[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4},"routes/tag.$slug",{"_5":6,"_77":78,"_83":27,"_84":27,"_85":86},"posts",[7],{"_8":9,"_10":11,"_12":13,"_14":15,"_16":17,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":23,"_24":25,"_26":27,"_28":29,"_30":31,"_32":33,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":39,"_40":41,"_42":43,"_44":-5,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_68":69},"id",38,"slug","ai-dating-photo-privacy-checklist","title","Prevent Identity Leaks: AI Dating Photo Privacy Checklist","excerpt","Follow this technical yet reader-friendly pre-publish audit and checklist for AI dating photos: EXIF cleanup, reverse-image, detector checks, biometric-risk tests, and a recovery plan.","content","

Immediate answer: Before you upload an AI dating photo, run a short pre-publish audit for AI dating photos privacy: strip metadata, run reverse and perceptual searches, scan with multiple AI detectors, check biometric landmark similarity and background uniqueness, and confirm app verification readiness.

This checklist reduces cross-platform matches, verification flags, and deepfake exposure. Below you’ll find a reader-friendly primer on how recognition and verification systems work, a phase-by-phase audit (A–E) with exact commands and tools, decision rules, and a step-by-step recovery plan if a photo is flagged. (Advice date-stamped: as of March 15, 2026.)

\n\n

Why AI dating photo privacy matters now

AI-generated profile photos can look great — but platforms are reacting. In 2024–2025 apps added reporting options and automated detection, and user reports of AI-enabled scams rose. That combination creates immediate risk for anyone using synthetic or heavily edited faces on Tinder, Bumble, Hinge and similar services.

Tradeoffs are real: privacy-by-synthesis (not using your real face) reduces some doxxing risks but can trigger platform verification flows or reporting. Misuse risks include deepfakes, romance scams, and cross-platform linkage that reveals your identity.

This guide delivers a reproducible pre-publish audit, clear risk categories (green/amber/red), command-ready tests (EXIF, reverse-image, generator-fingerprint checks, landmark bleed, background uniqueness), and a recovery plan you can use if a photo is flagged.

\n\n

How facial-recognition, embeddings and verification systems work (reader-friendly primer)

Face detection finds faces and creates bounding boxes. Face recognition converts a cropped face into a numeric vector (an embedding) that encodes geometry and texture; similarity between embeddings (usually cosine distance) signals a likely match.

Verification adds thresholds and anti-spoofing: liveness flows (short videos, blink checks) and metadata checks. Platforms compare the selfie you submit to stored embeddings and to third-party or internal databases.

Embeddings encode stable features: eye spacing, nose/jaw geometry, skin texture, scars/moles and even persistent accessories like distinctive glasses or tattoos. Because these features are stable, an AI-generated face that closely matches your landmarks can be linked to your real photos by recognition systems.

Verification systems typically flag: high similarity to indexed images, liveness/failure in selfie checks, inconsistent metadata (EXIF tags that conflict with expected device data), and known manipulation artifacts that suggest synthetic origin.

\n\n

Quick glossary: terms you’ll see in tools and reports

EXIF/metadata: camera model, timestamp, GPS and software tags embedded in image files.
pHash / perceptual hash: a near-duplicate fingerprint useful for detecting resized or re-uploaded images.
Embedding: a numeric vector representing a face for similarity comparison.
Cosine distance: a measure of similarity between embeddings; lower distance = more similar.
Generator fingerprint: detectable traces left by image-generation models or post-processing pipelines.
Landmark bleed: blending artifacts around ears, hairline or facial boundaries that suggest inpainting.
Liveness: verification checks that prove a live person produced a selfie (video, blink, head-turn).

Detector scores are probabilistic; interpret them as evidence, not definitive proof.

\n\n

Pre-publish audit: Phase A — Metadata & provenance hygiene

Why EXIF matters: GPS coordinates, camera model, timestamps and software tags can reveal provenance or link images across accounts. Some generators leave vendor tags or editing software traces that create an audit trail.

