Photo Accuracy on Agency Sites.

This will be more art than science.

ASA's pics

Asa...body is solid...a little bit of PS but not enough to make me want to change. Originally Posted by MrMing88

Asa has a better body than 90% of women 20 years younger. Originally Posted by Eliot_Spitzer

This comment suggest that Asa is at least late 3X which I agree.

A common technique used is to take face shots of the women and superimpose their face onto the bodies of random model shots. Originally Posted by sdocla

The pic of her relaxing in blue bikini in pool chair seems to be using this technique. The face complexion is much different than on the skin along hairline and rest of body. The pic in yellow bikini appears to have the least PS. The face is clearly her.

CONCLUSION: The pics are actually ASA at least her face in all cases. 1st timers should understand that she is a late 3Xer not a 2Xer. Commenters herein confirmed that she has nice bod.

The pics of Asa in blue bikini is her. Pics taken in flower mound. The pics are all her but I will confirm this week on a visit.

Anyone see Jinny yet of Asian Stars?

I saw her yesterday and put a review up. She’s okay, the pictures are glammed up for sure but it was a good time

I don't know much but I imagine they may want a little privacy/anonymity, and a little photo touch up would do that.

Jut saw Ace at sunflower. Her pictures are definitely her. Glammed but her. She is beautiful, one of the most pretty I've seen yet.

Anyone seeing Macy at hds tomorrow? Her pictures look good if accurate

Scarlett on the hds website 👀

Per review Blue @ Kfest can be added as 3X/4Xer advertised using fake pics.

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2877516

Age: Late 30s maybe early 40s
Physical Description: Pictures on the site do not match, not even close.... she is ok looking Originally Posted by RickyG2002

I have seen a lot of Dallas studios girls and some take more liberty than others in their artistic interpretations as it relates to photography. But I have to say that Asa'a body is 100% exact in the pics.

I assume that's a fundamental requirement of all hobbyists that they want women they consider attractive. The more accurate intel before going in the better.

I'm hoping that guys will post accurate intel on this thread about photos of girls they've seen. Originally Posted by htownhammer

My pet peeve is guys that post reviews with highly subjective information about girls like 'great body' (which usually means 'nice tits'), 'nice ass', 'she's young', etc.

We all like different things, and some guys like a big rack or a big booty and others like me like toned/slender women. It would be nice to either compare the girl to her picture (her butt is bigger than pictured) or compare her to a model/porn star to give an idea of face/body.

It is true that the images are routinely photoshopped. In some cases, I have noticed that the studios in L.A. show the same images that the studios here are using for different girls. So the worst example is when they use photo's of good looking women that are not even remotely the girls you meet. Generally, though, as has already been observed, the pic's look generally like the provider, at least facially, then the breasts are somehow enlarged. Good example of this is Lovely, whose body is very slim, not busty--btw, I'm not complaining, I go to see these girls for their skills, and Lovely is about the best I've seen, just not the girl on the website. Two girls I have seen multiple times that are definitely the ones in the pictures are Banana and Thai Abby. Another one who is very close to her pictures is Wynn, whom I have seen over a dozen time in the last 10 years.