This gallery contains 120 images @ 13 megapixels. Sign up now to see them all!


It must be extremely difficult to post the photos in the same order that they were shot...

  • Gary
  • 11 months ago:

Jamie is a beauty with perfect tits and a gorgeous face. Well done.

Rylsky, you have one shot the shows the girl's anus, and it is out of focus. Why?

If a shot includes both the face and a part of the body which is normally hidden, then the latter should be in focus. After all, we see the face in nearly every picture.

You are capable of good work, but so often you let yourself down by this sort of unintelligent behaviour.

Look at Tony Murano's work to see a photographer who understand what his clients want.

  • Doug
  • 11 months ago:

All you gotta say, glazar, is that you wished he'd focused on something else. I feel the same way sometimes. It's often a split-second choice a photographer has to make.
Rylsky's intelligent -- he'll get the point.

I hope you are right, Doug. Much of Rylsky's work is very good. But I know from comments made elsewhere on this site that I am not alone in feeling intensely frustrated at times by this crazy habit of deliberately focussing on the wrong thing.

And in fairness, Rylsky is far from being the worst.

  • Doug
  • 11 months ago:

Maybe just accidentally missing the focus. Why would he deliberately focus on the "wrong thing"?
He must have thought it was the right thing!
You don't have to agree :-)
Too-shallow depth-of-field is I think a bigger problem, and does result in accidentally not-quite-sharp images. Maybe they should turn up the ISO? The image will be somewhat degraded, but at least may be sharper.

He must have thought it was the right thing!
You don't have to agree :-)
Too-shallow depth-of-field is I think a bigger problem, and does result in accidentally not-quite-sharp images. Maybe they should turn up the ISO?

No, take it much easier. Any phone, any "soap-case" 100USD digicam will do all in focus, yeah!

  • Doug
  • 11 months ago:

Forget the 85 1.2. Whip out that phone!

Most of the time it is definitely deliberate, which is why I assumed it was in this case. Professional photographers should know how to get things in focus, though obviously mistakes occur sometimes.

You know it is deliberate because the face is always in focus in such cases. If it was a mistake, something else, like a picture on the wall, would be in focus.

All good modern cameras can use quite a high ISO without degrading picture quality, so that is not an excuse today. The problem is that some togs think soft focus equates to art. It doesn't. And even if it did, the MET in Met-Art stands for Most Erotic Teens. Leaving aside the fact that some of the "teens" are over 30, it's the "Most Erotic" that is the important bit. There's nothing erotic about a pussy that you can't see.

"There's nothing erotic about a pussy that you can't see."

I am sorry, Glazar, the mosteroticteens - METART site will lose all your favorite models and you will stay with only pornstars here (same as was presented on 10s of sites in hardcore) if girls will read it before agree to pose for MetArt. Ask 1000 young NON-PORNMODELS ladies tomorrow and you will get the answer. If they will agree - you know what email to send their samples. But I bet you will get something different, I hope you can run very fast.

Now I see you missed why you see so many perfect and fresh models here.

  • Doug
  • 11 months ago:

Over 30! I thought so :-(

I like shoulders and underarms, and often enough they are neglected too.

They snap off a lot of shots, hoping to please everyone I suppose. And certainly not always succeeding.

When they're up close with a tele and the light isn't blasting your DOF is gonna be pretty shallow. So it really is a question of selective focus then.

You can be specific with Rylsky about what you didn't like; he'll listen. I'm not sure about others.

BTW, although the real teens may physically be closer to perfection, I have to say that I find the older girls much more interesting. Usually, anyway.

I also agree with what you said to Rylsky about wanting to know more about the models. For some reason the industry likes to anonymise the girls, and this is unfortunate. Where a website does say something it is usually nonsense.

Yes, Doug, I concede that you can't please all of the people all of the time.

However, I remain unconvinced that selective focus is necessitated by low light (though I agree that if you are using a tele the DOF will be more shallow anyway). Not only do modern cameras have extraordinary high ISO capability, but they also have lens stabilisation. And the light in most cases is more than adequate.

Coming back to the tele, I find that a 16-50 lens covers most needs when shooting sets like these, and usually I am at the lower end of the range. My cameras are APS-C format, so call it 28-80 in 135 format, with most shots using below 50mm. So, again, I don't think that the limited DOF of a tele lens is a factor here (in most cases).

