Extreme wide angle lens makes look more like an In The Crack photo shoot
Thursday, September 28th, 2017 on Morswel
Seems the camera guy wasn't concerned too much about the focus feature of the camera
Thursday, September 28th, 2017 on Nefade
Gotta love a pussy that rolls out the welcome mat......
Friday, September 15th, 2017 on Evedo
Not necessarily, some ladies are naturally thinned out on the lower side. I had a partner for a long while that had a nice little patch up high but by the time it got to her bottom hole, it was barely peach fuzz and she never trimmed or shaved.
Monday, August 14th, 2017 on Presenting Dakota
Seems he doesn't shoot well in the out of doors either.
Monday, August 14th, 2017 on Boaly
I'm beginning to think this guy intentionally shoots poor quality photos just to say, "Hey, I can do this and still get paid for it, so GFY"
Sunday, June 18th, 2017 on Telida
Incredibly, for this photographer, the quality of the photos is actually decent on this set. That alone should add to the ratings.
Tuesday, June 13th, 2017 on Presenting Megan Rain
A shame. This could have been the best set of the week if only for want of a real photographer.........
Thursday, May 25th, 2017 on Matyli
Should be as crime to defile her body with sand.
Thursday, May 18th, 2017 on Renessi
Good question. First the sets started getting smaller and now some days with only 3 sets?
Wednesday, April 26th, 2017 on Presenting Margot Reese
Number was probably listed prior to the enhancement
Sunday, April 23rd, 2017 on Cynera
Someone just needs to go take the camera away from this guy so he will stop butchering photos of pretty girls
Friday, April 14th, 2017 on Presenting Evridika
You listed 4 negative aspects and only 3 positive aspects. I think you answered your own question. This guy's photos ALWAYS have issues and there are ALWAYS complaints (I have multiple times myself) but it appears to fall on deaf ears and he still obviously gets paid for whatever he turns in so it seems it will never improve. I even tried to create a gofundme page once to buy him some better equipment or training but it didn't get enough traction to keep going.
My one guess is that there are a lot of people that don't have quality hi-resolution monitors to see the flaws in the photography. I have a 24 inch full HD monitor running 1920 x 1080 and these photos look like sand paintings.
Thursday, March 30th, 2017 on Presenting Melody Wylde
Looks like the photos were printed on a dot matrix printer and then scanned back in.
Sunday, March 12th, 2017 on Zunera
A couple of those shadowed shots would have been ok but with all that there were, it became downright annoying. Wasted opportunity
Saturday, March 11th, 2017 on Brinela
Yea but it's hard to appreciate the cuteness when the photos have so many negative attributes. I did offer to start a gofundme page to get him some better camera gear once but no one jumped on board.
Saturday, March 4th, 2017 on Letena
Got to disagree. Part of the 'bulbous' form is consistent throughout. being that large, they would hang lower if real and not be as rounded as they are in like say pic 117. Plus, no stretch marks, hauling that kind weight around for a number of years would generate stretch marks for sure.
Monday, February 27th, 2017 on Flenad
I think she might be a hot girl. Hard to tell with the sucky photography.
Wednesday, February 15th, 2017 on Presenting Sydney Wolf
Even the less than stellar photography couldn't ruin this set.
Tuesday, February 14th, 2017 on Love
Very amateurish looking set.
Tuesday, February 14th, 2017 on Sanei
Photo 89. Proof that the a woman's bottom looks better when she ISN'T in heels or on her tip toes!!!!
Thursday, February 9th, 2017 on Azana
Wish they would stop using the extra lube to make things look wet. Distracting.
Thursday, January 26th, 2017 on Eldia
Think of it in terms of where you would be looking if you actually walked into a room with this lady. Sure, you would focus on her face for some short period of time but you would focus on all her lady bits a lot more. Say in 30 seconds (photos) I would spend 3-4 seconds on her entirety (small aperture, all in focus), A few seconds on her face (to make sure she is not repelled by me) another few seconds on her breasts (cause you have to look at those) and pretty much the rest of the remaining time on that spread open honey pot. So many of the photographers just don't get it.
Friday, January 20th, 2017 on Kenada
Not to mention he must have had the ISO set to something like 32000. Incredibly grainy.
