Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 18:32
Nice, although her hip-section looks a bit too thin, possibly photoshopped (badly)bradavon wrote:
Page 23 of 36
Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 18:36
Well spotted.
Definitely "touched up". That's basically a given today. The swimsuit she is wearing is very attractive.
I saw on the News some (note: not many) models are complaining about this, saying it's way OTT. There was a photo of Catherine Zeta Jones and she'd been altered so much it looked NOTHING like her any more.
Definitely "touched up". That's basically a given today. The swimsuit she is wearing is very attractive.
I saw on the News some (note: not many) models are complaining about this, saying it's way OTT. There was a photo of Catherine Zeta Jones and she'd been altered so much it looked NOTHING like her any more.
Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 19:32
Must be talking about this pic:bradavon wrote:Well spotted.
Definitely "touched up". That's basically a given today. The swimsuit she is wearing is very attractive.
I saw on the News some (note: not many) models are complaining about this, saying it's way OTT. There was a photo of Catherine Zeta Jones and she'd been altered so much it looked NOTHING like her any more.
Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 19:35
OMG! That's scary.
Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 22:12
OMG! I love Keeley.
More pictures please!
More pictures please!
Posted: 16 Apr 2008, 02:25
Holy funbags!!!
Posted: 18 Apr 2008, 16:23
Ukrainian glamour model, Luba (Shumeyko). NSFW obviously.
Posted: 18 Apr 2008, 16:25
Luba does absolutely nothing for me. Really a plain jane. Ugly face.
Posted: 18 Apr 2008, 17:58
She's pretty.
Posted: 18 Apr 2008, 18:00
We have dead plants in the garden with more expression than Luba...
Posted: 18 Apr 2008, 18:53
LOL
Posted: 17 Jun 2008, 01:09
In honour of Firefox 3 being released any hour now, I thought I'd post this picture, of this lovely lady 8) -
Posted: 17 Jun 2008, 19:36
She's certainly a fox. 8)
Posted: 17 Jun 2008, 19:41
No, she's a Fire Fox .
.Posted: 18 Jun 2008, 01:45
That was kinda the joke I was making but never mind.... 8)
Posted: 28 Jun 2008, 17:09
Have you guys seen the latest Front magazine? It has some absolutely stonking photos of the latest Page 3 lovelies:
These two are particularly incredible, the second is my current wallpaper 8) -
And a couple of bonus photos, starring Vikki Blows (what a name!) -
These two are particularly incredible, the second is my current wallpaper 8) -
And a couple of bonus photos, starring Vikki Blows (what a name!) -
Posted: 28 Jun 2008, 18:28
Some cockstiffening images there, Brad. 
Posted: 28 Jun 2008, 18:48
I thought you'd appreciate them .
Check out the magazine if you see it in the shops, it's awesome. If it didn't cost so much I'd buy it, like I do with Nutts/Zoo a few times a year.
.Check out the magazine if you see it in the shops, it's awesome. If it didn't cost so much I'd buy it, like I do with Nutts/Zoo a few times a year.
Posted: 28 Jun 2008, 19:41
Where's Iga Wyrwal?! 
Posted: 28 Jun 2008, 19:46
With that many boobies, who cares? Be thankful for what we've been given 
. Iga is nothing next to Peta, anyway.
Serious answer: It doesn't look like she works for Girl Management: http://www.girlmanagement.com/
. Iga is nothing next to Peta, anyway.Serious answer: It doesn't look like she works for Girl Management: http://www.girlmanagement.com/
Posted: 29 Jun 2008, 00:41
Shame the quaity of the images is so shitty. Compression hell.
Posted: 29 Jun 2008, 10:22
It's worth remembering most of the photos are scanned in from the magazine, that always degrades quality. It's obvious when you view them at full resolution.
I also always re-compress JPEGs I download to 90%. It reduces the size by loads. If you want the originals you can find them via Google, that's how I found them all (many typing in "front famous five"). They maybe more to your liking.
I doubt anyone else will be able to tell the difference. I never can at 10% reduction. you need to go lower than 80% (20% reduction) before it starts becoming noticeable.
I also always re-compress JPEGs I download to 90%. It reduces the size by loads. If you want the originals you can find them via Google, that's how I found them all (many typing in "front famous five"). They maybe more to your liking.
I doubt anyone else will be able to tell the difference. I never can at 10% reduction. you need to go lower than 80% (20% reduction) before it starts becoming noticeable.
Posted: 29 Jun 2008, 13:52
When your looking at them on a 40 inch screen at 1080 resolution you they suck
Posted: 29 Jun 2008, 14:59
It's not a good idea to upscale them to 1920x1080. Except for one of them (which is larger), none are anywhere near that resolution.
Besides, you're way more fussy than most.
Besides, you're way more fussy than most
.Posted: 02 Jul 2008, 23:29
Fancy licking Lucy Pinder? Hot off the press (the latest Nuts issue):
