… although she is wearing both a dress and a bra!
Gal Gadot’s areolas are visible …
Other Crap
Uncle Scoopy's world-weary musings about naked celebrities, sports, humor and other important, manly things.
I love Gal’s gals, of course. But here’s a little-known fact about pictures of nipples that I wish more purveyors & fans of celebrity nudity knew.
Redditor says: “I adore [Alison Brie’s] tiny nipples.”
My reply: “Tiny nipples is an unwanted side-effect of digital photos. Colors vary with the light. The camera guesses the shape, guesses the color & fills it in to correct for the lighting. It can’t guess areola shapes right, bc often not perfectly round.
“I hate this as we’re getting a look at a thing that’s usually covered up. I want a photo of it to be as accurate as possible.”
Here, I’ll appeal to authority: I was an engineer at a company combining the stack of circuit boards inside a digital camera into a single chip.
Compare Emma Watson frame captures to the topless candids. A.I. (so-called) reprocessing might make nude pics less confusing, but my preference is, & there’s no substitute for, better fidelity from the get-go.
Spoken like a guy who has never fondled real tits.
I entirely believe you about digital photography, but:
1. Variation in women’s areola size is a real thing, and some women have small areolas compared to their breast size. I have seen this with my own eyes, no need for digital photography.
2. I have not seen Alison Brie’s nipples without the mediation of photography, but there are plenty of both films and images of her topless, in lots of different angles and lighting conditions, and they all look pretty consistent size-wise. So while I cannot eliminate the possibility of digital photography artifacts involved, it’s unlikely to be the full explanation.
Thank you, Albert. 1. Your observations are certainly true. Yet, the one leak pic of Alison Brie’s nipples looking small, if we stare at it for a moment, in that pic we see exactly how the camera guessed wrong.
2. Yes, most of her nudes get the general size, ovalness, & tilt angle basically right. But there are outliers, & while other factors may be in play, artifacts are why outliers are unsurprising.
I thank you for your key contribution to this important subject and appreciate your scientific approach. And to simplify, my interpretation of your conclusion is that areolae as appear on this website may well be, in actuality, larger than depicted. No doubt many will find this reassuring.
That was “Picard head slap”
🤣
No, but certainly larger than one redditor mistakenly thought about specifically Alison Brie’s areolae. Not “tiny.” In general, what you can glean from a photo isn’t robust. No substitute for seeing things IRL.
The comments here are most amusing. My original thought before I saw all the comments on digital photography and all that stuff was: I was disappointed that Gal’s breasts looked much smaller than I imagined they would. I knew she was modestly endowed, but I think they usually look bigger than this. And it doesn’t look like she is especially skinny in this vid, although the dress doesn’t really show off the rest of figure.
Then I was going to add: Her areolas look too big for the size of her breasts! I am a fan of small nipples/areola.
Oh well.
Only thing I said about Gal was that I love her tits. My reddit reply was specifically reacting to someone’s perception that Alison Brie’s nipples are tiny. They aren’t. My claim is that our brain is a lot better at judging their size and roundness from looking at them in person, even for a few seconds in bad light. We gather many frames lit just a shade differently as they move. We merge this information in our memory. We retain a map of the irregularities in the color change, the relation of the bumps & topography to the color outline. The camera doesn’t do that. It paints what it sees. What it can’t see, it makes its best guess at. It uses less information, processes with a more simplistic idea of what the world is like. Its fidelity compared to ours is hampered, its accuracy unreliable.