*

ac man

  • E Cup
  • 359
babe with bikers in u.g.?
« on: February 12, 2002, 08:40:00 AM »
wow, who is that wonderful babe, with the bikers, posted by jj, in the u.g.? anybody<BR>know?

Mod edit to move to IDQ Broken since the pic is long gone. -Pal
« Last Edit: February 13, 2016, 10:51:12 AM by Palomine »

*

JJ

  • P Cup
  • 3282
Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2002, 11:33:00 AM »
I sure don't know who she is?   Think I may have gotten that one from a newsgroup?

JJ

Member since June 01, 2001

Get most of your news from television and all you'll know is what the anchorette info babes (& guys) spin your way! (Maddow, Costello, Sawyer, Brzezinski, Mitchell, Scarborough,etc.  )

 Get most of your news from television comics (Behar, O'Donnell, Stewart, Colbert, Sharpton, Letterman, Maher, Whoopi, etc.) and all you'll know is sarcasm and mordacity.

*

ac man

  • E Cup
  • 359
Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2002, 06:15:00 PM »
hey, thanks for finding her anyway, that just proves their are more big boob beauties out
there than we know about, kinda like another
pic in u.g about super bowl time, of a girl
with big enhanced ones, a blonde, with her
standing up holding open her gown, and nobody
commented on it either, thanks and keep on the lookout!

*

ggk

  • G Cup
  • 704
    • none
Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2002, 03:09:00 PM »
Isn't this a morph?

*

ggk

  • G Cup
  • 704
    • none
Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2002, 03:20:00 PM »
I put it in the User gallery named isitmorphed.jpg

Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2002, 06:49:00 PM »
it's definitely a morph.

*

ggk

  • G Cup
  • 704
    • none
Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2002, 09:25:00 AM »
Hey Gonzo.  Can you tell me how you know?  This is a great job on the morph, and I had a hard time finding the telltale signs.  The bikini top is not blurred like morphs usually are.

*

ac man

  • E Cup
  • 359
Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2002, 08:22:00 AM »
i agree with you , if it is a morph, it is a
masterpiece, as i have seen many in my day,
but this one sure fooled even me.   i guess
we can dream, right?

*

sheber

  • Shasta'man
  • 8577
    • http://www.bearchive.com/~shasta/
Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2002, 10:18:00 AM »
Here are the answers to your burning questions:

[Rent this space]

*

ggk

  • G Cup
  • 704
    • none
Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2002, 11:45:00 AM »
The hand disappearing, looks to me like she has her hand closed and pressed against her.

Thanks for the info though!


*

ggk

  • G Cup
  • 704
    • none
Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2002, 11:50:00 AM »
The artifacts you are pointing out are still not clear to me.  The area where the end of her necklace is, looks like a pendant on top of her bikini.  You are probably right.  Can we have another expert opinion from another morpher?  This could be the best morph I have ever seen.

*

sheber

  • Shasta'man
  • 8577
    • http://www.bearchive.com/~shasta/
Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2002, 01:16:00 AM »
The highlighted area next to the purple pendant shouldn't be white. It implies that this area is catching more light than the rest of her entire bikini top, when in fact it is neither closest to the light source nor unobstructed to the light source. As for the hand, close you left hand and compare it to the picture. Better yet, try to imitate the pose. It just isn't natural (and down right uncomfortable, I might add) The woman was obviously well endowed to begin with, so this was a relatively easy morph. After reviewing the picture I noted problems with the shading inbetween and underneath the breasts. This area is highlighted by an orange triangle. This area appears as all one tone, where there should be more.
[Rent this space]

*

ggk

  • G Cup
  • 704
    • none
Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2002, 01:31:00 AM »
I don't doubt that you are an expert. I also agree her hand movement is awkward, but the pose is not hard to duplicate, and indicates her not wanting to touch the guy next to her.  The shading points is where I would like other morphing experts to agree with, or disagree with.  Please don't be offended, as you are undoubtedly well-versed in this area, and I am not.

*

sheber

  • Shasta'man
  • 8577
    • http://www.bearchive.com/~shasta/
Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2002, 02:50:00 PM »
Okay. But here's the original. >click me<

But this one is more entertaining.
>click me<

[Rent this space]

Re: babe with bikers in u.g.?
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2002, 03:37:00 PM »
ok, sheber's absolutely right about all the morphing artifacts (blurs, sharpens, obstructed fingers, etc.), but they're not what told me it was a morph.

to me, it just doesn't look real.  see how the bra is constructed?  the bottom of each cup is threaded onto a string that ties around the woman's ribcage under her breasts.  see the way the fabric gathers on the string along the bottom edge of the cup on the left?  if the woman's breasts were that large, we wouldn't see that edge: the lower part of the breast would overhang her ribcage and hide the string from us.

also the folds in the fabric along that edge are in the wrong perspective for the shape of the breast.