OK, this is a little old (2003), but still quite stunning. Either Michelle Branch has no butt crack, or someone decided that this would pass muster. I mean, it isn't as if Maxim readers would have any particular interest in that part of her anatomy, is it?
Courtesy Darren Barefoot.
Edit: For the sake of the unbelievers, it turns out that that issue of Maxim uses the same image inside the magazine, without the crackectomy.
Begun This Clone Tool Has
Search
Blog Archive
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Maxim: Crack Is Wack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Look at the angle of her legs and buttocks. She's almost in profile; the crack's there but the shot is across it and you're seeing the inside of her right cheek. She's not been photoshopped. Or not in that particular spot, anyway. Elsewhere, almost certainly; Maxim is not about reality.
Wow bad call buddy. The previous poster had it right. It is the angle of her butt and a good photographer, not a photoshop job.
Well, I agree with the previous two comments, but it's kind of obvious that the picture was photoshopped a bit. I know that some of the pictures inside the actual issue were for whatever reason flipped... Because the tattoo is backwards and on the wrong shoulder. Maybe if you find a picture of that?
Are there any photos that aren't Photoshopped at least a bit. (Even though her crack probably hasn't been erased, it wouldn't surprise me if Americans decided it would be offensive to show it.)
Yup -- it's the angle of the pose on this one.
No PS? Look:
http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/images/michellebranch.jpg
ahhh, crackectomy :D
I wonder if there's some reason? Like maybe Maxim actually wasn't allowed to show a crack on the cover? It seems rather intentional, imo.
That's exactly why. Showing crack will be considered obscene in some U.S. jurisdictions. See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). An Abercrombie & Fitch store in Virginia Beach recently had a promotional poster seized by local authorities on obscenity grounds because it showed crack, though the charges were later dropped. Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, so it can be regulated or even banned. Some jurisdictions have laws requiring obscene material to be kept out of view of the general public. Publishers who want their publications to remain on open shelves will be extra-cautious.
~Q
Some bottom of the barrel scraping going on here.
Once again must have been a slow day.
Post a Comment