Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Most beautiful women in the world
Options
Comments
-
Mr V, seriously look at her thigh and tell me that's her shape and there isn't a single area of where her skin meets the background that hasn't been tweaked. Look at the steel pole on the right and along its leading edge, you can see it goes wobbly near the area of her arm. The out of focus background is almost certainly a mask, the blur is just a little too consistent, too smooth for in camera(It's not just a wide aperture, it's also a longer focal length). Throwing a consistent smoothness over the background makes things much easier for the artist to bend the foreground subject. As for the heavily photoshopped image, yes it is and obviously so. The Brook pic is going for a "natural" vibe, but one could argue that the heavily photoshopped image model's original shape is less tweaked.
I dunno why there's resistance over that particular image. It is extremely difficult to find any such staged shot that isn't photoshopped. The majority of staged images on this thread have been and many, if not most beyond colour correction.
It's not as if she and any number of celebs don't tweak their photos, even "natural, candid" for snapchat/arsebook ones. EG.
Observe if you will the planks in the decking under her left arm. All bendy like. Photo manipulation to give her more of a waist. Kinda daft because she already is about the best example of hourglass as one could find, but it seems it's never enough these days.
We see this so much and most of it is done by pros, so not noticeable unless you look twice and you've used such software and it becomes "normal" to us, but it's not reality.
Wow talk about over analysing. I never would have noticed the steel pole if you hadn't of pointed it out to me. Same with the plank of wood under her arm. These are really minor things. I'm not saying the photos haven't been tweaked, but c'mon, its nothing compared to the sort of airbrushing we've seen in other photos. You said the amount of photoshop in that pic is off the scale and obvious to boot but its not really, far from it, unless you're a pixel peeper.
Just to give another example of what is obvious.
Now I know there's better lighting in that shot but the photos of Kelly Brook are nothing in comparison.0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59087
Was a photoshop wrangler in a previous life so things naturally stick out for me. My take is that so called "natural" shots that are tweaked are far more dishonest and misleading than obviously done for effect shots. You see obvious is obvious shots, but seem to have no issue with subtle hidden changes that are designed to be hidden and lead to a different image. The fact is in her pics Kelly Brooke has gone on The Adobe Diet™ and lost a few kilos and gained more waist. She didn't look like the photo and that IMHO is not minor. On a few levels. Never mind that Kelly Brook is a Class One Holy Relic of a Ride and has been through thick and thin as it were and of all people shouldn't have to buy into this, but does.Mister Vain wrote: »Wow talk about over analysing. I never would have noticed the steel pole if you hadn't of pointed it out to me. Same with the plank of wood under her arm. These are really minor things. I'm not saying the photos haven't been tweaked, but c'mon, its nothing compared to the sort of airbrushing we've seen in other photos. You said the amount of photoshop in that pic is off the scale and obvious to boot but its not really, far from it, unless you're a pixel peeper.
A return to normal programming...
Kelly Brook, being a ride. Earlier.
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Some of those old hairdos would be classed as a serious fire hazard today.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »one for the older lads here.
Kim Wilde.
(anyone that hasn't heard of her, be careful googling. The 80s were a bit, well 80s
Another 80's peach was Linda Lusardi
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Any more than a handful is a waste they sayclairewithani wrote: »Haha I meant unenhanced.
Might but myself a set of boobs .
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BattleCorp wrote: »When was that pic taken. She's almost 55. (born December 19, 1963)
Either she is incredibly well preserved or my compliments to her plastic surgeon.
2017 pic there. She's looking well regardless.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
i like big tits
just sayin.
That's okay, because evolution has made it so. Recent Scientific studies (Nice work if you can get it) shows that human breasts are too large to serve just as a lactation device to feed babies and also serve to attract a mate (again, this required a scientific study?:pac:).
But, suppose it's good to get the official nod we're not all deviants.
0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
The fact that it was recent shows how much bullsh1t can be found among some "academics" of late.Avatar MIA wrote: »That's okay, because evolution has made it so. Recent Scientific studies (Nice work if you can get it) shows that human breasts are too large to serve just as a lactation device to feed babies and also serve to attract a mate (again, this required a scientific study?:pac:). That's been realised for donkey's years, like over a century. Humans are alone among the great apes for women having fully inflated boobs all the time. In our genetic cousins that would be an absolute turn off, as it would mean to them that the female was breast feeding and because of that sub, even infertile. Our male ape rellies prefer flat droopy "empty" boobs, which are a turn off for us. So somewhere along the way we evolved boobs to be fuller all the time. Among other things like we lost the penis bone, obvious seasonal fertility, women got an hourglass figure and we go in for year round nookie(never mind the migrating clitoris. Yep). Likely to do with our growing brains and minds in kids that need far longer involvement from parents, so longer parental attachment to each other.
Hmmm, waaaay too much nerd there, so to bring it back, a blast from the past and one that illustrates all sorts... Ms Raquel Welch.
That's pre placcy boobs and photoshop era. :eek:
Hey, if you want to jack off to a cartoon, work away and my blessings to ya. My gift to you...iLikeWaffles wrote: »No, Photoshopped also :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement