Flashing Bride

I received this in my inbox from an unnamed correspondant:
"I've been sent this photo by several people in the past few days. Looks too perfect to be real."

(ETA: After comments, I've removed the image from the page, but you can view it here.)

Well, it's certainly been posted to the BridalBloopers website, but all the information with it states is that it has been posted by a woman named Amanda Sell from Mount Vernon, WA.

As to whether it's real or not, it's hard to say. The description on the website says: "If you can laugh after flashing 200 guests, you'll be able to handle anything in marriage right?" Of course, given the shot, it's impossible to tell whether or not this is a photograph from a real wedding or some sort of photo shoot, or whether the alleged 'flashing of 200 guests' occurred (isn't the bride usually facing away from the wedding party when throwing the bouquet?)

The photograph doesn't appear to be photoshopped, but the muscle structure and colouration of the bride's chest seem a little odd.


Posted on Tue Aug 22, 2006


Definatly real. This is a snap-shot photo, so of course it is not going to look as natural as usual. And all u people who tried jumping up and down in front of the mirror (:-) should take a photo mid-jump as its impossible to see what a split-second image would look like from a image in a mirror.

I have actually had this happen to me - not a wedding dress but a strapless top when i was out at a club - easy to happen and very embarassing!!!
Posted by lucy  on  Fri Sep 08, 2006  at  05:22 AM
her boobs look too pale
Posted by angelique  on  Thu Sep 21, 2006  at  12:33 AM
You are BOTH right, and that's the problem.

The original photo genuinely shows a genuine garment malfunction. The strange shapes near the shoulders the pectoralis muscle pulled in a strange way by the extreme rotation of her hands. I can get an identical look by raising my hands and rotating my hands, and I'm a skinny white man with no breasts. Skinny may be the key, because fat would make those muscles less pronounced.

The strange shape of the breasts are what you would expect from a soft body frozen by a photographer's strobe.

But the strobe is where the fakery is exposed. There must be a powerful strobe, or the whole thing would be blurry. (What wedding photographer shoots without a strobe?) But with a strobe very close to the lens would illuminate the area between the breasts, not make dark shadows there. Put your finger over the faked cleavage, and the rest is exactly right.

So the "artist" jazzed up the accidental boob shot, that's all. As someone else pointed out, the shadows are too dark, and the wrong color.

Finally, the nipples show the breasts are in very different positions, yet the curvature between them in unnaturally perfect. The offset position of the nipples match the dress, which would not be expected to come off both breasts at exactly the same split second.

The image is fake, but not the way most people would assume.

And as a retoucher, it is common for the brain to ignore even startling retouching mistakes. Not only ignore them, but embrace them. I've made a living on this principle.
Posted by tommydee  on  Sun Sep 24, 2006  at  08:39 AM
To prove my point, I have UN-retouched the photo. (In other words, I replaced the faked cleavage with a natural shading that would have been produced by a photographers strobe on skin that does not see much sun.)

That un-retouched image is here.

Without retouching, the woman looks masculine because her smallish (natural) breasts are being pulled flat, and the angle of the strobe intensifies the flat look. So somebody tried to make the photo look more "realistic" by adding the fake boob shadow.

Without the weird shadow, the image still looks odd, but that's due to the rotation of the arms, the paleness of the skin, and the motion frozen by the flash, er, strobe.
Posted by tommydee  on  Sun Sep 24, 2006  at  09:18 AM
My husband and I just tested this out with my boobies. Thrusting the arms upward does force the boobs together for a split second. Mine didnt do it to the dramatic extent that hers did, but mine arent as big. So Im thinking hers are bigger and maybe a little saggy...so the forces placed upon them had a larger effect then what you might see in your own mirror. I believe it is completely real...I just feel sorry for this girl and her saggy uneven breastisees.
Posted by Kate  on  Sun Nov 08, 2009  at  09:41 PM
Comments: Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.