A Great Model - however a very poor setting. These water sets on this site just do not cut it. Please put a bung in the pipe and lets have a sensible photo-shoot set next time. Thanks.
Thursday, August 17th, 2017 on Nediam
Nice butterfly .... but should have been on display far sooner in the set.
Wednesday, August 16th, 2017 on Mulde
.... (Rubycon) And that is exactly one of the reasons why I will not be renewing my membership. However, considering the very low score this set has received (and the very low scores this photographer always receives) I find your comment puzzling. I subscribed on what MA advertised at the time - and this type of set was not it!
Wednesday, August 16th, 2017 on Boaly
Some great bicycle shots and I just love those wheel reflectors. Unfortunately, this is not what I pay to see!
Monday, August 14th, 2017 on Boaly
HIGH QUALITY PHOTOGRAPHY. Why do many other photographers on this site fail to produce similar very good sets (like this) themselves. Photographers on this site, who get consistantly poor comments and voting scores, should learn from this set. Although it is early days, I guess this set will score very high.
Thursday, August 10th, 2017 on Jinde
Far too many coy pictures.
Wednesday, August 9th, 2017 on Resni
Some things always go in this photographer favour with all sets listed on here. Firstly the sets are always well lit including the outdoor sets. Secondly, Out of Focus shots are very rare with this photographer, and thirdly depth of field focusing is always done correctly. This is a good set.
Wednesday, August 2nd, 2017 on Encia
This would hasve been a good set, except poor depth of field focusing (YET AGAIN FROM THIS PHOTOGRAPHER). Pictures 50% in focus but 50% out of focus just would never make the cut on similar sites, and thus nor should they do on this site either. Summary, good model, good poses, crap photography.
Wednesday, August 2nd, 2017 on Presenting Runa
Please can this photographer consider doing the following on future sets? (1) Make the pictures much more darker, at least 4 or 5 times darker. (2) Show even less flesh, maybe keep the underwear on for the entire set. (3) make the pictures even more out of focus - as I am sure all subscribers love out of focus pictures. (4) Please make future sets much more boring. I know that this may be a difficult ask, but really I want to be 100% bored not just 99% bored. And finally (5) could you put the model in a taxi and wiz her off to a photographer who is willing to photograph models in a way subscribers on this site (going by the scoring) want to see. Thanks.
Tuesday, August 1st, 2017 on Clia
This set, at best, is poor.
Monday, July 10th, 2017 on Porena
Poor framing, poor lighting, crap poses, very boring, horrendous photography. If this is the best this photographer can do then surely look for another job. Does this photographer ever read the comments section? If I were this photographer I would be embarrassed about getting such low scores all the time. I would also be embarrassed about getting all the negative comments. Moreover I would be even more embarrassed about taking such crap photos like these and then thinking they were actually good. Nevertheless give credit where it is due - there are worse sets on this site than this! Oops I have just checked, the worse sets than this are also all from this same photographer. Lol.
Friday, July 7th, 2017 on Presenting Elin
Correct, I gave up because I could not enlarge any picture from any set.
Very poor UNACCEPTABLE depth-of-field out-of-focus photography yet again on nearly every picture I could be bothered to enlarge. Starting with this set and every future set, If a see many pictures where some of the model is out of focus but some of the model is in focus then I will score the set one point. Thus I have scored this amateurish photography one point. Any amateur can get a camera and take lousy, abysmal, unprofessional pictures where the model is both in and out of focus in the same picture. The skill (which is not that difficult) is getting the entire model in focus in the same picture (LIKE NEARLY ALL OTHER SIMILAR SITES SUCCEED AT WITHOUT DIFFICULTY). I have just spent a few hours looking back at sets on here that were about seven years old. The sets I viewed were from Dolce, Goncharov, Majoly, Max Asolo, Nikonoff, Nudero, Rigin, Skokov, Slastyonoff and Tonia. Considering the cameras were not so good in that era, my goodness, the photographers at that time certainly knew how to use them! Of all the many sets I viewed it was very rare to find out of focus or depth-of-field out of focus anywhere. In comparison to the stuff listed now from many (but not all) photographers, the quality of the actual photography then was light years ahead and in many cases equally as revealing than the poor quality stuff listed on here now. My goodness there is some really rubbish photography getting listed on here in recent times.
Sunday, July 2nd, 2017 on Eldine
Sunday, July 2nd, 2017 on Starlight Night
I shall be polite. THIS SET - Yet another waste of space and time.
Saturday, July 1st, 2017 on Aldixa
Very confident blonde model, happy to open her legs wide to have her nice distended protruding labia photographed for all to see. A good set.
Friday, June 30th, 2017 on Ritias
Lovely boobs, fantastic fully exposed labia.
Friday, June 30th, 2017 on Nasikas
She seemed more relaxed in this shoot. She seemed happy to open her legs wide so the photographer could get some great shots of her lovely smooth vagina. The final lot of shots showing her fully visible protruding labia is what we like to see.
Friday, June 30th, 2017 on Ofirias
This would have been a very good set - However there are significant depth-of-field focusing issues (yet again) which has completely ruined most of the set. Just why do photographers who contribute to this site think it is so great to have half of a picture in focus and the other 50% out of focus? You hardly ever (if ever) see this level of amateurism shown on other similar sites, but on this site it seems the norm. I guessed most of the pictures would only be 50% in focus before I even started enlarging them - and I was dead right! Is it the case that all the other similar sites out there are doing it wrong and met art is right, or maybe, just maybe, the professionalism and high quality fully in-focus photography shown on all other sites is the correct way to do it and MA are wrong, in a minority of one, accepting such third rate out-of-focus photography? There are about three good professional photographers on this site that produce the goods, but it seems they do the heavy lifting for all the other less able photographers (of which there are loads). So here we have a set with good poses, a model willing to actual model for once, good lighting, no obstructed poses, good subject framing, but completely let down by such rubbish depth-of-field focusing.
