English

This gallery contains 125 images @ 22 megapixels. Sign up now to see them all!


Comments

Well, it's been over a month since this stunning beauty graced this site. I'm afraid that all the negative response scared her away. It's a shame, because, in my opinion, she was(is) one of the most beautiful women to appear in some years. Perhaps if all the naysayers had been a bit more supportive of her showing a bit more, despite her modesty, as stated in her comments, we might have seen another set. Instead, several people spouted off about the fact that there Met Art dues somehow entitled them to see each and every inch of a models body, in every set...

Nicely done...

One of the most beautiful sets ever on Met-Art. Looks like yet again most members can't actually appreciate the "Art" side of the site.

Camilla is beautiful here, especially her shapely legs and elegant feet. My only complaint is with all the distracting beads and their shadows. Can't wait to see her next set.

My study of this set produces long ago rememberances of a woman, M. Monroe. An alis as to her true name. But, she sparked the interest of the world, with her glamour. Believe Camilla A. has the same property assets as Marlyn Monroe. Such a strike of interest does she produce!
Accord must be given to the Photogragher, whom set-up and captured this beauty. She has the true way of a woman, ALURE, damn the bump and grind, give me, a woman able to seduce, revealing as little as possible to her all ready known assets. Sweet, is she!
I hear the media, give us more Camilla A................

Nice shoot, great job, nice model but i wait a little more ^^
Sometimes, why not?

This is VERY good. It is a perfect shoot of Camilla as far as I'm conserned,and Mr. Herrin has found an innovative war to produce high contrast shots without taking the model outdoors, like Jenya D in Voronin's "Darkness " or Idoia in " Viento" by Luis Durante de la Rosa. I gave a 10+++ all around. I didn,t make ir higher as I agree Camilla could has used more direction,as she is inexperienced in Met-Art posing.

Camilla, this gorgeous goddess is a real explosion of beauty and sex appeal.
She can attribute the nickname of the actress Rita Hayworth: "Atomic".

The debut set of Camilla was on a dreary beach where the beautiful mermaid was dirty of sand.
This set is a set exemplary, a small masterpiece.
The dark background and the grazing lighting enhances the beauty of the skin of Camilla and her body designed by an inspired artist.

11/10 for Camilla and Ivan.

The shamefully low score attributed to this set, it is probably due to the fact that many fetishists have not found their favorite candy.

Indeed, low score goes to the puppies whom search out piss poles, to turn the snow yellow, favorite candy.
Camilla has the interest of generations, natural born, (please excuse my ineptitude) crem de la crem.. is correct or not?
Star has been found, come look at this star, many do not search out intricaces, want rough and tumble, first off. Nay, neyt, no, and nada, get into the delicate nauance of relation, that which is cloaked offers intrigue.
Only at the pabulum, can desire be feed, she express it at a most desirable manner. Hoorah for Camilla.

Browsing Kristina's sizeable body of work online, might put her sets here into perspective for her detractors and admirers alike.

A sample...http://vk.com/album-19591598_160770058?act=comments&z=photo-19591598_290580405%2Falbum-19591598_160770058

She has an infinite number of "looks", and rocks ALL of them!!
So happy to have/see her here at Met. I hope she's here for a long time...at least as long as I am! LOL

You are most welcome 'Camilla', and I hope you can get comfortable in spite of the static. We can always hope that it will subside quickly!

In any case, for myself, I wish you continued success and happiness...
XOXOX :o)

While 'scouting' Camilla's work, I found this for any tat fans that may be "lurking"....THIS is a gorgeous tat!! (Not Camilla)

http://vk.com/album-19591598_160770058?act=comments&z=photo-19591598_322091698%2Falbum-19591598_160770058#/fdiamondgirl?z=photo-19591598_319749303%2Falbum-19591598_185379651%2Frev

Met-art ain't art. If you have the same subject, background, focal length, depth, and lighting repeated 125 freaking times that ain't art. For fuck sake her two sets so far have the same exact stupid unerotic expression. Folks this site is just porn, but she ain't willing to show any. Pretty soon we won't see any pussy on met-art and pay another subscription on sex-art to see any. So this met-art is just a money making porn site.
Whoever loves any of her sets have some masochism fetish that only gets a hard on when they are being denied. Why not have some of my fetishes like foot, legs or facial fetishes? Why can't met-art get to do some of those peeing fetishes? LOL.
So the next time, next month when this STUCK UP B I T C H gets featured, I'll cancel my subscription.

Relvis, nearly five years ago Met-art did take an extremely tentative step into the world of peeing fetishes which has, sadly, not been repeated. See Layla A in image #56 of 'Presenting Layla'.

