Mr. Rylsky, this set is the most terrible on the Met, and you know that. It is mind numbing repetitive and monotonous. I believe that you are tired of your photographer's career. You didn't try to make he model posing a tiny bit. You made a few dozens of same photos. You wanna completely ruined your reputation?
Don't trust your fans who say this set is good. They boot-lick. It is impossible to like this set, and you know that. Be critical to yourself. Don't let the flatterers to fool you.
Has this guy got it in for Rylsky or what?
I've got a question for you, Alex: Why?
Having read the comments, as well as the "changing times" history lesson, I'll be brief...
Love the model -- nothing overly sexy about bathrooms.
That sums it up nicely :-)
Sorry to say this, but what gets me are old farts who try unconvincingly to keep up with young farts :-)
We like what we like, and don't what we don't. Period.
Fortunately there's plenty of diversity in the real world to satisfy anyone :-)
Sometimes "old farts" and "young farts" have similar tastes. If one considers only the number of years that both have had those similar tastes; the young trying to catch up to the old is how I would put it.
You're right about that.
Where this site fails is in mistaking style, fad or fashion for what is actually erotic. What is actually erotic is a very broad category, really the opposite of a fad, fashion or rigid style, which is what MetArt feeds us daily. That's why I used to preach the simple term "variety" -- but I guess it's either too simple or too complex an idea for MetArt to understand or embrace. There's nothing easier than to follow a style -- the fashion of the day -- you don't have to do anything but copy it. And that's what MetArt does. Meanwhile a whole lot of its subscribers are left erotically dissatisfied, hoping against hope things will change, that their wishes will be addressed and perhaps even fulfilled. After all, they are told MetArt listens to them. And that will be another 20 bucks, thank you :-)
But they're actually talking to a brick wall. And that's because MetArt mistakes fashion for eroticism. I would advise them to save their money as well as their breath, because the fashion of the day has got a ways to go before it peters out.
And yes, I plan to take my own advice :-)
Astrud is amazing, an artist who uses the camera every bit as much as the photographer to convey an emotion, a mood, a story. Her sensual, erotic beauty is apparent from the very beginning photos in each of her published shoots. I particularly like those dozen or so introductory shots, leading us into Astud's beauty.
A few comments on what others have raised: This is not your father's erotic art (sorry, most of you old farts out there). Not only has time moved on, so has taste and technology and the intent of eroticism. Hello? (I'm as old as you are, so hush.)
Still photography isn't the same animal either. Photography (for better or worse) was highly restricted, and especially its published results. Not only do we have digital, but we're not restricted by a magazine's layout or format. The audience has changed, too, I'd warrant. The standards of stimuli for arousal have changed too. Objectification has lessened remarkably.
Video (the media and the sites devoted to it) are increasingly popular. The demand has to be recognized. It's changed how still photographers do their work. No longer do we just look and moon over one chosen photo. We look at sets. I think we're often intended to follow a set from beginning to end as if it were in motion, telling a story. Enjoy the time spent with the model, not just the time spent on a single shot and your fantasies therein. Again, objectification seems lessened. Therefore the multiplicity of shots works, for me.
Sorry for capsulizing so much, but MetArt and its photographers do a great job of covering quite a few niches.
Astrud's made her beauty my heart's desire.
"Objectification has lessened remarkably."
On this site? You gotta be kidding!
I'd advise being a little more careful about using the term "we" when discussing a subject as personal as "what is erotic?"
And how has the intent of eroticism "moved on"?
It seems now still photography is merely restricted by the layout/format of sites such as this. Key word: restricted. Though to much larger sets of much bigger photographs.
The audience has changed? In what way?
And what about "the standards of stimuli for arousal"?
I can answer those. In a word or two: internet computer. But I doubt that ultimately changes either audience or stimulation much :-)
Seems to me most of these sets tell stories at about the level of crude cartoons...
Very redundant cartoons.
Glad you're happy, however!
