Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: What do you think of a agency using formats not detectable through reverse image ?

  1. #1
    Gorgeous ladies Fanatic
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Northern emisphere
    Posts
    5,925

    What do you think of a agency using formats not detectable through reverse image ?

    Hello all



    Specifically when its not all there staff ?
    The images in question are in htm
    And Google image only verifies the following formats: .jpg, .gif, .png, .bmp, .tif, or .webp.
    Isn't it suspicious ,that the person in the pics might not be the same ?



    Cheers




    Booker

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,949
    If you have doubt, You can always screen capture the pic and save it on your HDD and use google image to upload you saved pic and search it on the web.

    Often, web sites are designed to make it less easy to steal the pics with a simple right click.
    On annonce123, right click is disabled.

    Agencies like MSC use Watermarks to discourage stealing of pics. MSC actually use watermarks outrageously and it is annoying according to me.

  3. #3
    They better not use undetected format because I often check how authentic the pics are. I use tinyEye. Agencies should just put a subtle watermarks

  4. #4
    The images in question are in htm
    htm is not an image format, what happens is that the browser erroneously names the image extension with the webpage extension.

    Just rename the image(s) with a .jpg or .png extension.

  5. #5
    Gorgeous ladies Fanatic
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Northern emisphere
    Posts
    5,925
    Quote Originally Posted by foobarator View Post
    htm is not an image format,
    The citation was a copie paste from Google image ,after the pic was uploaded.

    The Snipping Tool was very helpful to get the images searched



    Cheers




    Booker

  6. #6
    F1 Fan
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    28
    There are all kinds of tricks webmasters use to try to protect images from theft. The latest I've seen is a trick where they slice a single image into nine pieces like a sloppily drawn tic-tac-toe board (the spacing of the lines is random.) They then use HTML to reassemble the slices but if a user tries to right click to download or search them then they just get one piece of the image.

    Really, watermarks are the only thing that really helps with theft because as UncleBob said, you can always grab a screen shot and then either search for it or reuse it on Backpage. That trick would work with the new "nine slice" trick as well. It's not something everyone knows how to do but any web designer or programmer would. Any image you allow a web user to see can be captured.

    That said, I also find the watermarks annoying and I don't know that they are all that important - at least not from my perspective. In Montreal, you're lucky to have a handful of reputable agencies and indys along with this board to verify authenticity. With that combo, pictures are likely to be authentic. The worst thing I've had happen is that the pix were out of date and the girl had changed her look a bit. (Actually, the worst thing was a bait and switch long ago but that's a different story.)

    In other cities (for me, mostly NYC) you have to assume pictures are fake until you can prove otherwise, and in those places that proof is harder to come by. There is the general escort review board that helps, but it's not nearly as simple to use as this board and often it doesn't clearly answer the question. It's always a bit of a risk.

    So, going back to Booker's original question - the alternate format could be an innocent/amateur attempt to protect images, or it could be just what you suspect - trying to block anyone from checking. My policy is to look for in-person verification. In Montreal, I won't use an agency or see a girl without it - there are too many well-proven options.

    Booker - if you're interested in checking a specific image where Google lookup is failing you can PM me and I can give it a try using the trick UncleBob suggested.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Anywhere and everywhere
    Posts
    1,914
    Lets put it this way, I have been hobbying for quite a while and have walked away from many "appointments" when it was clear that this was a "bait and switch" Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.......well that won't happen. If I book a girl and it turns out this is not the girl in the photo, I will NEVER repeat with this agency. Far too many of you accept the girl at the door and all this tells the people running the agency is that it doesn't matter.
    " You actually get to choose your friends, family.........well..."

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleBob View Post
    If you have doubt, You can always screen capture the pic and save it on your HDD and use google image to upload you saved pic and search it on the web.

    Often, web sites are designed to make it less easy to steal the pics with a simple right click.
    On annonce123, right click is disabled.

    Agencies like MSC use Watermarks to discourage stealing of pics. MSC actually use watermarks outrageously and it is annoying according to me.
    I'm not an expert on this. I've only discovered it by messing around, but if you're visiting a web page that has right click disabled, you can create a folder on your computer & save the whole page to that folder. That way, you have access to the photos and can tineye them.

    PS -- I'm not as paranoid as I was when I first started this, so I generally don't tineye or google people I'm meeting, but I actually helped the booker of a fairly famous porn actress by googling her phone number once. It led back to her Facebook page. I let her know about it and she got a disposable phone.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •