English

This gallery contains 120 images @ 36 megapixels. Sign up now to see them all!


Comments

This is a great set. Beautiful art direction, beautiful model. Wish there were some close ups however, and a lot less soft focus.

Very theatrical. Very erotic and beautifully photographed. Very delicious subject. The best sets always generate the most controversy.

Please more of Margaret

Thank you Paromov
The complexity and sofistication of this photoshoot was top notch.
I am expecting to see more of Margaret B, which is something the members at MA can agree upon...

sophistication

Finally another costume set.

And it was about time.

a lovely girl in a nice steam punk-y costume and an lush and colourful setting.

That is ART. And I love it.

It gets the gears in the head moving and creates stories. If you are not compeletely desensitized by the constant pussy&asshole parade going on lately.

very cute

Sooooo much effort put into costume --

All that work dreessing the set for the shoot --

The many poses showing beautiful legs caressed by stockings --

BUT -- no shoes!


WHAT IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE !!!!!!! ?????????????????????

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally, what this set made me think of is an adult game of dress up with the girl next door... only the game of dress up turns into a game of doctor and we get to be the doctor...
Costumes and fantasy settings don't bother me.
I think what is important about a set is all in what the model's feeling, and Margaret seems to be having every bit as much fun as a little girl playing dress up with her mother's (or older sister's) clothes closet.
...and then getting just a bit kinky. ( :

Her fun, just as much as her sexuality and beauty, make this set work for me.

Grade A+ work Paramov. You did it again. More like this please. Also to be more mundane, there are some really great butt shots in this set!

I saw "The Hat" and I thought "Oh, no, not another "funnyhat" set!" Then as I viewed the rest of the set, I'm thinking this is getting weirder and weirder.....just kinda surrealistic, ya know, some kinda 60's bad trip kinda thing, ya know. I dunno? But maybe some people dig that sorta, kinda thing, ya know man, but whatta I know? I dunno ;)....(¡)

Hey Caballo, what are you smoking? Seems to affect your writing style, dude!

LOL! Maybe some wacky tobacky...no, quit that years ago, to each their own! I'm just getting a laff outta all the crazy comments. But I just love lookin' @ pretty (¡)!

LOL! Maybe some wacky tobacky...no, quit that years ago, to each their own! I'm just getting a laff outta all the crazy comments. But I just love lookin' @ pretty (¡)!

This is, without a doubt, the longest list of comments I've ever seen on this site! I think they should do 3 more galleries of Margaret, using Rylsky, Leonardo and Tim Fox as photographers. All 3 galleries should all be available in tomorrow's updates! This might relieve some of the pain being felt amongst the Met-Art Members (I know it'll take some of the pain out of MY member).

What are you guys getting paid for?! Taking pictures of pretty girls in frumpy clothes that remind us of Margaret Rutherford?!

Yep, kinda looks like old 1920's porn I saw in some old, dusty book years ago. Strange!!? But, whatever.

What about the guys who like the frumpy clothes? ;_; Can't we get a set that we like maybe every 100 sets? *tears*

I do know what you mean, Erik. There are times when I find some women in loose clothing quite erotic.
However, the "Margaret Rutherford" reference was started by Sailor. Scroll down about 40 comments or so (if you've got the time).

bad fotografer, fotógrafo muy malo, linda modelo

It's not that he couldn't focus on her eyes, it's that because of the candles he had to use a slow shutter speed, and I'm guessing the camera was not on a tripod. So nothing is particularly sharp. I suppose in a way that sort of fits with the whacky theme, sort of ethereal. I'm sympathetic to trying to come up with a new fun way to show off a model, but the reality is that we are WAY more interested in the woman herself than costumes, themes, etc. So, as the comments suggest, it really doesn't work, and not many viewers like the set. We ALL seem to like Margaret just fine! More of her would be very nice. And more of her body too, please. In this set we barely get a glimpse of her lovely pussy.

I have never loved steampunk more than I do at this moment in time. I cannot tell you how much this set turned me on. Awesome job! And Margaret, you are extremely sexy. Please visit us again soon!

What's with all the clothes? Come on Met-Art, is anyone there actually proofing these sets?

I didn't think I'd see any photographers worse than Goncharov, Arkisi, Simi, Koenart et al but Met-Art actually found someone in Paramov. This aspiring artist would've produced just as many poorly focused and poorly exposed and poorly framed shots if he'd used his mobile telephone's camera. Sell the Nikon D800 and just use your mobile phone next time. At least you'll be saving some money.

Beautifully put! Thank you, who ever you are!