Friday, January 20th, 2017 on Presenting Keita
Wrong year Einstein
While she has a nice butt it would have been nice to see more of her breasts
Monday, January 16th, 2017 on Verata
I think the folks that can't see the poor photography must have crappy monitors. Very grainy and flat. You can shoot into the light and obtain good photos if you know the proper techniques. You are correct in that the good sets that come from those two are the exception (occasionally it does happen).
Thursday, December 29th, 2016 on Derica
An outdoor set for a Presenting.... , A short set, and Sub-par photography. Three strikes for me. Too bad as the model looks to be really cute. Hopefully a future set will present this model properly.
Saturday, December 17th, 2016 on Presenting Rosella
The fact that it simply disappeared suddenly would be more alarming to me than just having it there. In the world of moles, it is actually pretty innocuous.
Saturday, December 3rd, 2016 on Taleea
If you look at the sequences in most of the sets, I seriously doubt there are many unused photos. This isn't like a fashion model shoot where you would have 100's of shots to get a half dozen or less to publish. I'm sure there might be some exceptions but in the general scheme of things, what you are getting here, and I'm being blunt, is porn. Soft, hard, artistic, whatever else you want to tag it as, the majority of these sets are just quick run through's that get mass photo-shopped, many times very poorly, and put in the queue to be published. I don's shoot naked women rather I shoot underwater images. Something that takes a lot more effort since your subjects are rarely sitting there in a pose waiting on you to fiddle with your settings. Getting quality shots when your dealing with surge and current, low visibility, debris in the water and/or fast moving subjects is very challenging. When you have a fixed subject that is responding to your instruction and you have total control of the environment, I expect top quality photos. I am often disappointed but at the end of the day, I accept what it is I am looking at is porn. Sorry for the rant but I just think overall quality has gone down over the past few years. Go back and look at some sets from the early 2010's or before. Very high quality for the most part.
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2016 on Presenting Mary Kate
There appears to be a trend for more and more outdoor sets. Not for the better in my opinion. Combine that with shorter sets and then some of those have poor photography and it's three strikes.
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2016 on Brenia
Couldn't tell if this was a good set or not. Photos are so poor quality hard to tell what the subject matter was.
Wednesday, November 16th, 2016 on Levitate
A single grain of sand in the bottom of your shoe is enough to blister your foot
Friday, October 21st, 2016 on Presenting Calli
A nice presentation indeed. Curious what was trying to be photo-shopped out in some of the close up pics. It is distractingly evident in # 69. A nice little circle that is completely out of place. Poor use of the clone tool.
Monday, October 10th, 2016 on Presenting Shirley Tate
White balance completely out of wack. Too bad, could have been a great set.
Monday, September 12th, 2016 on Miliran
Can I vote a negative number?
Thursday, September 8th, 2016 on Diodel
so much pinching. Those poor nipples........
Sunday, August 21st, 2016 on Trifelli
I am probably more critical of much of the technical aspects of the photography on this site than you though I rarely comment on it as I have found it to be non-beneficial as far as inducing improvements. I have no problems with photos being 'soft' but soft needs to be defined. In the simplest terms, it is simply a level of blurring that takes some of the sharpness away. The hard edges are removed, the valleys and ridges rounded.
What it is NOT is out of focus. It is NOT achieving a depth of field of 1/2 of an inch. It is NOT shooting in such low light that the ISO has to be set to 10k or higher. It is NOT cropping a photo so far and then resizing it to force it to some unrealistic megapixel size.
I see these poor examples of techniques executed on the vast majority of sets on this site and could write an essay on it. I feel it is a combination of fast paced scheduling, batch mode processing, improper scene setup, lack of understanding of the equipment and for the most part, lack of concern for the results.
I shoot underwater photos with an advanced 10MP point & shoot where I adjust all aspects of the shot manually, exposure, aperture, ISO, shutter speed, etc. I shoot in both RAW format and JPEG so that I can instantly review my work out of the water but also have the totally unprocessed image to perform some fine tuning back in my office. Perhaps a little color correction, a tweak to the exposure, and small adjustment to the white balance, whatever it might be. Shooting underwater is a very dynamic and constantly changing environment where you rarely get second chances. I have done this for a lot of years so I feel I am qualified to be critical of the technical aspects of the photos.
