Hilary Duff * Barefoot in sexy dress * x1

Koke

_________________

uk_feet_lover · Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 5:29 pm Post subject:

I always see this photo reversed not sure why.
The original photograph is the other way around.
_________________

Kosh · Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 11:34 pm Post subject:

I always loved this one. Her heels are simply delicious.

Koke · Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 10:09 am Post subject:

uk_feet_lover · Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 4:58 pm Post subject:

Apologies, It wasn't originally reversed, it was this version I came across.

Here you go: http://3img.skins.be/8/0/3/1/7/8/710-jpeg.jpg

This is the version that isn't cut off at the bottom but unfortunately has a watermark on it: http://4img.skins.be/1/1/3/9/8/8/...ikaltmanphotoshootforfhm-02tc.jpg
_________________

Aussie_Foot_Lover · Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 12:28 am Post subject:

uk_feet_lover · Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject:

Could be the image was removed.

Here you go:

Larger w/ watermark

Cropped/Reversed

_________________

JillSaphic · Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:08 am Post subject:

alright then, heres my trivial pursuit question:
which way was she facing when the photo was taken?
<-- that way?
or
--> that way?
_________________

JillSaphic

uk_feet_lover · Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 9:55 am Post subject:

< -- that way. (You can tell by the casting shadow formed on the prop)

But the magazine scan shows that it was the other way, so I can assume based of desktop publishing rules that they switched it so to flow with the direction of the page, as we read things left to right.
_________________

Koke · Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 12:19 pm Post subject:

hard to tell, i don't see any difference, maybe this other pic can help the "Hilary" experts clarify:

_________________