great. But what does Fabrese do? He destroys all the detail around her pussy, then tries to hide it by adding false noise to the picture. Why do photographers on this site have to mess so much with everything?
Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 on Plaqua
Another over-processed set with featureless, plastic skin.
Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 on Boevin
Sorry, no, these shots are HUGELY overexposed.
Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 on Trespi
Awful photography. There's no detail to see anywhere.
Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 on Hemece
Yes, she's a pretty girl. But these images are so processed that her skin looks like plastic. She looks like a digitally created character, which isn't sexy at all.
Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 on Nuzie
Great girl, horrible soft and grainy photography.
Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 on Batiene
Blurry and grainy. I wish she was shot be Matiss instead.
Sunday, January 18th, 2015 on Posalin
Over-exposed and mostly out of focus. Nice model, though.
Sunday, January 18th, 2015 on Augen
Nothing is sharp in this set.
Wednesday, January 14th, 2015 on Macida
Her eyes are shut in almost every shot. That's what happens when you shoot her in direct sun. I want to see a model's eyes!
Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 on Medatt
Sorry, but this model is everywhere on websites, all the time, so it's no longer interesting for me.
Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 on Nejira
Try getting the model in focus next time. This set fails miserably.
Saturday, January 10th, 2015 on Edrom
Nothing is in sharp focus -- not even the closeups.
Wednesday, January 7th, 2015 on Asimila
Flat, lifeless images. A waste of a lovely girl.
Monday, January 5th, 2015 on Dejia
Assoli? Seriously? That's hilarious!
Friday, January 2nd, 2015 on Cheaco
Almost nothing in focus across the whole set. An utter waste of time.
Friday, January 2nd, 2015 on Depiu
Probably the worst set of Milena that I've ever seen. Blurry and soft.
Thursday, January 1st, 2015 on Rocone
Grow the bush properly, or else shave it. That stupid "V" does nothing for me.
Tuesday, December 30th, 2014 on Penuh
Matiss is the man! One of the few shooters on here who can deliver sharp, bright images without any pretentious arty BS.
Tuesday, December 30th, 2014 on Deusir
Far too little bush on this site. And when we get it, it's always the same few models.
Monday, December 29th, 2014 on Relatre
Over 7000 pixels of resolution... wasted on this grainy, out-of-focus garbage. You could have done this with a cell phone.
Friday, December 26th, 2014 on Rhodi
There's very little in focus in this set.
Tuesday, December 23rd, 2014 on Urendi
This photographer focuses on the face in every shot, so her other assets are usually out of focus. Bad move. And way too much false sharpening -- this wouldn't be necessary if the images were naturally sharp. But yeah, pretty girl.
Tuesday, December 23rd, 2014 on Esisty
She's pretty, but you have destroyed all detail on her body. She looks like a crash-test dummy instead of a person.
Saturday, December 20th, 2014 on Presenting Stephanie
Yes, so many met-art photographers insist on shooting against extremely bright backgrounds, rendering the model washed out. They do it over and over, and it's so annoying.
Friday, December 19th, 2014 on Obtene
Pretty much everywhere on the web she is shaved like a crash test dummy. Go see those pictures. It's nice to see her with hair for a change.
Ruined by insane amounts of false sharpening.
Friday, December 19th, 2014 on Presenting Winnie
We get so few sets with pubic hair,, and then it's wasted in one like this where very little is sharp or in focus.
Friday, December 19th, 2014 on Sutene
Not much in focus here. A waste of 7000 pixel images.
Friday, December 19th, 2014 on Resine
This is one of those sets where all the fine detail is lacking (or removed). It's like looking through a haze.
Sunday, July 13th, 2014 on Sortim
I have to disagree with your reasoning as I have been a big supporter of the hairy on this site.
I hope that Met is not obligated to publish sets just because of the photographer's name or prior dealings over the merit of the material. When you say "Fine Photography" - that means professional quality and not amateurish to me.
Agreed, photography is definitely amateurish.
Gloia is cute and sexy, it's too bad.
We used to have this argument with he who shall remain nameless. Bottom line, who are we as mere viewers to mandate or even recommend to these ladies how to keep their body hair? What would you do if someone told you to shave ore not? Me, I'd tell 'em to piss off.
Arkie and hipshot make valid points. It is not Matiss's call, it is the girls' preference and that is how it should be. Take the ladies as they are presented and be happy to be able to see such feminine beauty, hair or not.
As others (and myself) have mentioned before... not really Matiss' call... entirely up to the model (no matter how much ranting and pleading from the bleacher crowd).
Are you referring to the set of pictures above or another set?
It's caused by the too hard wanking... LOL
No offence, just a high ball.. :)
Thursday, January 26th, 2017 on Pemda
Morning sun. Since it's at a more shallow angle, travels through more atmosphere, and picks up the orange tinge.
Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 on Haberi
And her 'future's bright'.
What? Can't believe you say that, I found plenty of lovely bits that were in focus and quite sharp. Maybe all the jerking motion is blurring your vision?
