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