Re: Katie Banks
Don't you just love it when people use fancy words like 'constructive criticism' and then proceed to give anything but constructive criticism?
Allow me to try, though.
Because I do feel there is something in what's being said in some of the posts above. It was layered between some rude remarks and insults, sure, but I did see it and I have to agree with it up to a certain point.
There's something to Katie's face that comes off as just a tiny bit stiff. I never really noticed it based purely on her galleries, but it becomes noticeable when I compare it to, say, Bryci galleries. Bryci is able to convey something fun, part of her personality through the pictures. With Katie, there is some of that in some galleries... but in others, it is just not there. And the thing is, she probably can't help it, that's just the way her face looks. Some people have extremely expressive facial features, others less so.
Now that isn't a slam against Katie. Let me be clear about that. She's hot, she has a face that's as beautiful as her body and her galleries are pretty much up to the usual standards. But in some galleries, there's something stiff and distant to her. Doesn't make her any less hot, doesn't make her any less a model, but it is there. And I can understand why some people don't like it. I am not one of them, though, because this is who Katie is. And also, I believe the perfect erotic photo set doesn't exist.
Final thought: I do feel the Katie photo sets with warmer colors do her way more justice than photo sets with harsh lighting or bigger contrasts between light and dark.
For instance, this gallery (
www.quickbabes.net/katie-banks/purple/katie-1dce4c5.html) looks amazing. There's nothing stiff or distant in that gallery. But then, this latest one (
http://girls.jamesdot.com/Girls/Katie_Banks/Katie_Banks_showing_off_in_the_window) does have the harsher lighting and sharper contrasts. As a result, that last one is not my fave.
There, I've said my bit.
Don't bash me, please.