Is this Full Frontal shot of Helen Flanagan Real or Fake?

[The Abstract]

(The first image is the the original, the second is a lightened edit.)

Is this image real or fake?

I uploaded these images into the Helen Flanagan Thread and they were listed as a fakes, I understand why, its the same photo as the one that was released in the Sun years ago but without the towel. But I think this is in fact the original photograph.

This is the image from the Sun below:





First I'll give you the background on the image. Over the past couple of days an individual has been releasing nudes of Helen Flanagan (they are available in the Helen Flanagan Thread). According to this guy, he met the photographer in real life and they got to talking, the photographer told him they had nude photos of Helen from a shoot they did, the guy said he didn't believe it, so the photographer pulled the images up on the computer/laptop to prove it. At some point the photographer left the room and the guy didn't have enough time to download the images, so he pulled out his phone and took photos of the images on the screen instead (if you look at the images here or in the Helen Flanagan thread you can clearly see they were taken from a computer screen, you can tell from the resolution, wave feedback from the screen and you can also see the mouse pointer in some).

So this takes us to the photo in question, the photo is the same as the only official topless shot we got from Helen years ago, except in this one there is no towel, this one is Full Frontal. According to the guy who uploaded the other nudes this is the original, there was no towel in the original shot and it was added later probably at the request of Helen herself. I personally believe the guy, I think the fact that he has released other nudes backs up his story, I think the towel looks photo-shopped and the lighting in the towel image looks off as well. So what do you guys think is this the original or is it a fake?

[pharoahegypt]

It's real imho. The towel was photo shopped in, so they could use the picture for p3.

Having had the shot and others related to it for a week now; asked not to share by original owner of the pix; I've had a good zoom & gander, and can't see anything untoward in the full frontal version, whereas versions I have of the towel shot look slightly off; again only imho.

Story is that the guy who was hawking these around another forum had slept with the photographer; whose name escapes me, but she's a close friend of Helen & had taken all her nude, or close to nude shots. These 'outtakes' were on her computer & he took screenshots of them all with his phone; hence the angles and slightly poor quality. I'm sure the original images are 'tif' files, and of much higher quality as a result.

[PoloMintGuy]

Hi there!

I will confess to not knowing who Helen Flanagan was before this.

I can see why the skepticism, I thought when I saw it how easy it would be to fake, assuming the towel version was the original.

But then there's the other "pressed against the shower screen" shot that adds to the plausibility of it being real.

Fakes almost never come in multiple variant poses.

Added to that, the towel does sort of look like it could have been added rather than removed.

Looking closely for signs of tampering reveals some discolouration in the now exposed area but the shower screen glass with moisture, then filtered though being a photo of a screen adds interference that could be helping to hide evidence of tampering.

Hard to make a definitive call on this one.

[rosestone]

Just to chuck in my tuppence worth on Ms Flanagan's thruppeny bits (so to speak).

That towel is almost definitely fake, to my eyes anyway. I imagine that the only reason nobody noticed before now is because there are, uh, other more engaging things to concentrate on in that photo. I guess it's possible that the towel was there, but that area clearly seems to have been touched up (so to speak - again), and there would seem to be no reason to touch up a towel, even on this forum.

But the others could well be fake too, if we consider the possibility that this 'full frontal' is actually just a photoshop of the towel pic - in other words, a photoshop of a photoshop. And the computer-screen feedback could just be a ruse to further obscure.

She clearly had no problem with the original pic being released anyway, and I think I can speak on behalf of all our gender in thanking her for that.

[mankini]

For me the towel has been added in, the folds of the towel at the bottom of the picture on Helen's left leg are very blurry, there is no form to its shape or any texture yet the spots of water on the shower glass are sharp across the image in the original but don't show on the towel image, I doubt that anyone would add water droplets to fake a picture.

In addition the water droplets are missing completely where the towel is in place, it's as though the towel is blocking the droplets which to my eyes is why the current bun image is a fake.

Just my 10p's worth of opinion, hopefully the original will surface and prove this one way or another.

[Gingerbonce]

When I made the original post, I wasn't aware that there was any question over the authenticity

Having now read this discussion I've looked at the pic I posted and also the Sun version. I'm quite a keen photographer myself and also fairly competent using Photoshop

I think the full nude is the original for the following reasons-

1. The "style" matches other, undisputed nudes taken at the same time
2. The shot is unusual in that as posted it's actually technically rubbish because even a high key pic should have some areas of very dark shadow whereas this shot has none. It's been lightened to show the detail in her fu-fu. The pic posted by The Abstract" earlier is, I suspect, the original which has quite deep shadows
3. The towel in The Sun shot should also cast a similarly deep shadow. The shadow wouldn't be evident where the towel is flat against her skin, but it should be evident between the top of her leg and stomach where the towel isn't in contact with either

When I've got some time, I'll whack up the contrast in the Sun shot to see if it does reveal any shadow from the towel, but I don't think it will

Just my ten cents worth...

[spooled]

It seems to me that given:

• there's two naked photos, one of which is new—so definitely not a fake of a photo that was generally available
• there's a plausible story as to why naked pictures might exist from the shoot

Then the simplest explanation is that these leaks are the originals, and The Sun version is fake.

One thing I did just notice, though, she has a tattoo on her left inner thigh, which is visible in one of the leaks where she's wearing pants, but it isn't visible in the naked ones. I don't know that it should be, though, one's very dark in that area and it's probably covered by her other thigh in the other.