Well it looks like I stirred things up again today. We each get and take what we WANT form the sets here. Te purpose of my post was to point out the differences of this type of work from the past. I felt some of the changes were not totally obvious. I was not advocating for a less is more thing or complaining about the number of shots we now get. As I said it where we are now at. Each of our artist have a different approach to the same thing, lets us view some of the most beautiful ladies in the world. IMO it is this difference which has taken this site to the top. Except for our "limits" we don't a singular MET-ART look. Again IMO this is good. So far we only have two artist which regularly share with us details of their shoots. Delta and Catherine. Both have had praise and both have had detractors. Some things appear to be in their control and some are not, e.g lighting, focus, repetition. I think they both are aware when something less than perfect appears and draw their own lines on submission. Ry has a formal studio with a "wet" set, he shots outside he studio where he is comfortable. Other artist do not have a fixed place and travel around to shoot more randomly. IMO this also adds to the variety we see. So far it has worked... And every artist here deserves our respect...
swplf2, I think you "stirred" things up in a good way.
I completely understood that you were not an advocate of fewer photos (so there would be less repetition), or a greater number (so the viewer could select the ones they find most appealing), you simply offered both options.
I tend to agree with those who prefer more photos so any individual can choose the ones they like best.
I also don't mind "perceived" repetition, especially of facial images, because there is almost always some slight difference in the model's facial expression (which can totally change the entire mood of the photo).
All that really matters to me are photos in focus with good lighting and a beautiful woman. Everything else is just frosting on the cake.
As Charlie Brown said, "I love mankind. It's the people I can't stand." :-)
I will respect artists who do work worthy of respect, and not respect them when they don't.
I sure won't put them on a pedestal. Not MetArt "artists", anyway. Though some are generally very good, no one still alive is perfect.
I can't complain about perfection!
The best pictures of this set are from # 01 to # 11.
Look at the face of the beautiful Astrud in those photos and that hairstyle is much nicer when it is disheveled.
The remaining photos are dedicated to the various fetishists of hair and dander.
Absolutely ridiculous pubic hairstyle.
I felt offended by the constancy with which the hair have covered her breasts.
It is clear that we wanted to take the piss out of anyone who is not a fetishist.
Very intriguing picture #11 with the hint of flashing in public.
This pathway may be practiced with judgment.
Astrud is one of my favorites on Met but this set was truly boring.
Congratulations, kanobione, for hitting the nail right on the head. Yours is the first, truly HONEST evaluation of this deplorable set of an unusually adorable and attractive young woman.
I bow to your astute perception, sir.
At the the top of my list of compliments for female attractiveness is "good looking"...D@MN, ASTRUD IS GOOD LOOKING!!!
I think Astrud is perfectly groomed. Taking care of the undercarriage by shaving is not totally the best(Waxing is better) but if the model can do it without razor burn, go for it.Astrud is very pretty, and rylsky has done a perfect job of photography. I also notice that Astrud is warmly dressed outdoors. I simply detest sticking a model in snow or cold water up to their ladybits,even though there are some models willing to do it,like Gwen A. I sincerely hope she charges double or tpiple the 1000-1200 euros a girl gets for a set.
Do you wax your undercarriage, seadog, or shave it :-?
Yeah!! I saw something of Milana D, (our very own M-A model) @
Hegre, where she went/suffered through 40 minutes of pure, unadulterated HELL, getting her pussy waxed. Waxing doesn't just remove hair, it removes layers of skin as well!!
My bet is 5seadog hasn't the balls he was born with, to go through that excruciatingly painful experience even on a dime-size area of his own bush.
Now THERE'S an idea!! 5seadog!! Go get YOUR pubs waxed, under video scrutiny, and tell us all how funny it is.
Sorry, 5seadog, I don't know how many pubs you've got, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't make an iota of difference if you had none. Try pubes:-)
What gets me is that guys expect/demand that women constantly shave/wax their pubic areas, etc, under penalty of nasty disapproval. BTW, it's not just men who demand this. But would they do the same to their own bodies? Absolutely no way in most cases. What, do you think they're crazy :-?
I have shaved many times for ladies that like that sort of thing and you would be surprised (maybe) that shaving is very popular in the U.S. Women who do modeling of beachwear or underwear as well as beauty pageants routinely shave or wax as do 90% of the beach bunnies.
