Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

itsallpink · 04-26-2010, 03:53 PM

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=43454

Thankfully, she includes a second picture with real image. She is a cute chick, but if you are not a TAT guy, you might arrive and be very disappointed based on first pic.

Anyone else agree?

Pink

jfred · 04-26-2010, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsallpink

...if you are not a TAT guy, you might arrive and be very disappointed based on first pic.

I think you're being a bit picky, pinky. Who's gonna look at the first pic and skip the second? And since no one is going to assume that she had that tat removed I just don't see a problem.

itsallpink · 04-26-2010, 04:26 PM

Not complaining about her (as I might want to see her anyway). Just pointing out that a pic can be VERY deceiving and Ive had this happen enough times it is a major pet peeve.

Again, no problem with this cutie specifically, just a general argghh!
PInk

bigtimewaster · 04-26-2010, 04:28 PM

I agree with Pink. If they can wipe out a giant tat, what else can they wipe out?

itsallpink · 04-26-2010, 04:56 PM

Totally agree Noelle. First pic is VERY good of her.

Iaintliein · 04-26-2010, 05:01 PM

For privacy issues some ladies want their tats removed (although probably not the case here since her face is shown). Some "glamor shot" style photos are fine as long as some plain (but hopefully well exposed shots) are included. I like playing with backgrounds on provider pix sometimes.

Personally, I would rather see an "airbrushed" photo than a grainy, under exposed low resolution cell phone pic if only one or the other is available. But again, playing with photoshop and painter is a long time hobby of mine.

Regards,

dentonseek · 04-26-2010, 05:18 PM

Maybe some of you guys are forgiving for whatever reason, but if I looked at picture #1, booked a session and was met by picture #2. I would not only disappointed but I wouldn't go through with the session.

I like that she actually put both pictures in there so there are no surprises later.

DFK Hunter · 04-26-2010, 05:21 PM

Although I'm not a fan of tats I will visit providers that have them as long as I know what I'm getting into. Several times I've visited providers who hid or airbrushed their tats for "privacy" reasons.

The first time this happened to me it was a cute MILF whose pics I'd been lusting over for weeks until we could book a time. Upon arriving at her incall I discovered she had airbrushed or hid a dozen tats that both reviewers and she failed to mention. It was kind of hard to role play the cute Librarian seduction when she had a huge "Harley" tat on one arm and a Wizard screwing an elf on the other. Still managed a good session by keeping my eyes closed. Did not repeat.

The second time I was with a provider who had some hot full frontal nudity pics. She was well reviewed with the obligatory "one non distracting tat" in her reviews. Our session was going great, she was one of the best kissers I've had the pleasure to lock lips with. When I opened her blouse I discovered a huge technicolour Chinese fire breathing dragon that covered the left half her chest including all of her left breast. Whoever did the airbushing on her pics is a Rembrant of photoshop. After I found the fiery beast I kept her top on, only pulled her right breast out to play with, popped my nut, and left with 40 min still on the clock.

There have been others, but you get the idea. Like I said, I don't care for tats, but I'll see providers who have them as long as I know what I'm paying for. In both of these cases the provider told me, after I saw the tats and asked, that they had deliberately altered their photos to remove the distinctive tats for privacy reasons; however, in the above cases I feel I was misled. It's one thing to hide or alter for privacy reasons but a deliberate failure to disclose is altogether different.

A classy example is DecemberLove
who has a very distinctive tat on the small of her back. She shows no pics of that part of her back but she makes sure you know she has one. Because it is distinctive she asks that it not be described and I was cool with that. She's a great lady.

As a result I always try to describe the location and size of any tats I see on a lady I visit and I'll ask providers about their tats prior to seeing them.
That was then, this is now, and if it were to happen again I'd walk.

Tara Evans · 04-26-2010, 06:00 PM

I think she looks great in both pictures.

Jobe0111 · 04-26-2010, 06:05 PM

Airbrushed tat? I'm wondering what is going on with the fore ground leg where it attaches the hip.

She still looks nice though.

DFK Hunter · 04-26-2010, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tara Evans

I think she looks great in both pictures.

I don't think anyone denies that Tara, it's the possibility a client could make an appointment based on the first pic and be shocked at seeing the truth of the second in person. Unlike you, who lays her unbridled beauty and sexiness out for all to see, tats and all.

Tara Evans · 04-26-2010, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFK Hunter

I don't think anyone denies that Tara, it's the possibility a client could make an appointment based on the first pic and be shocked at seeing the truth of the second in person. Unlike you, who lays her unbridled beauty and sexiness out for all to see, tats and all.

Thanks sweetie

Grabazz · 04-26-2010, 09:25 PM

I agree that she looks great in boh pics, but she is probably an exception to the rule.
I shy away from ads where I see heavy professional airbrushing to avoid disappointment later.

am-a-pleaser · 04-26-2010, 09:51 PM

I like recent pic's without airbrushing. But I do understand Noelle's point about her tat and son. That's where reviews are handy.

My pet peeve is the false info on showcases. ie, age, height, weight, proportions, etc. Some of them are ridiculous and obviously false. But, when searching the showcases using various criteria, some ladies are then omitted from the results.

Just be honest. That goes for the gentlemen, too.

Back to topic----A variety of pics is nice. Glamour, full body, natural.

LazurusLong · 04-26-2010, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobe0111

Airbrushed tat? I'm wondering what is going on with the fore ground leg where it attaches the hip.

She still looks nice though.

Well, if she had the photographer photoshop out the tat in that top photo, it looks like she may have asked him to photoshop out some of the thickness of her thighs also. Go take a look at all the photos in her Showcase (proper research that everyone should do) and you will see another large tat on her back and if you look at the last photo in the black pants, you can see that she may have a much larger backside than the other photos show BUT at least she posts enough photos to look and learn. And there are a lot of guys who love a girl with a thicker ass instead of some skinny underfed gal.

Keep in mind that the majority of photographers do what they are paid to do and some will go beyond that by selling the idea of a lot of work (paid of course) to do a lot of changes such as slimming legs and ass, removing arm flab, removing a pooch or other mommy marks.

For those who are complaining, I'd love to see your honest reviews where you let others know of your disappointment when the photo did not resemble the actual lady.

Otherwise you really have no room to complain.