Escort Pictures

[Chuck50]

I have been holding off on this for awhile. I am not sure who helps escorts pic out there pictures or does anyone look at them? It appears not in many cases. Let me tell you from one client. If I don't see a picture, I don't read the review but worse than that if I see a picture that doesnt show much forethought by the escort once again will not waste my time. (Not to single out SS but to use as a good example) Today's Coverboy looks like the axe murder got after him. I know it is the lighting coming in over the blinds but don't know what it does for you. Maybe if I was in the room and saw the light shining on your nice body I would be more impressed. It is no wonder that most of the reviews "SAY" they look better in person than there picture guess anyone would. If you wanna sell yourself on here to people who care get a nice picture done. I have taken a few for guys on here and I am no expert and it was with just a digital that look better than many used on here. I just don't understand how some of you don't think that it is important enough.

 

HUGS Chuck:9

[+ Lucky]

i also skip the review if there is no picture. The pics we get here are a lot better than some, say the ones in SF's Bay Area Reporter, where they look more like ink blots.

But the one picture that doesn't work for me is the close-up of the cock. Who cares what the cock looks like if the rest of the package sucks? I assume every escort reviewed has a cock, so showing me just that is a big yawn.

[TightBodyTouch]

I happen to think that Steve Stacks looks pretty damn sexy and rather inviting in the picture posted as today's coverboy. I also think the quality of the picture is exceptional and the particular mood portrayed in the shot is one of a playful, sensual, clean-cut guy which is what most people here claim to prefer in an escort. The picture actually displays exactly the kind of fore-thought that you claim is missing from most guy's photos. Seeing him stretched out and inviting us underneath his shirt is exactly what I'd want in real time with him so the pic serves as a sneak peak of what's to come. Besides that, he's also another escort who took the extra measure to prepare a comprehensive website where we can all spy at his other pictures which are also clear, apparently recent, and representative of exactly what you're paying for.

 

I also don't spend as much time reading reviews about escorts who don't have pics, I'm too nosy and I'd just rather see an image to go along with the account of good times. But any picture is better than none at all. I prefer to shoot my own photos and change them frequently only because I tire of them long before any of my clients have. But it's possible that some escorts can't afford to have pictures taken, don't have the technical support to continually change their images, or simply don't feel they need more than a few clear photographs that show their body or face to be exactly what they claim. Afterall, not all escorts are aspiring actors or models and though it's probably beneficial to have a wide selection of snapshots to send and post it's not a necessary element of this line of work to keep a glossy portfolio available to all the men who want pictures of their favorite escort. Sometimes the case is that escorts don't even want their pictures to reveal much about them except for their body type.

 

I agree that every escort should have recent, appreciable photos to market himself but beyond that the choice to have artistic, suggestive, thoughful or impressive photo stills is entirely his choice. Faceless cock shots, close-ups of bare naked asses and faded, obviously aged, fully-clothed rent boys with a ballcap where their head might be are the pics that you should really use as a case in point.

[Uncle Bill]

I'll still check out a review without a pic if the guy is in a city I frequent and his age is in the range I prefer. However, I won't check out other reviews without a pic (which means I won't be tempted to go visit those guys or have them visit me even if they might have been my type). But in all cases, when a pic is shown, it is highly important to me -- a badly chosen one will send me away without reading the review. I want to see an attractive and/or sexy pic that includes the escort's face and torso at a minimum. Just a face pic is OK (especially if there is a website with more pics), but the guy's chest and stomach area is a real key for me (second only to a pretty face). Oops, I'm rambling. Must be time for bed.

[VaHawk]

Well I believe the topic of escort photos has been brought up more than once, with a lot of valid feedback from both escorts and clients, not only as to show/not show face, additional pictures upon request, full nude, cock/butt only, and all the other venues.

 

Pictures, type of pictures, etc. are really a personal preference both escort and client wise as to what to show, what to offer and what to look for and no one response is going to cover every situation.

 

As far as reviews go, I often bypass those that don't contain a picture, unless it is someone who is in the late teens to late-twenties range, which is what I like at the present time. For those I always click on the review, but for the others, I will only click on the review if there is a picture. But that, as anyone who has submitted a review knows, is not the fault of this site, but rather the fault of the reviewer by not providing a link from which a photo can be pulled or the fault of the escort by not supplying the client/reviewer with that link or by not even having such a link.