Just because you have a fetish does not make it right or wrong it is simply your opinion and your reasoning is applicable for you because you believe it. It fits your argument. We all can make arguments for our own beliefs, and we sincerely believe that they are valid because they fit our argument. Does that mean they are the "the way" that it should be?.... NO but it isn't necessarily wrong either. I go by the concept that your freedom ends at the tip of my nose.
The difference, though, is the old male-female double standard. For you it's a real choice -- for women, it's often a necessity.
And here on this site, they're likely in for a lot of flack if they decide to let it be.
Fetish is an often misused and misunderstood term. Probably not appropriate here, if we're talking about body hair, which is a secondary sexual characteristic, and definitely sexual. People use the term as a bludgeon, especially aficionados of shaved these days, but they are no less -- or more -- fetishistic in their preference than the guy or gal who likes "natural."
I would like to see a world where both styles are generally accepted as perfectly fine. Where people -- especially women -- would genuinely feel free to choose what they did with theirs. Don't see that yet on this site. Thus I complain.
BTW, I find it quite ironic on a site supposedly devoted to women's beauty that their pubic and armpit hair is essentially banned. Why? I guess because it is thought to be ugly, mannish, unfeminine. Very strange distortions happen in all societies :-)
I would think that a real lover of women would love everything about them, including the hair on their bodies. That's why I suspect a certain amount of misogyny is involved in the banning, airbrushing, shaving, waxing ad nauseam of body hair. It doesn't hide anything that can't be readily revealed -- that's a bogus argument. Something else is at work.
Doug, but if any of these woman wear bikinis (or just about any modern swimwear) they have to shave most of their pubic hair.
As hipshot131 stated, if any of these girls model underwear or swimwear for a living then they almost certainly must shave for this too.
It's not only nude modeling that requires it, it's pretty much every modern style of undergarments and swimwear that makes shaving (or drastic trimming) of pubic hair a necessity.
I'm not taking sides....in fact I prefer a degree of pubic hair. I not a fan of an out of control bush (especially in some women), but pubic hair is completely fine with me.
Not most, Browning. Some. And that is if they are determined to wear typical bikinis without a single hair showing.
I think you'd be surprised at how much hair they could leave if all they were concerned about was it not spilling out of their bikinis in summer. It certainly does not have to be nearly or completely shaved off, as hipshot prefers. As we find with rare exception here.
Furthermore, I'm just talking about them as models here. That's what matters to me. I would say what they do here should come first, since it is the place where they are physically most revealed. They should proudly show their natural endowment, instead of trying to dance to commercial fashion's tune, using it as an excuse along with everybody else following it like sheep.
Just remember, give an inch, take a mile. That is what has happened to women's pubic hair. It started with not letting it get "out of control" (as if it had no natural limit) and now they seek to completely disappear it, as if it were a cancer. But nature and better sense will win in the end.
BTW, it's funny that now guys feel the same way about their body hair. Just like their female counterparts, they can't let it get "out of control." Trim trim trim! The razor companies et al luv it!
What a bunch of dorks :-)
Ah contrare mo name, I never said anything about "completely bare" I have no grudge against a nicely trimmed bush, in fact with some girls it is very sexy but I do not like hair in my food so to speak. I think Astrud's choice in this set quite nice and it could even be enlarged. Picture this, If a girl lays on her back with her legs pressed together the hair you can see (her pubic mound) is just fine. below that it's not IMO. I would rather see hair on her mound than stubble.
Got it, got it -- you fooled me pretty good! :-) I won't pull a Rylsky and confront you with quotes. Still, you require that a girl essentially shave or wax her "balls" and crotch, so you're not quite in the hair club.
I along with gaetano maria think a woman's attempt to improve her pubic hair by trimming and shaving et al always results in a degradation of natural. The exception to that is clipping or shaving what sticks out of her swimsuit. It'd be OK with me if it did, but I fully excuse her for not thinking so :-)
I won't ask about armpits, legs and the rest, assuming the answer :-)
She is a keeper for sure.
But not in this set.
Astrud a keeper even on her worst day!
Zee booshe looks like it might be grown out a little more. Still, Astrud, do you really think you can improve upon the pattern nature has set for pubic hair?
You know what my answer is :-)
Otherwise you're still lookin' nice.