Wednesday, June 28th, 2017 on Tourena
Ditch the stupid idiotic pointless obstructive view poses.
Tuesday, June 27th, 2017 on Presenting Cameran
Whilst she played with the peppers, she did not do much with the carrots - which was such a shame!
Tuesday, June 27th, 2017 on Jogne
Far too many repeated boring poses - far too few good poses.
Monday, June 26th, 2017 on Tiosce
Loads of crossed legs and fully obstructed views. Exactly what I pay my subscription to see! Well Done!!!!
Monday, June 26th, 2017 on Minora
I do not care where the models come from - providing they do not have stupid boob jobs and they do not have ridiculous tattoos either. Unfortunately, that criteria rules out most models from the USA.
Thursday, June 22nd, 2017 on Dianeta
This would have been a good set, but let down (once again) by very poor out-of-focus depth-of-field photography.
Wednesday, June 21st, 2017 on Alsina
Hopeless out-of-focus depth-of-field focusing yet again (50% of a picture in focus the other 50% not so). Amateurish & Inept - nothing to be proud of in this rubbish set.
Saturday, June 17th, 2017 on Exind
The site should have more mirror / open pussy sets.
Friday, June 16th, 2017 on Vellfin
If viewers do not complain then the same old crap, pictures not of a higher enough standard for other similar sites, will continue to be forced upon the subscribers of this site for ever more. The whole point of the comments section is to express your views in order to improve the site. Only making favourable comments is simply disingenuous and pointless. I will not be renewing my subscription due to the vast amount of poor unprofessional photography shown on this site. Thus I make the comments (supported by far more other viewers than your offensive comments ever do) for the benefit of all the other members (and which in the main, they vastly agree with me on). Also I do not understand your reference to LB and others in your second sentence. Finally, I will continue to make negative comment where I see the need to do so. No one forces you to read my comments, so get real and live with it.
Thursday, June 15th, 2017 on Presenting Megan Rain
Don't you just love these very long sets like this that have a wealth of very different interesting poses?
Tuesday, June 13th, 2017 on Ensha
I shall be polite - but the fact is, I find viewing this photographers work hard work and painful. I am sorry, but that is how it is.
Tuesday, June 13th, 2017 on Presenting Megan Rain
I did not see any duplicated pictures, as I used binoculars throughout. I recommend it!
Monday, June 12th, 2017 on Menthi
Sunday, June 11th, 2017 on Penaji
..... And the best photographer on this site is still producing the best photography on this site. A great set.
Thursday, June 8th, 2017 on Radia
My reply to mysecret, fenway and Ianbof. In my view this photographer churns out this dull grainy crap photography because so many viewers on here are content to put up with rubbish that would never make it on other sites. How anyone could make favourable comments on this set (and many of this photographers other sets) is well beyond comprehension. If your very valid comment was agreed on by say 25 other viewers then maybe MA would address the matter. However as that is unlikely to happen then all the viewers on here will be stuck with grainy, poor lighting, out-of-focus, poor depth-of-field focusing, shots taken too far away, sets where nothing happens until two-thirds in, fog and blur from all the photographers who like producing this dreadful crap for THIS SITE, for quite some time yet.
Thursday, June 8th, 2017 on Nemil
The set was let down by many many poor depth-of-field out of focus photography shots. If MA continue to publish rubbish photos where 50% of the picture is in focus and the other 50% of the same picture is just an out-of-focus blur then maybe the subscription should also be cut by 50%. Poor depth-of-field out-of-focus photography is the main thing that lets this site down, the likes of which you hardly ever see on other sites - and yet many photographers on here still persist with it.
Wednesday, June 7th, 2017 on Boleme
Agreed, the panties stayed on far too long. I too was bored stiff.
Wednesday, June 7th, 2017 on Liforma
Some good poses - but not enough good poses in this set.
Monday, June 5th, 2017 on Zelyma
Stunning model, great poses. I love the pictures with her legs wide apart with her open vagina fully exposed.
Sunday, June 4th, 2017 on Diamora
Sunday, June 4th, 2017 on Presenting Faye
A stunning blonde who is comfortable with opening her legs wide apart with her protruding labia fully exposed. Great stuff.
Sunday, June 4th, 2017 on Elusiva
Very good poses.
Sunday, June 4th, 2017 on Vanias
Good model with a great pussy.
Sunday, June 4th, 2017 on Splendide
Some great out of focus in this set.
Saturday, June 3rd, 2017 on Presenting Natalia
Stunning blonde with small firm boobs. The way she seemed so comfortable in opening her legs wide open showing everyone just how far her labia protrudes outside her vagina cracks is just so sweet.
Saturday, June 3rd, 2017 on Presenting Aleksa
The best protruding labia on MA.
Saturday, June 3rd, 2017 on Vestigia
Good photography and a stunning blonde model. The way the opens her legs wide apart fully exposing her lovely vulva is so good. It has great how the photographer was able to capture her pretty face and her protruding labia in so many of the pictures is really great. It must be the best vagina on MA.
Saturday, June 3rd, 2017 on Vimek
The best current photographer on this site has come up with the goods again. A good set.
Friday, June 2nd, 2017 on Morsia
I have no idea what pfff means. What I do know it this:- In reply to your comment I have looked again at this set. I could not be bothered to enlarge every picture as I tend not to waste my time at viewing complete rubbish photography. However at random I enlarged 7 pictures. Numbers 53, 54, 56 and 101 all had significant out of focus elements in their pictures. The other three I enlarged were 66, 68 and 103. These three photographs were far LESS than 50% in focus. Indeed they were amateurish, pathetic and rubbish in the extreme. In short this standard of photography is far worse than trainees at Junior School have produced on equipment of a much lower specification.
Friday, June 2nd, 2017 on Labura
Extremely amateurish poor depth of field focusing (YET AGAIN). It is OK if you like photographs which are only 50% in focus. I prefer rather more professional photographs which are fully 100% in focus.