Slightly more accurately, Greg (and by and large I agree with you, BTW) this site has developed over the years into something it was not when it began. When it began ~ or, at least, as far back into the archives as I have been able to reach since I became a member in 2010, so at least by 2002 or 2003 or so, this site was primarily "art nude" with very, very few pussy shots. Essentially, if you saw one or two pussy shots in a set, that was the exception to the rule, which was extremely soft (softer than Playboy magazine when I was a wee bit) what I would call "glamor" nudes.
Over the years, MA's content evolved to follow its clientele's tastes. By the time I became a member, Slastyonoff, Goncharov, Rylsky, Ron Offlin and Tony Murano (among other photographers) had gradually pulled MA toward a more explicit style, though there was still a fair amount of "glamor nude" like Schoen's material here.
In the six years I've been a member, the feel of the site has evolved even further in the explicit direction, which is entirely fine with me. As long as fingers and toys (and members, LOL) are kept out of the picture, I am happy with however explicit the model and the photographer want to get. And I have the feeling ~ I could be wrong ~ that MOST of the members agree with me.
Simply put, from the POV of what most of MA's photographers produce, Schoen does not fit the current mix. That being said, she has been a very real part of MA for a very long time. I totally understand why K and the rest of MA's managers respect her so much (as well as most of the members) which is why I spare her the criticism I level at other photographers I feel are not meeting their potential. Schoen has never been part of the scene I prefer and I respect that.
But back to the original point ~ this isn't a "porn" site. I think of it as "explicit erotica," myself.
I think of porn as having very little artistic intent or purpose, being merely the process of getting a girl out of her clothing and spread wide open as quickly as possible. The photographers here might or might not be artists, but they all follow a much more sophisticated and erotic MO, in my (oh-so-humble) opinion. The worst artist MA has ever run at least was trying to depict his model's beauty, and IMO porn does not have that intent.
Monday, March 28th, 2016 on Elmasa
Precisely! Greg42 I too am a photographer and it is that unavoidable noise, loss of color depth, graininess and loss of detail that is a turnoff to me.
Does Spiro Agnew trigger a mini poem from you?
Monday, February 22nd, 2016 on Trinne
All comments are welcome (so long as they are not offensive towards the model) but the artists really appreciate constructive criticism which helps them to improve. To quote Albert Varin on the blog a couple of days ago: "I particularly pay attention to the negative comments, and I am grateful for reasoning and specifications, because if I know the specific flaws, I can fix them in the future. "
Saturday, February 13th, 2016 on Totena
NC-17 doesn't come into play unless there is actual penetration shown, of which there is none on MA.
I feel sorry for all of you who can't be aroused by a woman without having her expose her pussy and/or asshole. The beauty and sensuality of women are not defined strictly by their crotches.
That´s "Girlscape photography" instead,New trends,Greg
Ever stop to think that 1) that's the way Luca WANTED the photos to appear or 2) that it's a function of the lens/camera body combination?
she makes me drunk with horninesss
I prefer just this kind of lighting.
Saturday, November 7th, 2015 on Scaque
Not sure what you mean about "Too little, too late", but I have to agree, the focusing is definitely an issue.
"we here today, are highly resolved".... that these pixels shall not flicker in vain, and that the work of our artist shall not perish from the earth.
I agree with your comments. There are far too many sets on this site where the same photographers are criticised for these issues, but who seem unwilling or incapable of fixing them. Combine that with poor lighting, contrast and pale skinned models on white backgrounds and you have a site where a large percentage of the photographs are not worth looking at. When my membership runs out I will not be renewing, but rather go elsewhere to a site that has no such problems. Fortunately there are plenty of sites with stellar models and stellar photography.
I have bitched about that for years but he just doesn't seem to listen.
did you mean that you wish it to see in 1 Gigapixel?
Properly focused snaps doesn't seem to be highly valued at MA. :-(
Have your eyes checked. Nothing wrong with the photography.
there is nothing wrong with back lit.
I'll second that, also like her with black hair better.She is a 10 either way .
i usually give him 1/10
Monday, June 29th, 2015 on Presenting Odara
It doesn't have the richness you would like to see...
Also, with a bush especially you need more DoF...
A picture is an artistic two dimensional representation of -in this case-a subject,a woman.
As in a painting,it´s the artist who decides how and when to further embelish
the final product.It´s not an inmutable law such representation has to be a two dimensional copy of the subject.It´s up to Catherine to airbrush or not,and imho this is not a malpractice.It´s only something you dislike.
I know Ying´s gonna kill me,but that my opinion.The Seller
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed! :-))
I can maybe understand guys viewing on phones -- but on big LCDs?
They knoweth not what they lookin' at! :-))
There may be some forgiving or sympathetic souls out there, but most I think know little-to-nothing about what can be done in Photoshop, etc. To put it succinctly, *any*thing :-))) ☹
Almost like a Fremen from Frank Herbert's Dune. Her eyes nearly match her top!
