English

This gallery contains 113 images @ 24 megapixels. Sign up now to see them all!


Comments

Nice set! Dakota's feet looks so scrumptious!

I could eat that pussy all day!

Absolutely breathtaking!! Nice set of photos too.

Perfect set of erotic photographs!

Feminine, warm, inviting, submissive, and very sexy.

Fantastic work Dakota and Goncharov.

Thanks to everyone involved.

Dakota, too bad your pussy is so beautiful I almost forgot to take in the beauty of your breasts, ariolae, and nipples!

And don't forget her scrumptious pussy and butt!

Drop dead gorgeous!

I really like Goncharov's take on Dakota... from the pretty lacy panties to showcasing her very yummy looking butterfly, all the while not losing sight of her very, very pretty face and cute little body.
This single set justifies the whole month's subscription, IMO.
( :

  • clay
  • 5 months ago:

i fuckin love her face. i wanna suck on her lips and lick her cheeks. the ones up top n down bottom. her eyes mesmerize me like the twilight zone theme song lol

  • clay
  • 5 months ago:

If I offended dakota or broke any rules then I sincerely apologize, but if not,I regret nothing. Im sure she was intending to turn guys like me on when she took the job and she does her job very well. Perhaps I get too into detail but as you said noone wants to read what I write, feel free to not read what I write then. Problem solved

Clay is only saying what you are thinking folks. What is this site for? It's to turn you on!

  • clay
  • 5 months ago:

Lol thanks dutchman, glad somebody understands, guess I have to keep it pg with what I say or end up getting a bunch of panties in a bunch. Geez

Nobody cares. And nobody wants to read that. Grow up and learn some manners.

  • Neil
  • 5 months ago:

Agreed. Such comments say more about the writer that about the model.

Dakota looks even more beautiful when she wares her hair back (in my opinion). Great set.

Her hair certainly looks nice in this visit.

I think that this is my favourite set of Dakota. It doesn't contain my single favourite photograph of her (Rylsky nailed that one) but every shot is a sweet delight.

I love the way she starts out wearing a buttoned up shirt and the cutest playful smile, and slowly reveals more as the set goes on. Absolutely lovely.



  • Doug
  • 5 months ago:

Goncharov -- why do you "airbrush", "paint over", "re-shave" her mons with Photoshop or whatever? Is it that unsightly, or do you just hate women?

Doug, Baggy, you are not alone in your disdain of airbrushing, photoshopping, or whatever means is being used to alter photos in post production. I don't care what area of the model is retouched, I think it detracts from the set and makes it phoney. It is almost always detectable even by a novice like me, so why do it? I want to see REAL beauty here. Real models have moles, scars, and tattoos. How can I say this any stronger?

  • Doug
  • 5 months ago:

You can't, Kilroy. Thank you. I think eventually it will make a difference, all of our voices. As it stands now, it's an overwhelming temptation for some photographers to alter and "improve" their photos by removing components they don't like with software. This has been the bugaboo of digital photography from the start -- how do we know it's photography and not painting? Real, not fake? In the cases here it's fairly easy if not very easy to tell, because painting over, "cloning", human skin is a very tricky task, and these practitioners are not masters.
This leaves aside the question of why they would want to remove evidence of shaved skin. Hell, ain't it enough that the poor girl shaves it to begin with? Give an inch, take a mile. For a body hair lover like me, it's a double insult.

I think a few 'artists' are open to suggestions, but the majority are not and won't be changing anything about their work no matter how many of us complain about some aspect of it or another.. And maybe that's the way it should be... How many "artists" that work in other mediums are open to their 'audience/fans' "suggesting" how they change their "vision" of any particular piece of "art"...?? Maybe this isn't a fair comparison because "photography" is so different from other forms of "art"...(?)

  • Doug
  • 5 months ago:

For me it comes down to this: "photographic quality." In other words, an actual photographic recording of light. Which is lost when these guys paint over it with software.
So maybe they are "artists" of a kind, but what they are doing is no longer photography.
Now, what does the MetArt letterhead say? "Fine Photography." Well, I'd like to see them live up to that claim, and at least reject the most egregiously non-photographic images. But I suspect they won't if members don't demand it. From what I can tell at this point, they don't yet have anything to worry about, judging from the apparent non-critical eagerness with which these non-photos are consumed.
This leaves aside the many images on this site that, though they may not be "painted over" with Photoshop, are still technically lousy, and yet happily consumed without complaint by many, I guess because they are so enamored of the girl pictured.
Will MetArt's "IQ" -- image quality :-) -- improve? I don't know. I guess it all depends on whether a critical mass of viewers demands that it does.

Great question! I wish the photographers who do this would step up and provide their justification.

  • Doug
  • 5 months ago:

But they never do. They just skulk away and do it again.
But MetArt keeps buyin' their crap because members accept it without complaint or awareness.

...or, just don't mind.

  • Doug
  • 5 months ago:

That's what I mean by "without complaint."
I think mostly it's that they're not aware of it.

I think the only ones who are aware of it are those it bothers.

  • Doug
  • 5 months ago:

No doubt. Still, it's hard for me to imagine anyone thinking it's OK to do to their erotic photographs.

  • Neil
  • 5 months ago:

Dakota is a wonderfully gorgeous woman, with nearly perfect feminine features and attributes.

Madame, or rather, Mademoiselle Butterfly! How amazingly lovely you are. And for sheer raw sexiness, you and those amazing lips can't be beat.

It is very nice to see lovely Dakota again. She has many attribeauts starting with her great eyebrows which naturally draw me to her beautiful eyes. Her areolae are spectacular, especially when wrinkled like in # 39 and others. Her puffy outer labia and prominent inner labia are especially nice as presented in # 32! In summary Dakota is wonderful, imho, and she earns kudos for this great visit, as does Goncharov.




Access The Full Set Of 113 Images By Joining MetArt Today!
CLICK for FREE ACCESS