Thursday, June 1st, 2017 on Labura
Spot on! Moreover every picture onward from number 101 was pointless.
Thursday, June 1st, 2017 on Presenting Zazie
What was the point of the first 65 pictures? Indeed what was the point in taking any of them as she may as well have stayed fully dressed. This is a good model but it looks like it was photographed by someone keen to get home for dinner. Thus this set is boring, unimaginative and uninspiring. The set currently scores 7.9 (which rather says it all), however I think even this is 6.9 points too high!
Wednesday, May 31st, 2017 on Nantees
A nice model. She would have been even better without that awfully dreadful tattoo. Why a nude model would want a tattoo that large in a place so obvious defies comprehension. It is rather like a world winning marathon runner taking up smoking.
Wednesday, May 31st, 2017 on Anepoll
Of all the different hair styles and different hair colour this model has had, this style and colour must be the best - and by a long way. Her hair really suits her.
Tuesday, May 30th, 2017 on Datoe
The photography is better in this set, than a lot of the rubbish shown in 2017.
Monday, May 29th, 2017 on Presenting Aya
In my view, this photographer is definitely in the top three photographers on this site.
Sunday, May 28th, 2017 on Arlesy
Something between 98% to 100% boring. Whilst I prefer the longer sets like this, they nevertheless have to be interesting. Of all the pictures in this set, I enlarged a total of none.
Saturday, May 27th, 2017 on Jivem
This photographer did the photo shoot of Vivian, listed here on 15 May. The comment section on that set would suggest the balance between outdoor and indoor photography from this photographer is not well balanced (i.e. too many outdoor sets). Also consider that the posting in the comment section relating to this photographers outdoor work was made well after most viewers had already seen the set and thus most viewers would have not even read the comment. In short - you are spot on and correct! Yes too many OUTDOOR shoots from this photographer are boring and repetitious.
Friday, May 26th, 2017 on Alnemia
This is a very good set. I wish this photographer would do a lot more indoor shoots and a lot less outdoor shoots. Also make all the indoor shoots in the style shown in this shoot.
Thursday, May 25th, 2017 on Yetenek
I also noticed that, as I like to read the titles of the books on the shelves.
Thursday, May 25th, 2017 on Diadre
Over the years I have met and known a number (in Britain) who were either nude models or went on to become nude models. In every case except one, of those I knew, they signed an exclusivity clause with the photographer (or the business of that photographer), preventing them from going elsewhere. I do not know if this practice still continues.
Thursday, May 25th, 2017 on Dinaba
Very Good Model. However, poor out of focus photography (yet again). Numerous pictures with poor depth of field focusing resulting in 50% of the picture being in focus and 50% of each picture being out of focus. This is a shame as the framing of each picture was actually good. I still do not know why this site thinks amateurish poor depth of field out of focus photography on a nude model site is acceptable, when other similar sites only show pictures which are 100% in-focus.
Thursday, May 25th, 2017 on Lomnia
I wish this set had been even more grainier and had even more green insipid tint. I just love stupid grainy pictures. I also love washed out sets like this which are drab and colourless and which look as though have been shot in a haze of fog. If only this set could have been a even more drab and had even more grain then it would score 100%. I also love sets like this where the models do not become fully naked, the more clothes they keep on the better the set I say. Next time - I say please lets have even more poor lighting, please have even more grain, please have even more colourless pictures with silly green tint, please have even more drab pictures and please keep a lot more clothes on for the entire set. Thanks
Wednesday, May 24th, 2017 on Matyli
This set is both awful and boring. To start with, in over half the photos the photographer is too far away. Indeed, why he did not go the whole-hog and stand in the field opposite to be even further away I will never know. When the camera focus came closer either the subject framing was poor or it was out of focus, or both. Then just to show how boring this was - Picture 34 shows 52+ great marble effect tiles. Not to be out done - picture 30 goes even further. 63+ lovely marble effect tiles, fantastic ceiling lights and even a glimpse of a second great black flower vase. Whilst I do not mind the odd flower vase here and there, I would prefer not to subscribe to sites like this where the internal fixtures, fitting and wall tiles are more noticeable, more interesting and more sharply in focus than the models. Actually this photography puts the B&Q and Homebase DIY catalogues to shame.
Monday, May 22nd, 2017 on Tensia
Sunday, May 21st, 2017 on First Movie
Poor depth of field focusing which results in many of the photographs being 50% out of focus. This seems to be unique with many of the MA photographers as you rarely see photographs on other sites where, for example, the pussy is in focus but the head is not. On this site however, this seems to be the norm.
Saturday, May 20th, 2017 on Cleige
I challenge this. I am sorry, but I do not accept any photograph where the head it cut off as being good photography. I do not accept photographs which are so indistinct that they could be of anyone as being good photography. I do not accept photographs that are published on sites like this, but which show nothing, as being good photography either, otherwise the photographer might just as well have photograph a vase full of flowers. Indeed a vase full of flowers would probably have been more interesting in this case. And finally, just for the record, I AM qualified.
Friday, May 19th, 2017 on Cavida
What is Metart X? Is this a film site? I have never heard of it.
Thursday, May 18th, 2017 on Presenting Caramel
Just When-Oh-When is MA going to come and apologise to their viewers for the appalling way some photographers torture their paying subscribers with horrendous rubbish photography like this?
Thursday, May 18th, 2017 on Cavida
This set is a complete joke.
Wednesday, May 17th, 2017 on Welliz
Way too many outdoor sets - from this photographer!
Monday, May 15th, 2017 on Varza
The recent rain must have deterred the butterflies from coming out.
