| Review:
Giving
credit
where
it's
due,
this
site,
the
labour
of
one
man
and
his
camera(s),
is
truly
one
of
the
classic
stories
in
the
still-brief
history
of
Internet
porn.
Everybody's
heard
of
it,
and
as
the
opinions
collected
on
Matt's
"News
and
Reviews"
page
are
any
indication,
pretty
much
everybody
has
loved
it.
We
don't
put
a
lot
of
stock
in
what
most
review
sites
say,
but
we
couldn't
help
but
be
impressed
at
the
rave
reviews
given
by
voices
that
we've
identified
as
some
of
the
harshest
critics
out
there
(aside
from
us).
Even
the
normally
staid
(and
now
apparently
gone)
X3
Guide
launches
into
raptures: "Allow
me
to
gush.
I
love
this
website.
I
love
this
fucking
website.
I
fucking
love
this
website.
This
website?
I
fucking
love
it." Wow. Well,
we're
not
going
to
buck
the
trend
too
much.
We
really
liked
this
site.
But
we
didn't
love
it.
Read
on.
Perhaps
the
first
thing
to
note
is
our
categorization
of
the
site
into
two
categories:
Amateur
and
Photographer.
This
isn't
so
much
because
Matt
shoots
amateurs
(though
he
does),
but
because
Matt
is
himself
an
amateur.
What
we
mean
by
that
isn't
that
he
does
this
for
free
(he
doesn't),
but
that,
to
cut
a
long
story
short,
he's
not
a
great
photographer.
And
this
is a
subject
the
"King
of
Anti-Glam"
is
very
defensive
about.
The
following
is
taken
from
his
pocket
bio:
I will admit to being "equipment challenged" and not schooled in photography. However, In my own defense I have to say the following: In being as prolific as I was, through all these years, working with over 1,000 different models, shooting without assistants, makeup artists, lights or fancy locations; in other words: JUST ME AND MY CAMERA - I believe I am one of the most UNDERRATED PHOTOGRAPHERS on the net!
Whether you liked or hated my photos, one thing you can't deny me is that I did DEVELOP MY OWN STYLE. I didn't read books, I didn't take classes, I didn't try to emulate what others were doing (except the basic erotic poses in the early shoots). We're
not
sure
how
far
we'd
go
in
support
of
this.
Is a
lack
of
style
a
style?
Is
there
really
an
art
in
his
artlessness?
Or
is
it
just
crude
and
(his
own
word)
primitive
because
that's
all
he
can
do?
And
don't
think
we're
singling
Matt
out
here
for
this
criticism.
We
love
Abby
Winters'
site.
And
Abby
has
a
very
developed
porn-positive
feminist
philosophy
on
how
she
has
set
out
to
present
un-glamorous,
"natural"
amateur
girls
in
realistic
settings,
all
shot
in a
very
plain
and
simple
style.
However,
what
we
said
in
our
review
of
her
site
is
that
"we're
not
sure
we'd
call
Abby
a
great
photographer."
That's
known
as
being
diplomatic.
And
we
felt
the
same
way
here.
The
primitive
has
its
limits,
especially
when
(for
example)
the
use
of
direct
flashes
leads
to
the
models
having
red
eye
in
some
of
the
pictures.
Or
when,
in
the
videos
that
are
shot
in
the
bath
or
shower,
little
consideration
is
given
to
the
fact
that
the
sound
of
running
water
when
it's
recorded
at
normal
levels
on
film
is
absolute
fucking
murder
(it's
the
only
exception
we
allow
to
our
preference
for
natural
sound
over
background
music).
These
kinds
of
things
should
be
avoided,
and
no
appeal
to
being
self-taught
or on a
tight
budget
fully
justify
them. However,
having
said
all
this,
we
will
say
that
there
is
indeed
a
"genuine"
amateur
sensibility
to
this
site.
It's
real.
The
lack
of
style
in
the
presentation
aside,
what
you
get
here
is
very
down-to-earth
and
natural
with
an
emphasis
on
personality.
This
comes
across
in
Matt's
own
photo
journal
as
well
as
the
amount
of
behind-the-scenes,
interview,
and
audition
videos.
However,
along
with
the
authenticity
comes
awkwardness.
The
interviews
are
cute,
but
clumsy.
And
the
videos
were
occasionally
disturbing.
One
example
really
stood
out,
which
we'll
explain. Now
one
thing
you
should
know
is
that
not
all
of
Matt's
models
are
amateurs.
Many
of
them
have
or
have
had
their
own
websites.
And
there
are
some
really
big
names
indeed
included,
like
Sara
Stone,
Sydney
Moon,
and
even
Aria
Giovanni.
Another
name
that
really
stood
out
for
us
was
Devin
Valencia,
who
is
better
known
today
as
Amy
Reid.
There
are
several
photoshoots
of
Devin/Amy
and
a
couple
of
videos.
One
of
the
videos
is a
hardcore
scene
which
may,
for
all
we
know,
have
been
her
first.
At
least
we
hope
it
was
her
first.
Because
we
have
never
seen
a
girl
look
more
uncomfortable
having
sex.
Amy,
as
you
all
probably
know,
has
a
killer
body.
And
in
other
movies
we've
seen
her
in
she
has
shown
that
she's
an
amazing
performer
as
well,
even
doing
the
nastiest
stuff
imaginable.
But
here
she
is
clearly
not
having
any
fun
at
all. Natural?
Yes.
Amateur?
Yes.
Of
special
interest
to
all
of
her
fans
who
want
to
see
her
in
action
before
she
was
a
star?