I fully agree with you!
It's almost like a new epidemic plague!
Izabel is not the only one.
36 megapixels of mush? :-))
Seriously, the main thing that many does here is magnify flaws.
Smarter guys use fewer -- between say 12 and 20...
You're not saying they have no taste, R U :-? :-)))
poor resolution? At 36mp?
Saturday, May 9th, 2015 on Lestret
Even the close-ups seem a bit soft. I recall Delta's equipment was stolen awhile back, wondering if maybe the new gear isn't as good? It just seems many of the shots could be more detailed, not sure what the problem is...
Really wish ratings for poor photography would be posted against the photographer and not the model. There is a place for that.
That much rez (36 MP) can undermine sharpness unless everything is right. This photog ought to try a 12MP rig, with prime lenses.
AND lay off the paint brush! ☹
Thank you, Greg. That many pixels just magnify flaws, of which Paromov tends to produce many :-))
And Lucky, I think it's time for yet another new display, or new glasses, or a digital photography class :-))
A little common decency wouldn't hurt either ☺
That's proper white balance--for outdoors S California around sunset. ;-)
Well,her color is dark so she can afford a bit washing out
Think the word for Koenart is "clear."
His or her stuff tends to look like it's on high ASA film.
"Dramatic light and theatrics are great in fine art photography... but not in porn."
Metart is supposed to be a "porn site"??? LOL!!!!!
I would categorize Metart as an erotic photography site. I do not consider Metart to be Porn site. Maybe others do. I don't.
I think he tries this theatrics when they are new, like with Nensi, hope we get more of this girl in normal setting. Different isn't bad once in a while I guess.
"Fine Art Photography online since 1999" This website meant to be
about high quality nude ART Photography,and in fact is the Gold Standard in this genre,despite people like yourself,who have at your disposal many other pages according to your preferences inside this network,and a quite chaotic managing,judging by the unwontedly heading the site is taking.
So far,Met is about fine erotic nude art.Not porn.
As you can see,Paromov remembers perfectly what genre is shoting for.
It´s you who doesn´t know what the site is about.
Thanks a lot for a pure gold illustration of what "trolling" is.
That's the photographer's "style."
Apart from the softness/focus pretty much all over the place issues, I am pretty satisfied. The heater in the background in some pics was not a good choice but overall the framing worked for me. Including the 'heavy backlight' pictures. Same for the eyes. She doesn't have to stare into the cam all the time - and this is not a set where the girl never looks into the camera.
Saturday, March 7th, 2015 on Iluvia
Absolutely correct. Another waste of a beautiful model, imaginative costume and sets, some very nice poses, but all ruined by the most careless, incompetent photography on the site.
Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 on Rhodi
really? would you provide examples?
I agree had to check to see if I had rose colored glasses on
Yes, that appears to be the case in some of these images.
Some people love the fantasy, others would prefer to take a chance on "reality."
As long as one isn't confused with the other, all is well :-)))
Yeah, some photographers are really into bokeh. Personally I like having a wide enough depth-of-field that the whole model appears to be in focus (or nearly so), giving the viewer a choice of 'subject' on the model.
But some see it as a way of drawing/forcing your attention to one subject ( face, etc). Also, in some cases you're forced to use a really fast lens due to lighting, and some blur is unavoidable. But this is a studio shot where there was full control of the lighting, so... yeah. Not my preferred choice, but I get it.
Saturday, January 17th, 2015 on Macida
Agree. Front Focus or Back Focus with the camera.
Sorry to hear that. More for us though! :)
Disagree. You need your eyes checked. The model was in excellent focus. I loved this set, especially the butt shots. Excellent photography.
Thank you Greg! I will try next time! can I have a pair of your glasses?
Disagree. You need your eyes checked or get a new monitor.
Harsh Greg, but a degree of truth.
I admire artistic.
I don't admire lack of focus, or more particularly, lack of depth of foucus.
Clean and well manicured feet may be sexy. Dirty feet are not.
Otherwise Angelika D is as fine a model as my dreams might create.
Great name, huh? It makes me giggle every time. And sure enough, it makes me check out her ass every time too...
Agreed! filling a studio with smoke and elaborate artifacts doe not constitute art to me and it certainly does not evoke any sort of erotic response!
Depth of field is pretty shallow, granted, so Arkisi has to choose exactly where to focus. One might quibble with those decisions, but the real problem is lack of depth of field. This has to do with light output on his strobes or whatever he's using. More light, and you can make the camera aperture smaller, and more is in focus closer and farther from the camera. That's why at night when your pupils are dialated, your vision may not be as sharp. In bright daylight, your pupil is likely a tiny dot, and more is in focus, just like a camera. That's what's called depth of field. The solution is to use more lights or more powerful lights, which could be expensive. Don't know the budget of these photographers, seems they should be paid well, but maybe not.
Greg42, this photographer has a name. I would be pleased if you call by name. I am happy to answer your comments and I will try to fulfill your wishes.
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2017 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.