Monday, May 15th, 2017 on Odaca
I believe MA. I think this was shot the day before publication on the 8TH May 2017. I also think it was shot by who they say they are, that is the great Quanty Rodriguez himself. There are quite a few people called Quanty Rodriguez living in our area (probably hundreds of them), in fact I think it is the most popular name around here, so I will ask around if any Quanty Rodrigues around here produced this set. I cannot wait for this Quanty Rodriquez next shoot to be listed on here. I just love these really dark sets where you have to quint to see anything, I love lots of shadows everywhere obscuring the good bits, I love shoots where the models can only stand up but cannot lie down. Please will the great Quanty Rodriguez that did this set make the next shoots a lot much darker a lot less interesting and with even more shadows. Thanks.
Tuesday, May 9th, 2017 on Alista
Not that many photographers shoots go into my favourites box but this one certainly qualifies. For this shoot - on this site, I score it 10.
Friday, May 5th, 2017 on Barisa
Dull Grainy Photography. Why is it that only this site publishes such indistinct grainy rubbish quality photos?
Thursday, May 4th, 2017 on Conixa
This was a good photo shoot until picture 69. Thereafter it went downhill rapidly.
Tuesday, May 2nd, 2017 on Mipaci
Are you serious? Even if you accept the poor quality lighting as being good quality, the model still has her head part cut off in so many of the shots it is a joke! If you see a shot with a near full body then the feet are chopped off. Also other sites have ART in their title, e.g. Sexart but they would never publish this load of tat. Finally if the paying viewers wanted this type of rubbish then this set and this photographer would get a higher score. I could do better, and I HAVE done better than this load of rubbish, and I am not even a professional photographer.
Thursday, April 27th, 2017 on Estinne
Nice model - but very poor setting for a nude-model shoot. This photographer is going to have to do better than this.
Thursday, April 27th, 2017 on Presenting Siiri
Yes - 7 months to go before membership lapses - then I will join a site where ALL the photographers are up to the job, and not just a few! Lots2admire - well there is NOTHING to admire in this set, so you are welcome to it.
Saturday, April 22nd, 2017 on Estinne
Bland and uninteresting (as evidenced by such a low score). I score the photographers work and not the model hence I score this one point. Nude models (even debuts) know what poses are required and thus this model would have known at the time that this set is not what is required.
Saturday, April 22nd, 2017 on Presenting Anna Aki
I described as a JOKE the last shoot by this photographer of this model. This shoot is also a JOKE. I now also predict that the next work from this photographer will also be a JOKE. This was only a short set of 80 pictures but it might just as well been an even shorter set of just one picture - for what lack of quality they are. It hurts to give a one point score because this set should score a big fat zero! However I cannot find a zero point option. If MA do not ditch the poor photographers on this site then the paying viewers will ditch MA.
I selected about a dozen shots at random, for enlarging - and every one was out of focus!!! score one point.
Sunday, April 16th, 2017 on Tactile
Ian Thomas. You are spot on! This set just does not work, moreover I think most duo sets on this site do not work. I had to laugh when you said someone asked you to resign for your honest opinion - well that makes two of us! Someone going by Arkie 2 told me not to hang around on this site and to resign also - I assume he must be a co-owner of the site, or at least that is the impression he likes to give everyone! Well - should he read this comment he should take note. I have cancelled my automatic renewal, not to satisfy him, but due to so much poor photography and out of focus photography on this site. However contrary to his advice I WILL BE HANGING AROUND for another seven months and making relevant comments accordingly, so he might just as well get over it.
Wednesday, April 12th, 2017 on Evona
Agreed. Lets scrub all future duo sets - they just do not work well on this site.
Great model. However taking the set in its entirety I do not find the photography much bottle. Too many boring repeated poses. I score the model 10 points but this actual photo set I rate at only 4 points. Consequently, as I score the photographers work and not the model, I have scored this set 4 points. One other thing that puzzles me relates to those viewers that score the model and not the photographer work. Surely if this should be the case then the same viewer would score all the different sets of that same model identical points every time the same model brings out a new set.
Tuesday, April 11th, 2017 on Presenting Skylar
(1) I like this set. (2) A flurry of clear in-focus photo shoots for once, all of a sudden, from different photographers. So it can be done, and it would seem the comments section of each set do actually get read. (3) This model has had a few different hair styles and different hair colour over time, but in my view THIS the hair colour and style that suits this model best.
Sunday, April 9th, 2017 on Ynabae
Nice model - very poor, very boring, uninteresting, photography. How could this photographer ever think this set, taken in its entirety, is anywhere near average - let alone good?
Saturday, April 8th, 2017 on Presenting Shaine
Maybe I am missing the point. Firstly I rate the photographer and not the model, usually one or two days later than everyone else as I cannot be bothered to go on this site daily. A good model photographed by a rubbish photographer will always score low in my books, likewise a good shoot with an average model will score higher. Maybe I am doing it wrong. Consequently I only bother to score about 10% (or less) of the shoots on this site, because the photography on this site, in the main, is so poor that most sets fail to get up to at least the average I expect and most shoots fall far short of the clear crisp in-focus shoots you see on other sites.
Thursday, April 6th, 2017 on Recala
I prefer solo sets without sand stuck to their more interesting bits.
Monday, April 3rd, 2017 on Retya
I am in full agreement. However this is no more or less than I have come to expect with most of the RECENT photo shoots on this site. Either no-one reads the comments section, or if they do, they just ignore them. Consequently I do not see the poor quality of the photography on this site (something unique with MA and only MA) improving any time soon. This is a pity as there are good models willing to pose on this site but there is a lack of good photographers able to bring out the best in them.
Friday, March 31st, 2017 on Ledrie
Full agreement here. A lovely model but a dreadful photo shoot. Why not go the whole-hog and have the model swimming in engine oil, it could be no worse? There are some good photo shoots on this site but (for many different reasons) it would seem that rubbish sets are in the majority.
