The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
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.
Categories: Photos/Videos
Posted by Boo on Tue Aug 22, 2006
and here's a non-busting out bride in a similar position, for comparison:
Posted by katey  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  09:10 AM
If you look at the link posted above by katey you can see the muscle structure is taking on the same shape as the subject photo. Why would someone fake the photo and make it look weird? They would try to make it look as natural as possible. The photo may be staged by I think it could actually happen in the same manner.
Posted by N E O  in  Everywhere and nowhere  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  10:22 AM
I just did some testing of my own in the mirror and couldn't get anything remotely like in the picture. - Razela

gulp

That's an image that will be staying with me forever.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  10:37 AM
okay......I just did the whole "pretend to release a dove while naked in front of the mirror" thing too

And guess what?

I GOT WEIRD MUSCLE THINGYS GOING OVER MY SHOULDERS!!

Actually "muscle" is rather inaccurate since I don't have any. I'm not athletic, I'm flabby.

Even though I voted real at first, I did have some doubts about it, but no more. I definately think the picture is real now.
Posted by MadCarlotta  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  11:09 AM
I'm a graphic designer, specialize in photoshopping images, and I can tell you for sure that this photo is not real. The shading inside the breasts is darker than any other shading on the bride, and it's a brown tone rather than the grey tone in the rest of the shading. The highlights on the breast are brighter than those on the WHITE dress. And don't even let me get started on the musculature.
Posted by Coco  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  11:21 AM
Picture was on Wacky Things may of last year. http://www.wackythings.com/2005/05/wedding-day-boobies.html
Posted by Neal  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  11:28 AM
Carlotta, maybe the weird musclular thing is fat not muscle. I may not get that since I'm mostly musclular.

Oh also, someone mentioned that no one would wear a strapless dress to their wedding. Definitely not true, one of my friend's as well as my aunt both wore strapless dresses to their own wedding. I think it's pretty common these days.

I still vote not true. I mean, her boobs don't seem to even be connecting to her body at the correct places.

And Charybdis, ... well, on second thought, no comment.
Posted by Razela  in  Chicago, IL  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  11:45 AM
In two of the last three weddings I've been to the bride wore a strapless dress.

And I hadn't considered implants. They can definitely change the shape, but I don't think they're necessary to achieve this look. I've seen similar images when women were leaning forward with their arms up, but everyone is built differently so not everyone would look like this.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  11:58 AM
I think gravity has something to do with the odd appearance of her mommy parts in that photo. I don't think she's leaning back as some have suggested; I think she is bending forward so they are hanging down.
Posted by Chris Carlisle  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  01:28 PM
Yeah, it's definately fat, not muscle. I'm not chesty, but when I did my "re-enactment" my boobs did exactly the same thing. It was like the tops of my boobs went up over my shoulders.

The bride looks pretty slim though, but I'm not FAT fat, I'm just not a lean muscle machine. She's definately leaning forward, not back and the picture seems to be a motion shot, which could account for the odd breast shape(s). She may have been jumping up or lunging forward to throw the dove. If you take any random movie with topless women dancing (showgirls, old betty page movies, etc) and watch it in slomo, you'll see all kinds of breast shapes as they move. Don't ask me how I know this either.

I do agree with Coco on the shading, as I mentioned before. I'm also a graphic designer. However, just because the picture may have been retouched (and I think it definately was) doesn't mean the picture itself is fake.

Again, it would be WAY easier to make them look "normal" than to go to all the trouble to make them look like that.
Posted by MadCarlotta  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  02:40 PM
I never said the file name was proof...

With the testimony of two experts, I have to point out the symmetry again. An amateur would probably tend more toward the symmetrical approach falsely imagining it looked more natural, and a professional would probably tend that way out of habit.

Taking other things into account: the way the dress sits is not how it would normally be worn; if it was manipulated, the editor either spent a great deal of time on that alone, or else it came from another source altogether. Based on the groom, the shadows and shading seem completely reasonable, and the lighter areas on the breasts appear to be totally realistic tan lines.

Nothing is proven, and it's not even as black and white as "real" or "fake," but I'm standing with my original opinion.
Posted by knightofbob  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  04:03 PM
Let's just agree the pic is real but the chick is a mutant.
Posted by Lonewatchman  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  05:19 PM
"... Go to a club and watch a women with transplants dancing and you'll see what I mean."

Uh, I think you mean implants. ... Don't you?
Or is this some subculture I don't know about yet?
Posted by Big Gary  in  Trouble  on  Wed Aug 23, 2006  at  06:40 PM
Of course it is. Haven't you heard about it yet? tongue wink Aren't the breasts mostly fatty tissue and Cooper's Ligaments anyway? Therefore the odd shapes could be possible if the picture was taken at a specific time. There's nothing holding them in place or in a specific position, they're at the mercy of the rest of the body and gravity.
Posted by Soldant  on  Thu Aug 24, 2006  at  03:38 AM
"Or is this some subculture I don't know about yet?"

You mean you've never heard of titswapping?
Posted by Vader  on  Fri Aug 25, 2006  at  06:53 AM
Heh, ooops! Definitely meant implants =)
Posted by Razela  in  Chicago, IL  on  Sat Aug 26, 2006  at  10:32 PM
Also, after listening to some other people, I'm now having extreme doubts about my own position. I was completely sure before that it was fake, but now I'm definitely willing to entertain the possibility it may be real.
Posted by Razela  in  Chicago, IL  on  Sat Aug 26, 2006  at  10:33 PM
It's Real, guys & gals. Suck it up & admit defeat, thou doubters.
Posted by stork  in  the spiracles of space  on  Sun Aug 27, 2006  at  12:37 AM
Okay, there's only one way to settle this - experimentation. I have a camera...
Posted by Blondin  on  Sun Aug 27, 2006  at  07:39 PM
Okay, that is obviously not real, it as if her breasts are directly attached to both her arms and chest. I tested it out, and they just dont do that, hers look like they are somehow hanging from her shoulders.
Posted by Lady Hedoniste  in  Chilling with 14 other tiny people in your head.  on  Tue Aug 29, 2006  at  06:02 PM
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  07:22 AM
her boobs look too pale
Posted by angelique  on  Thu Sep 21, 2006  at  02:33 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  in  chicago, illinois  on  Sun Sep 24, 2006  at  10:39 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  11:18 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  11:41 PM
Comments: Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.