I do have great respect for photographers who manage (as Rylsky usually does) to make every shoot look different. That's a tall order, given the number of sets he shoots.

  • Doug
  • 11 months ago:

I believe Rylsky is often using a full-frame DSLR with real, fast, single-focal-length telephotos. The question would be how to get the right focus for the shot he's seeing. It could be great with that equipment, but it's a little trickier.
I suspect he does up the ISO a bit sometimes, and sometimes the degradation is noticeable.

If you want to create Tony's clone - you are welcome, sir. Why not ask toyota make cola soda drinks?
If you want to show me even 1 photographer here who always did 100% focus and never fail - you are welcome. Anyway we are not in gynecology clinic photolab, sir.

This kind of comments make no sense, have no respect, shows what kind of ..... you think photographer is. Sorry ,not work for me. Be constructive or talk this way to you doggy, not to person you want to discuss or gave input for future.

Rylsky, if you are telling me this was a mistake, then fair enough. We are all human. But usually on Met-Art, it is a deliberate decision of the photographer to blur the "interesting" bits. It is intensely annoying, and in this case my annoyance showed when I posted.

As for not being a gynaecology clinic photolab, these are just words. It is a site which shows the private parts of beautiful girls, and sometimes they are in focus - even your pictures!

I look forward to the next set of this beauty.

Thanks for different way of discussing. It works for me.
I never told this site must not contain explicit pics focused on private parts and closeups. But why in one way? We can do it many ways and you said you have seen another sets. If you saw it - you know I am working differently from set to set. I like dynamic in photography too, you know it.

Everything said and written is just a words here.
But when the World was created - first was a word...


Please ask yourself and keep in mind that MODELS read comments as well:

- What is reason for any model if she is NOT professional to work for some photographer and be presented on most famous erotic website what means all her family can find these photos some day?
At least model wants to know it was nice and not only because of sharp focus on her ass. TRUST ME.

- If model disagree to choose some photos for set - must photographer push on her?

- What model will tell me after reading some comments if I will leave it without my answer?


I fully accept that you will wish to take the model's views into account, and that this is sometimes a factor in what you can publish.

But there are many instances where one photographer produces the usual "artistic" blurred photos of a model, and another photographer produces much more exciting pictures of the same girl.

I am glad to say that you are usually in the "more exciting" camp! I loved your recent shoot with Taissa.

BTW, I am sorry I was a bit too direct with my first post. My point could have been expressed more diplomatically.

I really appreciate the way we changed our chat with you, Glazar.

I know models who was better looking (in my own opinion) with sets of photographer "A" vs. her sets with "B". But how do you know why she did it? And why I think I am a judge???
I just can't imagine I will write to photographer: "hey, do your work as Murano (Sylsky, Erkisi,....)". I will never do it, because I know what it means.

Sometimes I had a chance to know why model choose photographer.
I know 10s of stories, but I will never tell you what I know about that and you will never see my comments here to anybody "change photographer", because it is MODEL who choose. I will not respect myself (even if I will be member and will pay for subscription) if I will write this way because I will tell as invisible addition: "You are posing for rent, shut up and go pose to guy who will make what I want".

Sometimes you see "artistic" and model see nothing. Why you think you are right?
Ok, imagine you are the judge, but model tell you that she was happy with a very bad rated set made some moths before and only because of this "very bad" set she STILL modeling for you and only because of previously "crap" she get experience and skill, she became so good later with Murano (Sylsky, Erkisi,....).

Maybe I am crazy, but model and photographers are humans too.

I am sorry, nothing personal here. I could express all that better and shorter in Russian, but I can't.

Good one :-)

Jamie is very beautiful, and the light is perfect. I liked the background selection very much although I feel Mr Rylsky should have changed the angle or moed the model on the last shots,she was squinting.

  • ToLo
  • 11 months ago:

The only thing that makes me unhappy about this set is that, as a fan of gorgeous, toned stomachs, hers is covered up for so long. Jaime is stunning, and she has a magnificent tummy. Please don't hide it...