Tuesday, March 28th, 2017 on Presenting Tempe
Is this a joke or what???? I thought the last photo shoot was bad but this shoot is both awful and ridiculous. I cannot believe any other company would have published this load of tat. Moreover, if this photographer thinks most subscribers pay to view this sort of rubbish, then they are mistaken (as evidenced buy the lowest score I think I have ever seen on here). MA are removing much better (older) content than this from the site only to replace it with this load of rubbish. Wrong priorities I think.
Friday, March 24th, 2017 on Taolmi
I will be very generous in my comments here, thus you determine for yourself what I really think. This photo shoot is pathetic, amateurish and out of focus throughout. Pictures 40 and 99 just about sum it up in themselves. I know lots of subscribers on here love fuzzy, out of focus photo shoots which look like they were shot in fog, and thus many viewers will no doubt think this shoot is excellent. Well I think this shoot it worthy of less than one point - what a waste. I am amazed that anyone could find this shoot anywhere near average let alone good. As for picture 103, if the photographer had stood just a few centimeters to the left then the model would have been out of frame completely but at least the settee would have been in focus. Words Fail me - PATHETIC.
Friday, March 24th, 2017 on Cannde
Actually only 30 worthwhile ones (and that is being generous accepting that the out of focus shots are now been deemed to be what subscribers on this site want to see and seem very happy to accept without complaint). Nevertheless I dismiss 1-24, 31-38, 41, 43, 51, 54, 55, 60, 70, 72-80 as pointless. One or two would be acceptable but having 50 NOTHING pics out of 80 as not what I expect to see. The 50 shots I refer to are less revealing than the FREE gardening brochure I was looking through just half an hour earlier.
Tuesday, March 14th, 2017 on Smirea
One of my favourite photographers, however this set was rather a let down. Firstly the good point - well focused (unlike many other photographers on here). Now the poor aspects - (1) what was the point of the first 55 pictures (I nearly fell asleep). (2) Thereafter loads of pictures with knees together (pointless).
Monday, March 13th, 2017 on Ametzi
The panties stayed on far too long. When they were eventually removed we were treated to a MA special - yes - yet another out of focus pussy shot (something you rarely see on other sites. There were far too FEW good poses in this set to interest me - what a waste.
Monday, March 13th, 2017 on Modeta
Great model but very poor photography. If you like pussy in focus and face out of focus then you will like this set. Likewise if you like head in focus and pussy out of focus then again you will like this set. However, I like pussy and face both to be in focus in the same picture (something taken as obvious and normal on other sites). For some photographers on this site, it seems they are not capable of doing this.
Wednesday, March 1st, 2017 on Tespera
Now - Why Cant all shoots be like this? Firstly a full very long shoot, just as I like it (no short set here). Secondly poses of the sort I like best. Thirdly in focus. 100% Thanks.
Wednesday, March 1st, 2017 on Exceria
I quite like the work of this photographer. The photography is that I like to see (in focus, revealing and comprehensive). I only wish there were a lot more recent sets, which could have replaced the many more recent poorer contributions from other photographers .
Tuesday, February 28th, 2017 on Flenad
The 28 Pictures 39-66 inclusive, well what was the point? If we are going to receive short sets then at least make every one of the pictures worthwhile.
Friday, February 24th, 2017 on Latha
Is it too much to ask, for the face and pussy both to be in focus at the same time in the same picture? Many photographers on this MA site seem to struggle with taking good pictures. It is possible to have everything in focus and still fill the frame with a clear image of the face and pussy (photographers for other sites have no difficulty). Maybe standing further back would help. In short, a very good model - but very poor photography.
Thursday, February 23rd, 2017 on Maldde
... And skimpy sets is one reason I will not be renewing my membership. I hope MA take this on board.
Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 on Doshia
I agree - far too short.
Sunday, January 8th, 2017 on Ezim
Looking forward to chatting all about MA with you down at Slapton Sands Devon nudist beach, in the summer lol.
Sunday, January 8th, 2017 on Lirann
Who is this Rose I keep reading about? I assume from the above written piece she is either French or European. Either way, if this is the case, she would be well comfortable and rather used to strutting around in public or on beaches with next to nothing on or even nude. Thus I say a mask and bikini would mean she be rather over-dressed.
Saturday, January 7th, 2017 on Lirann
Over the few weeks I have been a member, I have warmed to the quality of this photographer. Whether indoors or outside the sets are great and thus surely he must be well in the top three of all the photographers on here. Moreover those in the photo shoot are certainly not shy in modeling for him. It is 2017 and over the years to now, many photographers and models have realised what the trend is and what is now required for the viewers, and the MA narrative above this set clearly makes reference to this. Sadly, some photographers on here are still well behind the curve.
Saturday, January 7th, 2017 on Sedona
A very good set. I wish though the set had been longer. I am not a fan of short sets.
Friday, January 6th, 2017 on Dranja
No doubt about it. A very good model and a very good photographer.
Thursday, January 5th, 2017 on Clocen
Correct. However this model HAS given - and on this MA site. I checked her previous work yesterday.
Thursday, January 5th, 2017 on Xyret
This set started off poor and rather than getting better, it got worse. Dull and uninteresting. The panties stayed on far too long, however she may just as well have kept them on anyway, because after removal you could see just as little. I have scored this set one point (only because there is no facility to score zero).
All noted. Being new on here I did wonder why some sets were very short and others much much longer. I honestly thought it was the photographer just being lazy. Thanks for updating me.
Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 on Noate
I am not keen on such obvious tan lines, irrespective of who the model is.
Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 on Tilane
I am new to this site but wish to add my view. I would rather see longer sets and I choose to enlarge the ones I think are the better ones, rather than short sets which have been hand-picked on behalf of the viewers.
Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 on Tidet
When I see poor photography I say it as I see it. When I see a good shoot I will also say it. Well this is a very good piece of photography. This photographer certainly knows how to photograph models outside and the poses were very good too. Well in the top 10 of all shoots I have seen on this site in the 2 weeks I have been on here.
