Oops, Exposed, Nude, C-thru, Upskirt, Accidental & more - 0pen thread

Tamzin Outhwaite (1998 I think) ...



... uk members might recognize her

 

Amanda Hearst

 

I o not know who she is but Tamzin is very pretty, will have to look her up.

 

Jaimie Alexander as requested by jonjones23

 

Rachel Nichols

 

Jane Seymour (I found some HQ versions )

 

Avril Lavigne wears see-through top in Calabasas, CA, 7/14/21

full set https://forum.phun.org/threads/avri...house-in-calabasas-ca-7-14-21-mq-tag.3882360/

 

Tho not a Brit, I saw her on New Tricks. Decent actress. Older & not as pretty as here. Also we got a nude leak not too long ago.

 

I'm seeing vag/stubble in pic #1 after some tweaks.

 

Wow. I mean, I see what you're looking at, I guess. But the appearance of pubic hairs is chaotic by its nature. And this pic is already a noisy environment. Combined with the absence of color for context & confirmation... Well, my scrutiny is oft met with skepticism. People have called me crazy. This one's a stretch, even for me. I hate to miss your band wagon, but just this once, I think I'll walk.

 

I'll be the first to admit that it is tough to see, but it's there. You can see her legs through the dress, that's what made me look closer. Even in the darker part at the bottom of the closeup you can see more detail. And I said stubble, not actual pubes. I'll be the first to admit that the eyes see what they want to see. I always find it funny that guys here will rub one out to a shadow that looks like a tiny sliver of areola. I'm not the best at photoshopping...one of the resident experts could do a much better job of touch up to confirm of if what I'm seeing is what I thought.

 

I'd be more than a little skeptical, too, of self-reports of rubbing one out.

 

dunno how you see anything when she clearly has white panties on... you can see the top of the waistband


enhanced to better show them

 

Are people that desperate?

 

Again, I think I see what you're seeing, I guess. (I know, not the same poster.) I will say your "waistband" is slightly more believable than Mike H's "stubble". I do appreciate your work, Meaty Evil.

About that stubble, I stared at the original pic a tiny bit harder. I freely admit, I'm desperate, or bored, or obsessive, or something. Anyway, I've made a couple of observations of my own.

1. Jane's hands-on-hips are pulling down on her top, pulling the fabric tight on her boobs & making it pretty much see-thru. Hence the clear nips.

2. Her pose is slightly legs apart, hence the visible air gap between the legs. Light shining thru from all the way in the back. The fabric below clings to the legs, creating slack in the middle. The pushed-down fabric bunches up in the waist area. This produces wrinkles & a few large creases.

3. Mike H's focus on the legs-convergence zone coincides with a big crease where there's a transition from light-to-dark. Brightly lit below the line, to in shadow above it. We can only see thru the lit area. The shadow is doing a fairly good job of hiding detail. Since Jane's right leg is turned outward, angled to her right, where we seem to see the "leg join" isn't quite all the way up the legs. It's the front of her left thigh meeting up with the back of her right leg, near the buttock. Notice her left upper inner thigh is still curving out, to her left. There's still some "thigh gap" remaining, above the line, across the crease.

4. Unfortunately, this means I don't think we can make out enough detail to "see" anything in the "beaver" area (the vulva). Mike's stubble, or my phantom pubic hairs sticking out down below, at the crease line, are both wishful thinking, ie, imagined. I think what I was seeing was an artifact. Your stubble, similarly, I think. I say with some regret.

Mods: Never fear, please accept my resignation hereby, from this exchange.

 

LOL.
Good work, guys.
I stand corrected, and no, I'm not that desperate!

 

Good point.
Some way more than others...

 

I wasn't necessarily referring to you.

 

My god. Just move on