A better bet may be another site whose name begins with "Fem" and ends with "Joy" which very recently took a similar first step in showing the breathtaking Janelle B (using the name Yasmi) relieving herself in beautiful surroundings by the sea.

And a hardy "GOOD RIDDANCE" to your insulting ass!! You are definitely on the wrong site...why wait, cancel immediately!

I find fault with whoever chooses the sets. After seeing the comments from her first set, why would you even show her second set. IMHO I think she showed more in the first set. When photographers are recruiting models, they should show them sets that were bought by whatever site they are trying to sell to, that way they know what to expect from the beginning. Rachsback I have to call you out. I went back and looked at the first set again. You were disappointed that she didn't show her pink bits.

Arkisi
She'll never do it. I refused to work with her because of that. You have to feel the "scent of the woman" in the set. Otherwise this is boring. Not my style :)

Rachsback
So I take it you're not buying into the idea that she's a "pretty famous nude model"...? Or did you miss that assertion by 'Cheburator' down below on this page...? Because if she IS a "famous nude model", we should have at least gotten a glimpse of that "famous" pink...first set here or NOT. One thing's for sure....she IS "gorgeous" and I want to see more of her!!


Rachsback
Also thanks for reminding me that Ivan shot this....lol
When I saw your comment, I thought you were the "artist" because I did not notice up until then who the photographer was...;o)
Now I'm sad knowing that I may NEVER see those "pink bits" of this "famous nude model"...lol

Just saying.

Yes...I was "disappointed" with her first set, but did NOT carry on like a spoiled child, as so many others did. And as they have once more, here. It's always disappointing when a woman this beautiful doesn't bare all. But after seeing this set, and 'almost' remembering her first, I decided that what we see is what we get from this girl and we might as well be happy with it, or not, and not piss and moan about something we will never be able to change.

On your first point, I have to say (as I have over and over) that the "powers that be" are going to post whatever they buy from the 'artists', and all the bitching in the world is not going to change their formula. They purchase these sets before they are posted, and are not going to discard them, or otherwise "loose money" on them, so they WILL post them regardless of what a "few" of the subscribers have to say about similar sets. And I appreciate you "calling me out" because it helps keep me honest...at least as much as possible. I'm quite ancient and contradict myself frequently... I also say many things that I don't really believe, strictly for the entertainment value...;o)

P.S. Please use quotations where appropriate...I was very confused temporarily...;o)

Just braying.

An imaginative set with a truly beautify model. I'm baffled that she's only getting a 7. Honestly I'm more than little saddened by many of the responses here and her rating. If she doesn't come back to MET please someone tell me where I can see more photos like these.

I'm with you pal!! If she goes...I go!! ;o)

Tokyo Sukimono, almost 65 years of age, am I. Please to learn patience young man. She displays more maturity than her age, always leave one in anticipation, more easily molded subject. Believe that is the wish of this siren maiden.

I appreciate you pay attention to my comment.
Also, I don't hesitate to recognize her beautiful, artistry of the photographer as well. These photos are but less erotic. I remember that a word of MetArt derives from "Most Erotic Teen(s), not Metropolitan Art.
I wouldn't like to see a Venus of Milo on MetArt. That's why I do not care much for this set.

This woman is supreme in leaving to the imagination that which could happen!!

This photo-ops is a must keep..........

I am wowed by this setting, black upon black. Please bring it back.

To our good lady, thanks for droppin' by, c'mon back now, y'hear?


Ahem.. Good Gentlement. Silence is sometimes acceptable communication. With less scrolling.

Bad photography.

I wouldn't call it "bad photography" just because you don't like the set. I find the photography is decent, at least from a technical standpoint, perhaps not as much for content.

Sad phraseology.

Open legs or not Camilla is absolutely ravishing.

She has the most beautiful face, a perfectly proportioned, elegant, full breasted body. Check out that derriere & those legs.

More of this stunning woman soon please!

"the model refuses to open her legs or do a shot where you can actually see her pussy"

Buy Huslter magazine or "Gynaecology Today" or visit "Speculums R Us".

I prefer the modesty. Does every model have to spread herself like peanut butter? I'm sure there dozens of web sites that cater to your wish to see gynecological exams.

Elmer...put a sock in it! We just wanna see pussy!! (not cervix necessarily...) ;o)

You are being condescending by implying that those who wish to see more of her, in more erotic poses has only gynacological interest. Camilla is stunning, and the modesty of this set is somewhat frustrating in my opinion. You don't have to agree, but no need to be so haughty.

Just beautiful...I like her elegant curves. Ivan captured them well.

Beautiful set of a beautiful woman.

Anybody remember Carol Baker?

reminds me of Ivette Blanche/Linda as well.

