are these pics actually photoshopped as this article claims?

File: 2.jpg (291KB, 1080x1350px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1080x1350px

2. too perfect ass and long feet

File: 3.jpg (139KB, 1080x1350px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1080x1350px

3. too long right hand

Only a true noob would say it's Photoshop. Not even trolling here. People clearly have no idea about different effects caused by different focal lengths, distortions and whatnot. The pictures do not look photoshopped at all to me.

>>3129422
Right breast is behind her hand, can't say anything about it.

>>3129423
Too far away to say anything about the perfectness of her ass. Probably some software smoothing, who cares. Her feet look a little weird, but could be refraction from being below water.

>>3129424
Too long hand? Who the hell would shoop their hand to look larger? What we see here is distortion caused by shooting close by with a wide angle lens.

Can't be bothered to load these up in photoshop to see if there's signs of actual shooping, smoothing skin or whatever, but to me it seems that whoever two dollar "journalist" made those claims is just another jealous moron trying to make a buck.

>>3129422
Have you actually left the basement much, and seen many women in real life?

>>3129422

all i see is half a great tit