Or have been placed on a rock under the water...

Which would make her a flamingo.

Abby Clancy is a very good looking woman. But that photo is freakish. Look at the top of her left thigh (stop it), it's not even a very good photoshop job.

Because it's physically impossible to lift a leg slightly higher than the other.
Much as it pained me to do it, I did have to Google her.
I found this article in the Hateful Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3404090/Abbey-Clancy-displays-stunning-figure-peachy-derriere-sexy-swimwear-beach-photoshoot-Dubai.html

Those photos are presumably taken by a Paparazzi with a nice long lens, and not as part of the actual shoot she was doing.
Which means they'll have had next to no photoshop work done, as that's not the name of the game. Turning the image round ASAP to the networks and getting paid is - not spending time in post.

Possibly not that short.

The story was published today. Her husband was sat on the bench at a live televised football match yesterday and played in a game on Wednesday night. I have some doubt that she'd fly off to the sunshine and luxury and leave her husband behind in Stoke, I'd kind of expect him to want to go too. Crouch wasn't present for games over Christmas up until the weekend of the 3rd. So it seems more likely to me that the shots are at least two weeks old. And, let's be honest here, it's not as if Clancy is a worldwide celebrity that press agencies will be clamouring for photos of. Outside the UK she has no profile at all and even in the UK she's considerably less in the public eye than she used to be. Nobody is waiting poised over their mouse to publish the latest scoop about Abbey, attractive as she very much is. This is leaving aside the possibility that these 'pap shoots' were in fact arranged by whatever company the shoot is actually for, as a nice bit of stealth pre-marketing.

If you look at the other photos in the DM story you can see regardless of angle or stance, they are all in proportion. That one isn't. Compare it to the two photos of her in the black one piece, both of which she's got one foot raised off the ground; you can see how high up the foot in in relation to her leg. Third photo down in the mail story - almost exactly the same pose but look how much of her foot is visible.

Also, as I say, look at the photo itself. There's a band across her left thigh that is fuzzy and a different shade, which is not evident in any other photo or consistent with that photo's lighting.

IMO, there'll have been plenty of time to fettle the shots before they hit the press. Not sure why you would want to but it's pretty much done by habit these days. It's done by routine. Someone just cocked up the job on that photo, it's no more than that.

Gah. This has forced me to read a page in the Daily Mail. I'm off to find some brain bleach.

Fotoforensics say it's consistent. http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=f472cf3cf8a288efc9f127f7e8ded54af55e70b6.110355
People love to reckon there's PS evident in everything. This is a pap shot, and they don't spend time in post. Far more mileage in the untouched these days.

We will have to differ.

Moving on...

OK, if we must. Draw a line from her hip to her knee in both photos..



Now remove everything but the lines...



Now I know we're going from a 2D photo so we can't account for perspective and we can get into the whole 'these are small, but those are far away' thing but do those look even close to being the same length to you? Because they really don't to me. So unless her thigh bone grew significantly during the period of the photoshoot, something's been going on.

There's a very slight difference in length that can be explained entirely by a slightly different pose, perspective, position of the photographer, any number of real world things.
The woman has unusually long legs, coupled with a high cut suit to accentuate that, and there's a reflection on the water, all visually lengthening her legs.

In all honesty, I can't find any obvious photoshopping going on. I think her left ankle is barely under the water and had you been able to see the top of it, it wouldn't have been a problem.

And why would she want to be photoshopped when she has a naturally gorgeous figure?

IDGAF about the Flamingo leg debate, but thanks to the prof for the FailyMail link.

She really is a cracker.

Emily Ratajkowski

And Laura Whitmore…