SP's ads and photoshop

[Rantsalot]

Some girls use Photoshop some dont. We all know that a primary reason guys see girls is for looks and of course girls want to appear immaculate but sometimes too much is too much.

Me? I am not a fan of photoshop but dont mind if its used to cover blemishes ...like scars or blurry spots Obviously altered photographs indicate to me that the individual is being dishonest. When I see this kind of ad I automatically move on to the next one without even considering it.

Correction of blemishes is deceiving as also some added coloring but its not as bad as a total alteration of the subject where say the face is NOTHING what the person looks like....i.e. brown eyes to blue or making the lips unbelievably pouty. A good photographer and model should be able to present something with little to no change.

If I see a girl whom I've found was nothing like the photograph it just spoils the mood and I'd feel taken and cheated and then think ahead as to how the time would be spent after the donation was given. Likely it would not go very well.

Anyone feel passionately about this as I do?

 

[doggee_01]

if someone photoshops out a tatoo or something that would id them i have no problem with that. most reputable agency's usually make a mention that this has been done for privacy reasons

 

[Rantsalot]

...

I'm curious as to the percentage of online and print ads in TO that have and have not been photoshopped. That would be a VERY interesting figure to find out.

 

[to-guy69]

If you don't like what you see at the door, tell her you wanted anal (which most won't do) and that is your "out".

 

[Rantsalot]

...

If you don't like what you see at the door, tell her you wanted anal (which most won't do) and that is your "out".

And if she does???? LOL Then what? Own up or try another out?

LMAO

 

[genintoronto]

I'm curious as to the percentage of online and print ads in TO that have and have not been photoshopped. That would be a VERY interesting figure to find out.

You mean outside of the escort world?

Zero. There's not one printed image that hasn't been photoshopped.

Which partly explains why most escort pics will also be photoshopped, to a certain extend: because we are aware that the pics you are looking at do not exist in a vacuum, and that your eyes will consciously or not compare and judge them in relations to other similar images you've seen before. And where do these other images where girls are (almost) naked come from? Mostly porn and fashion. Both heavily photoshopped.

One way to avoid this is to rely on a different aesthetic and different visuality, by using "amateur" pics for instance. Because (consciously or not) you will judge differently (and typically, be more forgiving) a pic that has an "amateur" feel to it than a "professional" looking pic.

At the end of the day, of course the pics are going to show the women at their best. And I believe that those who play too much with their pics are setting themselves up for failure and hurt feelings. But anyone looking at a professional picture and expecting the lady to look exactly as good and perfect as she does on the pic needs to be told that Santa and the Unicorn don't exist.

 

[Rantsalot]

You mean outside of the escort world?

Zero. There's not one printed image that hasn't been photoshopped.

Which partly explains why most escort pics will also be photoshopped, to a certain extend: because we are aware that the pics you are looking at do not exist in a vacuum, and that your eyes will consciously or not compare and judge them in relations to other similar images you've seen before. And where do these other images where girls are (almost) naked come from? Mostly porn and fashion. Both heavily photoshopped.

One way to avoid this is to rely on a different aesthetic and different visuality, by using "amateur" pics for instance. Because (consciously or not) you will judge differently (and typically, be more forgiving) a pic that has an "amateur" feel to it than a "professional" looking pic.

At the end of the day, of course the pics are going to show the women at their best. And I believe that those who play too much with their pics are setting themselves up for failure and hurt feelings. But anyone looking at a professional picture and expecting the lady to look exactly as good and perfect as she does on the pic needs to be told that Santa and the Unicorn don't exist.

Too clarify , inside the escort world. I'd imagine it's quite high as well.

 

[Rail Thin]

totally agree.... photoshop used for safety reasons is acceptable, but B&S or using a photo that was taken 15 years or 30 lbs ago is totally unacceptable.

I wish all those dating sites would also adhere to using real and current pictures.

 

[Rockslinger]

Talk about online shopping. Other than TERB parties, has anyone (except King21 who seems to meet them all the time) actually seen an escort in the flesh prior to booking?

Escorts photoshopping reminds me of steroid use in baseball. Once one escort photoshops to "enhance" her marketability, then the competition has to do likewise to keep up.

 

[alexmst]

Personally I like the amateur look. When I hire models to work with I like to assess the unique features of each one and try to shoot in a way that makes her look good naturally. It takes work on the photographers part to do this.

Of course to do studio lighting and extensive photoshop work on the images takes work as well. It is a matter of personal opinion as to what looks better.

I will agree with Gen's point that people compare subconsciously images of nude women to other images they have seen of the Playboy, modelling, porn, fashion variety, and that these images are heavily photoshoped. So to give the audience what they want, some/most SP girls want photographers to give them "the look" that fits in and sells. Photographers are paid by SPs to give them the look they want, to earn their fee, and to give the client what she wants.

I am fortunate in that nude photography is my hobby not my career and so I pay models to do the poses I want in the natural lighting I like using the props I pick. I like my results, usually, because they don't look like the normal adult pics. Every photographer has a style, and whether one likes or hates my style doesn't really matter to me - I shoot for my pleasure and creative exploration. I just did a shoot 2 weeks ago with a non-sp professional model semi-nude outdoors in the leaves - piles of red and brown maple leaves with her lying in them, them partly covering her. One reflector, no flash, no tripod, digital SLR handheld with image stabilization on the lens. No photoshop at all.

For SP shots to be used on the net (work which I don't do because to me the eyes are the windows to the soul and I don't like headless or blur-head images which SPs do to protect their identity but models don't) one issue with the natural light non-photoshoped style I like is that the light is subtle, which looks great in 20x24" art prints but can look muddy and hard to see clearly on a monitor as a thumbnail low-res image.

So Rantsalot, I would say most SP net photos are photoshoped. Some indys no, but the agencies all are to varying degrees. I'm not crazy about it, but I know why they do it as it is what most clients like and, either consciously or unconsciously, expect.

 

[Stoo]

Zero. There's not one printed image that hasn't been photoshopped.

Haha... Gen is completely right (in a sarcastic way, being our Gen and all.) I'm in the biz and I can assure you that virtually everything you see in print or in new-fangled media has been "creatively enhanced". When it's done well, it is very difficult for the average Joe to notice.

This vid has been around for a while but it's worth a second look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U

And this one too..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0u0wWOMIsE

 

[Cassini]

Zero. There's not one printed image that hasn't been photoshopped.

This is correct in that Photoshop is just so much part of the post processing for advertising, that essentially everything is photoshopped.

Like all things, the difference is in the details, and there are extremes. On one hand, a photographer can take an image for effect, and really do minimal post-processing. The words are added to the advertising, the colour is fixed, and the image appropriately cropped. At the other extreme, you can essentially "create" a person in photoshop and not have a single pixel from the original image.

It all depends on what the advertiser is trying to achieve. Ultimately for dating, there needs to be a real person. If the person does not match the advertising, I'm going to feel deceived.

 

[Damondean]

SP pix should show as she appears when "on stage." That is, if she projects an elegant image when working, she should dress and be photographed that way. If she is the girl next door, she should look natural. In other words, the pix should reflect reality.

I think blaming Photoshop is the wrong tack. What is really meant is retouching to create a false image, an image that will not be reflected at the door. Plenty of tricks were done in the darkroom and in negative retouching in the days of film.

I recall a now retired lady who was a nice funky girl and had nice natural pix. She decided to hire a high-end fashion photog. (His name begins with S.)

She was nice and slim and had nice features. He produced stunning images. I took a look and said she would have trouble with guys turning away at the door. And that is exactly what happened. She looked nothing like the pic where she was glamorously made up, well groomed and dramatically lit.

As pointed out above, shooting women withoiut showing their face is difficult and often fails to capture the person.

Making an arbitrary "no Phtoshop" rule is a bit naive. What is wanted is honesty in the photo.

 

[genintoronto]

Haha... Gen is completely right (in a sarcastic way, being our Gen and all.)

Heh heh. It's because I'm left that I'm right.

 

[nolabel]

A good photographer and model should be able to present something with little to no change.

Anyone feel passionately about this as I do?

Nope, not passionately. You gotta get out and look at some natural scenery some more. But anyway . . . Note your query depends upon vagueness about what constitutes "something". If by something you mean warts and all accuracy, then of course any photoshopping adds an element of bullshit. And of course if the pic is total photoshop with little resemblance to the girl, well you're right, that's bogus. But in reality, part of what pics - in the field relevant here - are presenting is fantasy. So to the extent the girl is captured in just the way she thinks is most alluring, and as long as its not total photoshop bullshit, then isn't the pic 'good' to the extent it captures the girl in a fantasy light? But doesn't that make the 'something' a mix of reality and fantasy?

anyone looking at a professional picture and expecting the lady to look exactly as good and perfect as she does on the pic needs to be told that Santa and the Unicorn don't exist.

Oh shit, you had to go and ruin it for me, didn't you? Of course, two blows in one sentence and I paid with nothing but my childhood dreams.

Heh heh. It's because I'm left that I'm right.

So if I am further to the Left does that make me more Right?

 

[genintoronto]

So if I am further to the Left does that make me more Right?

No. Those more leftish than me are those with no grasp on material reality.

 

[HOUND_DOG]

Some girls use Photoshop some dont. We all know that a primary reason guys see girls is for looks and of course girls want to appear immaculate but sometimes too much is too much.

Me? I am not a fan of photoshop but dont mind if its used to cover blemishes ...like scars or blurry spots Obviously altered photographs indicate to me that the individual is being dishonest. When I see this kind of ad I automatically move on to the next one without even considering it.

Correction of blemishes is deceiving as also some added coloring but its not as bad as a total alteration of the subject where say the face is NOTHING what the person looks like....i.e. brown eyes to blue or making the lips unbelievably pouty. A good photographer and model should be able to present something with little to no change.

If I see a girl whom I've found was nothing like the photograph it just spoils the mood and I'd feel taken and cheated and then think ahead as to how the time would be spent after the donation was given. Likely it would not go very well.

Anyone feel passionately about this as I do?

I agree with you Rantsalot, one of my pet peeves as well. No problem with photoshopping out personal detaisl, e.g tattoos., or pics of girls looking their best. But when the girl at the door cannot be recognized in the photos, then we have gone too far.

Based on reviews which say "pics really flattered her",etc. and personal experience, have noticed some agencies do this more than others. If someone knows how and thinks its worthwhile , we could have a poll on this!! What agency has the most misleading pics??

 

[alexmst]

No problem with photoshopping out personal detaisl, e.g tattoos.,

I find the photoshop removal of tattoos to be the most deceptive use of all.

 

[Rockslinger]

Cupids pictures are the worst in terms of photoshopped. The girls look so good then you see them in person and you wonder if its the same girl.

Not going to mention names but wasn't there a recent thread about false advertising? Maybe that one was about advertised services and not the ladies' physical appearance based on photos.

 

[HOUND_DOG]

Ok, seriously.
Can someone PM me the details or post on how to set up a poll, I can do it.