Worst set ever. Nothing positive about this set. Trash.

Silly, overdressed [both model and setting], underwear ad.

Nice example of what met-ART makes different to me.
An introduction of a model, which leaves a lot of open questions, still looking beautiful.
I'm hopefully looking forward to see more of her. The actual votes punish her for the setting, which is a matter of taste.
And probably none of the questions will be answered because of bashing the model for a setting in tradition of the roots of this site. Because there are lots of sites you can see a newbie's anus in HD.
EYES! EYES! Damn autocorrecting. :)

Welcome Margherita latest arrival you are already one of the top stars.
It 's very nice that the model is dressed at the beginning and gradually reveals her charms (in MetArt does not happen often).
Clothing and photoset very original.
Very clever play of lights.

Paromov we have already seen the sets very original and very pleasant.
(Ruzanna A, Nensi B).
It happens, sometimes, that the imagination can annoy people who likes the usual things.

To be quite honest this set freaks me out! The entire theme has a looney bin kind of feel. Like a bad dream or maybe a bad hit of LSD?

hipshot I swear I thought I had already posted this. You could not have said it better I could not even in one of my long winded post. I am in 100% agreement on every word you said. I was looking for my old "downer" pills after thus one.

  • Neil
  • 12 months ago:

Interesting set. Margaret is very pretty . The costume is fascinating and perfect for a poorly produced English drama, broadcasted on PBS. But it does not work here. Maybe the gang at MetArt were having their Halloween party. This was third runner-up for the best costume prize, a ten dollar gift certificate at a costume shop, in Soho.

Rylsky, Catherine, Goncharov ANYBODY, this beautiful young lady needs your help!

Thanks for invitation, Neil, but noone else except Paromov have model's agreement to work this style, she let introduce herself to only this one photographer. So, we need to respect him and her for that choice.

Oh! Ok, Meybe! A little early, but jest maybe! Could've given us a little warning, ya know!

Neil, I think you are right, it is the Halloween season ;-)

  • Neil
  • 12 months ago:

But seriously, Margaret is a remarkably beautiful young woman. I hope Paramov will do a better job of presenting her beauty in the future. She certainly deserves to be presented as the stunningly beautiful woman that she clearly is. She is the featured star of the set, not the costume, or the dark dismal setting and certainly not Paramov's creative vision.

Margaret, it was nice to meet you. Best wishes for future success.

  • Neil
  • 12 months ago:

Paramov, it is never too late to take remedial photography lessons.

What kind of egomaniac replies TWICE to his own post?

Narcinist not egomaniac. But so are most people who post, but that's just my very humble opinion. We delude ourselves to believe anyone else cares about what we think.IMO

Sometimes it's good to hear other peoples' opinions, especially when it comes to viewing bare, naked ladies, but I dunno about this set, I just dunno. I do hope that Paromov "gets some help", ya know.

*narcissist

But you're right anyway. That word fits better. And you just described social media in general. my friend. ;-)

Margaret is a perfect beauty, but you can't tell until she strips, as the costume is too elaborate. The set is too elaborate as well. I have always had issues with Paromov as I feel he is careless about model safety as well.

Bad set: poor lighting, over dressed.

I vote another NO on this ridiculous costume and set. Are we going to keep getting this junk until we just get tired of complaining about it, and finally give up, and go elsewhere? This set has nothing to do with erotic photography and is a distraction. It doesn't belong on this site - it belongs on some kind of historical-period or fantasy stage setting site, if there is such a thing.

Will the management of this site finally wake up and get it, and go back to real, erotic photography, which is what this site is supposed to be all about? Are you even watching what the photographers put on this site?

I agree with your overall opinion, but a tad harsh.

I was less harsh the first time I posted a similar opinion about this inappropriate style. So I was trying to make my opinion clearer this time.

The environment, the costume, the ambiance mean nothing if your model is out of focus. I don't see sharp eyes in a single frame here. This girl is beautiful, and those eyes deserve a little more effort.

Yep. It's a common problem on the site, taken to a ridiculous extreme here: in most of these images the photographer didn't even come close to getting her eyes/face in focus. Particularly inexcusable when you're in a artificially-lit indoor location. Hard to imagine someone reaching the point in their career where they qualify to work for this site, but don't know how to focus their camera.

Bet you were a boo bird. Now we can, each, evaluate your disdain. IMO kinda harsh...

  • 12 months ago:

The model is gorgeous.

While I enjoy Paramov's staging in all his sets thus far, in this one he let's it distract him from the task at hand which is to present us this delectable beauty in all her glory. Instead, we get a series of long shots that have things like the chandelier occupying the majority of the frame.