Tools and commands (copy-ready):

Check metadata: run exiftool image.jpg to list tags.
Strip metadata: run exiftool -all= -overwrite_original image.jpg to remove EXIF safely.

Online viewers like Jeffrey’s Exif Viewer are convenient for quick checks. After stripping EXIF, re-open the file and confirm tags are gone.

File naming & history: avoid names like generator_export_1234.png. Re-save edited images as a high-quality JPEG or PNG, with a neutral filename (e.g., profile_photo_01.jpg) to remove obvious provenance. Use high-quality exports (JPEG quality 85–95) to balance consistency and filesize.

\n\n

Pre-publish audit: Phase B — Reverse and perceptual searches

Reverse-image checks find exact re-uses and reposts. Run both face-cropped uploads and full-frame uploads to catch matches to profile photos or public posts.

Exact reverse-image tools: Google Images (upload), TinEye, Bing Visual Search. Upload the face crop and the full image separately.
Perceptual/near-duplicate tools: pHash utilities, Yandex (strong for faces in some regions); commercial options like PimEyes/FaceFinder provide indexed face searches but use ethically.

Interpreting results: any match to an existing profile, public post, or stock image is a red flag. Near-duplicates or visually similar faces on other accounts suggest reuse or conditioning on public images.

\n\n\n

\"A — Photo by Matheus Bertelli on Pexels

\n\n\n\n

Pre-publish audit: Phase C — Generator-fingerprint & manipulation detection

Run multiple AI-detection tools—no single detector is perfect. Try Sensity, Reality Defender demos, Hive AI demo or available public scanners and record each score.

Manual artifact checklist:

Look for hair/ear bleed and unnatural hair-to-background transitions.
Check for asymmetric teeth, irregular reflections in eyes, repeating textures or tiled noise.
Scan edges at 200–400% zoom for blending artifacts from inpainting.

Interpretation guidance: inconsistent results across detectors are common. Use a consensus approach—if two out of three detectors strongly flag synthetic origin and manual checks show artifacts, treat that as actionable evidence. Avoid over-reliance on any single tool.

\n\n

Pre-publish audit: Phase D — Biometric linkage risk checks

Landmark comparison: compare the AI photo to your real photos (or the images you’ve posted elsewhere). Focus on eye spacing, nose width, ear contour, jaw angle and persistent markings (moles, scars).

If biometric landmarks are highly similar, recognition systems may link the images. Even small landmark matches can create false positives in automated pipelines.

Background uniqueness test: crop out the face and reverse-search the background alone. Recognizable interiors, décor, or outdoor locations can tie a profile to a real person or place.

Accessory & context audit: avoid recycling distinct glasses, hats, tattoos or jewelry across platforms. Those recurring items are powerful signals for human and algorithmic linkage.

\n\n

Pre-publish audit: Phase E — Presentation, app-policy compliance, and verification readiness

Check each app’s current TOS and help pages before uploading. As of mid-2024/2025, Bumble added reporting for AI-generated photos and Match Group apps have tightened verification flows.

Decide placement: put higher-risk images in secondary slots, never as the primary photo if the app requires an unedited or verified primary image. Consider labeling strategies in messages (e.g., “edited for privacy — happy to verify live”).

Verification plan: prepare a recent live selfie or short liveness video and know how to submit it. If the app requests liveness checks, comply quickly and keep records of submission receipts and timestamps.

\n\n

Decision matrix: green / amber / red — should you upload this AI photo?

Concrete rubric (score each item: pass = 0, warn = 1, fail = 2; total):

EXIF stripped and neutral filename (0/1/2)
No reverse-image/full-match hits (0/1/2)
Detector consensus: likely synthetic / inconclusive / likely real (0/1/2)
Landmark similarity to your real photos (0/1/2)
Background uniqueness / accessories (0/1/2)

Scoring guidance:

Green (0–2): OK to upload; prefer as secondary image unless app allows synthetic primary photos.
Amber (3–5): Use as secondary only; keep a verified real photo primary and include verification readiness notes.
Red (6+): Do not upload; either discard the image or re-generate with clearer de-linking (change landmarks or pick a different synthetic face).

Quick mobile checks before upload: confirm EXIF removed, no TinEye/Google matches, detector scores inconclusive or synthetic-consensus, and you have a verified selfie ready.

\n\n

Design rules for low-linkage AI dating photos (practical editing guidance)

If privacy is the priority, generate fully synthetic faces that are not conditioned on your real photos. Do not seed or inpaint using your personal images if you want to avoid biometric linkage.

If editing real photos, limit changes to non-biometric attributes: swap backgrounds, adjust lighting and color, and avoid reshaping facial geometry. Keep one clean verified selfie for verification flows.

Composition tips:

Prefer neutral, non-descript backgrounds or clearly generated patterns without geolocation clues.
Avoid highly distinctive accessories that appear across your social media.
Use subtle stylization (slight color grading, minor retouch) rather than full face generation if you want to balance attractiveness with lower detection risk.

\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Step-by-step: how to run each technical test (commands and tool checklist)

EXIF workflow:

Check: exiftool image.jpg — review GPS, Model, Software tags.
Strip: exiftool -all= -overwrite_original image.jpg — re-run the check to confirm.

Reverse-image workflow:

Crop a tight face crop and save as face_crop.jpg.
Upload face_crop.jpg and the full image to Google Images and TinEye; record any matches and URLs.
Try Yandex for regionally different results; compare outputs.

Perceptual hash / pHash:

Use ImageMagick or an online pHash tool to compute perceptual hashes and detect near-duplicates. Note resizing or small crops that evade exact-match search.

AI-detection:

Upload image to Sensity, Reality Defender demo, Hive AI demo where available.
Record each tool’s probability/confidence score and note manual artifact flags.

Landmark bleed inspection:

Open the image at 200–400% zoom and inspect ears, hairline and facial boundaries for blending or asymmetric artifacts.

Record-keeping: save a short audit log (date, filename, EXIF state, reverse-image results, detector names and scores). This helps with appeals if a platform flags your account.

\n\n

If your photo is flagged: an immediate recovery plan

Immediate actions:

Remove the photo immediately to halt further matches from being affected.
Preserve evidence: screenshots of the profile, any notifications, detector outputs and reverse-search results.

Platform remediation:

Submit a support ticket and follow the app’s verification flow; platforms commonly request a live selfie or short video. Comply promptly and keep timestamps of submissions.
If you were mass-reported, include the audit log and supporting screenshots in your appeal to limit wrongful suspension.

Damage limitation for misuse:

Use reverse-search to locate reposts and file takedown requests using platform abuse/DMCA channels.
If extortion or blackmail occurs, contact law enforcement and specialist hotlines (preserve all evidence: messages, screenshots, links).

Rebuilding trust with matches:

Be transparent and offer a live video call or tied-liveness selfie. Use short templates: “I used AI editing for privacy — happy to verify live or via your app’s verification flow.”

\n\n

Ethics, tool limits and legal caveats

Detectors provide probabilities and can produce false positives (heavy retouch may look synthetic) and false negatives (novel generators). Always use multiple tools and human inspection.

Commercial face-search tools index public images—use them ethically. Don’t use face-search or reverse-image tools to stalk, harass, or dox others; this can be illegal and violates many service terms.

Laws and platform policies change rapidly. Date-stamp any policy claims and check the app’s TOS before relying on this advice in a specific jurisdiction (advice above is current as of March 15, 2026).

