Originally Posted by latinasojourn

very cute, would get more work without body "adornment".

models just don't understand that, many producers will not use a girl with faddish adornment because the images have a shorter shelf life due to the vagaries of fashion.

there is a reason porn from the 70's and 80's looks "old" and is less commercially viable than current stuff.

high rez cameras can create timeless images with a VERY long commercial shelf life if the girls do not date themselves. photoshopping out tatts increases production cost lowering ROI.

tatts on a young beautiful body are like putting vinyl pinstripes on a mercedes.

does not add value. that is not just my opinion, that is a commercial fact.

this girl is cute enough for vanity fair fashion advertizing at 5K/day. it won't happen mostly because of body "adornment".