Emma Watson Discussion Thread

[Halocock]

Dude... You jerked off..... not me.... it is you baby juice..... not mine......YOU have to live for all eternity with the fact that you spritzt your load over silly nonsense....... I fucking don't care.... If you want, you can look at a pic of a pile of corpses and imaging it is the Olsen twins having a foursome with Selena Gomez and Helga Babrinski..... and then jerk of over that..

You lost your dignity to a Italian Paparazzo........not me

Your a fuckin idiot
do you think before you speak
you have had a hard on for this being fake since it was published
your not voicing your opinion your ramming it down everyone’s throats
fuck off and troll somewhere else

 

[Therese]

I voted real because it's real

 

[ro1and]

I voted real because it's real

Similarly I voted fake because it’s fake.

 

[Aguywhointernets]

I do not know how you lot cant see the perfect line the designer messed up which is where her t shirt is...its a perfectly straight line on her stomach, something she doesn't have normally.

There isn't a perfect line. There is a fold of skin.

I used to be a commercial photographer shooting models among other things. We used to do quite a lot of removing sampling and cloning to peoples parts hair and clothing.
From a photographers point of view, you simply could not clone out that entire black top, in that lighting and have it look realistic. You would struggle to do that in a studio with a stand in model and repeatable lighting.

The shadows, the streak of light across her belly, the shadow underneath her left boob, the shadow and texture of the stomach creases all look perfect, and in sync with the natural lighting direction you see throiout the picture.

If it's a fake, its literally the best one I have ever seen. Theres no feathering, no obvious smoothing of the noise in any area and the lighting is spot on.

 

[cd79]

Looks real enough to me - and like others have said, those boobs match the size and shape of the ones in the bath pics.

 

[Troll]

There isn't a perfect line. There is a fold of skin.

I used to be a commercial photographer shooting models among other things. We used to do quite a lot of removing sampling and cloning to peoples parts hair and clothing.
From a photographers point of view, you simply could not clone out that entire black top, in that lighting and have it look realistic. You would struggle to do that in a studio with a stand in model and repeatable lighting.

The shadows, the streak of light across her belly, the shadow underneath her left boob, the shadow and texture of the stomach creases all look perfect, and in sync with the natural lighting direction you see throiout the picture.

If it's a fake, its literally the best one I have ever seen. Theres no feathering, no obvious smoothing of the noise in any area and the lighting is spot on.

Nonsense, I have seen better fakes. This picture is grainy as hell. hence why it isn't difficult to fake.
This also doesn't defer away from the fact there is only 1 picture...

 

[PeterW]

Nonsense, I have seen better fakes. This picture is grainy as hell. hence why it isn't difficult to fake.
This also doesn't defer away from the fact there is only 1 picture...

Firstly, grain isn't easy to replicate for a fake. If anything it would make noticing it's a fake easier because you'd notice grain differentiation. Grain is difficult to fake when mapping new grain onto a grain image.
Secondly, yes there is only one picture and no one saying it's a fake has actually pointed to where the 'original' is that would've had to been used to make the fake...

 

[Aguywhointernets]

Nonsense, I have seen better fakes. This picture is grainy as hell. hence why it isn't difficult to fake.
This also doesn't defer away from the fact there is only 1 picture...

Post a better fake then.

The noise in the photo makes it harder to fake not easier. Think about all that's covered by the black top, and how much would have to be sampled cloned or masked in.
But again I've only edited probably a thousand shots of models where some cloning and removal of clothing/tattoos whatever else is required so what do I know. Again if it's a fake it's extraordinarily well done

 

[Troll]

Post a better fake then.

The noise in the photo makes it harder to fake not easier. Think about all that's covered by the black top, and how much would have to be sampled cloned or masked in.
But again I've only edited probably a thousand shots of models where some cloning and removal of clothing/tattoos whatever else is required so what do I know. Again if it's a fake it's extraordinarily well done

Of course it is well done, however it did not fool US or UK experts, hence why they didn't run with it. And only a lonesome french magazine renound for posting fakes runs with it.

 

[Aguywhointernets]

Of course it is well done, however it did not fool US or UK experts, hence why they didn't run with it. And only a lonesome french magazine renound for posting fakes runs with it.