\n\n

Resources, tools and further reading

EXIF: exiftool (desktop), Jeffrey’s Exif Viewer (web).
Reverse-image: Google Images, TinEye, Bing Visual Search, Yandex.
AI-detection: Sensity, Reality Defender demos, Hive AI demo.
Perceptual hash: ImageMagick or online pHash tools.
Face-search (use ethically): PimEyes, FaceFinder (commercial).

Recommended reading and sources: TechCrunch on app reporting (July 2024), BiometricUpdate industry analysis (2025), BPS reviews of harms, and recent arXiv papers on embeddings and defenses (2024–2025). For timeline-sensitive claims, include the publication date when you cite platforms or laws.

If helpful, download a printable checklist and copy-ready verification messages to keep with your device when you upload photos.

\n\n

Conclusion and next steps

Run this short audit before you upload any AI dating photo: strip EXIF, run reverse and perceptual searches, scan with multiple detectors, check landmark similarity and background uniqueness, and confirm app verification readiness. The single most important action is to keep one verified real selfie available for verification flows.

Call-to-action: run the checklist now, label any synthetic images transparently if you choose, and be ready to verify live. If you want, I can draft a screenshot-ready how-to for each test or provide copy-ready messages for matches and support appeals.

\n","contentPlain","Immediate answer: Before you upload an AI dating photo, run a short pre-publish audit for AI dating photos privacy: strip metadata, run reverse and perceptual searches, scan with multiple AI detectors, check biometric landmark similarity and background uniqueness, and confirm app verification readiness.\nThis checklist reduces cross-platform matches, verification flags, and deepfake exposure. Below you’ll find a reader-friendly primer on how recognition and verification systems work, a phase-by-phase audit (A–E) with exact commands and tools, decision rules, and a step-by-step recovery plan if a photo is flagged. (Advice date-stamped: as of March 15, 2026.)\n\nWhy AI dating photo privacy matters now\nAI-generated profile photos can look great — but platforms are reacting. In 2024–2025 apps added reporting options and automated detection, and user reports of AI-enabled scams rose. That combination creates immediate risk for anyone using synthetic or heavily edited faces on Tinder, Bumble, Hinge and similar services.\nTradeoffs are real: privacy-by-synthesis (not using your real face) reduces some doxxing risks but can trigger platform verification flows or reporting. Misuse risks include deepfakes, romance scams, and cross-platform linkage that reveals your identity.\nThis guide delivers a reproducible pre-publish audit, clear risk categories (green/amber/red), command-ready tests (EXIF, reverse-image, generator-fingerprint checks, landmark bleed, background uniqueness), and a recovery plan you can use if a photo is flagged.\n\nHow facial-recognition, embeddings and verification systems work (reader-friendly primer)\nFace detection finds faces and creates bounding boxes. Face recognition converts a cropped face into a numeric vector (an embedding) that encodes geometry and texture; similarity between embeddings (usually cosine distance) signals a likely match.\nVerification adds thresholds and anti-spoofing: liveness flows (short videos, blink checks) and metadata checks. Platforms compare the selfie you submit to stored embeddings and to third-party or internal databases.\nEmbeddings encode stable features: eye spacing, nose/jaw geometry, skin texture, scars/moles and even persistent accessories like distinctive glasses or tattoos. Because these features are stable, an AI-generated face that closely matches your landmarks can be linked to your real photos by recognition systems.\nVerification systems typically flag: high similarity to indexed images, liveness/failure in selfie checks, inconsistent metadata (EXIF tags that conflict with expected device data), and known manipulation artifacts that suggest synthetic origin.\n\nQuick glossary: terms you’ll see in tools and reports\n\n EXIF/metadata: camera model, timestamp, GPS and software tags embedded in image files.