What's up with this 'stock' image that came bundled with my printer?

The photo in question.

Work safe by the way. Or in most places any way. The link directs you to a thumbnail and clicking the tn will get you the larger image.

Is this the most appropriate image to have bundled with a very popular software package that comes with a very popular printer.
No doubt many of you with the same printer and software bundle will recongnise her.
Any thoughts?

By the way, can anyone tell me if there is a better way to link to that photo? I would like to link to just the thumbnail itself with a mouseover click being able to enlarge the pic.

A little slipple of the old nipple. You’re right, kinda startling for a commercial image. Maybe they just wnat to tell you that, yes, this printer will print out your porn files.

Sorry, what? I can barely discern whether she even has breasts, much less nipples. Sure, the neck of her shirt is open rather low, but I’m not seeing anything indecent.

I can’t see anything indecent either.

Nor I. And I looked very closely.

Add me to the huh? camp.

I think it’s a bit of a down the top shot but not too bad. Everything seems covered to me. I don’t think I would raise an eyebrow at it unless someone said, “hey you can see down her top.”

Come now, the shot is taken right down her shirt at her breasts, and if that brown area in the very bottom corner isn’t a shadow, it’s a nipple, which is close enough to indecency to merit a raised eyebrow, if not two.

Click on the photo to enlarge, in case you guys haven’t done so already.
Then you can use whatever photo editor you choose to zoom in, but you don’t even need to zoom in, it’s seems obvious to me and Evil Captor for some reason.
Maybe it’s one of those optical illusions and what we really see is her elbow or something…

Are you talking about the area of her shirt in the lower right corner of the photo that’s very very very slightly less white than the surrounding area, if you look at it real close and squint and use your imagination?

It’s a shadow. I have yet to see a woman whose nipples are that close to her armpit. You guys need to look at some REAL porn, if this gets you in a tizzy. :dubious:

Now go play your Beatles records backwards. :stuck_out_tongue:

No, the part directly below her chin. Just to the left of the top button.
It’s not that hard to see, is it? Looks like breastage, and possibly nipple.
You guys do see that her shirt is open right?

Nipple my eye.

Ok, here’s the photo blowed up and the section under scrutiny is circled in pink.

Hope this helps. :wink:

Also shadow. You’re seeing the shape outlined by the shirt against her skin as the contour of a rather small, pointy-looking, and oddly positioned “breast.” See the white triangular shape also to the left of the top button? That’s a tank top or chemise of some sort, not likely to be tucked under her breast.

I’m really having trouble getting how anybody who’s ever seen one could think that’s a nipple. It’s a weird photo, but I still say it’s not indecent.

Not the nipple itself, but the very next closest support structure.
By the way, I don’t see any signs of any chamisole or undergarments of any type.
I see the bottom of her breast and the front and side of it are somewhat obstructed by the shirt. The bottom curve of the breast looks too natural to be caused by any clothing lines or folds and she clearly has a small chest to begin with, so any flesh you catch a glimpse of down her shirt is probably going to be her you know whats.

OK, with much imagination and a real want to see somthing there I can almost imagine somthing there. That said I have no problem seeing that getting past the censors and onto the CD. Meh, maybe my testestrone levels are too low today. I would have to be really looking to be offended to even think this was put on the CD with forethought

(I can’t believe I’m still here)

I think we’re dealing with an optical illusion, as mentioned earlier, of the oldwoman/young woman or vase/two faces variety.

You think you’re seeing a small-breasted, braless woman. You see the white triangular shape to the left of her top button as the fabric on the right underarm portion of her sleeveless top, as seen from the inside of her shirt and under the curve of her naked breast, right? And her right breast is just hanging out, inside the shirt, uncovered (except, as you say, for the front part containing the actual nipple and the right side of it).

Sorry, but no. Look at the angle of her shoulders – there’s no way that her breast could appear like that if we were seeing her naked front, without also seeing the skin of the part of her torso under the breast. Also, the color of that white triangle is all wrong to be a part of her shirt. It’s a different garment – as I said, a lightweight tank top or chemise across the front of her body and covering her breasts quite adequately.

And shouldn’t we be able to see some indication of her left breast, if her right breast is so (pardon the expression) high and jutting? But the part of the shirt fabric where it would seem to belong actually looks loose, with no skin against it. I don’t think they’s use a mastectomy patient for a model.

(OK, this picture is just starting to creep me out a little bit)

Opps, hit button too soon. It also looks to me like she has a white tube top on under the shirt pulling down and flattening her breasts somewhat because the white triangle at the bottom of the shirt opening really can’t belong to the shirt.

Me, too.
And I can totally make myself see what you see. It’s just that the first time I saw the photo I said “Holy Cow, Breast!!” I can’t get past how the photo could have gotten past the editors of the software legitimately. I think it’s an inside joke by the fellas as Epson.
I mean, even if it is a trick on the eyes, you can see how it borders on lude, no?

Yeah, likewise. And if I thought her boobie was really hanging out, I’d be laughing right along with the joke. I just still think it’s a trick of the eye. And again, it’s a weird photo for lots of reasons – the crookedy pose, her lopsided smile, the indistinct background, the limited color range – not the best choice for a sample photo.

Actually, this whole deal makes me think of the old Sears underwear photo where people thought they could see the model’s pee-pee, or the Olympic gymnast with the fake cameltoe. Doesn’t really matter whether it’s there or not; it’s still funny to imagine that it is.