Good photographs are worth it
I think there may be some confusion here - there is a difference between "good" photographs, which are artfully created and presented, using effective technique, and "artful" photographs where the presentation and props and apparent theme tends to overwhelm the subject being photographed.
The photograph above of Avarice is a useful example. I like Avarice's photos, but not as much as I like her in real life. I also suffer from a further disadvantage - I've been taking photographs for almost .... well, many years - some on a full time professional basis, many on a part-time professional basis and most on a serious hobbyist basis. As a result, I can't help myself - inevitably I end up critiquing (in my mind) the technique. I think that the spirit and attitude shown in Avarice's photos are accurate, but I think that the limited technique ends up serving her poorly. Avarice is all about curves and movement and sparkle - she is truly three dimensional. Unfortunately, the lighting in her photos tends to flatten the representation - they don't really do her justice. I truly believe that better (as in technically more accomplished) photographs would be more likely to represent her more accurately. That doesn't mean, however, that I won't continue to enjoy Avarice's photos, in whatever form she chooses to record them.
In case anyone is wondering, this is not an indirect way of attempting to drum up business. I shoot exclusively on film, and it would just be too complicated to try to do this sort of work without it conflicting with the rest of my life. Now if anyone out there just wants some critiquing, or suggestions, I'd be happy to volunteer (I know, everyone is happy to volunteer).