\n pHash / perceptual hash: a near-duplicate fingerprint useful for detecting resized or re-uploaded images.\n Embedding: a numeric vector representing a face for similarity comparison.\n Cosine distance: a measure of similarity between embeddings; lower distance = more similar.\n Generator fingerprint: detectable traces left by image-generation models or post-processing pipelines.\n Landmark bleed: blending artifacts around ears, hairline or facial boundaries that suggest inpainting.\n Liveness: verification checks that prove a live person produced a selfie (video, blink, head-turn).\n\nDetector scores are probabilistic; interpret them as evidence, not definitive proof.\n\nPre-publish audit: Phase A — Metadata & provenance hygiene\nWhy EXIF matters: GPS coordinates, camera model, timestamps and software tags can reveal provenance or link images across accounts. Some generators leave vendor tags or editing software traces that create an audit trail.\nTools and commands (copy-ready):\n\n Check metadata: run exiftool image.jpg to list tags.\n Strip metadata: run exiftool -all= -overwrite_original image.jpg to remove EXIF safely.\n\nOnline viewers like Jeffrey’s Exif Viewer are convenient for quick checks. After stripping EXIF, re-open the file and confirm tags are gone.\nFile naming & history: avoid names like generator_export_1234.png. Re-save edited images as a high-quality JPEG or PNG, with a neutral filename (e.g., profile_photo_01.jpg) to remove obvious provenance. Use high-quality exports (JPEG quality 85–95) to balance consistency and filesize.\n\nPre-publish audit: Phase B — Reverse and perceptual searches\nReverse-image checks find exact re-uses and reposts. Run both face-cropped uploads and full-frame uploads to catch matches to profile photos or public posts.\n\n Exact reverse-image tools: Google Images (upload), TinEye, Bing Visual Search. Upload the face crop and the full image separately.\n Perceptual/near-duplicate tools: pHash utilities, Yandex (strong for faces in some regions); commercial options like PimEyes/FaceFinder provide indexed face searches but use ethically.\n\nInterpreting results: any match to an existing profile, public post, or stock image is a red flag. Near-duplicates or visually similar faces on other accounts suggest reuse or conditioning on public images.\n\n\n\n \n Photo by Matheus Bertelli on Pexels\n\n\n\n\nPre-publish audit: Phase C — Generator-fingerprint & manipulation detection\nRun multiple AI-detection tools—no single detector is perfect. Try Sensity, Reality Defender demos, Hive AI demo or available public scanners and record each score.\nManual artifact checklist:\n\n Look for hair/ear bleed and unnatural hair-to-background transitions.\n Check for asymmetric teeth, irregular reflections in eyes, repeating textures or tiled noise.\n Scan edges at 200–400% zoom for blending artifacts from inpainting.\n\nInterpretation guidance: inconsistent results across detectors are common. Use a consensus approach—if two out of three detectors strongly flag synthetic origin and manual checks show artifacts, treat that as actionable evidence. Avoid over-reliance on any single tool.\n\nPre-publish audit: Phase D — Biometric linkage risk checks\nLandmark comparison: compare the AI photo to your real photos (or the images you’ve posted elsewhere). Focus on eye spacing, nose width, ear contour, jaw angle and persistent markings (moles, scars).\nIf biometric landmarks are highly similar, recognition systems may link the images. Even small landmark matches can create false positives in automated pipelines.\nBackground uniqueness test: crop out the face and reverse-search the background alone. Recognizable interiors, décor, or outdoor locations can tie a profile to a real person or place.\nAccessory & context audit: avoid recycling distinct glasses, hats, tattoos or jewelry across platforms. Those recurring items are powerful signals for human and algorithmic linkage.\n\nPre-publish audit: Phase E — Presentation, app-policy compliance, and verification readiness\nCheck each app’s current TOS and help pages before uploading. As of mid-2024/2025, Bumble added reporting for AI-generated photos and Match Group apps have tightened verification flows.