All that being said, I come to this site to look at naked women. If I can see the naked woman clearly, I look at the photos, If I can't, I cuss and bitch and moan and sometimes post a note. At the end of the day though, the photographers ( I choose not to use the term artists for the most part) will do whatever it is they want to do and they will get paid for it. Such is life.
Friday, August 5th, 2016 on Osike
Natural?? Those ain't natural son
Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 on Saggio
All oiled up and rolling around on stairs. Yea, that's not an accident waiting to happen.
Monday, July 25th, 2016 on Rinaja
And these aren't?
Tuesday, July 19th, 2016 on Tondo
No tan lines. : )
Thursday, June 30th, 2016 on Hattie
Quick poll, is there anyone who actually LIKES the sand all over the model?
Sunday, June 26th, 2016 on Rymeno
Are we supposed to be making the comparison between apples and oranges?
Friday, June 24th, 2016 on Asuica
In her first shoot, since then though, little to no teeth showing. Not saying it's bad, just unusual.
Friday, June 24th, 2016 on Minarie
Curious that she never shows an open mouth smile. Have been at least a few other models over time that exhibited that behavior, once that comes to mind is Luiza A. Though I did see her lips part just slightly in one of her sets when paired with another lady. While it's certain that some, otherwise very attractive, eastern European may not have, lets just say, access to stellar dental care, I have seen a couple very early shots where Nalina parted her little pouty lips and she appeared to have a nice smile but otherwise, as tight lipped as can be, literally. Doesn't take away from her attractiveness, just an observation.
Thursday, June 23rd, 2016 on Minarie
Most of the face shots have heavy blending as well. Zoom in on the face in some full body shots and compare the complexion with some of the close-ups. Face, including down through the neck, gets unrealistically smooth in the close-ups. A baby's butt isn't that smooth.
Tuesday, June 21st, 2016 on Tostie
Lots of it if you look for it, some of it just is glaring though. Pic # 30, that butt hole looks almost cartoonish there is so much air brushing and blending on it. I do post editing on underwater photography and can usually spot where it's been done, specially if it's excessive.
The quality of these as a group suggest they are still captures pulled out of a video. With today's technology, it is hard to shoot that many poor quality photos. An while Divina has always been a real hottie and still is, she is not as tight here as she has been in older sets so I suspect these are taken from a more recent video shoot.
Thursday, June 16th, 2016 on Caziru
Look real close and you'll understand why, with this set at least
Sunday, May 8th, 2016 on Risna
Yea, the added lube is distracting and takes away from the model
Sunday, May 8th, 2016 on Gonita
An incredible shoot but for that fact that nothing is in focus.
Friday, April 22nd, 2016 on Ejembi
At least one good set today (Photo quality wise). Let's hope this one never feels the need for fake boobs.
Monday, April 11th, 2016 on Presenting Clarice
She had the fake boobs in her last set and it was mentioned as well. You could see the scars there too. She looked nice before and always pleasant to see an Asian set but the boobs look almost ridiculous now. No natural shape to them at all. Too bad.
Monday, April 11th, 2016 on Shulla
A very nice lady. I would guess a dancer well versed in ballet or similar. That type of dance is brutal to a young women's feet. Hopefully a manicure is in her future. Would really enhance many of the photos.
Friday, March 18th, 2016 on Canneli
One other thought, is the native resolution of your camera 42 megapixel or are you "growing" the photos in post processing? This is really what it looks like from a technical perspective. I suggest you download a couple of the images from this site and then view them at a true 1:1 scale and evaluate how it appears. Would like to hear back on this. I will monitor this thread for a while.
Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 on Presenting Adel Morel
Sorry, I was being facetious about the filter. I am well versed in photography doing a lot of underwater photo work. I will certainly try what you have said but my primary software opens the photos in their native resolution (this means I only see a portion of the photo initially as pixel width and length is greater than the maximum pixel width and length, 1920 x 1080, of my monitor) and therefore have to zoom to a small percentage when the photos are such a high megapixel. It is at that native resolution however that drives me to make the comments I have. Fitting the photo to the screen certainly takes away the graininess aspect but in looking at the details of the photo file itself, it indicates a horizontal and vertical resolution of 239 dpi. which is pretty good. My only thought at this is that through the post editing process, perhaps the photo is resized and or maybe a high use of a sharpening effect in the software? I just know that it varies from set to set on how prominent this "grainy" effect is. Just curious on one other aspect of the photography, do you shoot in RAW and then post edit or shoot straight to jpeg?