When a website has 4 to 6 updates a day quality will suffer. The cream will rise to the top and...well, read the comments. This site has the best looking women on the internet, also , they have the most arrogant photographers. Too much success - too many of you weirdos heaping tons of praise for someone who merely snaps photographs...
This site could be better but why?
Do not generalize. Do not make universal a sporadic case.
MaetArt has millions of photos and 80% of these are for an exibition.
The pictures that we consider ugly pictures, are often dedicated to subscribers who have other tastes.
Some love the shaved models others love the models with the pubic hair.
However MetArt is the site with the best photographers and the most beautiful models in the world.
It is not I who say !!
If this is the site with the best photographers and the most beautiful models in the world, I would say that's very good news for somebody wanting to start a new erotic site :-)
There are a few good photogs currently working for MetArt, and some beautiful models working for those photogs. But I'm sorry to say that in my opinion most of the content is fair-to-middling. And what does that translate to? "Not very good."
The best thing about it is Comments*. That, and the hi-rez pics of your fave model or models.
*Ironic, considering this comment :-)
Luv ya, MetArt! Hope ya get better!
Any site could be better. I, for one, would appreciate reading what you consider to be ways for MET to be better. Something more detailed than less arrogant photographers and so on. Something concrete that MET and I can visualize and say "thanks for the tip(s) Azrael.
JESUS H freaking CHRISTOPHER!!! What a wonderful, simple word!! ARROGANT!!
Fits Rylsky to a 'T'!!!! Bloody ARROGANT. A perfect description Azrael. Thank You!!
It ain't the only one it fits here! :-)
I like Astrud's eyebrows, eyes, areolae, nipples, labia, brilliant smile, and much more! Its not white cotton, but Astrud's thong is way sexy. I appreciate that Rylsky kept the water free of artsy fartsy stuff which in turn allowed us a clear view of seldom seen shots like #60 et al. Thank you Astrud, thank you Rylsky.
Some repetitions are absolutely ok but this set contains quite simply too much repetitions!
Apart from this fact there are some very fine shots I really like - especially at the last site (#6).
Therefore 10/10 for Astrud and 7/10 for Rylsky.
I like this set. I am a fan of Astrud and I think she is indeed unique. She has a shy pensive feel to her sets and I find that quite appealing. I think Browning hit it on the head. She comes across as a wonderful person who is confident but not to full of herself, Someone who would be warm and friendly and actually listen to what you have to say. When she smiles it's real and there is a twinkle in her eyes that says there is untold fun there waiting to bubble to the surface. Body wise she is flawless. Firm, tight with a vitality that is evident in her well toned abbs and tight butt. Her vulva is nothing short of perfection.
Now for the critic in me. Those first ten shots are awesome. I love the outfit. I like the pony tail and the braids too. I am not a fan of bathtub shots. The water ruins my view and panties in the bath tub just seems wrong ????
Overall this set is very pleasing but then how could it not be?
I also agree with you about the panties in the bath tub....but you know what, this is Astrud and she can do whatever she wants:) She could be wearing a garbage bag and she'd look great, she's awesome.
To me Luiza is in a league of her own, no one compares to her, she will always be my favorite.
There are only two other women I consider "elite", Astrud is, and will always remain, one of these two other special women.
I used to think Luiza was total perfection and she was but she has lost so much weight that she is beginning to look anorexic. She still has a lovely face but I am concerned about her health. Incidentally she is no longer modeling.
How can you trim it down to only 2? No way I could do that. There are so many perfect women or near perfect women that I would go bonkers trying to choose even to get it down to 10.
hipshot I know Luiza is no longer modeling (she hasn't for while now). It doesn't matter to me that she no longer models.
As long as she is healthy, I don't care how much she weighs.
Luiza remarried earlier this year, so all I want is for her and her son to be happy, and for her husband to love her and treat her with respect.
I wish Luiza and her family all the happiness in the world.
There really isn't only "two"....there really is only "one" and that "one" is Luiza.
From the first moment I saw a photo of Luiza in her first set "Contempo" on Met Models, I knew I saw the image of one of the most beautiful women to ever walk on this planet.
IMO, Luiza is one of the most beautiful women EVER PERIOD. She simply is feminine perfection to my eyes.
Now, there are two "others" I put well above every other model on Met Art (and Astrud is one of these two).
