Jim McSmith wrote:

No, I meant you could take it out with Photoshop. Using the clone tool.

So, essentially, what you're saying is you'd rather know that a model you're working with is causing damage to her skin and putting herself at increased risk for cancer? But it's no big deal because you can just photoshop it, right? You're a cool guy.  -_-

Jim McSmith wrote:

So what you're saying, in your esteemed opinion, is that most photographers on MM are GWCs? Because talent doesn't grow on trees and the quality of equipment wont impact on results?

A good photographer can use a camera phone and get amazing images.  A bad photographer can have $30k in equipment and still fuck it up.

The Original Sin  wrote:

A good photographer can use a camera phone and get amazing images.  A bad photographer can have $30k in equipment and still fuck it up.

I've met photographers like that. So disappointing for models when this happens and damaging for the reputation of the industry.

Kelleth wrote:

So, essentially, what you're saying is you'd rather know that a model you're working with is causing damage to her skin and putting herself at increased risk for cancer? But it's no big deal because you can just photoshop it, right? You're a cool guy.  -_-

There is no doubt cancer is an insidious affliction on the human race but the increased risk of cancer you speak of is, in my view, co-related to the increase in the global population and the subsequent effects of pollution caused by the effects of consumption by the needs and demands of a growing populace.

More people means more cars on the road, more fuel consumption, more food production and so on, so there is a corresponding waste bi-product which goes into the air, the ground and the sea. All of that has more to do with cancer than suntanning I think. In fact, Vit D is very good for you according to the health gurus.

Jim McSmith wrote:

Look, the reason I have a camera as an avatar is simples. It's so that girls can see at first glance I have professional equipment and will therefore be able to render quality results in-line with their expectations of a serious amateur photographer.

From OP's profile:
"All photos on portfolio were taken with Fujica STX and Soligor 35-200 zoom lens. I know it's a 30 year old camera but it's all I can afford with limited resources."

Jim McSmith wrote:

There is no doubt cancer is an insidious affliction on the human race but the increased risk of cancer you speak of is, in my view, co-related to the increase in the global population and the subsequent effects of pollution caused by the effects of consumption by the needs and demands of a growing populace.

More people means more cars on the road, more fuel consumption, more food production and so on, so there is a corresponding waste bi-product which goes into the air, the ground and the sea. All of that has more to do with cancer than suntanning I think. In fact, Vit D is very good for you according to the health gurus.

Science is a thing, brah. It's a real thing.

Jim McSmith wrote:
Many photographers don't shoot black and white. When searching profiles I look for tanned models but if the avatar is in b/w I then need to view the whole portfolio which wastes time and slows down the search process.

You would seriously pick a model based on one picture? What if she looks NOTHING like her avatar??

Jim McSmith wrote:

There is no doubt cancer is an insidious affliction on the human race but the increased risk of cancer you speak of is, in my view, co-related to the increase in the global population and the subsequent effects of pollution caused by the effects of consumption by the needs and demands of a growing populace.

More people means more cars on the road, more fuel consumption, more food production and so on, so there is a corresponding waste bi-product which goes into the air, the ground and the sea. All of that has more to do with cancer than suntanning I think. In fact, Vit D is very good for you according to the health gurus.

You think car pollution is the cause of skin cancer?