egafd.com

I agree with the posts so far that the title of this thread is harsh.
The UK still has some great natural models e.g. Katie K, Jess West and I wonder how they feel about the title.

However many more have taken the one-way route of enhancements, tattoos etc. I totally respect
- it is models personal choice to modify their body however they wish
- there is some demand for the trashy look
but do wonder how many have really thought the changes through given their chosen career.

Personally this look is a total turn off for me, I want to see the sexy attractive ' girl next door ' look which has been in decline for the last few years.

Generally I wonder if while initially after a major appearance change a model gets a run of bookings longer term she get less work than if she has kept to easily reversible changes e.g. hair style and colour.

AW is full of Eastern European girls these days...and theres a huge influx of Hungarians.They stay a month,bugger off back to Budapest and then return etc
Most of em ive booked only speak two words of english....usually "fuck off" lol

Forget the tats and implants the tone of this thread better explains why the hotties aren't queuing up to work in the UK porn biz. IMHO tatts, big hair and implants matter less than talent and a producer who actually respects the talent and themselves enough to actually put a bit of effort in. As far as I can tell tht's what has worked for X-art. They obviously put a lot of time, money and effort into their work. How many in the UK are doing that? fair enough if you think porn was better in the past but no need to label today's generation "skanks"

Unfortunately thats the price you pay for forums and freedom of speech.

My philosophy these days is if the person who posts under a pseudonym and you have no idea who that person is then no matter how offensive their post it should be regarded as irrelevant, except of course, if you identify with a comment and feel you have something to contribute to it

A good point was made earlier in the thread by a young lady with tats and breast implants, but is about as far removed from a "skank" (not 100% sure what a skank is, but I'm taking the view its not complimentary!) as you could get.

In general (with some exceptions obviously) British porn is the trash of the porn world and the producers and consumers are as much to blame as anyone as this seems to be the type of thing which suits the British market.

My impression is that the majority of producers are guys (nearly always guys) with no talent and a camcorder who want to film themselves shagging someone. "Fresh meat" no matter how ropey they look as long as the are fresh and desperate enough to do it. Move higher up the scale and there seems to be a culture (maybe its a mental thing) that if you are a performer you have to alter yourself until you resemble a cartoon character...hence why almost every girl performing for a certain company ended up eventually looking the same.

For some time the Europeans and now the USA have been embracing more natural, more thoughtful better produced porn, however I'm honestly not sure it will ever fit the British market as my impression is the majority of consumers here just want to see average "council estate girls" getting one up the "wrong un" gonzo style. And in the end of the day, the guy with the credit card calls the tune.

It depends on how you define the word 'skank'?

Does the definition describe a model who encases herself with tattoos and piercings to alter her appearance to scary and ridiculous levels? Or those who use the recent 'fashion' of chimp-lips (putting botox in their facial lips to give the impression of a chimpanzee)? Or those who sexually cavort with a convicted paedophile whilst 'pretending' to be underage? Or those who urinate in open public areas in contravention of many criminal public order acts?

Wasn't there a model who actively described herself as a skank? It appeared in all her publicity.

Instead of all this vitriol against the original poster for the phrasing of the question why doesn't everyone stop being so precious and just debate the issue?

Maybe some people do see the girls in question as skanks; some of you don't. Is the purpose here to dictate what people's opinions should be? Is someone barred from holding a point of view or describing things in a term you don't like because your view is different? Who has been insulted? No actress was named.

Over the past two- three years, we have filmed some wonderful Brits who are far removed from the colorful description in Gentleman's post. Terri Jane, Dors Feline, Leanne Crow, Karla James, Robyn Alexandra, Charley Green, Ashley Sage Ellison. We'd love to find more like them. Terri and Dors' tats didn't bother me in the least.

When I started, I thought it best to produce natural finished images.

Wrong!

Models want their images to project themselves at their best. They don't want to feel they are working with a photographer who is going to make them look bad.

If a photographer doesn't erase pimples and spots, and does not smooth out skin to get rid of wrinkles, creases, folds and other blemishes, he/she would get a name as a poor tog, and models would become unwilling to work with him/her. Unfortunatley as you observed this can sometimes leave skin looking 'plasticy'.

As for orange coloured skin, red and orange tints seem to be a characteristic of digital imagery. Why some photographers seem content to leave skin looking orange is a mystery.