Great model with a very nice sequence of poses. Didn't realize though that they made a lens filter that makes the photos appear as if they were composed from grains of colored sand (sarcasm). With the level of photography equipment available in this day and age, it's hard to accept such graininess.
Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 on Presenting Adel Morel
Great model, great poses, in fact all good except for the horrible graininess of the photos
Friday, February 26th, 2016 on Cenasa
Very nice model, nice sequence of poses, sucky photography, so incredibly grainy likes it's been shot at 4000 ISO or something.
Saturday, February 13th, 2016 on Presenting Kenna James
Glasses would have been much better served to stay on her face the full set.
Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 on Rimasta
Absolutely nothing unnatural about her poses. Pretty much all variations of dancing and/or yoga and/or stretching routines.
Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 on Presenting Nalina
OMFG. Puts all the other sets I've seen this year to shame. Absolutely the best "Presenting" set I think I have ever seen. I rarely comment and mostly only to criticize poor photography techniques or questionable hygiene but this set is outstanding with good focus, no graininess, great depth of field, clear and accurate colors, clean and proper lighting, basically what the other photographers should aim for.
Interesting how her little beauty mark (mole) right between her two openings is there in some shots and missing in others. Inconsistency is a very distracting condition.
Monday, January 25th, 2016 on Ridies
Good model, incredibly horrible photography. Some of the photos are so grainy and pixelated, I can almost count the pixels.
Sunday, January 17th, 2016 on Sacher
#55, even through all the graininess, you can see the scars on both boobs.
Sunday, January 10th, 2016 on Muttini
Lots of photo-shopping in this set. Still a nice set but makes the model less "natural"
Sunday, December 20th, 2015 on Dolsoa
Didn't even know you could make photos that grainy these days. Most digital cameras don't even allow it. Has to be intentional for whatever reason. That or he doesn't know how to get the desired effect at proper iso and exposure settings. Certainly kills what could have been a nice set.
Friday, December 11th, 2015 on Voccan
Bet if felt good when some of the crud creeped up her butt and started to rub around.
Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 on Kaneya
A shame really. could have been such a good set.
Friday, November 20th, 2015 on Presenting Naomi Keen
Nothing against the set, pretty good actually. Just interesting that her little butt mole is visible in some shots and not so much in others. If your going to use PS, you need to be consistent.
Sunday, November 15th, 2015 on Dulise
Any filter going to fix the significant graininess of the photos?
Saturday, November 7th, 2015 on Staude
Because this photographer is the master of graininess and no depth of field with his work. I could do better with a 30 year old polaroid.
Sunday, November 1st, 2015 on Ichera
First time I have ever seen a tooth rhinestone. Pics 41 and 101 show it clearest
Tuesday, October 13th, 2015 on Dylina
Wish we had seen what the photographer was focusing on. It clearly wasn't the model.
Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 on Bonti
Yea, they are pretty bad. This is the case that warrants wearing shoes for the entire shoot
Saturday, September 26th, 2015 on Narai
Photos 34 and 35 LOL The three boobed lady from Total Recall !!!
How many pictures can you take of a great looking pussy and ass and insure they are all out of focus.Answer
Apparently all of them.
Thursday, August 27th, 2015 on Bivur
Totally agree. You don't have to bring the focused DOF down to mere inches to generate depth in the photograph.
When your depth of field is so shortened (generally caused by maxing out the aperture) that you don't even have full focus of a single labia for example, that is simply asinine.
Better lenses and lighting will allow use of moderate apertures and you will obtain good exposure, color and contrast.
Thursday, August 20th, 2015 on Sinuble
Great model, nice poses, where in the world did all the graininess and off-focus come from. Been taking lessons from Varin?
Monday, August 10th, 2015 on Ormina
The lady desperately needs a pedicure. Otherwise, quite nice.
Wednesday, July 22nd, 2015 on Alotena
If anyone wants to start up a collection so that Albert can by himself a better camera so all his shots won't be so grainy, I'll throw in $10.
Otherwise, great model.
Friday, July 10th, 2015 on Presenting Onorin
If she was going to play the guitar, it should at least have all six strings.
Tuesday, July 7th, 2015 on Appna
No comments on the breast hair?
