| Review:
A
word
we
tend
to
use
a
lot
around
here
at Pornreports
is
"presentation."
This
encompasses
pretty
much
everything
you
see
or
experience
on
the
site
aside
from
the
content.
The
content,
to
put
it
another
way,
is
what
is
being
presented.
What
we
mean
by
presentation
is
layout,
navigation,
editorial
material
(including
spelling
and
grammar
if
it's
atrocious
and
misleading),
the
attractiveness
of
the
design,
etc. At
Tight
Clothes
the
presentation
sucks.
It's
a
really
bare-bones
design
built
around
two
main
indexes:
models
and
videos.
Just
thumbnails
on a
black
background.
In
the
case
of
the
video
index
the
thumbnails
are
totally
inadequate.
Just
one
tiny
(104x79
pixel)
pic
per
movie.
Even
for
short
clips--and
these
all
run
from
2 to
7
minutes--this
isn't
enough.
There
isn't
much
editorial
material.
Navigation
is
basically
all
done
from
these
two
index
pages.
No
searching
or
classification
scheme.
Well,
they
do
have
some
movies
marked
SV
and
NV
for
"soft
video"
and
"naughty
video",
but
since
this
isn't
a
hardcore
site
those
descriptions
have
even
less
meaning
than
you
might
imagine. However,
judging
from
the
site's
"Mission
Statement"
none
of
this
bugs
them.
Here's
what
they
say
you're
going
to
get
(cut
and
paste): -
Tight
Clothing
fetish
Pictures
and
Video's
in
High
Quality
- We
also
love
wet
and
transparent
clothing
Clean
shaved
girls
-
Lycra
Nylon
Spandex
etc..
-
Girls
in
sexy
Tight
sportswear
-
Tight
Lingerie
and
pantyhose.
-
Never
seen
before
Danish
first
timer
amateur
models
-
Actually
we
enjoy
all
erotic
clothing
girls
-
All
nude!
-
All
models
here
will
be
clean
shaved
-
Cameltoe
effect
and
more
-
Mums
- We
will
satisfy
your
Obsession
and
secret
clothing
fantasy
- We
will
provide
different
pictures
and
Video's
all
in
Very
High
quality
-
(Full
Nude,
Nonude,
sexy,
but
also
Naughty
girls
will
be
to
find
here)
- We
will
surprise
you
again
and
again
!!!
- We
will
produce
Video's
and
Photos
as
We
like.
That's
the
best
way
to
serve
you. And
what
is
their
mission
NOT? -
Providing
sophisticated
HTML/ASP/JAVA/CGI
or
other
scripts
-
Spending
our/members
money
and
time
creating
elegant
graphic
layout
because:
We
know
that
you
will
recognize
Quality
Contents
when
you
see
it
In
other
words:
Yeah,
this
is
an
ugly
site.
But
it's
the
"Quality
Contents"
that
really
counts,
so
deal
with
it.
They
aren't
going
to
waste
"our/members
money"
on
making
it
look
nice. Fair
enough.
But
really,
it
wouldn't
cost
too
much
to
make
this
a
nicer
experience
for
the
members.
Obviously
the
quality
of
the
content
is
the
most
important
thing,
but
the
presentation
does
make
a
difference. But
moving
on
to
the
content
. .
. The
stuff
here
is
all
exclusive
material
put
out
by a
group
called
TCP
(Tight
Clothes
Production).
You
will
see
lots
of
girls
posing
in
lycra/spandex,
panties,
bikinis,
and
nylons/pantyhose.
The
emphasis
is
on
cameltoes.
A
lot
of
the
time
they
get
their
tight
clothes
wet
which
makes
them
see-through.
The
photosets
and
videos
are
also
strip-tease,
so
you
do
see
most
of
the
girls
getting
out
of
their
clothes
entirely
at
the
end
and
sometimes
even
a
bit
of
masturbation
follows.
In a
few
of
the
sets
you
get
a
couple
of
girls
together
(but
never
any
guys).
And
there
is
also
some
outdoor
voyeurism
I-spy-cameltoe
stuff
and
a
bit
of
WAM
(wet
and
messy)
content
as
well. The
girls
on
the
whole
are
pretty
good.
The
site
says
they
are
all
Danish
amateurs.
Maybe
they
are.
Since
none
of
the
movies
we
saw
had
any
of
them
talking
we
couldn't
tell
you.
Not
that
we
would
recognize
anyone
speaking
Danish
anyway.
Most
of
them
look
young
and
shaved.
There
were
60
of
them
in
the
model
index
when
we
visited.
Not
much
in
the
way
of
bios
or
anything. The
photos
are
a
nice
size
(980x1300)
and
look
bright
and
sharp.
They
aren't
really
professional
though.
Much
the
same
could
be
said
for
the
video.
Most
of
these
come
in a
choice
of
formats:
mpeg,
wmv,
and
RealPlayer.
Bit
rate
was
good
(between
600
and
1000
kb/s),
but
they
seemed
to
all
be
formatted
at a
small
screen
size
(380x280).
As
noted,
there
is
no
talking.
So
you
get
the
silent
treatment
with
the
girl
stripping
and
posing.
Or
else
really,
really
bad
music.
The
filming
is
not
first
rate.
In
one
movie
the
cameraman
shoots
himself
accidentally
in a
mirror.
In
another
you
even
see
him
kicking
his
foot
out
to
get
a
girl
to
spread
her
legs
wider.
The
sets
are
not
sets.
One
girl
climbs
up
on a
kitchen
counter
and
lies
back,
rubbing
her
nose
into
the
bottles
of
dishwashing
soap
that
have
been
left
there.
Behind
her
you
can
see
where
the
paint
is
peeling
off
the
wall.
Apparently
having
a
nice
set
isn't
part
of
the
quality
content
either.
But
it
stuff
like
that
really
doesn't
mean
shit
to
you,
we
have
to
admit
they
do a
nice
job
of
shooting
the
'toes. They
advertise
20,000
plus
pics
and
150
videos.
That
may
be
right
for
the
pics,
but
we
didn't
see
that
many
videos.
We
counted
just
over
120.
Looks
like
it's
updating
once
a
week.
Given
how
short
most
of
the
movies
are
this
isn't
a
load
of
content,
but
with
exclusive
fetish
stuff
you
have
to
make
some
allowances.
Unfortunately,
when
you
factor
in
the
just
average
video
quality,
the
low
production
costs,
and,
yes,
the
crude
presentation,
we
can't
give
it a
strong
recommendation.
OK
if
you're
a
die-hard
crotch-watcher,
but
even
so
it's
kind
of
pricey. |
