File talk:Closeup of female breast.jpg

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Closeup of female breast.jpg. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this file. You may wish to ask factual questions about Closeup of female breast.jpg at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Cool Picture[edit]

Maybe as a straight man I'm biased, but this is a really nice picture! FP Candidate, maybe? --71.7.143.211 (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC) I agree the image is nice not just for obvious reasons, but it seems artistic as well.[reply]

They're fake[edit]

Note the scar. James Callahan 16:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "scar" is from a bra. 86.120.236.174 02:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. 142.167.168.76 (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epic fail: That's just a temporary line line from clothing pressing on the skin (lasts a few minutes). — Lyle Swann (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic?[edit]

Photo seems more artistic than worthy of an encyclopedia. --God Save the South (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, and it is blurry in most places and the pose his all wrong for an encyclopedic image. A better image would be a frontal view and maybe a frontal/side view. Either a photograph of a live model or a illustration would be better. possibly an illustration with half of it showing the internal anatomy of the breast. Yami (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on the article the image is used in. In the right context it is a fine image. Asher196 (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it is being used to illustrate internal anatomy. I don't think that is the only encyclopedic details on breasts that Wikipedia needs to illustrate. All you really need is a clear image of one breast to know what they both look like, so the second one being blurry doesn't seem too much of a loss (or indeed it may be an improvement). --ZayZayEM (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel like this doesn't accurately illustrate a woman's breast. It seems artistic but otherwise serves little purpose as the main image of this article. 66.25.7.206 (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It serves it's point. The fact it's artistic does nothing.--71.162.73.183 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? The fact that it's got obvious depth of field effects doesn't mean it's "artistic". Although I suppose the breasts of a non-pregnant woman would be more meaningful, given that most women currently in existence are not pregnant at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.159.247 (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]