| Review:
SEPTEMBER 2007 RE-VISIT
Four years later! Yes, it's been four years since we first reviewed
this site. And since they decided to change their name from Digital
Dreamgirls (which, to be honest, does have a bit of a retro feel to it),
to Digital Desire, we figured now was as good a time as any to go in for
a re-visit.
The name change is cosmetic. Obviously there have been a number of
more substantive changes in the past four years. A few major ones were
introduced at the same time as the change to Digital Desire. The two
most significant were:
New "HD" video which is formatted at 1280x720 and 3500 kb/s
(DivX). OK, this looks as good as it sounds. A couple of things to note
though: (1) it was just being added when we wrote this review (September
2007) so there wasn't a lot of it up yet; (2) the actual movies aren't
all that long. These are minor points however, since before the HD was
adopted the download options were still very good (Windows and QuickTime
high-quality versions run 1500 kb/s and 480x360, and there are also
regular-quality and iPod versions available), and since the movies are
usually non-dramatic and well-edited it doesn't much matter how long
they are.
New
3000
pixel
photos.
Again,
these
look
great
(especially
given
the
high
quality
of
the
photography),
but
such
an
extra
large
size
is
also
typical
of
the
high-end
erotic
photography
sites
these
days.
So
they're
not
raising
the
bar
so
much
as
keeping
pace.
As
with
the
video
you
also
get
a
good
selection
of
sizes
available
for
download,
usually
800, 1080, 1200,
and
1600
pixels.
Another
point
worth
adding
to
our
previous
review
is
that
there
is
now
an
"Xtreme"
section
that
features
more
explicit
content.
Nothing
gonzo
or
kinky,
but
you
will
see
insertion.
Otherwise,
much
of
what
we
said
before
still
holds.
This
is a
great
professional
photography
site
with
an
incredible
archive
of
content
(with
several
new
updates
a
day,
averaging
out
to
2000
images
and
10
new
videos
a
month),
loads
of
the
best
glam
adult
models,
and
a
lot
of
personal
extras
like
the
commentaries
by
Hicks.
We
certainly
have
no
problem
recommending
such
a
valuable
site,
which
will
appeal
to
connoisseurs
and
fans
alike.
Our
one
gripe
this
time
out
was
the
navigation.
They
really
don't
make
it
easy.
From
the
double-layered
top
menus
there
are
just
too
many
different
sections
with
names
that
aren't
very
descriptive
or
indicative
of
their
content.
Stuff
like
Covergirls,
Dreamgirls,
Creamgirls,
Pornstars,
Hooters,
etc.
What's
the
difference?
In
the
video
section
you
have
"Naughty
Vids,"
and
"Flixxx,"
and
in
the
Xtreme
area
"RawHeat"
and
"DreamHeat."
Maybe
there's
a
site
map
somewhere
that
explains
what
all
these
labels
mean.
They
had
one
four
years
ago,
but
we
didn't
see
it
this
time.
And
even
if
there
is
such
a
map
we'd
prefer
if
things
were
a
bit
clearer
and
we
didn't
have
to
refer
to
it.
There's
just
too
much
going
on
here
with
all
the
different
categories
and
they
should
try
and
simplify
a
bit.
Having
said
this,
we
gave
this
site
a
top
mark
four
years
ago
and
there's
no
question
they've
maintained
things
at a
very
high
level.
You
get
quality
and
quantity
here,
for
the
most
part
very
attractively
and
cleanly
presented.
For
pro-style
material
it's
still
one
of
the
best
destinations
on
the
Net.
AUGUST
2003
REVIEW
If you're reading this you're probably already familiar with at least
some of the work of J. Stephen Hicks, the main creative force behind
Digital Dreamgirls. This may be the result of your familiarity with his
work as it has appeared in the pages of Penthouse, but it may also be
because DDGirls photos have been ripped off and posted just about everywhere.
Well, on the Internet you can take it as a rule that ripping off is
the sincerest form of flattery. If you've seen some of these sets
before--especially featuring the more popular models, like Tera
Patrick, Aria
Giovanni, and Jenna
Jameson--then that must mean a lot of people like them. And the
good news is there's plenty more where they came from.
This is a large, well-maintained and very professionally operated
site. The image archive consists of over 30,000 high-res pics (you can
view them in different sizes, with a sharp 1024x670 being the largest
format). Updates come along daily to the tune of 1,500 pics a month. The
organization of this much material, including the update schedule, is
complicated but not confusing. The site does offer a pretty good map and
"new member" info to help you find your way around. Once you
do you should be able to locate what you're looking for by way of a
general model index or one of the many sub-categories. "Dreamgirls"
has pics by Hicks, while "Creamgirls" (no, calm down cum fans,
it's not that kind of cream) features the work of Scott Evans. Other
sections include "Pornstars", "In Tight" (a
selection of close-ups), "Girlfriends" (lesbian), "Just
19" (teens) and "Hooters". Kyla Cole, a Hicks favourite, has her own section. Some
"behind-the-scenes" pics are also included. A monthly calendar
keeps you informed about what's coming up. In addition, the site offers
a nice selection of extras, including a message board and a "daily
word" from Hicks (generally reflections on the site and his job), and an amateur
talent search (you can vote for your favourite, who can then go on to a
professional shoot).
As noted, the pics are high quality. The models are top rate and the
photography itself is very professional (almost, at times, impersonally
so). Be advised that this is not
a hardcore site. In fact, it is very soft. On his bio page Hicks is
quoted as saying he prefers the European emphasis on aesthetic quality
over explicitness. His work isn't like most European high-art erotica--the girls are too glam for
that--but it's also without any real kink. Hicks may be a better nude photographer than his
Penthouse colleagues Earl Miller and Ken Marcus, but he doesn't share their interest in the different and deviant. (We note in
passing that a "DDG Extreme" section--or will it be a separate
site?--is apparently coming soon. Perhaps this will allow for a bit of
experimentation.)
Erotic photography, when it features professional models, tends to be
more concerned with the pose and the "shot" than the girl.
Hicks is very good at this, and has an eye for what works. It's clear
from the sets he has done with Devon, for example, that he knows a
perfect ass when he sees it. You are in good hands
here.
Video? Well, as we have said many times, the pics you get at video
sites are usually pretty grim and the video you get at photography sites
isn't much better. There are weekly video updates--available in dial-up
and high-speed formats--at DDGirls, and
overall we found the quality better than average for a studio site. This
is still a little less than we would like (surprisingly little editing
in the clips we watched, and virtually no camera movement), but it's far
from being a write-off. If you remember some of the Penthouse
"video centerfolds" you'll have an idea of what to expect.
Digital Dreamgirls has received unanimous praise from the
online critics (see below), and it's pretty easy to see why. What struck
us the most was the generosity of the site. The monthly rate is quite
reasonable, and there is no sense that you are getting played for more.
All of the Kyla Cole material, for example, virtually makes this a
semi-official Kyla site on top of everything else. We were also really
impressed with the amount of time Hicks is putting into the
site in such things as his "daily word." That level of
personal involvement was something we weren't expecting.
|
