I looked at the 450x599 image in Photoshop and it does not look fake to me. If it is, whoever did it is waaaay better with Photoshop than I am. Of course, as Paul says, it might not be a real tattoo but rather a transfer of some sort. Actually, I do not like tattoos. A girl with tattoos is a turn-off for me, but in this case I might make an exception :) Nick Paul N. Lee wrote:
Bill Jemison wrote:
I'm not convinced by what you point out that it is faked. The file is a 338x450pixel jpg., probably highly compressed. Of course if you zoom into it you are going to see all sort of artifacts and distortions. These are particularly noticeable at boundaries and tonal transitions. They are present throughout the image, not just where the "tattoo" is.
If you wish to view a larger version of this image (450x599 Pixels), try the following location: http://www.miqel.com/images_1/fractal_math_patterns/mandelbrot-set/mandelbro...
And even that is not the original copy!!! But there are less distortions showing up when zooming.
Besides what has already been presented to discredit the authenticity of the "tattoo", there are other issues:
o The fractal pattern and coloring are too fine to have been put there through conventional tattoo methods.
o There should be more of a shadow under her "top" on the left-hand side, where the lighter part of the fractal meets the clothing.
o ETC.
I do not believe it to be a tattoo. If it is not a modified photograph, then this could have been some form of ink transfer from a printing. (Anyone remember those pieces of paper that came inside some bubblegum packages that would allow one to mimic a tattoo??) :-)
Now this is one that looks like it may be a real tattoo:
http://www.miqel.com/images_1/fractal_math_patterns/fractal_technology/fract...
Sincerely, P.N.L. -------------------------------------- http://www.Nahee.com/PNL/Fractals.html http://www.Nahee.com/Fractals/