Monday, January 2nd, 2017 on Phenn
The very lengthy piece above from Eventider was a lot more interesting than many of the recent bland photo shoots seen on here recently.
Monday, January 2nd, 2017 on Yamazi
I still hang around here (a) because I paid for a full year based on the comments (completely over the top it now seems) that the site themselves make available on free view before people part with their money and (b) there are still some good photographers on here that produce good stuff and there are many sets from other photographers that go back many years who do not contribute any more but when they did their work was much better than a lot of the tat published now. E.g. I have just looked at the Alin X models shoot. This was listed many many years ago. The camera equipment in those days was obviously not as good as now, and yet the shoot is faultless, good poses, varied, in focus, well lit, a very good shoot. Most of the recent stuff I see now comes nowhere near close. I hope this answers your question.
I say it as I see it. Yet another rubbish shoot which I rate one point. Further up the page someone said this is the models best shoot so far. Well I have only been a member on here for a couple of weeks and thus have not seen this models previous work. However I will say that if this set is the models best, then I will not waste my time at viewing her previous sets on here. I did not sign in on this site until 20.40hr UK time as I was not expecting anything good today (in fact I am beginning to expect not very much of any good any day), and actually I got it spot on. Rubbish.
Sunday, January 1st, 2017 on Yamazi
Well said. Below is my full comment.
Sunday, January 1st, 2017 on Noate
Fantastic model. However yet another bit of very poor photography. If you can not master shadows and light then do not shoot outdoors. Furthermore loads and loads of very bland shots that show nothing and then along comes two or go three good poses (albeit not 100% in focus or too dark) then quickly change back into bland poses again. This is yet another photographer on this site (which going by his last few months of contributions only [but that should be enough]) who does not impress me. I score this set 2 points.
A great model but not so much a great photographer. This set was not that inspiring and as for the first 32 pictures the model might just as well have had her head in a paper bag. Any photographer even half good could have used this model to better effect. I scored this photo shoot 3 on the basis 2 or 3 of the other photographers that contribute to this site would have done better.
Sunday, January 1st, 2017 on Janyo
This model has lovely long hair but only one picture showed it (and even then you had to squint to notice it). What is it with this photographer? She either gets the models to have stupid ponytails, or failing that she would rather shoot many near identical poses and if that fails to show the hair (which she obviously does not care about that much) - then so be it. Most of the pictures were in focus, nevertheless, after checking back on the work of this photographer, I must say that the work of this photographer does not impress me much.
Sunday, January 1st, 2017 on Presenting Nessie
There are too few glimpses of anything. Very boring indeed.
Saturday, December 31st, 2016 on Roderi
What a complete turn off. It would have been a fairly good set had it not been for the artwork.
Friday, December 30th, 2016 on Labina
Friday, December 30th, 2016 on Sontize
One of the best photographers on this site, if not the best. Some of the other weaker photographers who frequently churn out the same old weak tat would do well to learn from the work of this photographer.
Friday, December 30th, 2016 on Maxio
I like the work of this photographer (one of the better ones), however I do not like this set, far from his best work.
Wednesday, December 28th, 2016 on Mebri
I like this set, best of those today.
Tuesday, December 27th, 2016 on Theny
I scored it 3, and even that I think was to high. This set was rubbish.
Monday, December 26th, 2016 on Miala
I was a member on here many years ago, but was recommended to re-join as the content was now much better. Well it is - and that is good. Just like this set, well in focus and mostly good. I have started checking back over the stuff I missed and what I have seen so far is a great improvement, it is a pity though that some of the not so good photographers at the time I left the site are still here and still producing the same old poor ranking tat. Anyway the site is now showing what I want to see. Finally, I have already decided I will not be renewing the membership in 12 months time. When I registered I deselected the 19.99 sexart option only for it to re-appear well hidden and unnoticed on the pay page. Thus I have been screwed an extra 19.99 for something I did not request nor do not want. Numerous shots of models obstructing their bits with their hands on sextart does nothing for me . This sharp practice would never be allowed in the UK - thus in 12 months it will be bye from me again.
Sunday, December 25th, 2016 on Nyella
Maybe you should "pay" somewhere else? In the end it's not this site's fault if you made the wrong choice.
Tuesday, August 15th, 2017 on Boaly
I'm trying the glass half full philosophy. At least Kira is better illuminated in this set than most NS sets.
I totally agree. I know of a couple of photographers that could take lessons from Matiss. I like a well focused and good depth of field photo. "JMHO"
You're right UK..., I also hate those lousy, out-of-focus pics, specially when it comes to girls like Violet and those lusciously spread thighs....
Matiss, how on earth you dare to make such awesome hot pics, slightly or partly out of focus???
To be true UK..., I by far prefer this slightly out-of-focus pics to those mostly pathetical performances on those perfectly focused similar sites.
btw, related to your name, don't fear that your country sinks down into the atlantic ocean after the next suicide bombing. You will be there long enough to pay the bill of your beloved Brexit, sláinte.
Wednesday, July 12th, 2017 on Eldine
It's possible of course, but using a higher f-stop generally means you have to use a slightly longer exposure. Any resultant images that are a bit blurred won't be submitted presumably, which could account for the number of close ups with bokeh.
Sunday, July 2nd, 2017 on Maldde
Please define what you feel are "good poses" and "boring poses"... just so the lesser intelligent of us know what you're speaking of. Thanks!
Tuesday, June 27th, 2017 on Tiosce
See what I've been saying?
Twice the pussy and two different angles too! What's not to like?????
You pointedly choose to miss my point exactly. "... will continue to be forced upon the subscribers..." - no one FORCES you to view Lightfoot's work. When a set is posted, the photographer is credited, plain as day. Don't like Lightfoot's work - don't view it - simple as that. Do you view each and every set posted?
The whole point of the comments section is NOT to express your views "... in order to improve the site." - it's to express your views. To improve the site, your comments might better be expressed via emails or comments directed to the content manager, K, or via the blog section to the owner.
