Additionally, the two legs are not proportional to each other. the leg in the back looks larger than the one in the front. Also, the "lighting affect" does not seem to illuminate her back leg in the same manner it illuminates the raised legs lower portion. Honestly, it only takes a few seconds of analysis to see this is a mock up on the lower body and not actually an original image.
Johnny_Nebraska - 12 years ago
It looks as if they have used a body double for the portion of the picture that is below the torso. I don't wish that you all spend too much time analyzing this photo for whether or not you believe she is naked or not, she obviously does not wish to be depicted in this way. However, for those of you who may not know it is a matter of looking at the leg and rump that is in the foreground. The body double's legs and rump are thinner and pixel modification has been made to make it look more full figured. They will mostlikely state that this is some optical affect of lighting however one can clearly tell that the leg of the body double has been "photoshopped" over with a pixelation coloring in an effort to make it look as if the proportions of the double match the figure of Malik. This affect is most pronounced on the bottom of the leg that has been raised to shield the genetalia. If it were an affect brought on by lighting it would be more uniforn with the contour of her leg and not pitch out as the bottom of the leg meets the rump.
In short, from the waist up it is Malik, but from the waist down, it's another woman's body that has been photo-morphed in. If they wish to do this type of affect in the future, I would suggest printing either headlines or article titles over the lower half of the model as it would accomplish two things. One provide the model some modesty, other than her own effort. (FHM is not Playboy but should probably go in that direction for a cover like this.) Second, it would break up the photo so that the morphed in image would be less detectable.
In either case, the editor of the magazine should not only put the model on the cover, but provide some cover for the model in the eyes of the public should their be those who are too shocked by what they see. In other words the issue here is not the model's lack of respect for either the magazine or the artfull depiction of the female form, but the editor's lack of respect for the model's beliefs and the model as a person. Were I of the Muslim faith, which I am not, I would be more upset with the magazine than with the model. It is one thing to attract readers to your magazine by having a beautiful woman on the cover, it is another to not support the woman in the eyes of the public or her public should they be shocked by the interpretation YOU have rendered to the public using her.
Abinash - 12 years ago
she should have shown her big boobs.
Aamir - 12 years ago
This is fake photo. The body shown in photo is very tight and fit. Veena Malik can never have that kind of body. The body under face is may be of some English girl. Pakistani Girls have Losen bodies. Secondaly her boob looks so big in cloths so thay can't be hidden properly by arms.
Hor ARAB - 12 years ago
She is so hot I'd eat camel crap to lick her cro*(%^tch!
Arab Arie - 12 years ago
Doesn't mattter....I still BANG 'er!
Max - 12 years ago
Only decent thing I have seen come out of the Middle East....
Amanpreet - 12 years ago
I believe the photo is real. Just some sections of the body, like the hairy part between legs is photoshopped.
Jefinmex - 12 years ago
It's not even a good brush job... Obviously from just below her belly button all the way around she's been air brushed... FHM ought to be ashamed.. get a real photo touch up artist...
Fereshte - 12 years ago
**HIP bone. Not lip. Stupid iPhone auto correct.
Fereshte - 12 years ago
Anyone with an eye for photography can tell its photoshopped. Her lip isn't even anatomically correct. There should be lines and shadows by her lip bone on her straight leg, leading down. I don't know how anyone can miss that.
That aside, in terms of modesty, is it really that different if she had underwear on?
Barry Sotero - 12 years ago
Only a gullibleidiot pays any attention to the photoshopped marketing materials, aka celebrities/models/dumbfuckkardashians/basketball players/etc that are spewed forth in the media. If you even CARE whether or not this kind of bullshitte is "real" or not, you are utterly pathetic. Get a fukkinlife.
Mary - 12 years ago
I work in photoshop and from the shoulders down is photoshop created.
Additionally, the two legs are not proportional to each other. the leg in the back looks larger than the one in the front. Also, the "lighting affect" does not seem to illuminate her back leg in the same manner it illuminates the raised legs lower portion. Honestly, it only takes a few seconds of analysis to see this is a mock up on the lower body and not actually an original image.
It looks as if they have used a body double for the portion of the picture that is below the torso. I don't wish that you all spend too much time analyzing this photo for whether or not you believe she is naked or not, she obviously does not wish to be depicted in this way. However, for those of you who may not know it is a matter of looking at the leg and rump that is in the foreground. The body double's legs and rump are thinner and pixel modification has been made to make it look more full figured. They will mostlikely state that this is some optical affect of lighting however one can clearly tell that the leg of the body double has been "photoshopped" over with a pixelation coloring in an effort to make it look as if the proportions of the double match the figure of Malik. This affect is most pronounced on the bottom of the leg that has been raised to shield the genetalia. If it were an affect brought on by lighting it would be more uniforn with the contour of her leg and not pitch out as the bottom of the leg meets the rump.
In short, from the waist up it is Malik, but from the waist down, it's another woman's body that has been photo-morphed in. If they wish to do this type of affect in the future, I would suggest printing either headlines or article titles over the lower half of the model as it would accomplish two things. One provide the model some modesty, other than her own effort. (FHM is not Playboy but should probably go in that direction for a cover like this.) Second, it would break up the photo so that the morphed in image would be less detectable.
In either case, the editor of the magazine should not only put the model on the cover, but provide some cover for the model in the eyes of the public should their be those who are too shocked by what they see. In other words the issue here is not the model's lack of respect for either the magazine or the artfull depiction of the female form, but the editor's lack of respect for the model's beliefs and the model as a person. Were I of the Muslim faith, which I am not, I would be more upset with the magazine than with the model. It is one thing to attract readers to your magazine by having a beautiful woman on the cover, it is another to not support the woman in the eyes of the public or her public should they be shocked by the interpretation YOU have rendered to the public using her.
she should have shown her big boobs.
This is fake photo. The body shown in photo is very tight and fit. Veena Malik can never have that kind of body. The body under face is may be of some English girl. Pakistani Girls have Losen bodies. Secondaly her boob looks so big in cloths so thay can't be hidden properly by arms.
She is so hot I'd eat camel crap to lick her cro*(%^tch!
Doesn't mattter....I still BANG 'er!
Only decent thing I have seen come out of the Middle East....
I believe the photo is real. Just some sections of the body, like the hairy part between legs is photoshopped.
It's not even a good brush job... Obviously from just below her belly button all the way around she's been air brushed... FHM ought to be ashamed.. get a real photo touch up artist...
**HIP bone. Not lip. Stupid iPhone auto correct.
Anyone with an eye for photography can tell its photoshopped. Her lip isn't even anatomically correct. There should be lines and shadows by her lip bone on her straight leg, leading down. I don't know how anyone can miss that.
That aside, in terms of modesty, is it really that different if she had underwear on?
Only a gullibleidiot pays any attention to the photoshopped marketing materials, aka celebrities/models/dumbfuckkardashians/basketball players/etc that are spewed forth in the media. If you even CARE whether or not this kind of bullshitte is "real" or not, you are utterly pathetic. Get a fukkinlife.
I work in photoshop and from the shoulders down is photoshop created.
If she's not nude, she should be. BEAUTIFUL.