Yes. Sexy?
Hmmmm.
Well.
Not
in
our
opinion.
She
just
looks
too
damn
unhappy. Moving
on
to
other
things
. .
. Like
a
lot
of
personal
photographer
sites,
Matt's
Models
is photography-based.
Yes
it
has
videos,
but
the
essence
of
it
is
the
photography.
The
newest
stuff
is
1000x1600
pixels
and
looks
very
sharp.
A
lot
of
the
big
name
studio
photography
sites
have
bigger
pics
now
(4000
and
even
6000
pixel)
but
we've
never
understood
the
need
to
go
that
big.
Things
look
fine
here.
Most
of
the
stuff
is
solo
girl
posing.
It's
not
totally
anti-glam,
because
the
girls
sometimes
wear
semi-sexy
clothes
and
a
bit
of
make-up,
but
it
is
pretty
pared
down.
Often
they're
just
stripping
out
of
their
jeans
and
t-shirts,
and
there
aren't
any
fancy
sets.
Usually
the
posing
just
takes
place
on a
bed
or a
couch. The
archives
go
all
the
way
back
to
1999,
and
since
there
are
substantial
daily
updates
(sometimes
several
a
day)
you
know
you're
getting
a
lot
of
stuff.
The
"body
count"
when
we
visited
was 795 models,
760
videos,
and 210, 680
photos
in 2, 418
galleries.
The
search
functions
are
pretty
basic,
allowing
you
to
browse
by
model,
by
category
of
action,
or
through
a
"titty
directory"
organized
by
cup
size.
The
video
was
actually
pretty
well
filmed
and
looked
up
to
"professional"
porn
standards
(assuming
that
isn't
an
insult),
though
the
quality
we
felt
could
have
been
kicked
up a
bit.
The
newer
clips
were
available
as
Windows
Media
or
QuickTime
files,
but
were
only
formatted
at
640x480
and
1000
kb/s.
That's
pretty
much
average
nowadays.
And
you
only
get
this
highest
quality
with
the
new
movies.
The
older
stuff,
from
before
2004
say,
did
not
look
good
at
all
(320x240,
sub-500
kb/s).
And
the
thumbnailing
for
the
older
movies
is
inadequate
as
well.
In
fact
sometimes
all
you
get
are
text
links. Finally,
or
actually
continuing
on
that
last
point,
there
is
the
presentation.
This
definitely
loses
marks.
The
site
has
an
unattractive
look
to
it,
once
again
wearing
its
amateur
status
on
its
sleeve.
There
were
lots
of
places
where
mistakes
in
the
presentation
of
text
left
us
looking
at
coding
tags
in
the
written
material.
Doesn't
Matt
give
this
stuff
a
quick
once-over?
The
navigation
is
pretty
straightforward,
which
is
vital
for
such
a
large
site,
but
little
things
were
missing.
There
didn't
seem
to
be
any
place
to
rate
or
provide
comments
on
individual
sets,
for
example.
Which
left
us
wondering
how
the
"Top
30"
models
were
being
determined. This
point
about
presentation
is
worth
expanding
on a
bit,
since
we're
being
critical.
That
the
content
here
is
amateur
and
anti-glam
is
one
thing.
But
that
doesn't
mean
the
experience
of
the
site
has
to
be
like
that.
Obviously
Matt
isn't
going
head-to-head
with
mega-studio
photography
sites
like
MET
Art,
Explicite,
or Digital
Dreamgirls,
which
offer
a
lot
more
bells
and
whistles
(like
seven
different
video
download
options,
etc.).
But
the
thing
is,
other
authentic
amateur
sites
like
Abby
Winters
or Simonscans,
also
have
far
superior
site
design.
They've
shown
how
amateur
content
can
be
packaged
in
an
attractive,
professional
way.
Matt's
Models
doesn't
show
well
in
comparison. (Of
course,
Pornreports
is
probably
the
shittiest-looking
and
least
functional
review
site
out
there,
but
that's
because
we
don't
make
any
money.
It's
not
because
we
don't
want
to
have
a
nicer-looking
site
that's
easier
to
use.)
It
seems
we've
written
rather
a
lot
here.
Let's
try
and
summarize
then.
Bottom
line:
It's
a
good
price
for
loads
of
exclusive
content,
coming
at
you
with
a terrific
update
schedule.
Great
amateur
girls
you
won't
have
seen
before,
and
a
surprising
number
of
familiar
faces
from
before
they
were
stars.
A
natural
atmosphere
and
a
pleasant,
laid
back
focus
on
personality.
Matt
is a
hands-on
webmaster
who
obviously
takes
a
real
interest
in
the
running
of
his
site
and
the
work
he
does. As
we've
tried
to
explain
in
this
review,
our
complaints
have
to
do
with
the
crudeness
of
both
the
production
and
presentation.
It
is
not
a
nice
looking
site,
the
tech
specs
are
disappointing
(especially
for
all
of
the
older
stuff),
and
the
material
itself
is
amateur
in
both
a bad
way
as
well
as a
good.
Do
we
recommend
it?
Absolutely.
As
we
began
by
saying,
it's
one
of
the
genuine
classics
in
the
amateur
niche.
But
we
have
to
part
company
with
those
reviewers
(which,
as
we
also
began
by
saying,
is
just
about
everyone
else)
who
rank
this
one
of
the
very
best
sites
out
there.
Of
course,
and
as
always,
you're
free
to
browse
their
contrary
opinions,
collected
below. |