Luiza and Astrud are BOTH very attractive. Keep an open mind and two open eyes though; you never can tell when the next heart stealer might appear.
Astrud is simply perfect. She is the perfect erotic model, with exquisite natural beauty and a regal ease and poise whille in front of the camera. Such grace. Such elegance. Simply perfect.
You are absolutely right, Neil. She is all you say and more. It's just the setting she has been subjected to, that destroys this set.
Personally, I like Rylsky's wet studio shoots, but I am not in love with Astrud simply sitting in a bath tub. I find beautiful young women with long wet hair to be very appealing. Rylsky produces hundreds of photosets each year. He as published almost 400 sets on RylskyArt alone. MetArt has published hundreds of Rylsky's sets this year, far more than any other artist. I am pleased to think of Rylsky as my friend. I think Rylsky is very talented and is a great photographer. He is great not because he is perfect. He is great because he is consistent. He consistently produces good quality very pleasing photosets.
I would not say that Astrud was subjected to this setting. I am sure that Astrud fully agreed to do the shoot in this setting and probably voiced some artistic input while the shoot progressed.
I agree 100%!
Astrud isn't going to Carnaval with me this year, but I still love her. How could I do otherwise? That smile is too charming, that slender body too captivating. She's just a joy to contemplate, a source of warmth in the North American winter.
This set is a perfect 10 in my opinion and much of this has to do with the fact that I believe Astrud is a rarity and it just might be impossible to take a bad photo of her.
Astrud has the nicest, most natural, smile of any model on Met Art.
There's nothing fake about her. She's so genuine. As beautiful as she is, I doubt she is in the least bit conceited.
I'll bet anyone who knows her, or spends any time with her, thinks she is the sweetest, kindest, most adorable young lady, and she's an absolute pleasure to be around.
I'll also bet that many a men have fallen madly in love with Astrud, and although she's done nothing wrong, she has broken many men's hearts.
I want to thank both Astrud and Rylsky....this set is OUTSTANDING!!!
Agreed Browning. Astrud is top notch. For sure one of Met's all stars. She is such a beautiful brunette with an amazing body and perhaps the best pussy and bush on Met. Very arousing girl indeed...
How in the hell did Ry find this wonderful Brazilian in his part of the world?
WHO CARES HE DID! Even in his absence he delivers the best we have...
swplf2, you're right....who the hell cares!!!....I'm just glad he found her.
Being a member of the band of old farts, I have read some rough criticism of some of our artist for, lighting, focus, repetition, you name it. While in many cases valid issues are raised, I would ask you to consider our history. Nude photos have been shot since the inception of the camera. So there is very little which is “NEW”. But for our purposes here the advent of Playboy and Penthouse really started the movement that led to MET. Today our sets range normally from 60 to 100 pictures. This abundance is a pure results of the development of digital photography and the high speed internet. Think about this, in a Playboy or Penthouse you seldom had more than ten pictures of any model. There was a reason. Beginning with the photographer. In the film days our cameras used either 24 or 36 picture rolls. And unless you had a motor drive each on had to be “snapped”. Historically when we looked at the proof sheets we would pick a few of the best. If we got 10 prints from a roll it was a great session. The actual prints, slides, etc were submitted to our editors. If you got close to 10% actually published it was a red letter day. Look at even the Pet of the month and if you had mare than 5 or 6 addition shots to the center fold you were lucky. In those days any “airbrushing” was done after the photo’s were submitted. Thus the majority of the published final product were great. Today this detail of prep does not exist.
Yes we have photoshop, autofocus, better strobes, faster camera’s, and last but not least an abundance of megapixels. But we also have a need here for those 60 to 100 shots. If we wanted to limit each set to 40 pics my guess would be zero repetition, better focus on all, and 40 exceptional pics. Look at today’s sets or on some of the sets you have questioned. My guess is you will find an almost perfect 40. No photographer ever gets every shot perfect. But we demand twice to three times that 40. What do you expect....
I'm surprised you didn't mention that Rylsky is doing it right on his site. The size of the sets is one of the best features of RA.
To be sure there are way too many pics in a typical MetArt set. What you see are a lot of shots in the process of getting a good shot.