 

In regards to cover boy of the day Steve Stack(sp?) goes, I like that picture, but then again I am a "face" man as a beautiful face attracts me more than any other physical attribute. I think Steve is a very handsome man and I found the picture of the sunlight beaming down on his beautiful face an indication of just what it must be like to wake up in the morning with him lying next to you and looking over at the morning sun splashing across his face. All in all, I found it to be, to me anyway, a very becoming, exotic, sexually exciting photo. I have seen many photos of Steve on other sites, but after I saw this one I have made up my mind to see if I can meet with him when I'm in San Francisco next month! So, there!

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

I've said it before & i'll say it again~

 

An serious escort must have a recent, well-taken, clear photo set of himself for a potential client to look over. Period.

 

If a guy is going to shell out hard-earned money to spend time with an escort, then at the very least take the time to get some pro photos done. I've worked with MANY photographers~ some work for trade (literally... lol), some for money and others just for the experience and portfolio coverage. I honestly don't think an escort can ever have too many images considering it's smart to show off several different 'looks' within a photoset.

 

It amazes me when looking at escorting sites & reviews that some of these guys get business with the images they're fronting. No face, cock-shot only and just really impersonal. Although no disrespect to fellow poster Rick Monroe, as he's proved on this board that he's got enough dynamic personality for us all

 

 

Then again, i suppose it all comes down to what KIND of client an escort wants to attract. That's the real question...

 

 

 

Warmest Always,

 

 

 

 

 

Benjamin Nicholas

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Escort Images

 

>Well I believe the topic of escort photos has been brought up

>more than once, with a lot of valid feedback from both escorts

>and clients, not only as to show/not show face, additional

>pictures upon request, full nude, cock/butt only, and all the

>other venues.

 

The most representative discussion is here: http://babydb.male4malescorts.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=5016&mesg_id=5016&listing_type=search

 

 

And another recent thread: http://babydb.male4malescorts.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=4425&mesg_id=4425&listing_type=search

[TightBodyTouch]

Excellent point, Benjamin. A good escort knows what to show in order to attract clients and a really good escort knows what kind of clients he wants to attract in order to be the best at what he does. I'm off to play in the snow that Denver's seeing, could be a great photo op! hehehe

[Chuck50]

My sentiments exactly. While I don't like SS pics some others do it is a personal decision. I just think that it wasnt appealing to me and many other on here aren't. I know it has been on here before but "Some don't get it" Sorry to say. HUGS Chuck:P

[VaHawk]

>I've worked with MANY

>photographers~ some work for trade (literally... lol)

 

Man this is as tantalizing as one of those old serial movie cliffhangers. If we tune in next week same HB channel same HB time, do we get to find out any of the "juicy details"?

 

>Then again, i suppose it all comes down to what KIND of client

>an escort wants to attract. That's the real question...

 

Unfortunately, Benjamin not all escorts are as diligent as you, in providing a wide range of tasteful, well done and up to date photos.

Oh well, you already know my feelings on this subject, and as a client all you can do is work with what you get. I definitely prefer professional photos with various looks as you provide (man you really are the best at that!), but if the photos are somewhat decent it wouldn't prevent me from contacting the escort as that is the only way to find out what pictures can't reveal, and speaking only for myself, that is what I base my hiring decisions on. I can't say what KIND of client that makes me.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

I agree about the desirability of frequently updating one's pics and trying different things, but not about the absolute need to hire a pro. It makes sense to do so in your case because -- don't look now -- you're GORGEOUS, photogenic and, I suspect, comfortable in front of a camera. Of course photographers want to work with you. But some guys are good-looking and sexy in ways that just don't come across on camera, no matter who's doing the snappping, and some are uncomfortable having strangers, no matter how professional, taking their pictures. I've found over the years that I am just about the only person who can take a halfway decent picture of me, and as it turns out I'm readily available. I've shared this tip before, but what I do is I shoot digital video of myself and then take stills from that. I can decide on a whim to fire some off and within an hour have them not only done but uploaded to my site without having spent a dime.