I like the fantasy elements and think these sets will be more entertaining when the model becomes the primary AND secondary focus of each shot. The best erotic photography I've seen here typically has a focal point with a secondary aspect of the model that compliments it.

Keep experimenting Paramov.

Man your an optimist... As my Dad always said, "To each his own"

  • 12 months ago:

I'm just trying to be constructive and supportive. :)

  • 12 months ago:

I'm just trying to be constructive and supportive. :)

Terrible!

I like EVERYTHING I see of Margaret, including her radiant smile. Yesterday some may have given me a thumbs down for saying so because she has one slightly crooked tooth. I say bless you Margaret, in the real world everything is not always perfect.

I am pleased to enjoy Paramov's models however he presents them.

  • Neil
  • 12 months ago:

Baggy, That is the concept of the perfect imperfection. Cindy Crawford has that mole on her lip. Other women have birth marks. The crooked tooth is the imperfection that makes Margaret perfectly beautiful.

I agree, I think of Emily Bloom with her one crooked tooth... to me it makes her and her smile all the more endearing. I feel the same way about Margaret's dental imperfection.

Well said. I tend to "borrow" words and phrases that I like.

So . . .

  • Neil
  • 12 months ago:

With my compliments. Help yourself.

I don't know about the poor model. I couldn't make it past the costume party! I guess this surreal art fest is going to become Paromov's signature style. Certainly not going to win any cudo's from me. From now on I'll just pass on this silliness.

*kudos

Paromov did this for Nensi-B's first set, too. The result (and my opinion)was the same. Perhaps some members like the elaborate getup, but I'll pass on it.

I agree. I want to look at girls not silly costumes. A whole lot of silly costume here and very little girl.

I disagree.

Look at the url. Met-ART.

Not MET-PUSSYSHOW.

Look at the old sets for example.

I loved this set.

Great idea for a set! Margaret Rutherford in Victorian dress becomes Goddess Margaret of the lovely derrière. Nice debut, Margaret. Thanks. xoxo

I'm sorry I just don't "get" this set. You want to explain it to me.

Hola. Her costume looked like something from the 19th century, and her name made me think of Margaret Rutherford, the wonderful English character actress, now long dead. As the clothes came off, frumpy old Margaret 1 became beautiful young Margaret 2. The idea, wobbly at best, loses almost everything in the explanation. (Sorry, I'm tired tonight. Just got Showtime, and I'm in the midst of a "Homeland" marathon. I really shouldn't try to have ideas.)

No need to apologise here Sailor, you are entitled to your opinion. Seems like rational thinking to me.

Thanks a lot, Sailor! Now every time I see her I'm gonna think of Margaret Rutherford! I hope every girl you see from now on reminds you of Phyllis Diller!

Tomcat, Your showing your age...

I guess so. However, I wish the gallery above would've shown us more than just her age. Us old guys need all the help we can get! Isn't that right, Sailor?

I am well and truly cursed. Fie!

Sorry, Sailor! I wouldn't wish that on anyone, so I'm lifting the curse ....."Poof!" ..... Now you're free!

Free at last! Now, where's Margaret 2?

While I still don't get it, I appreciate you trying to explain it to me. Who knew this would turn into a 40 plus comment entry. ?Are we having fun yet?

My gawd! What have I wrought?

Thankfully though she looks nothing like Margaret Rutherford. The hat is beyond ridiculous and the set a prime example of the "overly busy" sets I've previously described. I could understand if it was actually Margaret Rutherford in the set because you'd want things to draw your eyes away from her looks but this girl is so pretty. Lovely girl, awful set.

It was the hat that got me started.

Ianbof, I agree with your view and I like your sense of humor! Margaret is indeed a lovely girl, but this gallery is hardly worth the price of admission.

I see they took out the "thumbs down" icon. I wonder why.

Yeah, I noticed the "thumbs down icon" was gone late last night, maybe in anticipation of the comments coming on this set today. ((;

Because now if you don't like it you have to say why and thus I may have won over faceless, useless, boo birds. Who knows that column may reappear tomorrow. A lot of members have chided me, saying I was wasting my time bitching about things, claiming the powers to be don't care about our opinions. And when the comments were limited to "Nice tits, lick-able pussy they might have been right. But I have to believe that the direction the comment section has moved recently has gained their respect and now they are listening. Of course that is just my humble opinion.

Beautiful Margaret welcome to Met, longingly counting the days until your next set.


Access The Full Set Of 120 Images By Joining MetArt Today!
CLICK for FREE ACCESS