Discuss and interact with contributors and members about Private Shots.
User avatar
By traegicomix
#54389
The recent contri from FreshmanSue is a fraud: http://www.voyeurweb.com/contributions/ ... ay-Goodbye" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Most of the pictures are the same as in her September contri (http://www.funbags.com/contributions/vi ... t-the-park" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). But even worse: Picture #4 is exactly the same as in the September contest – only having photoshoped the people in the background.

Her contri in this month is obviously not NIP. In our opinion she should be disqualified and banned from VW since this is a fraud attempt which is not acceptable!!!!!!!
Attachments
Left one from 02/2015 (with people in the background), right one from 09/2014 (without people in the background)
Left one from 02/2015 (with people in the background), right one from 09/2014 (without people in the background)
FreshmanSue.PNG (1.46 MiB) Viewed 10032 times
By Intrepid
#54493
She (or her photographer) has made no secret that she/they are upset that she hasn't won any money. Perhaps spreading it around to various categories is their way of increasing the odds of winning.
By Ina
#54569
Don't understand this point:
Intrepid wrote:She (or her photographer) has made no secret that she/they are upset that she hasn't won any money. Perhaps spreading it around to various categories is their way of increasing the odds of winning.
Actually her current contri is on rank #1 and she will win 1,250 USD if VW does not react on our complaints!

Don't understand why VW is not responding to this thread :(
User avatar
By JockStrap
#54582
The recent picture was obviously taken at the same shoot as the other, but it is not necessarily fraud. The photographer could have taken a set of photos using rapid successive exposures while the model held the pose, the people in the background may have walked into the picture. Saying they were photo shopped in is going too far.

I have seen many posts made over successive months using photos that were obviously taken at the same session.

People have made rude comments to the model, and I can understand her statement about pulling out. Unfortunately many here did not have the same Grandmother as I had, otherwise they would know, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all".

Making a derogatory comment in another contribution, to avoid automatic removal, I presume, is just a low act. So low in fact that I'm tempted to state, traegicomix, that your behaviour is lower than a snakes belly, but I won't because of what my Grandmother taught me, consider yourself reprimanded, traegicomix.

Those who post here are all very brave, and should be congratulated for this, not castigated because they do not look like the commenter believes they should look.

Hats off to all contributors. Knickers off if you like. Hope to see more of you FreshmanSue.
User avatar
By rockclimber
#54718
JockStrap wrote:The recent picture was obviously taken at the same shoot as the other, but it is not necessarily fraud. The photographer could have taken a set of photos using rapid successive exposures while the model held the pose, the people in the background may have walked into the picture. Saying they were photo shopped in is going too far.

I have seen many posts made over successive months using photos that were obviously taken at the same session.

People have made rude comments to the model, and I can understand her statement about pulling out. Unfortunately many here did not have the same Grandmother as I had, otherwise they would know, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all".

Making a derogatory comment in another contribution, to avoid automatic removal, I presume, is just a low act. So low in fact that I'm tempted to state, traegicomix, that your behaviour is lower than a snakes belly, but I won't because of what my Grandmother taught me, consider yourself reprimanded, traegicomix.

Those who post here are all very brave, and should be congratulated for this, not castigated because they do not look like the commenter believes they should look.

Hats off to all contributors. Knickers off if you like. Hope to see more of you FreshmanSue.
Well said. I can shoot twenty frame bursts easily. Having people walk in frame isn't surprising in a public place.

SUE,

Keep posting, you brighten our days and remind us Spring is around the corner.....
By Intrepid
#54818
Actually her current contri is on rank #1 and she will win 1,250 USD if VW does not react on our complaints!
Yes, but in previous contributions she, or her photographer complained that they hadn't won any money, yet. Kind of colors the reaction to her nude contributions...but not badly enough to dismiss her.

I agree she is a beautiful girl, a body that is built for comfort rather that speed (which is my preference), and brave enough to pose fully nude, in public. I would hate to see her go away. Perhaps if she wins this month, it will be enough to convince her to continue. However, is money the proper motivation for posting, or should it be the joy of being naked and sharing yourself? Or should we ignore the financial part of the process and just enjoy the beauty?
By Jbe
#54826
Whether this is a fraud or not, she seemed to have accomplished her "goal". Sue has one of the highest scores (currently 4.803) that I have ever seen... and the most comments (currently 882) on a contri I have ever seen here. BUT... I did not see that she responded to a single comment... and from the several times I have checked her other contris, she has never responded- though I could be wrong.

Yes, she is an absolutely gorgeous woman with a body the gods themselves wish they had. But if a contributor doesn't take the time to express her thanks and appreciation to her fans- but whines instead about not winning any money, that person loses any support from me. That says to me they are only here for the money. And that makes that person very unattractive to me.

But everybody has their own opinion. Ok... I'm going back into my cave.
User avatar
By BabyCakes
#54845
Actually, as much as I LOVE Sue, some of these pictures are the exact same pictures as the DDD's at the Park post that's now on FunBags. They just look slightly edited compared to the first post. Although, not all pictures are the same. Looks like they added some to this contri that they didn't post in the last and they have other ones in the last that they didn't add to this one. Either way, still a beautiful woman, but I agree with John. Only posting on VW for the money...kinda takes the fun out of posting, in my opinion. I also don't exactly like the part on the description that says that they were taken on valentines day either, if they weren't, but oh well. All that being said, I LOVE Sue and have been a fan since I first came across her posts, I really hope that she continues!
By Ina
#54869
JockStrap wrote:The recent picture was obviously taken at the same shoot as the other, but it is not necessarily fraud. The photographer could have taken a set of photos using rapid successive exposures while the model held the pose, the people in the background may have walked into the picture. Saying they were photo shopped in is going too far.
If you were a photographer or a model you would know that it is NOT possible to take two identical pictures at all. When you take a look at Sue's picture from this thread you can see that the following things are exactly the same on both pics:
- the pose
- the expression in her face
- the eyes
- the hair
- the mouth
- hand and finger position
- ...
It is NOT possible to take two pictures where all these facts are identical!!! In nature you always have wind that changes your hair between two pictures. A model cannot hold her face expression exactly the same. And so on ...

So, for me it is definitely a fake!!!
8th Amendment

Speaking of lard-encased posteriors as johnforbes […]

Committee Suppressed

AGAIN AGAIN, what johnforbes is trying to say once[…]

See? I told you johnforbes had no justification fo[…]

After Stewart slammed Trump, which showed Stewart […]

The Best Man for the Job?

Surprisingly, Scientific American has leaned to th[…]

Mr Forbes does have the strength of a machine. An[…]

Had Kamala been an apple/tomato/cherry/peach pick[…]

8th Amendment

We have all been wondering, in the context of the […]