Or they were afraid of litigation, and hence didn't release the photos.

 

[PeterW]

Of course it is well done, however it did not fool US or UK experts, hence why they didn't run with it. And only a lonesome french magazine renound for posting fakes runs with it.

Again, where's the original? Bugger off.

 

[Thomjones1]

If it's fake, it's a really good fake. Pictures show her only wearing a black tank top with that bikini bottom. So someone had to photoshop out the tank top and use the tits from the shower vid somehow and put them together. People point out her shoulder, but if someone is that good, it'd be weird to mess up on the shoulder strap don't you think? And pictures of her shoulder that day don't look exact but in combination with lighting and if shop was used to brighten the area, I can buy that's how it looks. And maybe they only released one in lame quality because that's the only one that came out good. Maybe brightening the others made it look worse.

 

[Thomjones1]

Also,

Again, where's the original? Bugger off.

There's no original found yet, and no other pictures of her even from that angle or position. So it's both weird there's only one topless pic AND weird theres no similar clothed pics.

 

[PeterW]

Also,


There's no original found yet, and no other pictures of her even from that angle or position. So it's both weird there's only one topless pic AND weird theres no similar clothed pics.

There are similar clothed pics from that day though. It's not weird, it's just lucky paparazzi who aren't exactly camping out in one position as some are seemingly imagining, it's a a perv pointing a camera at a woman on cliffslide beach, not a photo shoot where they're sticking around for more. We've seen this exact pattern occur with Natalie Portman's topless paparazzi pic and Margot Robbie's too YEARS AGO.

 

[Troll]

Or they were afraid of litigation, and hence didn't release the photos.

You would think that? but like the dutchess, they would mention the story but not show the pics. They would NOT be prosecuted for bringing up that that someones privacy was invaded. Considering UK and US jounralists, write stories about nonsense like how cute a dog is.

Also I love how paparazzi were all over her that day with high spec photos, and then one grainy magical photo appears out of nowhere of her topless and it MUST be real.

Delusion is real.

 

[Rabbit Warren]

Real or not, it's what we have. Wouldn't it be nice if someone with the skill set enhanced the photo for us?

 

[Scouselad93]

I think they're fake, when Sophie Turner was caught topless it was reported on a few sites and you could Google it and find it instantly. This one the only places you see it is sites like this and Celeb Jihad, they're mostly known for fakes but do get lucky a few times and it even surprises them. Furthermore when Kate Middleton was snapped by a paparazzi and her topless pictures went into the magazine Closer she sued them. Emma would do the exact same thing and I haven't even heard her make a comment about them. Last time she did that photoshoot and the internet went nuts she made a comment about it. Same as the leaks saying they were fake. There's nothing substantial to say these are true pictures of her. So in my opinion and based on what I have said I think they're fakes.

 

[Cuggie]

I'm also in the fake corner with this.

 

[PeterW]

Furthermore when Kate Middleton was snapped by a paparazzi and her topless pictures went into the magazine Closer she sued them. Emma would do the exact same thing and I haven't even heard her make a comment about them.

So you claim it's fake because she hasn't sued a magazine, EVEN THOUGH it would undoubtedly result in MORE legal action needing to be taken by her for a magazine advertising fake nude photos of her as real...

...Right.

 

[Aguywhointernets]

You would think that? but like the dutchess, they would mention the story but not show the pics. They would NOT be prosecuted for bringing up that that someones privacy was invaded. Considering UK and US jounralists, write stories about nonsense like how cute a dog is.

Also I love how paparazzi were all over her that day with high spec photos, and then one grainy magical photo appears out of nowhere of her topless and it MUST be real.

Delusion is real.

The other photos are from a different viewpoint, and still pretty grainy. This may have been tucked around a corner, who knows, it's all speculation. The reason it's more grainy is because it's been shot on a longer lens from further away. There are any number of reasons there could be only one shot.

It's not delusion or speculation however to understand how photoshop actually works and understand that this picture would be immensely hard if not impossible to fake to this quality. I very much doubt this could be done at all in photoshop, and definately not by your average paparazzi photographer.

If you want to prove otherwise then post a pic of a known fake that looks even close to as good. You claim they are out there so shouldn't be hard right?