photoshopped

[TomB08]

any experience eyes know for certain that this is altered? It doesn't quite look right to me. just something about it

[knobster]

Originally Posted by TomB08

any experience eyes know for certain that this is altered? It doesn't quite look right to me. just something about it

It's a bit too lo-res to tell for sure, but it looks OK to me. However, I've been shocked at the number of really dodgy fakes I've seen in some of the threads - particularly in some of the more "mature" womens' threads!

[rwlifer]

It's fake. You can tell by the panty lines between her legs and side of the teddy, especially the left side. See how rough the edges are compared to the edges of her left leg to the sheet in the background. The right side is hidden by shadows. Question is, why would anyone fake a pic without a face? I've done a lot of fakes and have the same issue with lo-res pics and softening the edges.

[mollyb]

If ‘it’s a fake it’s a very good one. I blew it up the rough frayed edges of the garment are on both sides as a lace layer garment would appear. So I wouldn’t use that as a determining factor. The same rougher texture can be seen in the backdrop on the right side in the folds of the fabric. If you blow it way up the pixel distortion looks the same all over with the naked eye. I can’t figure out as others have said why would one alter a faceless photo especially sense the fake opinion is based on the bottom half of the clothing. The bare breasts and top only revealing part. Posted a ½ size of the blowup but I think you can see the rough edges are on both sides around the panty part of the garment.

[TomB08]

thanks for the input. I met this girl about a year and a half ago. Then, according to my memory she was a wee bit larger in the waist than this. That's why I thought this might have been altered. Again, it could be accurate but from my opinion based seeing her a while back. thanks.