Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: On the subject of pictures....

  1. #1

    on the subject of pictures....

    Quote Originally Posted by MarathonMan
    She was not attractive at all (pictures must have been shoot years ago or Photoshop to the max), nothing to say, her look was very average (pair of jeans, deadskull belt (no comment), simple teeshirt, underwear.
    I've noticed a trend recently at a few of the agency's...the girls are being photographed in lots of clothing. Exceptions seem to be Eleganza (95% of the shots are nude or close to it) and Asservisante (90% of the shots clearly shows what the girl will look like when she shows up).

    Hey, if I was paying $180 bucks an hour for a girl to sit next to me on top of the de la Montagne's roof by the pool, id be surfing the websites for the girl who looked the best in a bikini. But since I'd rather spend my money knowing what the girl looks like nude (and if not nude, at least topless without holding her hands over her tits).

    So the question is this...Its obvious agency's know in what state of dress their girls will be working, so why photograph them in stripper outfits?

    You'd think they'd completely the marketing strategy...photo's of the girls in some nice lingerie...then moving onto more revealing shots.

    Case in point, the new photo's of Pamela of GOF ...we've got 4 pictures, 3 of which show a hint of a pink bikini top (i've seen girls at the rooftop pool wearing less clothing)...and in the 3rd photo she had time to make an outfit change. So the question is...when it came time to take off the other outfit and put on the other one, why no picture of the pink top alone? Letting the girl get fully covered before taking another picture?

    When I was heavily into the Montreal scene, id save all the pictures of the girls for future trips. A quick spin thru the archives i've come to the conclusion that eleganza has stayed consistent with their photo's...showing what guys are interested in seeing. Asservisante has actually improved from several years ago, showing more detail and only blurring the face. And I found photo's from Devilish from a few years back that showed everything...face, fully nude shots, no photoshop whatsoever...most of these if I recall were taken by Chris himself. Now it seems like the devilish and gof girls are wearing more and more clothing. Maybe Chris should take back the duties of photographer.

  2. #2
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,819
    I have to agree with the Baron. Eleganza's pics don't leave anything for the imagination & you have a fairly good idea of how the girl looks without her clothing. This is how it should be when it comes to the escort business. Why have them dressed up as strippers & with schoolgirl outfits when it's obvious they won't be dressed this way when they show up?

    The Baron has a good point!

    What i also hate is when you look at a picture & you see zero tatoos. Then, the girl shows up & she looks like she just came back from visiting Pablo Picasso & he used her body as a canvas. I don't get it. There used to be the excuse that they didn't want people in their personal lives to recognize them, but now more & more of the girls are showing their faces anyway. I feel that photoshopping the tatoos is actually doing a disservice to the girls & only to the clients.
    Last edited by Doc Holliday; 06-07-2009 at 02:06 PM.

  3. #3
    Original Dude
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Winterfell
    Posts
    3,705
    what i find weird is that Chloe and Ivy of GOF used to have full face picture, now there face is blurred...its not like we didn't saw them before...
    Life is a party ! Death is the Hangover.. 70-49-6

  4. #4
    I am me, too!
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    If only I knew...
    Posts
    2,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Halloween Mike
    what i find weird is that Chloe and Ivy of GOF used to have full face picture, now there face is blurred...its not like we didn't saw them before...
    You are right but whoever didn't see them before won't get to see them now. That could be the point, NOW there's somebody they don't want seeing them.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,253
    I find that the pics from Eleganza and Asservissante give you a better sense of what the girl looks like in real life. As oppose to the ones from Devilish and GOF which the girls look great and glamourous but sometimes gives a false impression of how they really look.


    The Don
    "Just When I Thought I Was Out.....They Pull Me Back In!!!"

  6. #6
    thats true, but there are lots of new guys checking out escort sites on a daily basis i would imagine, and maybe the girls want a little more discretion for their normal lives, maybe, ya think?

    Quote Originally Posted by Halloween Mike
    what i find weird is that Chloe and Ivy of GOF used to have full face picture, now there face is blurred...its not like we didn't saw them before...

  7. #7
    I am a big fan af Eleganza. What you see is what you get!

    Another pet Peeve about glam shots with girl in lingerie. I see the girls in sexy lingerie stockings, heels, a bustier etc. They look so hot in their outfits! I ask the agency if they can show up wearing something like they are wearing in the picture. Most of the time they say no and the girl shows up in jeans. Only VIP in Quebec City ever agreed to this.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
    This is how it should be when it comes to the escort business. Why have them dressed up as strippers & with schoolgirl outfits when it's obvious they won't be dressed this way when they show up?
    I don't know... Maybe because escort agencies are providing companionship, nothing more. anything that happens besides companionship is based on mutual agreements of two consenting adults....

  9. #9
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,819
    Quote Originally Posted by orallover
    escort agencies are providing companionship, nothing more. anything that happens besides companionship is based on mutual agreements of two consenting adults.
    Kidding aside, this statement is invalid in Canada where paying for consensual sex among two adults is allowed.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Halloween Mike
    what i find weird is that Chloe and Ivy of GOF used to have full face picture, now there face is blurred...its not like we didn't saw them before...
    This falls under the monger law that you must always check the agency websites every day. In the hurry to get the pictures on the website several things could have happened...the girl forgot to specify no face showing, agency forgot to ask or seeing that she didnt ask they just posted them as is....or they did photoshop them but posted the originals by accident.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by orallover
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
    This is how it should be when it comes to the escort business. Why have them dressed up as strippers & with schoolgirl outfits when it's obvious they won't be dressed this way when they show up?
    I don't know... Maybe because escort agencies are providing companionship, nothing more. anything that happens besides companionship is based on mutual agreements of two consenting adults....
    Oral, I don't see how your comment above mesh's with Doc's statement. He's saying 'don't have them dress as strippers' and your answering "the color is blue". I know, apples and oranges...but were talking about apples here wearing stripper outfits....not oranges providing companionship.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by breadman
    Oral, I don't see how your comment above mesh's with Doc's statement. He's saying 'don't have them dress as strippers' and your answering "the color is blue". I know, apples and oranges...but were talking about apples here wearing stripper outfits....not oranges providing companionship.
    Oh... my mistake..
    in this case, I guess marketing department of agencies want to attract guys in terms of how sexy their girls can be in those outfits.. and girls in normal outfits to our imagination. Honestly, I would like to see both, normal outfit and a few sexy photos

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by orallover
    Honestly, I would like to see both, normal outfit and a few sexy photos
    Maybe I can explain this a little better for you. Apples and Oranges...without their skins on. Now we can dress some fruit up in nice outfits if that's what your looking for...but myself, I like my fruit to be freshly peeled so nothing shocks me when the fruit basket arrives. Sagging fruit or fruit with stretch marks is a real turn off for me.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
    Why have them dressed up as strippers & with schoolgirl outfits when it's obvious they won't be dressed this way when they show up?
    This is a very good question!!!! Why?
    Last edited by hungry101; 06-08-2009 at 09:56 PM.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by breadman
    Maybe I can explain this a little better for you. Apples and Oranges...without their skins on. Now we can dress some fruit up in nice outfits if that's what your looking for...but myself, I like my fruit to be freshly peeled so nothing shocks me when the fruit basket arrives. Sagging fruit or fruit with stretch marks is a real turn off for me.
    then I refer back to my original answer/post... I guess it all has to do with what photos would suggest in terms of alluring guys to call.
    If ever trouble time comes, with photos you would like to see could easily be taken by a lawyer as they are suggesting sex, not companionship...
    I am not a lawyer but I saw something like those lines in those law tv shows..
    anyone who can help me out here on what I am trying to say?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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