Sunday, July 5th, 2015 on Siebe
I luv little teeny boobies
Thursday, July 2nd, 2015 on Cremia
Pic 121 is great because it is the hand over the ankle that needs to be the focus of the photo. Just a rant about the habitual lack of focus and narrow depth of field that most photographers here are guilty of.
Wednesday, July 1st, 2015 on Loxie
Standing on toes supposedly enhances the appearance of the thighs and butt. Same reason they always keep their shoulders pulled back and up, to enhance the appearance of their breasts.
I personally would prefer to see more 'natural' shots with the breasts hanging naturally and the butt in its normal 'fuller' position.
Also a shame to almost always hide the breasts when the model is bent over. I enjoy the appearance of naturally hanging breasts. Always makes me want to be under them with an open mouth.
Friday, June 19th, 2015 on Narove
If you don't see the intense use of airbrushing then you need a new monitor.
Monday, June 15th, 2015 on Tunebi
This guy's photos are always so grainy. Too low resolution? To high ISO setting? Old equipment? Too much post processing?
Friday, May 29th, 2015 on Ereula
It appears that 75% of all the accumulated time putting this set together was spent using photo software to butcher the photos. Too bad. That aside, this set had real potential.
Friday, May 22nd, 2015 on Nekte
Her face looks strikingly similar to Sofi A's. Related perhaps?
Monday, May 11th, 2015 on Jenaty
Yea, clearly used the 1 megapixel camera here.
Monday, May 11th, 2015 on Derun
Actually, it is much more hygienic to shave or keep it closely cropped. It significantly reduces the likelihood of, without being gross, infections and other nasty's from occurring. Lots of not nice things like to grow in warm fuzzy environments.
Friday, May 8th, 2015 on Eruna
Hair or no hair, makes no diff. Would be nice though if the models cleaned their special areas when they know they are going to be on display. A dirty butt is a turn off regardless of the amount hair or lack thereof.
Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 on Aspeti
Looks like this was shot with a 0.5 megapixel camera and then blown up. It's hard to appreciate the model with so much pixilation.
Saturday, April 25th, 2015 on Trinda
Yes but if you do a save-image, it generates some incomprehensible string of characters.
Sunday, March 29th, 2015 on Plois
Your analysis is not completely true. Focal point is only one aspect of capturing an image in focus. The other aspect that I think nearly all of the photographers on this site are guilty of is minimizing the depth of field.
This is controlled by the aperture. Bigger aperture, shorter depth of field (on an extreme pussy shot, only part of the pussy is in focus) Smaller aperture, greater depth of field, the entire model can be in focus.
The tendency of many photographers, specially here, is to use a larger aperture. This lets in more light and you can use a faster shutter speed, thus minimizing blur if the model is moving. However, these models are not athletes running wide open down a field so there should be no reason a smaller aperture can be used with a lower shutter speed. The majority of the sets on this site could be improved tremendously if the photographers would pay as much attention to their camera settings as they did directing the models.
This set is an incredible example of poor photography. Why have multiple spread leg shots where the honey pot is clearly being presented but never in focus.
Sunday, March 8th, 2015 on Oggi
Maybe the girl on the CBS show Two Broke Girls?
Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 on Coredin
She better get to the dentist before she loses that one tooth though. Hate to see a model with missing teeth.
Thursday, February 5th, 2015 on Redity
I think the photo itself was accidental since there isn't a single part of it that is in focus.
Friday, January 2nd, 2015 on Depiu
I do underwater photography and sometimes use software to remove unwanted things like debris in the water so I think I just naturally catch many of these. The amount of "clean-up" performed on some of the women's bottoms is blatantly obvious. Would be nice if they just cleaned themselves before a shoot so it would not be needed.
Pic 85 has an obvious stripe across her right nipple that is not seen in other shots. In comparing a few of the straight frontal shots, the shape of her nipples don't always match. Pic 64 has a small dark circle just to the left of the hanging nipple that was missed, likely because it is so out of focus (as so many pics are on this site but that is another topic).
Pic 101 has a bit clearer view of a missed dot on the left side of the hanging nipple that has a bit od reflection going on.
To satisfy my own curiosity, I looked at a previous set and in her first set, pic 106, one side of the little nipple barbell is clearly there. It was edited out of most of the other pics in that set. I didn't search them all.
Like you, I don't care one way or the other is she has them but the photos are "untrue" with that level of editing. If the photographers want to do editing on the pics, they should work on fixing exposure and color levels. Many sets are in dire need of that. In this day and age of digital cameras, I would hope they shoot in raw format which provides more abilities to make corrections to exposure, color saturation levels, etc. than any formatted type such as jpeg. And don't even get me started on depth of field. I could write a entire editorial on that.
I only made note of this particular issue because it was done so sloppily and this site is touted as being an 'art' site as opposed to a porn site where such edits wouldn't be a concern.
Saturday, December 27th, 2014 on Lohada
Curious why her nipple piercings were edited out. In a couple photos you can clearly see where a portion of them show up and in photo 67 if you zoom in, you can without a doubt see the little cloning circle where the top half of the nipple was copied to the lower half of the nipple.
Friday, December 26th, 2014 on Lohada
Exactly, Dakota is only 19 and I have more than once come across girls her age who had never done any sort of "landscaping" and this was pretty much all the pubic hair they had ;-)
That is ofc not to say that I haven't also come across girls that age where they had enough "jungle" to fill the garden of eden twice over :-P
But I think it is also important that we distinguish between "the model" and "the everyday girl" when talking grooming standards, talking models "groomed" pretty much means "clean" from the beginning of the creases / folds all the way down and around to and including the "valley of the booty" and when a model shows up for a shoot this is what I (and most) at least would expect, unless ofc we are talking a shoot specifically aimed at an "un-groomed" look. This "standard" is to make a single shoot appeal to as many clients as possible. T he standard may change over the years but the current one has been the main one for many years now and I predict that it probably will continue to be so for many years to come.
Tuesday, August 15th, 2017 on Presenting Dakota
I can count on one hand, the actual frames that I have liked from Charles Lightweight. His ego gets in the way!
I agree, SD, better quality of photos on this set are a boost to ratings, 9.1 currently which is good for CL. It is a decent set!
"Less is more."
Or so, we are to believe.
Your mileage may vary...
Thursday, April 27th, 2017 on Presenting Margot Reese
One thing that you haven't taken into account is time. As we all have come to know, the time frame between when a set was shot and when it ultimately makes it's appearance can in fact be several years.
It is at all possible that some of Mr. Lightfoot's work was done earlier in his career with older (at that time) equipment and that some of his "better liked" work (at least those sets where he garners more favorable responses) have come from more recently with different equipment.
I'm sure the gear has nothing to do with it! He himself once commented that this is his "style" and he will not change it for us mere customers! His poor ratings do not seem to count for anything and I guess as long as he has models like Valeria, Elena Koshka, Lena Anderson and Misty Lovelace the money will keep rolling in so why should he care what we think.
I agree. Terrible lighting, and often the focus is soft. Pretty girl, get rid of the photographer!
...possibly shot during 2016... (;
Saturday, January 21st, 2017 on Presenting Keita
The photog critics have taken over!!!
The reason I presume Rosella's presenting set is an outdoor one is probably because she is a student and staying in the hall of residence at her University and therefore the shoot has to taken somewhere in the open not too near to the University campus, although I could be completely wide of the mark on that one.
By Met's new edict 94 is NOT a short set any longer it is the standard.
That sure looks like a mole (rather than a piece of dirt). And it's dark, with irregular borders.
Now, I'm no dermatologist, but what else do you need to see to pick up the phone ASAP and make an appointment?
Sunday, December 4th, 2016 on Taleea
I don't like the sand on the model. This is a great set of photos, but the sand is bothersome because at some point, I'm probably going to fantasize about banging the girl, but that's difficult with the thought of sand rubbing all the wrong places. Just sayin'.
Monday, October 3rd, 2016 on Rymeno
I vote negative on the red kool-aid. Way overdone.
Oh, yes, they are.
Monday, August 8th, 2016 on Saggio
Batch processing HAS become the bane of both bad _and_ good photography in this headlong rush to bring technology to the masses. Done properly, it can be a wonderful means to an end. Done improperly, it is a death knell to _anyone's_ work.
Saturday, August 6th, 2016 on Osike
Your third paragraph is epic,,,and true
No these are definitely real.
Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 on Tondo
...might I compliment you on your perceptiveness? (;
Friday, July 1st, 2016 on Hattie
All of Nalina's galleries were probably shot during one booking sometime last autumn. It is likely that Catherine hired Nalina to model for her for only a day or two. Nalina's experience as an erotic model can be expressed in terms of only a few hours or days. Therefore, she does not have extensive experience with poise and confidence in front of the camera. I think you may enjoy her galleries if you keep that in mind. She is doing a great job for a novice.
You may be right about the screen captures from a video.
I see what you mean, there is something wrong with her pussy. It is retouched in some pics but clearly visible in others.
Monday, May 9th, 2016 on Risna
My point exactly! Bubble breasts do not belong on Asian girls. It's totally unnatural. One of the things that makes asian girls hot is there small firm bodies and this completely defies that!
Pretty weird, squid diver.
I've downloaded pictures from MA.. and I've checked it on a few different monitors and on the other computer... everything looks good to me. Hmm.. Maybe you should try another picture viewer to compare it?
Try to download medium size (2048*1366) of the pictures. With such a monitor resolution as you have there is no reason to watch it in a full size version of the pictures (7952*5304).
Such a resolution more suitable for those who wants to print it, I guess.
Anyway, on my monitor with the resolution 2560*1440 pictures are sharp and clear.
There is no washout effects or any other filter because I prefer natural look of models and say no to photoshopian-girls with the plastic skin. :-)
P.S. I'm shooting in RAW with the native camera resolution. There is no point to scale pictures.
Thursday, March 3rd, 2016 on Presenting Adel Morel
This is not a filter :)
But because pictures are 42 mpixels.
They are too big.
That's why your picture viewer in specific cases didn't interpretate it correct.
Try to zoom it in or out to see that with the pictures everything is OK. :)
Hi squid diver) I am very pleased to read such praise. I am pleased that you are so appreciated my work. Sure, I can do better photoset, this model is worthy of this. Thank you rate the quality of my photography)
Sunday, November 8th, 2015 on Staude
Good eye squid diver.
Agree. The model is a dream. Someone needs to tell the photographer he needs better equipment. Many key pictures are not focused with care - perhaps he's too jumpy. Take #14 - great pose but no detail.
Here, have mine: I noticed the hair around the nipples and will give it a solid thumbs-up!
Monday, July 6th, 2015 on Siebe
What is with this guy. Get past the hair neurosis and enjoy the pussy for its own beauty and delicious look. A face doesn't need a beard to be pretty and neither does a pussy. Ancient writings describe
the benefit of a hairless cunt. Bug off already Mr yin yang.getting. old and tired already.
Sunday, May 10th, 2015 on Eruna
We wouldn't all be here today if that were the case :-)
But in the Antiseptic Age, that thought is all the rage. It's wrong, as will (again) be proven.
I wouldn't say "Hair or no hair, makes no diff" :-))
Who knows -- they might have been clean and gotten a bit "dirty" during the shoot. And no one noticed it, or cared.
I think it can be an interesting piece of reality.
If I'm looking that close to see it, it's because I like what I see...
Thanks Squid diver, good to know: I never do an individual save-image, always download the entire .zip file and view all images off-line.
Monday, March 30th, 2015 on Plois
@Squid diver - Nah, not Kat Denning. The girl I'm thinking of is blonde and was on TV a few years back.
Thursday, February 26th, 2015 on Coredin
...actually, the fact that the string is the only thing that is almost in focus implies
a) the string ~ or rather, its implied location ~ is the prime feature of the picture and
b) this was very much not accidental at all.
Saturday, January 3rd, 2015 on Depiu
Nice catch on the first set. I never noticed that, and Karolina is one of my favorite models! If I had to guess, it's the photographer's choice as opposed to the site's to edit the piercings out. We've seen models with pierced nipples here before, so I don't think the site would do that now.
Personally, I hope we get to see a set with her piercings visible. It would be nice to see this beautiful woman in her more natural state. But again, that's likely up to the photographer.
Sunday, December 28th, 2014 on Lohada
Wall_flower, in what photos do they show up? You've piqued my curiousity, but I can't seem to find anything other than the possible photoshopping on 67. Not that I'd mind nipple piercings on this gorgeous woman. But it seems odd to me that a woman--who's only visible piercing to this point were earrings in only her first set--would have piercings on her nipples, but nowhere else.
Enlighten me, I'm not an expert at spotting these things. :)
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2017 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.