\nDecide placement: put higher-risk images in secondary slots, never as the primary photo if the app requires an unedited or verified primary image. Consider labeling strategies in messages (e.g., “edited for privacy — happy to verify live”).\nVerification plan: prepare a recent live selfie or short liveness video and know how to submit it. If the app requests liveness checks, comply quickly and keep records of submission receipts and timestamps.\n\nDecision matrix: green / amber / red — should you upload this AI photo?\nConcrete rubric (score each item: pass = 0, warn = 1, fail = 2; total):\n\n EXIF stripped and neutral filename (0/1/2)\n No reverse-image/full-match hits (0/1/2)\n Detector consensus: likely synthetic / inconclusive / likely real (0/1/2)\n Landmark similarity to your real photos (0/1/2)\n Background uniqueness / accessories (0/1/2)\n\nScoring guidance:\n\n Green (0–2): OK to upload; prefer as secondary image unless app allows synthetic primary photos.\n Amber (3–5): Use as secondary only; keep a verified real photo primary and include verification readiness notes.\n Red (6+): Do not upload; either discard the image or re-generate with clearer de-linking (change landmarks or pick a different synthetic face).\n\nQuick mobile checks before upload: confirm EXIF removed, no TinEye/Google matches, detector scores inconclusive or synthetic-consensus, and you have a verified selfie ready.\n\nDesign rules for low-linkage AI dating photos (practical editing guidance)\nIf privacy is the priority, generate fully synthetic faces that are not conditioned on your real photos. Do not seed or inpaint using your personal images if you want to avoid biometric linkage.\nIf editing real photos, limit changes to non-biometric attributes: swap backgrounds, adjust lighting and color, and avoid reshaping facial geometry. Keep one clean verified selfie for verification flows.\nComposition tips:\n\n Prefer neutral, non-descript backgrounds or clearly generated patterns without geolocation clues.\n Avoid highly distinctive accessories that appear across your social media.\n Use subtle stylization (slight color grading, minor retouch) rather than full face generation if you want to balance attractiveness with lower detection risk.\n\n\n\n\n \n Photo by Solen Feyissa on Pexels\n\n\n\n\nStep-by-step: how to run each technical test (commands and tool checklist)\nEXIF workflow:\n\n Check: exiftool image.jpg — review GPS, Model, Software tags.\n Strip: exiftool -all= -overwrite_original image.jpg — re-run the check to confirm.\n\nReverse-image workflow:\n\n Crop a tight face crop and save as face_crop.jpg.\n Upload face_crop.jpg and the full image to Google Images and TinEye; record any matches and URLs.\n Try Yandex for regionally different results; compare outputs.\n\nPerceptual hash / pHash:\n\n Use ImageMagick or an online pHash tool to compute perceptual hashes and detect near-duplicates. Note resizing or small crops that evade exact-match search.\n\nAI-detection:\n\n Upload image to Sensity, Reality Defender demo, Hive AI demo where available.\n Record each tool’s probability/confidence score and note manual artifact flags.\n\nLandmark bleed inspection:\n\n Open the image at 200–400% zoom and inspect ears, hairline and facial boundaries for blending or asymmetric artifacts.\n\nRecord-keeping: save a short audit log (date, filename, EXIF state, reverse-image results, detector names and scores). This helps with appeals if a platform flags your account.\n\nIf your photo is flagged: an immediate recovery plan\nImmediate actions:\n\n Remove the photo immediately to halt further matches from being affected.\n Preserve evidence: screenshots of the profile, any notifications, detector outputs and reverse-search results.\n\nPlatform remediation:\n\n Submit a support ticket and follow the app’s verification flow; platforms commonly request a live selfie or short video. Comply promptly and keep timestamps of submissions.\n If you were mass-reported, include the audit log and supporting screenshots in your appeal to limit wrongful suspension.\n\nDamage limitation for misuse:\n\n Use reverse-search to locate reposts and file takedown requests using platform abuse/DMCA channels.