egafd.com

Ok thank you for the clarification. I guess it is possible to get too sensitive about forum comments.

On the subject of Ashleigh I will just add that she has in the past been represented by model agencies. So far I have only done one shoot with her, but during the shoot we stopped for a cup of tea, I offered her something to eat but she declined, I bought a packet of crisps for myself and offered her one, but she only accepted a very small crisp. She had a busy day ahead of her after the shoot and I don`t know if she intended to eat later, but when I saw her ribcage in some of my photos I wondered if she was going to more lengths than necessary to remain slim. If I have a criticism it is directed towards model agencies and not Ashleigh, who now manages herself in any event.

Ashleigh has stunning bright eyes that shone out of some of my photos. A bit like Marlyn Lindsay without the em... complications! Marlyn is so photogenic that even when our final shoot degenerated into chaos the results were still better than they were with certain other models. It is a shame things went the way they did because when she was modelling properly for me she made me look a better photographer than I really am.

So in short, you've previously defended one model almost blindly based on largely good experience and a dozen or so shoots under your belt, considering some other producers' negative experiences close to heresy but based on a single shoot with another model, you air their 'dirty laundry' speculating about their lifestyle based on more speculation about an agency's policies. That doesn't make sense.

So in equally short all this bollocks heading my way is because I`ve defended Tori Baynes in the past, not almost blindly as you say but because the attacks were totally out of proportion to anything she may have done or not done.

Emac is a sad wanker who has no business setting himself up as Tori`s prosecutor and judge. Dynamatiques can say what he likes about my preview photos but he`s got no business entering my members` area unless he pays a fucking subscription. I`m not going to say anything about you or respond to any further posts from you.

I now know how you accessed my members area and I have cancelled the subscription of the member concerned.

If my images are so appalling as you suggest it is rather strange how many people have been logging on to view them.

Stay out of my members area in future!

Yes, I have been a fully paid member.

And why on earth would I comment on something I did not know?

I also gave the most basic photographic tip that everyone shooting models should know. Clearly, it's upset him. And, I can't apologise for that.

Only by critique & experience do we get better.

Seriously, you probably should just leave this thread and hope it will disappear.

Every time you post it will stay on the first page and you're starting to come of as a bit unhinged...

----------

"I now know how you accessed my members area and I have cancelled the subscription of the member concerned.

If my images are so appalling as you suggest it is rather strange how many people have been logging on to view them.

Stay out of my members area in future!"

Did you actually terminate a paid subscription due to member having issues with the quality of the content and voicing them publicly?

Then if you paid up I apologise. Many people have viewed my members area free of charge due to an individual giving his log in details to a password sharing site.

NO!

I have terminated the subscription of a member who posted his log in details on a password sharing site. There was a sudden surge in visits to my members area, out of proportion to my number of members. When I investigated I found this guy`s log in details on this site.

This is a clear breach of the terms of membership and the only way I could plug the security leak was to terminate his subscription. If my images were really that bad as certain individuals have claimed there would not be so much interest in viewing my site, nor would I have been published in Escort 3 times. I can`t complain if a paying member criticises my site but I am sure this has a lot to do with the fact that I have defended Tori Baynes against some very unfair attacks. Two of the people who have criticised my site also made negative posts on the Tori Baynes thread. The only people who have ever said that it is a bad website have been contributors to this forum, so I really do not think the opinions expressed have been unbiased. At best they are comparing me with a trained photographer, which I have never claimed to be. My images are of a variable standard but I tend to include the less good ones on the site, usually with a note pointing out my own mistake.

No I am not unhinged but I am fucking pissed off that some wanker gave away his log in details and a large number of people have been inside my members area without paying. People who do that sort of thing are playing into the hands of the government, who would like to take all porn off the internet. The arguments are similar to those which apply to music and DVD piracy. I have never made a profit on my site, but the losses were decreasing until this security breach. If I take it offline then I will not be able to pay models and I am sure the same applies to other sites. I know there is a lot of free porn out there but there is always a hook to get the viewer to spend money in some way. If nobody pays because they can access sites via the back door using someone else`s password then the business will just grind to a halt. Models will be out of work because nobody can pay them, and it ends up in victory for David Cameron, who unfortunately doesn`t seem to be able to tell the difference between legal adult porn, which he should leave alone, and illegal child abuse porn, which he should be doing everything in his power to get off the internet.

Then I misunderstood that part. Sorry.

But the unhinged bit had nothing to do with a someone having his membership terminated. It has to do with your _long_ comments about the models you shoot, Dynamatiques, etc.