Seiko Matsuda
Go to IMDb page
Feet rating stats (171 total votes)
107
beautiful
beautiful
19
nice
nice
30
ok
ok
5
bad
bad
10
ugly
ugly
Rating: | (beautiful feet) |
You Rated: | (click to rate) |
Email me on new: Pictures Wall Posts |
Gallery Settings
more info6 pictures were removed from this gallery.
People who liked Seiko Matsuda's feet, also liked:
Comment section
The comment section is intended for intellectual discussions over symmetry and aesthetics.
Insultive/bigoted/sexually explicit comments and political discussions are prohibited.
Describing of fantasies is prohibited. Videos/links must follow the same standards as photos.
In short - stay classy ;)
Insultive/bigoted/sexually explicit comments and political discussions are prohibited.
Describing of fantasies is prohibited. Videos/links must follow the same standards as photos.
In short - stay classy ;)
* Enforced by The Guild more info
User rated ★★★★★(beautiful feet)
|
2024-07-15 03:12:58 Welcome Seiko Matsuda.
|
User rated ★★★★★(beautiful feet)
|
2016-02-24 01:39:44 Awh.......Sunday morning with this delicious woman!!!!! So beautiful and petite. Gorgeous feet and amazing toes!!!!! LOVELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
2016-02-24 03:00:54 Today is Wednesday......
|
2016-02-24 03:36:37 It's only Tuesday here. Can you tell me about the Wednesday stock market or lotto winners? ;)
|
2016-02-24 05:32:51 Gee, @moebius- THANKS for the help!
*Now* it's also Wednesday here. I'd have given you a cut on those winning lotto numbers! ;) Maybe tomorrow? (Like the sign in the pub: "Free Beer Tomorrow") |
2016-02-03 04:08:22 @Alien- Yeah, well you turned this one A/C with your wardrobe malfunction. Put you man-boob away.
By the way... Nice... uh... HAT. |
2016-02-03 04:10:20 TOGA! TOGA! TOGA!
|
2016-02-03 04:16:37 ♪♫ I gave my love a cherry without a stone
I gave my love a chicken without a bone I gave my love a ring that had no end I gave my love a baby with no crying... ♪♫ |
2016-02-24 03:24:27 Agree man-boob!!!! 8
|
2016-02-24 03:37:54 Should I report for AC???
|
2016-02-24 03:42:12 Nope. Report for "Poor Taste/Disgusting."
|
2016-02-24 03:42:59 I wish I could lol.
|
2016-02-24 03:44:31 @BiB: I don't think it specifies that "Poor quality" refers only to low-res pics.
|
2016-02-24 03:46:54 @TJG- You're not the first person to suggest that, but I've never had the guts to try, although I've seen some pretty disgusting and inappropriate pics and even *galleries* that I wish weren't here.
Hey, but we're inclusive... something for everyone here, right? "Only on Wikifeet!" |
2016-02-24 04:20:16 @TJG
I disagree that "Poor Quality" should refer to low-res. I believe low-res pics should be reported as "Duplicate" and only after a higher-res pic of the same shot is posted. I suggest discontinuing the "Poor Quality" report category altogether as it has led to many pics, especially rare ones (and the rarity often means only low-res is available), being removed. |
2016-02-24 04:58:26 @moebius- So, what do you do with *really* crappy pics that are very low-res (like 150 x 250) AND/OR so blurry from motion or out-of-focus, or very dark screencaps, or shot from 300 yards with a 55mm normal lens, where you can barely tell there's a *girl* let alone if she has *feet* showing?
Currently, the lower-res duplicates *are* properly reported 'duplicates' except by a few errant reporters who use 'PQ' for that purpose, and *that* causes confusion. You may have a MQ or HQ pic being upgraded by HQ/UHQ but see "PQ" on it and assume its a troll/false report (not realizing there is a newer higher-res upgrade 'duplicate'). |
2016-02-24 05:00:59 Addendum: About a year ago, the Admin promised that he would 'think of something' in order to eliminate the PQ reports in rare/obscure galleries and especially *vintage* galleries where no HQ digital photography even existed during that era (pre-oughties or pre-90s). So far, he has done nothing about it beyond the *rule* that everyone ignores. We suggested disabling PQ reports in galleries with less than xx pics (25? 50? 99?)
|
2016-02-24 05:03:24 @BiB - It's only been a year relax.
|
2016-02-24 05:22:37 @Joker- I know. Patience is a virtue. I posted Eli's schedule for completion of all new features & upgrades earlier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic |
2016-02-24 05:26:23 @BiB
I would use "No Feet Showing" for the blurry/dark/distant pics. The only pics I myself have reported as "PQ" are grainy blow-ups of low-res pics that are larger in SIZE but actually just as poor in resolution as the low-res original pic it was blown up from (and which is also already present on the site). |
2016-02-24 05:30:46 Well, I think what you're saying makes sense, but good luck getting it changed. See my post, just above yours.
|
User rated ★★★★★(beautiful feet)
|
2016-02-03 04:11:50 @BIB,Can't that's my best feature.
|