Negative reviews rarely cause ANY artist - be it here or in other venues - to change their "style". It only tells anyone reading the comments that YOU don't like it. I would hazard a guess that many photographers don't even bother reading the posted comments.
As to the "... making of favourable comments is [being] simply disingenuous and pointless." saying someone likes the set, model or photographer is neither - it's called being polite.
With respects to my "... offensive comments..." I honestly don't ever recall being offensive towards members - much less you. If you've taken umbrage - then for what it's worth - you have my apologies.
As you and LB have posted, and continue to post, many, many times, you don't like his work. My statement stands.
Posting comments here in the comments section is akin to making comments anywhere in the cyberverse - it leaves the poster open to replies from anyone who cares to respond.
Then again, as offered elsewhere... "If it hurts... then don't do it." It's really quite simple. No one FORCES you to view Lightfoot's sets. Almost everyone knows you, Lucky Bastard and others don't like his work.
And don't try to use the old saw "It's not what I paid for in my MetArt membership." That argument is patently absurd. When you pay to get into a museum or private gallery, no one forces you to look at _everything_ - if you don't like the 16th century French furniture no one forces you to go through the gallery. Same applies here. If you don't like Lightfoot's work or a particular model, no one's standing behind you waiting to whack you on the knuckles with a ruler if you don't view each and every set.
Your (and other's) continued negative comments about Lightfoot's (and other photographer's) work is in exactly the same vein as the "hair/no hair" wars that go on.
I'm not saying or negating the fact that you have the right to your own opinion but heck - once it's made public - why keep beating a dead horse? It does the horse no further good.
Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 on Presenting Megan Rain
Again... going by the age-old dictum from the days of Hee Haw... "if it hurts... then don't do that." No one tapes your eyelids open and forces you to view Lightfoot's sets. If It says "Charles Lightfoot" just pass it by. Seems simple to me. Plenty of other things to see around here.
Just as an aside, if you don't like "... grainy, poor lighting..." take a dive into the archives of MetArt. LOTS of material posted in the early days might easily fit into your classification of poor photography yet you'll find some of the best images ever shot lurking back there in time.
Friday, June 9th, 2017 on Nemil
UK, DO NOT blame the members! Lightfoot is at or near the bottom of the photographer ratings on this site, barely ahead of Natasha Schon. But that & the largely negative comments fall on deaf ears. Our opinions don't mean a whole lot.
Fixed it for you: "Of all the different hair styles and different hair colour this model has had, this style and colour must be the worst." She looked SO much better as a brunette.
In fact, Leonardo is #3 for number of posted sets at 1,091. His frequency of postings have fallen off lately, reason unknown. It would be great if we could get him back to the level of contribution of say a year ago, because I agree he is a good photog.
It could be for aesthetic reasons. It's possible that the person who owns the building that room is in likes the look.
Saturday, May 27th, 2017 on Diadre
Wouldn't that then border on making their work "boring", "repetitious" and "derivative"? I could just see members making those comments - kinda like they used to do with Catherine's early work with her models.
And right on queue one of trolls, idiots, and troglodytes show up to respond to my comment! You think this is poor quality lighting? I guess if you've been raised on the completely bland, flat, overlit style that dominates modern photography (especially in nude photography) then, yeah, this is bad. By actual photographic standards, it's really good because it supplies something very few of the overlit sets do: contrast. Light and dark, with subtle gradations in between. Yes, there are a few chops: it's practically inevitable shooting this many images and can be seen on just about EVERY set, but that's just nitpicking.
The "paying viewers" are not a hive mind. You do not speak for all of us, and thank God for that. Paying veiwers also rate cinematic masterpieces like The Tree of Life low, meanwhile it made Roger Ebert's Top 10 of all time and currently sits as the #6 most acclaimed film of this century on Theyshootpictures. "Paying viewers" are typically idiots and troglodytes who have an extremely narrow range of taste and understanding of whatever work or art-form they're critiquing. Real art is not about pandering to "paying viewers:" that's entertainment, business, commerce. There are very, very few sets on MA anymore that actually justifies the site having "art" in the title; thankfully, this is one of them, and paying viewers like yourselves be damned.
Thursday, May 25th, 2017 on Estinne
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!
If this is so, one can hope the exclusivity clause has an end date.
'Methinks the lady doth protest too much.'
Yeah its not one model, disrobing lingerie in the traditional style in a bedroom setting, heaven forbid a nice interior and with these two present I have to applaud you for counting tiles in the face of such beauty so readily apparent!.
It is interesting that I have seen many comments from members making exactly this point but not one where someone praises a shot where one part of the girl is out of focus. Yet photographers still take pictures with a tight focus so that you cannot appreciate all a girl's charms (e.g. pretty face, beautiful pussy) in one picture. Why? The photographer as the artist has the right to shoot what they think is artistic but at the same time it might be nice for them to take notice of the deluge of criticism on this point. No more fuzzy pictures please.
Friday, May 19th, 2017 on Maldde
MetArt X is the 'sister' site where we feature MetArt girls but going harder – masturbating in photos and movies. MetArt has always been a soft, erotic nude site and that will not change, but we wanted to provide the option for those who have requested it. Some of our most gorgeous girls and talented directors have already appeared there, so check it out – I hope you like it! :-)
DA! Outdoor "IS" his specialty! He's one of the best outdoor photographers still working MA! We are getting far too few outdoor shoots any more and almost None of the street sets that were so interesting!
Thursday, May 18th, 2017 on Varza
You just do not recognize good photography when you see it!
Exactly correct friend, it's April, and butterflies are inactive in Superior, Wisconsin / Duluth, Minnesota.
A bit chilly still for nymphs to chew their way out of the cocoons.
Will the real Quanty Rodrigues please stand up?
an asshat has spoken. and not for the first time. and the next time with similar content. same old,same old.
here to place a taint. a theme familiar.and stupid. all the time the same stupid.
