File talk:Closeup of female breast.jpg

Cool Picture
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.

They're fake
Note the scar. James Callahan 16:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That "scar" is from a bra. 86.120.236.174 02:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could be. 142.167.168.76 (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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

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)