Been on this board only a few months but finding a common thread with respect to how providers look in person versus the pics. Most providers I met look much better in person. However, I see glowing ads all the time and check out the pics and see older and larger women than I would expect. Yet,  I see 8s and 9s for their looks. What gives?, are these pics accurate or the reviews?

Some pics are out of date.
Some are not representative.
Some pics are Photoshoped for age and weight.
Some (BP especially) aren't even the person.
Some don't do the person justice, not at all uncommon.
Some don't show faces (even the beautiful ones) and women's bodies can look quite young over time.
And there's often some scoring inflation, especially when the session was good.
   Sadly, some major scoring deflation happens with "bad" sessions. They should be separate!!
And people do sometimes change in months. I recall once putting on nearly 20# in a month!
And so on ....

*** The best thing is to read enough reviews and read between the lines a bit; do your research. And ask around about the things you're that are important to you. Look at all the pics. Read the Friday shills, too. Look at multiple sites, etc.

I'm responding in part because I take pics part-time. The lens "lies" without any help from Photoshop or anything else if used well. Lighting "lies." Even the pose "lies." Everyone wants to look their very best. A pic taken at "Glamour Shots" will look better than your cell phone shot taken when you wake up in the morning.

I don't like but one in 100 of pics taken of me. Why should it be different for a provider?

The lens and lighting, etc. tell GOOD lies and BAD lies. A wide angle shot of you butt is gonna make it look really, really, big. Great if that's what you're going for!

Photoshop is appropriate to fix the bad lies, and to remove blemishes or identifying tattoos, etc. I only ask one thing when I take pics ... that someone seeing them will agree that it is the person and the pic is indeed representative. Hopefully, the pic shows them at their best, though, so don't be shocked when you see something less than the "perfection" you expected from the pics. As a benign example, if a girl has knobby knees, I'm not bringing that to the forefront. Do you look as good as your passport photo? Do you look as bad as you driver's license photo?

Example: As a tennis player, how could I not have had a distant crush on Anna Kornikova, who has made more money modeling than playing tennis. Which Anna do you like better?  If I met her, I'd expect to meet someone somewhere in the middle of these two pics:

I was just going to say that being horny covers up a multitude of sins....but your post is way better.

And perhaps deservedly so IMHO.  A woman who greets me like she is ready to have a good time to does look better to me than she would if she were just going through the motions.

Whitney Cohen. This is just a simple wide angle shot on green-screen with very, very minimal "body" work. The clothes, accessories, lens choice and pose created the look. Almost all of the "Photoshop" done was for lighting and mood (well and the sunset backdrop, of course). I have this same pic on a traditional muslin and I don't know which I like more. But Whitney is a fun, fun girl and likes this version. There's a really cool third version (kind of outrageous), but I'll leave that unveiling to her:

Like any tool, Photoshop can be abused, or, as in this low-res picture,
it can be used to make a really hot girl look her best!

Nice job, Mark.  And thanks for sharing some of your expertise with us--when it comes to visual, i'm, good as a recipient but not very good at creating a good visual.