ChicagoEighty, Axxel, macdaddy1944 and Cubs17 have all made some astute comments about photos as representations of a provider as well as about the nature of these person-to-person transactions.
As some have bluntly observed, this isn't Match.com —and certainly not eHarmony or christiansingles.com. Men expecting to find true love and women expecting universal and unconditional adulation for their charms via these encounters should at minimum be prepared for disappointment.
That said, pictures can be deceiving to the disadvantage of the subject of the photo. Odd as it may sound, even a presumably good set of pictures might not suitably highlight attractive features or appealing qualities in a woman or otherwise be a faithful representation of what one will meet.
That at least has been my experience on more than one occasion —so I've had the good fortune to have been pleasantly surprised. And, on the other hand, on a couple of occasions, the lady appeared just as represented in a picture but somehow didn't deliver the hoped-for thrill.
Not to get too poetic here, but to paraphrase Elizabeth Barrett Browning, "How can you disappoint me? Let me count the ways."
And it's not my idea of a good time to spend what still seems to me big money in order to come away disappointed.
I view photos as impressions —using them mainly to weed out the blatantly unappealing or fake. Reading or interpreting a picture is an imperfect art. In fact, once a photo seems not incongruent with other pertinent information about a lady, I try not to look more deeply into it. I don't want to start nurturing some ideas about a woman, based on a picture, that may be at odds with how she actually comes across in person and what she will be like with me.
In general, though, shadowy shots, odd angles, and contorted poses do suggest that a woman has something to hide that I'm going to find disappointing.
For what it's worth