Please, don't breathe a word about "airbrushing." This is not acceptable, particularly when it paints over shaven body hair. If we want to return to the gauzy print days of Playboy and Penthouse, then have at all the photoshopping/airbrushing/cloning-over-of-reality you can do to a digital image. Good news -- I won't be there long to scream about it :-)
Doug, I agree. Photoshop should not be in the list of approved tools for a professional photographer. Not only is it like cheating to me, the results lead to an unnatural photo.
All or most of these guys use the program Photoshop to work on their photos. Nothing wrong with that -- you can improve their look with Photoshop -- make them clearer, sharper, richer. But that's not all you can do. You can also remove things originally in the photograph with Photoshop, or similar programs. Moles, freckles, blemishes, wrinkles, hair, tattoos. And that's just from skin. Lot of times you can tell if you look closely where something was removed, "painted over." Often it's poorly done, leaving a weird, unnatural look. So much for aesthetic improvement!
The first thing they teach a cheater is "don't get caught." If no one hears the tree fall, there's no sound, right :-? Unless the deception is constant and skillful, the truth is eventually gonna come out. Then what?
A whole lotta questions about why :-)
I am very much one of the old fogies club.
I can go with the way things are. I can pick the ones I feel are special and simply disregard the rest. I don't think you have ever heard me complain about repetition. There is no such thing as a complete duplicate. Each will have subtle differences and one will inevitably be more pleasing. I like being able to pick which one. I agree that doing 120 unique shots is darn near impossible not to mention that trying would disrupt a set and make it robotic at best. We all have different tastes and different things that we look for. Having large sets allows greater odds that you will find what you are looking for. No set is going to please everybody and you are bound to find photos you don't like. Even of beauties like this.
Somebody Finally writing, and Making, complete and utter sense!! Thank you, hipshot131
The images in the larger sets need not be repetitive to the trained eye. They only look the same to people glancing at but not inspecting each individual image.
That being said, Rylsky is repetitive, and for this reason, I would never spend a cent on his site.
Rylsky's repetition is not in the images he takes, but in the location in which he takes them. His repulsive obsession with water, is bordering on, if not an already full-blown addiction, just like an alcoholic being unable to enter a bar and not have a drink, a gambler not being able to resist placing a bet.
Rylsky CAN'T photograph any model, without subjecting her, and us, with the girl looking more like drowned rat, than the exciting young woman she should be.
If Rylsky is not shooting his model in some form of water set, he is not in his comfort zone. And this makes him very much a one-dimensional photographer.
Arkisi too, @ Eternal Desire, is a case in point of small sets. EVERY image looks posed and un-natural. I look at his 40-60 image sets and see a stage-hand moving this leg, another to shift this hand, another to change the angle of her head, etc, etc. Instead of shooting 150 images of his model moving naturally. It's not Glamour, it's not natural, and it sure as HELL, is not erotic. And neither is Rylsky's obsession with water.
He needs to see a shrink, to find out what causes this dysfunction and get it sorted!!!!
Hey Rich, take a look at his set published yesterday, of Kei. No apparent water. One of many.
In a good Metart set I'm glad for 120 images. But how many good MetArt sets are there?
Very many go on way too long, I think for commercial reasons.
BTW, couldn't agree with you less about Rylsky being a 1-dimensional photog. Have an actual look sometime and see if you don't see more...
agree. less photos per set with better quality
Rubbish. Fewer images/photos, the more obviously posed and un-natural the set will be!!
Learn to LOOK at the images. In the larger sets, you will soon pick out subtle differences, if you have eyes to see.
Fewer images/photos, the more obviously posed and un-natural the set will be!!
What makes that true and not the opposite?
I just reviewed a set that, the longer it seemed to go on well past 120 images, the more obviously posed, strained, and pathetic it got.
Quantity, as noted, does not equal quality. Quality is what equals quality. And I'm not sure there's a formula for guaranteeing it, especially when we're talking about snapping split seconds of a person's time.
I agree Rich.
Just because it's different doesn't mean it should be included.
I think what we need are more good pictures, as opposed to mediocre ones. One way to get that is to publish fewer pictures, though the best way would be to take better pics to begin with.
More sets of model Astrud A and galleries by Rylsky on the Met Art Network: