Pictures.

You could take a mug shot of Bella_Bee87 and put it on a Fashion magazine cover without retouching it.......she may be a little different than your average chick that needs modern technology to look her best....

You could take a mug shot of Bella_Bee87 and put it on a Fashion magazine cover without retouching it.......she may be a little different than your average chick that needs modern technology to look her best.... Originally Posted by WhoKnew2

You will never see a picture in a magazine that isn't heavily retouched, no matter who the model is (unless you're talking about a photo in a hard news story).But I agree that Bella is bella. sigh... she's so utterly, beguilingly cute.

When it comes to representation in the hobby, I've always found that it is best to under promise and over deliver.

There's a catch-22/double standard with the "under promise and over deliver" approach. Some will try to read between the lines (even if they're lines of their own imagination) and suspect that any rave reviews are thus the embellished product of WKs currying favor or the provider doing things for the reviewers/posters that she won't do for others/them (YMMV), take offense and then harbor a grudge. Sometimes you can't win for losing.

There's a catch-22/double standard with the "under promise and over deliver" approach. Some will try to read between the lines (even if they're lines of their own imagination) and suspect that any rave reviews are thus the embellished product of WKs currying favor or the provider doing things for the reviewers/posters that she won't do for others/them (YMMV), take offense and then harbor a grudge. Sometimes you can't win for losing. Originally Posted by Carl

EEEK I never thought about that possibility!

You never know why some guy may rave about a provider! I mean, the whole thing is so subjective. Even terms that you think should be set in stone, like spinner should be under 5'4", 110lb, are still constantly up for debate. It's funny because some guys will freak out if we aren't 100% accurate down to the most minute detail. One man recently suggested that we should give our possible weight fluctuation for the time of the month, as if 5 pounds + or - water weight would be detectable or meaningful in decision-making....Maybe we should all weigh-in twice a day and change our weight on our sites, p411, Eccie, up by 2 pounds one day, and down 1 the next, until we drink a big bottle of water, and then we have to go up by 1 lb.

But then I look at my reviews where various heights, weights, boob sizes, etc that have been ascribed to me by reviewers who saw me when I was the exact same height, weight, and breast size. I even had a guy call me a spinner. I don't really care -- I get it. If you asked me to guess a lady's weight I would be absolutely no help.

But I would hate to be accused of giving extra favors because a REVIEWER got my stats wrong or exaggerated my beauty.

Unfortunately, beauty is not the only thing that's in the eye of the beholder. But often it's what the beholder sees that tells you more about the beholder than the object of their gaze.

A photographer should only enhance ( this is done through cropping, color correction and things of that nature). If the provider sees the final product and realizes that the photographer has done serious "alterations", they should not pay, first of all and for sure request the photos be more believable.
As a photographer, if I am asked to make a person look completely different in the photos than in real life, I just say no.

deb