  • Doug
  • 11 months ago:

Looks more like a try-out than a real set.
If she had a bush, all would be forgiven :-?
88: good shot.
What do you do with that Barbra Streisand nose?
Answer: flourish of portraits that end the set.

What is "real set"? I hope we all love when set is a set of pictures, not set of "single formula set forever for all" stamps, right?

  • Doug
  • 11 months ago:

A real set seems to have a theme and not so much repetition.
Probably more technical finesse or care as well.
But I do agree -- I'm sick of "Forever" stamps :-)
The portraits at the end save this exercise for me.

Well, now I see what makes you unhappy here in this set.
thanks for clarifying

  • Doug
  • 11 months ago:

Thanks for the response!


You really are helping making the comments informative and worthwhile reading, Thanks...

You are welcome.
and thank you for this kind of compliments.

Love those sparkling green eyes and terrific smile! A few shoot locations make this set more interesting with added variety. It's been too long (a year) since her debut, good to see Jaime again.

Hi Rylsky:

Are you familiar with the phrase "everyone has a twin somewhere"?

You have photographed Jaime and Gisele. Do you see any facial resemblance between Jaime in today's 108 to 111; and Gisele in your collaboration for Sekranias and Tell You?

I wish for Latvian lovely Jaime that her looks, toned body and appeal age as gracefully as has Gisele's.


I am sorry, they are extremely different.


And, she loves to cook?!?

Heaven on earth.

Jaime, share with us more often!

I must admit I'm confused by the title "Larvae." When I look at this beautiful woman the first thing that comes to mind is not maggots. This is not meant as a negative comment, as I do like the set, just the title seems odd to me. I suppose butterflies are pleasant and mythical, but hearing the word "larva" makes me think of maggots. But I suppose Halloween is just around the corner, the time when we all must protect our families and ourselves from zombies.

It (Larvae) must mean something else in another language. Anyone care to enlighten us?

Larvae is Latin for, guess what, larvae. And it means, guess what, larvae.

Most of our scientific words are from Latin or Greek. If you say Tibula to a doctor from Spain, Poland, or Ireland, they will all know what you mean, even if you don't speak their languages.

  • Damn
  • 11 months ago:

Maybe she'll turn into a butterfly some day?

Honestly, the title of the sets is always mysterious to me. What matters to me is the model, not what somebody decides to call the photo set.

Love the detail in the two shots on the balcony (with her hair up). Jamie is beautiful, Rylsky's photography is excellent. Would love to see more of this type of work without all of the Photoshop filtering!

  • Neil
  • 11 months ago:

Jaime is such a beautiful angel. Such gorgeous blonde hair. Such a beautifully seductive face, with enchanting blue eyes. And her stunning figure, so fit and conditioned, yet shapely and feminine. Jaime is a wonderful.

Morning all. Jaime is a beauty alright and it is great to see her back on Met. I have just taken a look back at Jaime's first set here and this set has all the wow factor of the first.

I love Jaime's legs, those thighs are awesome. Jaime is stunningly beautiful and I hope to see her back here again soon.

Jaime sitting on the steps in 78-80 is the perfect way to show off her amazing long legs.

Great use of an outdoor shoot. Head shots on page 4 excellent. Thanks Ry for including several "extra" shots on the last page. Jaime looks like she is having fun almost playing. Must be a doll to shoot.

extra? what do you mean?

  • Neil
  • 11 months ago:

The photoset seems to end at number 105 and that would have been good enough. But then you give us the two photos of Jaime on the balcony, with her hair up and the magnificent photos of her bathed in the sunlight. Like a bonus or an extra gift, like a desert at the end of a wonderful feast or a cherry on top of a big dish of ice cream.

Thanks Neil, that is exactly what I meant.

I am once again in love. I had forgotten how wonderful Jaime is in every respect. Her face is gorgeous, riveting—beautiful mouth, beautiful eyes and a smile to die for. Her body is flawless, prefect right down to those popsicle toes. 10—hell, 10,000. Thank you Rylsky—and kisses to Jaime.

Top of the morning sailor, yep shes a good one.

And to you, sir. I think I'll spend the rest of the night memorizing that fantastic smile.

Access The Full Set Of 120 Images By Joining MetArt Today!