Dr. F.,
I have always liked viewing your masterworks on BE. So your sense of what may or may not be morphed should be given some consideration.
But Dr. F., and Gonzo, and Lloyd (from the "Plastic Surgery Barbie Dolls" thread) I think that your perceptions are incorrect in regards to this photo, and the other that I have posted on the other thread in regards to Lady Madeleiene.
Let me explain why I think this.
a) The images that I have of Lady M are not garnered from picture swaps, or photo accumulations found on the Internet. These photos are from Lady M's own website, directly (yes, via subscription). This means that there has not been a "middle man" in the proceedings.
b)On Lady M's website (in the subscription section), are not only these images, but perhaps 1000s more of her--some before her post-2005 breast enhancement, and also many more of those afterwards. Most images I have seen on the internet that aren't sourced directly to her site are of images of her during her earlier BE. (It appears that she has had at least 2 BEs, as she started out being very flat indeed.)
c) These multitudinous images (and video) of her (on her website) defintely prove that her artificially pneumatic wondrousness is what you see in that photo. (Yes, I am aware she is in a pose that just begs cynicism, as that may be one of the easiest posings to morph. But this hasn't been, from where I am sitting. Just remember that camera angle can also provide the "sense" of what you see also.) Since I have had access, I have not seen any photo manipulations on Lady M's website that show boob inflation--either of herself, or her girlfriends, or of her best friend, O'Pearl. Now yes, some of the photos are less high-grade, and some much better grade in resolution (due to how the picture was taken--whether in low light, as in candids, or during actual professionally lighted photoshoots), but overall there is nothing there (that I have seen, or am aware of) that indicates manipulation of her front porch-ness. Lady M doesn't have to do that.
d) The images I have posted are only singular examples of photo series in which these images are from. There may be efforts to morph perhaps a small number of images of her (to play Devil's advocate), but when you have dozens of images from the same sequencing, and they all are decently similar, it's much harder to claim that there was morphing going on.
e) When a woman is sitting down, and her boobs are nearly in her lap, her breasts are of the size necessary that one can see them as in that photo (or any other) if she would be leaning forward. I will be posting here and on the other thread images that I hope will bolster what I am saying here. (Post 2005.)
I will only be posting these two images (here, and over in "Plastic Surgery Dolls.") I don't think I have to post more of Lady M (despite me having many more).
I am going to concentrate on gearing up for more images on the Nataly Israel thread.
Special addendum: I have gone back in this discussion response to add some words, to make more clear some concepts.