 

The response I am aiming for when a new client meets me is: I want him to think/say either that I look like my pictures or that I look better than them. I've never had a client say I look better in my pics than in person, and that's the way I want it.

 

It's also worth pointing out that photography is one of the most popular hobbies in this country. Its basics are relatively easy to master and, because ours is such an image-saturated culture, many people who've never had formal training (full disclosure: I have) actually have remarkably good instincts about how good pictures are put together. So for escorts who have been procrastinating updating their pics and who don't feel comfortable hiring a pro or taking their own, it's worth canvassing their friends to see who's a shutterbug.

[Guest countryboy76]

As for SS, personally I think it's a pretty good picture, but that's just me.

 

As for as a guys picture goes, as long as it is up to date and isn't of his younger brother, I don't think it matters what he shows or doesn't show. Granted some of the guys could put a little more time and thought into getting a picture, whether they do it themselves at home or have someone take the photo for them.

 

That last sentence was a little critical, especially coming from someone who doesn't have a clue about photography, so I must appologize for myself.

 

CB76

[Chuck50]

I really was not ragging on Steve Stacks. I just didnt like his pic not that it was not a nicely done pic just wasnt my taste. Looked to me to be a funny pose or scene. I know that others liked it and others didn't. The bottom line I was trying to make was that Escorts should make sure that they have a current and attractable picture for most of us. Not something that many would we unsure of. Just ask a few of your friends. HUGS Chuck

[Guest Jawnny]

I like to compare the written description of an escort's physical

attributes to what his picture provides. There are times when they do

not agree. I'm turned on by slim, blond twink types with big nips,

6 pak abs, cut and reasonably hung. Pics provide just such info par-

ticularly in the endowment department. I like to see what I'm getting

into before it gets into me.

[Flower]

[font color ="green"

]

If I were an escort (hmmm, now there's a thought I would do a professional photoshoot and have a web page full of the very best quality pics showing all angles and poses--both g and x -- that wold appeal to all the clients and their particular likes that I wanted to appeal to.

 

If I had the bod and the face I'd show it off to best advantage since that's what's going to get the first time client--the second time would be based on performance, personality, chemistry, etc., but the very first time for any new client must surly be the photograph--at least IMHO :+

[Will]

I don't even bother reading a review if there's no picture. And pictures that show only a smooth, well-toned torso don't tell me a thing. There are thousands of them on the net, and they tell me less about a man that a shot of his right foot would.

 

I think that the glamorized escort photos that look as though they're imitating Hollywood in the '30s are a mistake. First, they look (to me) silly. Second, they obscure. Third, they set a mood that all clients won't find appealing. For me, a straightforward, tell-all photograph with minimal theatrical effects is the best. I agree with Matt that the most descriptive photo is the best one. Let the drama happen in the bedroom.

[Will]

I don't even bother reading a review if there's no picture. And pictures that show only a smooth, well-toned torso don't tell me a thing. There are thousands of them on the net, and they tell me less about a man that a shot of his right foot would.

 

I think that the glamorized escort photos that look as though they're imitating Hollywood in the '30s are a mistake. First, they look (to me) silly. Second, they obscure. Third, they set a mood that all clients won't find appealing. For me, a straightforward, tell-all photograph with minimal theatrical effects is the best. I agree with Matt that the most descriptive photo is the best one. Let the drama happen in the bedroom.

[Guest LorenzoBuck66]

I have only hired one escort without seeing a face shot first,and that was only after reading his reviews on this website. This particular escort said that his reason for not posting a face shot was to keep his identity a secret,which I can understand. He was "nice looking", nut not as good looking as one might expect from an escort. He knew his body was his best asset, and that is what he highlighted. I can't say I blame him.

[VaHawk]

As I've stated many times and most regular posters would probably moan "not again Hawk", I would never hire an escort who would not send me a facial pic, at least in a private email, because I am a face person as physically it is what turns me on the most. And I don't really understand what you mean by what an escort should look like, unless you are referring to "matinee idol looks" facially. That is not necessary for me personally, as long as I find the face interesting and appealing in some way. For example I like beautiful eyes and/or sensous lips (oooh) or a long thin angular nose, or God forbid big, beautiful floppy ears I could bury my tongue into. But to each his own, just my tastes. Have a great night!