Dakota <wanderer@badlands.org> wrote in news:
> I don't recall the names of the ones I referred to as ugly because I
> have just randomly downloaded some pics now and then and don't save them.
> Some of the newer models look to be crowding 30, though I'm sure they
> are not that old. I don't save any Newstar models now, even though
> some of them may be cute, because the photography is uniformly shitty.
It sure is. Dull, dull, dull outfits, every 30 sets you might get to see
one millimeter of areola, wearing thongs and see-through tights with
covering underwear on top. The only thing you'll get once in a while are a
couple of buttcrack shots.
Also the images are rather unacceptably low-resolution by modern standards.
In fact, even 8-10 years ago there were studios with bigger, better pics
than these.
|
|
![Favorite](javascript:myfavor('http://nzbot.com/article/alt.binaries.newstar/316', 'Re: Why is no one else posting? {T^T} - "laura-400-042.jpg" - 42 files (2/2)')){kind=link}