I don’t mean to sound cynical, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this photo may have been tampered with as well:
 
     http://www.drunkbastard.net/photos/mybaby~1.jpg
 
_____________

Blunderov <squooker@mweb.co.za> wrote:
Dr Sebby
Sent: 15 November 2004 04:54 AM

i didnt realize such a thing were possible!

[Blunderov] Walter is becoming quite an adept at Photoshop. Some things
to look for in photo forgery;

Discrepancies of scale - the foot is too big.

Discrepancies in the grain (film) or pixilation (digital) - the
pixilation around the foot is of a different scale of magnification to
the pixilation in the belly area, indicating that two photos have been
superimposed.

Discrepancies in lighting direction. Usually this is a major giveaway
but in the fetush photo, this has been rather well done. Nevertheless,
there is a slight difference between the incident angle implied by the
shadows around the 'foot' compared to the shadow around the belly button
area. I think there should be slightly less shading on top of the foot
near the big toe. Still, very well done I have to say - the lighting
angles are quite similar and indicate a strong awareness of this aspect
of photography by the forger.

Best Regards



---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to


’Tis better to have loved and lost
than never to have known what it’s like
to have sex with someone besides yourself.  —LenKen


Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! – Get yours free!