A Photo Editor Will Be Fired For This [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 6 years ago Funny

When you Photoshop a girl for a nood magazine, smooth out her imperfections--sure, but don"t forget the shadows. NSFWish
There are 62 comments:
Male 128
You`re right LordSameth. I wouldn`t have noticed so without the red circle hehehehe
0
Reply
Male 2,220
What red circle?
0
Reply
Male 35
I don`t think any heterosexual man would notice this if the red circle wasn`t there...

:)
0
Reply
Female 877
ok, who`s willing to bet on those breasts reality?
0
Reply
Female 547
Do I care? No, still fap-worthy.
0
Reply
Female 152
Hmm to me the shadow looks real, like even up by her shoulder on the right it looks a lil plumper than the picture leads on.
And to me this doesn`t look like a high quality photo shoot anyway. i bet you just some regular chick decided to re-touch some sexy photos for the internet....but eh thats just me
0
Reply
Female 465
Telltale shadow.
0
Reply
Male 294
more than one light source....
0
Reply
Male 5,194
Belly button is wrong, too.
0
Reply
Male 73
lol the shadows were photoshopped
0
Reply
Male 8,302
Simple logic tells you its a shadow not a muffin top, BECAUSE this is a model in a photo shoot; they`re not likely to pick a model with a muffin top for it.
0
Reply
Male 554
Who cares if those Bewbs are fake? They`re NICE NICE NICE!
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Clearly, ALL the shadows on the wall have been added. If you look at the shadows on her face and under her bewbs, you can see that the main lights are definitely from above, yet the shadows on the wall seem to be from a light from below. The one above her left shoulder is especially poorly done.

So, she doesn`t really have a muffin top, but those bewbs are absolutely, 100% fake, fake, FAKE!
0
Reply
Male 21
her name is imogen thomas, was in big brother uk a few years ago, boobs are "enhanced"
0
Reply
Male 757
Shopped
0
Reply
Female 2,352
Why would you bother to shop in a muffin top shadow?
0
Reply
Female 587
if the sides were taken in using Photoshop, why would there be a shadow in the first place? i think the shadow itself is the doctored part
0
Reply
Male 214
I`ve seen skinny and small women with huge hooters so its entirely possible that this girls fun bags are the real deal
0
Reply
Male 2,700
Fantastic!!!!
0
Reply
Female 683
who cares, she`s hot. seriously.
0
Reply
Male 2
I think its more likely that the shadows were added as appose to a reduction in the ladies body size... Look at the shadow under her thigh, also... where is the lighting actually coming from if the shadows wernt shopped into the photo?
0
Reply
Male 467
@daniellee_x
I beg to differ. A girl half her size can still have her boobs. I was a skeptic at fist too, but I felt and handled them. Then I believed.
0
Reply
Female 451
No one who is that skinny has such big boobs.
0
Reply
Female 477
haha

they should just stop photoshopping
jessica & britney did it and look fine
0
Reply
Female 709
Ugh her muffin top haunts her, even in her photoshopped pictures!
0
Reply
Male 46
it`s so strange to me that there are so many people that just do not get it. no matter what it is, they fail to understand exactly what`s going on. I don`t know if they just don`t bother to read anything, or they only process what they want to see or what it is. yes, it`s shopped. that`s the point. that is the entire reason why this picture was posted here. it was shopped, poorly, as they forgot to remove her "fat" rolls.
0
Reply
Male 833
The light could be coming from under her...
0
Reply
Male 55
mamba: looks shopped, the line on the right shoulder looks too straight, a pro wouldnt do it that badly on part of the shadow and miss editing other parts

--
That`s the point, its a bad shop.
0
Reply
Male 628
looks shopped, the line on the right shoulder looks too straight, a pro wouldnt do it that badly on part of the shadow and miss editing other parts
0
Reply
Female 839
i think that`s Imogen off UK Big Brother a few years ago
0
Reply
Male 754
It`s all wrong.Look at the angles.
Total pretend fail...fail!
0
Reply
Female 237
Well if they put her in knickers that fit it wouldn`t have cut into her so called "fat" and made her look like she`s chunky.

Natural beauty FTW. I`m sure she is fine before the editing.
0
Reply
Female 491
You can kinda see the photoshop effect on her sides... They look... Computer generated...
0
Reply
Male 698
ha this is very funny
0
Reply
Male 14,330
SCHWING!!!
0
Reply
Male 177
First and foremost: If the fat that caused the shadow was photoshopped away, the shadow IMMEDIATELY BEHIND said fat would also have been photoshopped out in the process. The only way this could have happened is if they took the fat out, then put the shadow back in.
0
Reply
Female 251
Theres more than just one light source here so it is believable.
even so, she clearly wasn`t that huge in the first place, just a curvy girl. Curvy girls are hot anyway.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
rofl!
0
Reply
Female 1,682
...Shes hawt. In this picture at least. If she had that much fat hanging out I dunno if I would find that very pretty :/
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Forgot to shop the shadow?
0
Reply
Female 833
what ruswut said. from an ex press photo tech.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
whoops
0
Reply
Female 179
Kribbe, They CAN stretch photos, but they don`t always have to do it.
0
Reply
Male 1,266
@redser99 You do realise that shoots like this usually (always) have more than just a ceiling lamp?

And using underwear with looser elastic is cheaper than photoshop to smooth out after, I`m betting on the shadow being the altered bit too.
0
Reply
Male 977
Black bar FAAAAAAAAIL
0
Reply
Male 2,005
something smells fishy and it is not me, does not photoshop "stretch" pictures? and doesn`t that mean the shadows get "stretched" too?
0
Reply
Male 2,440
`Dem t*tties :)
0
Reply
Male 114
Something`s incorrect about the whole shadow such that it`s very dark at bottom and very light at top. The light is clearly shining from top-down, yet the shadow is from bottom-up.

I think the shadow may be a painting on the backboard.
0
Reply
Male 612
anyone ever consider that its extremely easy for someone to just edit the shadow to make it look like a bad editing job?
0
Reply
Male 225
nooo but shes so fine!!!!
0
Reply
Male 1,240
Yes, but it`s harder to find a girl that fits in those size pants, yet have breasts that big.
0
Reply
Male 1,931
I would much rather see a model in her natural form, than having it altered to the state of frankenstein.
0
Reply
Female 1,008
If they got the girl some panties that fit they wouldn`t have this problem.
0
Reply
Male 302
Interesting point fabarati. She certainly has a pretty face... if that is real!?
0
Reply
Male 1,240
I`m guessing that`s she`s really not huge. Probably very attractive.

And that she wore panties two sizes too small so that the photo editors knew how much to take in.
0
Reply
Male 302
No way. Why the hell would she be a model if she is that huge?
0
Reply
Female 526
lol..why was she wearing 2 sizes small panties in the first place..?
0
Reply
Male 10,440
A little content aware will do you good.
0
Reply
Male 224
How horrible must it be for models to find out that their imperfections have been photoshopped out D:
0
Reply
Female 526
lol..why was she wearing 2 sizes small panties in the first place..?
0
Reply
Male 1,240
HAHAHAHAHA!
0
Reply
Male 19,873
Link: A Photo Editor Will Be Fired For This [Pic] [Rate Link] - When you Photoshop a girl for a nood magazine, smooth out her imperfections--sure, but don`t forget the shadows. NSFWish
0
Reply