I came across this article about Keira Knightley with the attached picture. (It’s 99% SFW.)
Now Knightley’s a beautiful woman but she’s not known for having a huge cleavage. But in this picture she looks like she borrowed Scarlett Johansson’s breasts.
Is this picture just an example of what you can do with a push-up bra and the right camera angle? Or did they enhance her body by computer after the picture was taken?
Honestly? It looks to me like the stuck her face on someone else’s body-- things just don’t match up right for me around the neck/face region.
That said, some amazing things can be done with a push up bra. People always accuse Paris Hilton of getting implants, but she’ll be back to flat the next day. She just wears like, 3 push up bras at once: picture and another.
I’d almost think that it wasn’t just enhancement, but that they pasted her head onto some other woman’s body. Push-up bras still need to have something to push on.
thats a total photoshop imo. and also, paris got implants as well
It could be and probably is photoshopped. But it looks like the work of an industrial strength push up bra. Notice how all her chest flesh is scrunched into the center. There is no plumpness on the side like there should be with breasts that are that plump everywhere else.
If you open the picture in photoshop, you can see it’s Obama’s body.
Yes, it’s completely Photoshopped (her hed is pasted on yay). No push-up bra could accomplish anything approximating that, given Knightly’snatural endowments. She’s one of the most flat-chested actresses in Hollywood.
For Pirates of the Carribean they used a push-up bra AND lots of shading makeup (or so she mentioned in interviews), and this is as much as they got.
I’ve been a professional retoucher for years, and unless she had boob job, then I’d say yes. It’s not a horrible job, but after googling up a few non-studio photos of her, the chests don’t match. If you look close, you’ll see two very faint freckles on the right breast. I couldn’t find any evidence of those in any paparazzi images, where she was wearing something very low cut.
The image linked in the OP has a bit of JPEG artifacts going on, making it hard to compare grain between her face and her chest (but I am getting the sense that there’s less grain in the face than the chest, but the lighting and black/white points seem to match pretty well.
I was also looking for the smoking gun… a shot of her with that exact face, but couldn’t find anything.
Not a smoking gun, but circumstantial: whenever I edit heads onto a body I try to go for neckware because it makes the task of matching skintone and angle and the like simpler. I doubt I’m the first person to stumble onto this, and the necktie perfectly separates face and boob flesh.
I love it when boobs become the subject of academic analysis.
Jeez, I hope she stays inside when it’s a bit breezy outside - she’d get whisked off to Oz.
So you can tell from the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in your time, eh?
Kenna Lindsay can do that. (from fark)
I can’t tell if you’re mocking me or asking in earnest. 
Regardless, every raster image is composed of pixels. It’s the skill of manipulating them to get a convincing result. And yes, I’ve seen plenty of 'shops in my day, as well as doing several hundreds (thousands?) of my own retouching/compositing work.
If a photoshop job is done by an experienced retoucher, there could still be very subtle things to look for that might be able to give it away on its own, merely from being so familiar with the toolset, how it was applied (like brushes, cloning, blending modes, grain simulation, etc…) and looking for clues in that regard.
On top of that, there’s a difference between retouching (general cleanup of flaws using cloning & healing brush techniques as well as sweetening/morphing of the image by using brushes and warping tools, but only using the color information already present in the image itself) and compositing (outlining, layering, blending and matching of parts and pieces from one image into another). You can rest assured that 99.99% of professional digital photography is retouched to some degree. The OP is really asking if this is a composite job, which requires even greater skill and adequate resource material to pull off. Plus this image has been sufficiently compressed, introducing lossy JPEG artifacts that make it all the harder to analyze.
BUT, in this case, the subject is a famous actress, which gives us the opportunity to simply compare her features of the image in question against the untold amount of images of her on the internet.
I don’t think this is a composite job. Error level analysis says that the chest and face are not dissimilar. The tie itself, oddly, might have been composited in, though.
Yep, I’m with cmyk. Willing to bet that that picture (the head, at any rate) is actually a graft from a photo taken when KK made this red carpet pose at the Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest premiere. Obviously the 'shop wasn’t taken from this precise photo, but clearly another photographer shot her from a slightly different angle. Note the same expression, make-up, hair-style/highlights, even how the hair falls against her face (and hint of earrings).
Here’s another shot probably taken moments later/earlier that same night that shows just how much a match the hair is – no way this is coincidental.
It’s an old internet meme.
I thought that said “Lindsay Lohan can do that.”
That’s an obvious fake. The boobs don’t seem to line up right with the shoulders, nevermind there’s not that much fat on her entire body - her pushup bra would have to start at the ass. (And this from someone who finds that photo from the Pirate’s link rather hot.)
Clarified thread title.
That’s fine with me, as long as I get to be Oz.
