INSTA Cindy Crawford see thru from 1989 - 12/1/22

Previously unpublished pic by Albert Watson

 

Her body at a young age was pretty much the same as Kaia's. Very thin and hardly any boobs.

 

Cindy had curves and wasn't flat

 

Rofl. Go ask your dad about Cindy Crawford in 1990. Obviously you weren't there

 

I fit that criteria. I assure you NOBODY complained about her boobs. Back then natural is all we really knew. Peoples ideas have shifted because enhancement is so common. I despise fake boobs. My opinion it’s not worth anything I know.

 

And it only took a third of a century to come out. Neat.

 

Kathy Ireland and Cindy Crawford’s titties were buckwild back in the 80’s.

 

It's a fake.
The photo is indeed Albert Watson for BluMarine in 1989.
It's Cindy, but, it ain't see through.

When I blew it up to see what quality it was, it became obvious immediately that the nipple wasn't really there it was just Photoshop bullshit.

 

It's may have been contrast/brightness corrected, not faked... and that probably should have been mentioned in the original post... also... perhaps the fact that CINDY HERSELF commented on the photographers photo would tell you something LOL.

 

Don’t forget Christie Brinkley!

 

Thanks.

 

Dude...I found out about it through Cindy's Instagram stories where she posted it then I followed the link to the pic on the photographer's IG. I did not edit it whatsoever. So, take it up with the original photographer and Cindy herself.

 

I never said you did it.
Yes, the contrast and gamma have definitely been boosted. That's fair play it happens all the time. But the nipple part isn't there. That's an airbrush tool. Blow it up and look for yourself.

 

You could be right. I honestly don't know. But why would the photographer fake his own picture and Cindy share it? Makes no sense.

 

Especially when you consider just how many pictures of Cindy there are that show a bit more or a bit less that have never been published.
I'm not saying take my word for it, I'm saying enlarge the picture or just zoom in and look at The area where her nipple is. That's just an oval 50% airbrush in Photoshop.

My guess is Cindy has had so many pictures taken of her over the years etc etc..

 

As an example, the published pic of Cindy in the 2014 w magazine, her ass has been enlarged. It's ridiculous. There's also the old topless picture of Cindy by Marco glaviano where he made her boobs bigger with a distort tool. Just a few years ago there is a photo shoot of Cindy in a loose woven bikini top. The photographer tried to darken in the nipple areas but was so lazy he just airbrushed in with the burn tool. He didn't mask out the woven top so the whole thing is dark. Apparently according to those pictures, Cindy's nipples have superpowers of darkening the cloth covering them. I don't mean you can see the darker nipple I mean the cloth has been airbrushed. If I find the time I'll put together a post of a bunch of these that I've noticed over the last 30 or so years.

 

Im not sure if you are trolling or serious… that is her nipple. That isnt altered, you can see the fabric crease still and under forensic analysis nothing is out of place. Its been converted to 256 color grayscale which reduced the palette and softened the photo. But sure as hell that is her nipple. End of story.

 

I did, it's there but I can't find a large enough uncompressed imagine online to really show it well. Remember, this is from 1989 so we're talking on film and not digital tricks. If it was printed from the original negative, changing the exposure can show more detail too, not to mention they wouldn't have printed Cindy's nipples back in 89, so it may have been purposely darkened when originally published to hide it.

 

I'll try to find a decent size version of the pic somewhere. I probably have it on hard drive four or five times lol. I'll post it, if you would work your x-ray magic on it.
EDIT:
the best I could find

I have to say, the higher-res image looks a lot better, and yes, I can see her nip in the darker pic.
I still maintain, the original smaller pic posted above has had a burn tool used on it. Who knows/cares since better quality has been found. Amazingly, Stef doesnt have this shoot in 1989 at all on the website. I was really surprised.