HELL yes!!! I thought this girl had a familiar look!! Bingo!

Very artistic set of a very beautiful girl. I have no problem with the "occasional" artistic set like this and can only shake my head at all the whining about "no pussy shots"....somebody call a whaa'bulance!!
Ivan and Camilla both have my 10 for this!!!

Her debut set also produced a similar amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Instead of coaxing her into a "comfort zone", where she might be a bit more willing to reveal more of herself, I fear the whiners will send her back where she came from and leave a bitter taste in her mouth regarding the MetArt membership... Thanks asswipes!!

I must agree. I was pleasantly surprised by this set, Camilla looks exceptionally nice.
I also like how the dark background makes Camilla the focal point of each shot. It's a style that harkens back to the days when Met Art was M-E-T.

Great job Camilla and Ivan Harrin!!!

Premadona syndrome. That's what I see. "I'm a professional model..." she say in her bio. I find her attitude to be haughtey and condescending. Sorry Met-Art. Sub stanstard.

Davey, that would be "Prima Donna"

Totally boring set and not just because she doesn't open her legs, very unimaginative photos. Blah. Sorry

Weak. Like playboy.

Like "most" of these comments??

A lot of nice standing shots, not much more. Although I admire Camilla's beauty and great figure, this set is short of my expectations.

Maybe like Wall Street, you set your expectations a bit too high kilroy...
This site is about "photographic art" as much as it's about "pussy".

Rock, I didn't say anything about pussy or lack thereof. Others said that today, and you might be assuming that it was what I implied in my comment.

Actually, I like the photographic style itself - "black upon black" as Magwich describes. But that itself was not enough to overcome the things I found less favorable, namely repetitive poses. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

I'm pretty sure I was directing that second remark at everyone that was whining considerably more than you did... Sorry it sounded a bit more "personal" than it was intended. I also was maybe a bit more defensive on Camilla's behalf than I should have been. Maybe it's time for me to shut up again...for a while...;o)
I'm catching myself in contradictions again also... Senility...?

They can be one and the same.

Yes they can, but they do not HAVE to be!

Not being nature English writer, I can not show my feelings well for this set.
I can just cry an auld Japan's strict phrase against poor stageworks.
" Kane Kaese! " (= Pay the admission fee back).

Another infuriating set where the model refuses to open her legs or do a shot where you can actually see her pussy. If she does not want to show herself she should not do nude modeling. As far as I am concerned this is a rip off and should not have been published. Even if she is technically nude this is NOT a nude set.

Sets like this leave me angry because I feel that the model is telling us that she is too good to have to reveal all of herself. Though she is attractive she isn't THAT special. This early 60's playboy stuff where they didn't allow full nudity.

Yeah, sure, nude but not explicit pictures of someone as beautiful as "Camilla" are a rip-off. I'm sure it's not that she's just uncomfortable with showing more. You should definitely consider it a personal insult.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with occasional sets like this. It was one of four today, one of over 100 this month.

"...leaves me angry"? "Too good for us?" Given your bizarre reaction to the set, I'd say, yes, she is too good for you.

Bizarre? Arkisi has said that he will not work with her because she is so stuck up. I think to many here misinterpret the term art. This not an art site this is an erotic art site. I don't have to see pink in every set but I expect to see the full woman and to feel some sort of seduction from the model. The vulva "is" the essence of a woman. It is hard to be erotic when your crossing your legs in every shot. She would have been more erotic if she had been wearing a nice pair of panties throughout. We certainly would not have seen less of her but the screaming would have been epic!

Actually, Arkisi's comments on her "Presenting..." set indicated that he wouldn't work with her because she wouldn't show more. If that unwillingness = "so stuck up" in your mind then I invite you to join us in the real world.

fwiw, I don't care how you categorize the site. I have no problem getting plenty of "erotic enjoyment" out of the images Camilla has shared with us thus far. If you can't, you have my sympathy.

Now I find that she is a very popular fashion model named Kristina Yakimova that has been in Vogue and other fashion rags and lots of magazine adds. This is why she thinks she is too good for us here.

Nude is different than erotic, maybe Camilla (Kristina Yakimova) or her agent/agency feels anything more explicit could hurt her modeling career.

Either or both Camilla and Ivan are shy.

I looked again. In 46, 50, 125 and more; Camilla displays a very nice camel toe.

This is not shy. This is thumbing her nose at us.

Be careful, hipshot --

You'll provoke the neanderthal posse !!

Bullshit!!

So there's no confusion later, this is directed at "thumbing her nose at us"...


Access The Full Set Of 125 Images By Joining MetArt Today!
CLICK for FREE ACCESS