In this hobby of ours... Is PhotoShop "Misrepresentation"?

I can appreciate providers using photoshop to obfuscate any sort of ink which would be instantly recognizable.

The flip to that is, some hobbyists are into ink, and may be quite disappointed in finding tattoos they were not expecting. Originally Posted by oldtiger

aren't not are.....

1. Don't try to make it look like you have one or two small tats when they cover half your body. Originally Posted by sms918

this is very unlikely to happen, for one simple reason: it's far harder than you imagine to remove a tattoo from an image and do a truly professional job of it. it can take HOURS of work that's very hard to get paid for.

by "professional" i mean you'd never know there had been a tat, even at 100% magnification in photoshop.

anything less than that, and even an untrained eye will see something wrong if it's a very big tat.

from a non-photogrphic standpoint....unless the issue is one of it being the same person in the pics, i really don't see why some guys get so fired up about tats. if you get next to some hot ass and the unexpected tattoo is a deal breaker then you got problems, son!

Ms. Slave,

Then we agree. As long as the photo is a "very real depiction" of the lady answering the door, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. I wouldn't.

Ian

Slave, that is one lucky blue bunny[/COLOR]! Originally Posted by sms918;1054964327
[COLOR=DeepSkyBlue

Blue Bunny...dammit! I thought it was a Blue Bear with long blue ears... will have to check and see if any of his tatoos have been photo-shopped!

Again... to reiterate... I believe it is both prudent and realistic to have a provider to use photoshop in such a way as to protect:

1. Herself
2. Her children
3. Her family
4. Any friggin' animal who's chasing her down either in cyberspace or the Real World

Candidly... us Boyz can help too....

[*** I have not been paid, given freebes, discounts, more provider time, greek, TUHA, TUMA or fluffers for this post... ahem!]