This is one of the reasons why we don't believe in extreme photo shopping.
In this industry you can either be straight up or not.
My question to you gentlemen, would the link below be acceptable or would you consider them crossing the line into a lie.
Lee Dreams
"It's all about integrity."
Lee, the only one I really have a problem with is the last one where the womans' waistline underwent an attractive and, alas I think, a misleading reduction.
The others were pretty minor and not material in my view. I wouldnt be put off by any of them.
They were all just professionaly done pictures which I think should be clear to anyone looking at them protraying the woman in the best possible light.
ehhh....I think they are pretty extreme. Makeup would the the best possible light...or lighting....or dressing up...but changing things to that degree would be lying. Its like buying a flawless clean shiny car on ebay where the pictures show something of true beauty, and getting a dented up flawed look a like with all the problems brushed out.
Would you complain and return it or keep it and say "it was just shown in its best possible light"?
Those are not minor changes. Those pics take Decades off the look of those women.
I just don't get it. Isn't it known that someone is interested in you the way you really look. Why cause problems by making radical changes to a real picture so that the visitor is shocked when he arrives.
I just won't ever get it.
if 50 percent of the people stay then they win.
Too many guys are quick to post on pics they beleive are misleading. This will tarnish a girls' reputation for all to see leading to much less activity.
I personally know girls who are very sensitive that their pics are realistic so they avoid any chance of this happening to them.
On the other hand, if we are talking BP posters, I agree with you 100%. They will do pretty much whatever they think will generate calls.
There are lots of pictures that are glamorous and not accurate on agency web sites. My best guess is that:
1) guys are just excited about having sex with someone under 50 so they thing anyone looks awesome; or
2) guys are afraid to make noise because so many who made noise or walked out when the girl was much different from the pics gets banned from that agency.
The agency gets steady cash from anyone who stays, even the guys who stays for fear of getting banned. The community here doesn't help in that regard. Plenty of guys tell what is happening but there are too many of us going in to play anyway. I am probably guilty of that just like the next guy. I have never seen anyone on BP so I am only talking about agency girls and independents. Frankly, the independents I have seen look more like their pictures. Also, on the few occasions where I felt misled, they were fine with me leaving.
Photoshop is bad for the hobby. But because so many of us allow this crap to continue it's worse on the hobbyist.
Some of these may not cross the line into "lying" territory, but almost all of them are excessive, and some to a degree that is intended to deceive.
While I get the "numbers game" argument for indies on Backpages etc., what I don't understand is the increasing trend in agencies to excessively photoshop the pics. If you take a look at some of the shots on the sites of Class, DMVIndys, Elite Girl Friends, the skin has been so softened using noise reduction filters in PS that the bodies of the girls no longer look real - they look like some computer generated image. This to me is a real detraction, since now you just really don't have a good idea about what they are really going to look like. All you have is some facsimile. And for me skin is an important feature, so when it is completely washed out with filters, a crucial piece of info is now missing.
Some editing is normal and expected, it just shouldn't be so extensive, and it shouldn't be done to "slim" waistlines, elongate legs, cover up cellulite, etc.
Something that I see on Backpages sometimes is a combination of glam photos, fully shopped, and a cel phone image, provided almost as a reality check. Not a bad idea.
I believe they have gone too far with the photoshopping. I look at it this way...hit me with how you are!
Reason, if you ( you being generic, not anyone specific) begin to 'touch up' a picture what else have you 'touched up?' Can I trust the words on a webpage that the pictures would be on? So would a person be describing who they readlly are or is the personaltity 'touched up' as well? My list could go on but I choose to stop here as we are only talking about picture, but I think some like Lee will understand what I am geting at.
If a person presents the 'real' them in pictures then I have a better idea who the 'real' you is and can better trust other areas and thus make a better decision.
Photoshopping is really bad for this business. The magazine industry has already stretched it to the limit. Have you seen some of the ads in journals? The models look like department store mannequins. And now it has descended upon us hobbyists. Here are a few examples of photoshopping that I keep seeing:
1. Tattoos that are brushed out. Providers should not have to hide tattoos in their photos. The client is going to see them anyway.
2. Darker skinned providers trying to look lighter than they really are. A FBSM agency in Northern Virginia is currently pulling this stunt on their website ad.
3. Birth marks, freckles, and moles that were brushed out of the photographs suddenly become visible in the hotel room in all their glory.
Providers should live or die on what they have. Lying to clients will only increase mistrust and wipe out repeat business. Let's not kid ourselves here, repeat business is a vital source of revenue that scammers can never enjoy.
I have a tattoo, and it's not a secret I have it, but my tattoo is very unique. Airbrushing it out is for privacy.
And yes, a client is going to see it anyway. Have yet to have anyone complain. I actually have seen people multiple times who on a third or fourth visit say "You got a tattoo?" Also, I know another lady who airbrushes out her tattoos for the same reason I do, and even states on her site in her "Gallery" sections that she does so. Same applies for distinctive birthmarks.
In these cases ladies aren't trying to deceive anyone, but rather remain private/anonymous since their sites/ads are public.
#2 Confuses me. Trying to look lighter? So if I take my photos in January and you see me in March after a trip to Peru, am I a liar? I actually have photos with visible tan lines, and others where I am at my palest. Just a coincidence really, not trying to trick anyone. Being darker part of the year than another is a fact of life.
Airbrushing out a tattoo or small scar (Most girls do this for anonymity) or a pimple or two (which will eventually disappear), is not lying. So all photo-shopping should not be admonished. If someone seems completely different - really different to the point where you couldn't recognize her - then I understand.
Airbrushing was not created by escorts. Techniques some ladies use are right out of magazines like Playboy and Penthouse. A -Jolie, Kim K., Jen Aniston, Jessica S. and JLo airbrush their bums/legs because of cellulite, but if you had the chance to be with one of them in the flesh would you say "OMG, you lied. Shame on you," and then storm out? Probably not.
A good photographer will have a lady pose or use lighting where photo-shopping may not be necessary, so is that considered "lying" or just creative? For example, almost everyone's ass looks big and cellulite free when they are bending over. Taking a photo above a person makes them seem slimmer. I could go on, but you get my drift.
I am against blurring/airbrushing my skin in photos too much because it starts to look fake, but everyone does not share my feelings.
In the end, no use in getting upset over girls who photo-shop a lot as it is always your choice to see her or not. Also, it seems a bit naive if you see a woman's photo who seems perfect and you think she really looks like that. Even supermodels get touched up in photos and that's after pro photographers with perfect lighting and expensive hair and make up.
-- Modified on 5/16/2011 10:36:37 AM
madonna and jessica alba...we see why madonna needed it..but jessica was already gorgeous
http://www.futurederm.com/2010/02/02/unattainable-beauty-the-decades-most-egregrious-retouching-scandals-newsweek-mot/
...And that's why we "tricks" must be careful. I've experineced on a number of occsassions where the pics were airbrushed so that it made the provider appear 20 years younger than she really was. This was determined when she opened the door...."wow, you're the girl in the PICs but how she looked 10 - 20 years ago."
It's cool......simply have to adhear to buyer beware and read the reviews where some will admit that the PICs were "painted" as such to make the product more appealing than it is live and in person.
How old did she claim to be? 20 years off of my age and I would only attract pedophiles, and I'm not that young.
.....where the provider claimed 27 and was clearly 45+ and/or had some rough times and/or waaaayy tooo much sun. Her PICs were airbrusehd such that it made her skin flawless and tight. I did know they were significantly airbrushed but never imagined one would make the PICs that dramatically airbrushed.
I looked at those pics, they really do make the woman look much younger and different they they were in the original pics. I think it was too much. I can see correcting the light if the picture is dark or the tone off, but it should be corrected to correctly show the person represented in the pic.
The only editing ever done on my pics is to crop my face or something in the background out. There is no airbrushing, no other editing. I believe in showing you what you are really getting. I don't have a perfect body, I'm a mother and 47 and overweight. But I show you what I am. If you like it, great, if not, I understand that too. What would I gain from misrepresenting myself? Nothing, except a bad reputation.
I would much rather have someone come see me and be pleasantly surprised at how pretty I am, than to be disappointed because I did not resemble my photos. It is a personal choice. I choose not to photoshop my pics to improve my image. Never have, never will.
Betty xoxo
As Vanica stated, some minor fixing of blemishes (zits) is one thing, but then the image in the photo CAN'T open the door, then it's false advertising and the lady deserves to be walked out on.
IMO, the same holds true with a good makeup, posing & lighting, which is just as deceptive as PS, and do not forget the ancient photos which are 5, 10 or ore years old.
There are a few ladies (from my personal experience) here in the DC area that are 100% as good as they appear: Mea Culpa, the ladies I have seen from Pure GF, Sonya & Ashley and Apple, Erica & Mischa (all three now gone). This is not an exhaustive list, but these are the standouts form my experiences here.
Many others are not bad, but have used makeup, lighting or PS to assist. I think the more prevalent problem tends to be the old photos which are no longer accurate. IMO, there are some "older" travelling ladies who tend to use PS quite a bit.
makeup.
I wear makeup and wear it everyday and each time I work. Does that make me a liar LOL
I guess all women are liars...between push up bras, spray tans and cosmetics. But its been this way from the dawn of time.
Ask yourself ....if jessica alba answered the door even after seeing that after shot depicted with PS in an ad, would any of you complain?
I wouldn't.....send her this way if you do.