HERE FOLLOWS THE LIST. THE WORST OF THEM ALL.
CHECKED IN 2 plus YEARS OF TRACKING.
The Seller The Seller
to be considerably improved by death.
one and all.
in varying proportions they come - somedays 'nice' somedays nasty.
The Elephant Willy Folk.
Strange denizens of Lard Mountain.
Where it's always ''Chicken Tonight''
England sure is an ugly place these days...
and the ugly is always the 'people'.
The flowers bloom,the birds sing, all that is natural -sunshine springtime all around - light and warmth.
but not the people.
misfits.the disabled.the obese.limping and scowling and horrid.liars fornicators and eaters of dead things.frauds cheats and the spiritually bankrupt.wrinkled and twisted and walking sticks to the horizon.
That is exactly how it looks.
and they post here.
I honestly don't get the complaining about Lightfoot anymore.
I've seen FAR worse than a bit of grain on many photographers here. Including:
- Over smoothing that makes models look plastic.
- Shallow depth of field where over half the model is blurred in every shot.
- Out of focus / poor lens quality where almost every image has some blur at 100%.
Lightfoot does none of these things - I can deal with a small bit of grain at 100%.
Some members just don't get it. This is his style of shooting. Occasionally, some sets not shot in this style appear which goes to the supposition that K has a number of his sets waiting to be published, in no particular order. Some members like his style of shooting... some don't. Goes the same with numerous other photographers whose work appears hereabouts.
It's a FIRST SET (for all we know). Give her a break. Remember back to when you got your first job. Weren't you nervous about it? As for "... what is REQUIRED [my emphasis]"... if you poll members around here, some say ANATT is what is "required". Perhaps it's what she was willing (or able) to give us at this time. No need to denigrate her for it.
She's cute - and has those great dark areolae splashed against her pale skin - kinda like a couple of Hershey Kisses - and I like her for what she presents to us.
Would definitely like to see more sets of her in the near future.
only negatives from this jerk time after time.low class act.so many around.
yer full of shit.
How could K?
don't worry guys,
this set is surely an early April Fool's joke by Iona. The true set with the classy pics was exchanged by the trashy ones, only to be released tomorrow or some.
We won't be fooled by those april tricks. Just wait till tomorrow.
Saturday, April 1st, 2017 on Ledrie
It's about time we got some Truth and Honesty in these comments. I know little about photography, other than I started in 1949, aged 5, with a box brownie. But even I can see the boredom Arkisi is permeating through-out this set. I Still think his Chimpanzee is responsible.
Wednesday, March 15th, 2017 on Smirea
Personally I like this set, but would have preferred it gone on a bit longer once the eroticism got going. I've got a thing for bottomless shots and glasses so and Li, so that's part of it. I also appreciate the non-sexually explicit shots as long as the set eventually gets there.
I does drive me nuts though when photographers go way too low on the depth of field. Shallow DOF should only really be used for portraits or perspective shots like #34. This set certainly isn't the worst example of it, but a few fstops higher would have helped.
Lol. "We demand more photos! Also, most of the photos are worthless!"
Not intending to be rude or condescending but geeez... too many of this, too few of that, not enough of these, nothing (or very few in focus)... if you're so disappointed with "... what subscribers on this site want to see and seem very happy to accept without complaint" I'm not quite sure why you're hanging around MetArt. Why not just cancel your subscription and ask for your money back? After all, there are most likely at least dozens of other sites offering what you clearly don't feel you're getting here.
That is all negative.
I'm really sorry to hear that. "Skimpy" is an interesting word to choose though. We feature four updates every single day (six on the first of the month). Some are longer, some are shorter. There are literally THOUSANDS of photosets in the archive, I mean I can't even guess how many, has anyone ever counted? I don't see how you could ever get to the end of it. I've been here nearly three years I think, and I'm still discovering gorgeous new girls here all the time.
See you there ;-)
I am English (like you, I'm guessing!). If only it was warm enough to strut around in public in next to nothing, I would be happy to do so! I'm not shy, just camera shy :-)
You're welcome, my friend.
There is an entry in the Blog entitled "To Be Or Not To Be 80" written by Jon, the owner of MA, about a month ago. The comments on the blog are just as interesting as his post is itself. I encourage you to read it sometime you have some spare time. (:
Wednesday, January 4th, 2017 on Noate
If you are unhappy about the paucity of "good" shots, don't blame Matiss, thank the (few, but very vocal) members who provided a stream of "there are too many repetitive shots in this set!" complaint for over two years. According to a staff member who would know, that was the number one complaint MA received for over two years before the new short set standard was rolled out. That complaint led to fewer shots in a sequence of good poses, and fewer photos in a standard photoset.
Thank those members, don't blame Matiss, who must provide the product that MA asks for if he wants to continue to be published.
Thanks for the response. Here, I agree with you about the archival content. There has been a great divergence in recent years from what MetArt used to be. The archives show that it indeed was more directed towards the "Art" side whereas as of late, the "in-your-face" and "ANATT" styles seem to have garnered favor with an increasing number of members who seem to decry "I paid for all naked women all the time and that's what I want to see!" It seems as though it's almost become more of a peep show in certain respects than a celebration of the female body. Let's face it... there are only so many ways the human body can bend and part of the "artistic" process lies in finding out how to "dress it up" and present the membership with something new.
Hello UK100ByeEU, we are always happy to hear feedback from our members and try to address it. Thanks for taking the time to voice your opinion, it helps us to know what we can do to make you happy. If you want to leave longer or more detailed feedback you can always use the orange "site feedback" button at the side of the screen, or email me – email@example.com. We take our members' satisfaction seriously and welcome constructive critique.
I may be just a bit on the other side of confused here but if, as you say, you are "...beginning to expect not very much of any good any day.", then why in the world would you continue to hang around here? If it "hurts when [you] do this" then why do it?
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2017 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.