Rating
Statistics
| Published | 17 years ago |
|---|---|
| Uploaded by | Nékos |
| Dimensions | 800 600 |
| Category | Naked Babes |
| Series | |
| Views | 11494 |
| Comments | 12 |
Tags
| Published | 17 years ago |
|---|---|
| Uploaded by | Nékos |
| Dimensions | 800 600 |
| Category | Naked Babes |
| Series | |
| Views | 11494 |
| Comments | 12 |
This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity. By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content.
Sure thing. I rate by both the quality of the girl and the quality of the pic.
To be honest, they go together. A really pretty girl that has a shitty photographer can look like a real howler. By the same token, my butt's twin sister can appear rather sexy if the photographer is good.
So both go into the pic, and thus it's fair to consider both in my opinion.
In this case, we have a really good picture of a very attractive woman, but part of her face is too dark for me to see it well, and a tad more lighting would show off her muscle tone and tight stomach better, which are incredibly important features in a beautiful girl for me, so it mattered.
If the picture was better (more light) it'd be a 10. I still gave it an 8, because she's really that fucking hot!
That is an interesting thought. How do you rate pics, By the quality of the pic or the girl, what she shows or the quality of what she shows?
I rated her a 10 by the way.
Thanks for posting.