\n If extortion or blackmail occurs, contact law enforcement and specialist hotlines (preserve all evidence: messages, screenshots, links).\n\nRebuilding trust with matches:\n\n Be transparent and offer a live video call or tied-liveness selfie. Use short templates: “I used AI editing for privacy — happy to verify live or via your app’s verification flow.”\n\n\nEthics, tool limits and legal caveats\nDetectors provide probabilities and can produce false positives (heavy retouch may look synthetic) and false negatives (novel generators). Always use multiple tools and human inspection.\nCommercial face-search tools index public images—use them ethically. Don’t use face-search or reverse-image tools to stalk, harass, or dox others; this can be illegal and violates many service terms.\nLaws and platform policies change rapidly. Date-stamp any policy claims and check the app’s TOS before relying on this advice in a specific jurisdiction (advice above is current as of March 15, 2026).\n\nResources, tools and further reading\n\n EXIF: exiftool (desktop), Jeffrey’s Exif Viewer (web).\n Reverse-image: Google Images, TinEye, Bing Visual Search, Yandex.\n AI-detection: Sensity, Reality Defender demos, Hive AI demo.\n Perceptual hash: ImageMagick or online pHash tools.\n Face-search (use ethically): PimEyes, FaceFinder (commercial).\n\nRecommended reading and sources: TechCrunch on app reporting (July 2024), BiometricUpdate industry analysis (2025), BPS reviews of harms, and recent arXiv papers on embeddings and defenses (2024–2025). For timeline-sensitive claims, include the publication date when you cite platforms or laws.\nIf helpful, download a printable checklist and copy-ready verification messages to keep with your device when you upload photos.\n\nConclusion and next steps\nRun this short audit before you upload any AI dating photo: strip EXIF, run reverse and perceptual searches, scan with multiple detectors, check landmark similarity and background uniqueness, and confirm app verification readiness. The single most important action is to keep one verified real selfie available for verification flows.\nCall-to-action: run the checklist now, label any synthetic images transparently if you choose, and be ready to verify live. If you want, I can draft a screenshot-ready how-to for each test or provide copy-ready messages for matches and support appeals.\n","metaTitle","AI Dating Photos Privacy Checklist — Pre-Publish Audit","metaDescription","Practical pre-publish audit for AI dating photos: EXIF, reverse-image, detector, biometric linkage, and recovery steps to avoid recognition, flags, and privacy risk.","ogImageUrl","https://images.pexels.com/photos/18068462/pexels-photo-18068462.png?auto=compress&cs=tinysrgb&fit=crop&h=627&w=1200","authorId",1,"categoryId",39,"status","published","publishedAt",["D",1773552038535],"updatedAt",["D",1773552038537],"createdAt",["D",1773552038537],"readingTimeMinutes",10,"isFeatured",false,"viewCount",0,"seoScore","language","en","author",{"_8":27,"_10":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_36":66,"_34":67},"emma-blake","name","Emma Blake","bio","Emma Blake is a dating coach and portrait photographer with 8+ years of experience helping singles improve their online dating profiles. She has worked with over 2,000 clients and her advice has been featured in Cosmopolitan, Elite Daily, and The Dating Insider. Emma holds a B.A. in Psychology from NYU.","avatarUrl","https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1494790108377-be9c29b29330?w=200&h=200&fit=crop","jobTitle","Dating Coach & Portrait Photographer","company","Dating Image Pro","twitterHandle","emmablake_dating","linkedinUrl","https://linkedin.com/in/emmablake","websiteUrl","https://datingimagepro.lindenau.cloud",["D",1770837686940],["D",1770837686940],"category",{"_8":29,"_10":70,"_50":71,"_72":-5,"_20":73,"_22":74,"_75":-5,"_36":76},"photo-strategy-safety","Photo Strategy & Safety","description","Photo Strategy & Safety | Blog","Articles about photo strategy & safety","parentId",["D",1773552038533],"tag",{"_8":79,"_10":80,"_50":81,"_36":82},83,"dating-photo-privacy","dating photo privacy",["D",1773552038544],"currentPage","totalPages","siteName","DatingImagePro","actionData","errors"]