Hunks with small cocks

[deleted30160651]

Toni Snow x.comView attachment 152738061View attachment 152738081View attachment 152738111View attachment 152738141View attachment 152738201

Definitely a hunk - nice dick but not small in my book.

 

[valen]

https://thegay.com/videos/735327/sperm-donor-voyeur/

 

[MAXXXX100]

Sorry if this is a repost-
View attachment 152732371

Maybe, but happy to see this stud and his tiny tool again

 

[MAXXXX100]

View attachment 152745981

once of my faves

 

[BBBDude29]

 

[usernameunique]

Toni Snow x.comView attachment 152738061View attachment 152738081View attachment 152738111View attachment 152738141View attachment 152738201

legit question: is this considered small?

 

[MAXXXX100]

He looks so angry and pissed off

 

[FluffyKiwi77]

SEBASTIAN WHITE: – NSFW – Sebastian White by Ryan Stanford, part 1.

 

[deleted30160651]

SEBASTIAN WHITE: – NSFW – Sebastian White by Ryan Stanford, part 1.

View attachment 152869411View attachment 152869421View attachment 152869431View attachment 152869461View attachment 152869481View attachment 152869501View attachment 152869511View attachment 152869521View attachment 152869551View attachment 152869561

he's so hot- love the last - butt treasure trail yummm and 2 cute balls

 

[Antinooo]

 

[Antinooo]

 

[Antinooo]

 

[Antinooo]

 

[Lloyd Irving]

What do you look for when trying to determine if a photo has been altered (dick shrunk or made bigger)? I thought I was pretty good at spotting altered photos but I’m constantly coming across pics that show alterations have been made compared to the original ones I have that I thought were real. I’ve tried going back through old posts and deleting ones I’ve posted that in time have proven to be altered or fake but I can’t figure out how. Attached is an example of one I thought was real but the one on the right shows its not.

There's no one perfect tell. This one was very good. I wasn't fully certain it was fake until I found the original. There's just a certain feeling that something isn't right looking at altered photos. The human brain is very good at noticing subtle patterns. With the benefits of hindsight, in this case, it's the shadow under the head that's not right. It doesn't match the other shadows. And the texture of the scrotum where the dick was shrunk is a little off. That's a good way to spot things, look where the dick would have been before shrinking and try to notice discrepancies there.

 

[deleted30160651]

There's no one perfect tell. This one was very good. I wasn't fully certain it was fake until I found the original. There's just a certain feeling that something isn't right looking at altered photos. The human brain is very good at noticing subtle patterns. With the benefits of hindsight, in this case, it's the shadow under the head that's not right. It doesn't match the other shadows. And the texture of the scrotum where the dick was shrunk is a little off. That's a good way to spot things, look where the dick would have been before shrinking and try to notice discrepancies there.

There's no one perfect tell. This one was very good. I wasn't fully certain it was fake until I found the original. There's just a certain feeling that something isn't right looking at altered photos. The human brain is very good at noticing subtle patterns. With the benefits of hindsight, in this case, it's the shadow under the head that's not right. It doesn't match the other shadows. And the texture of the scrotum where the dick was shrunk is a little off. That's a good way to spot things, look where the dick would have been before shrinking and try to notice discrepancies there.

I tend to assume in the majority of cases photoshopping is done to enlarge the genitals since the big dick fetish is far more prevalent. But enlarging is harder to detect because it simply involves overlaying what is behind with a larger foreground area (ie larger genitals) To decrease the size of the genitals requires creating material that would be visible behind a smaller version. Formerly that would take a artist with the skill but now I suppose AI can do the job. But so far at least i have no trouble spotting a full AI created picture- however tiny details might be harder to detect.

 

[deleted30160651]

I tend to assume in the majority of cases photoshopping is done to enlarge the genitals since the big dick fetish is far more prevalent. But enlarging is harder to detect because it simply involves overlaying what is behind with a larger foreground area (ie larger genitals) exception being in cases of outrageous enlargement. To decrease the size of the genitals requires creating material that would be visible behind a smaller version. Formerly that would take a artist with the skill but now I suppose AI can do the job. But so far at least i have no trouble spotting a full AI created picture- however tiny details might be harder to detect. So anything that seems amiss at the perimeter of the genitals should be scrutinized- that's where the proof lies.

 

[loganshole]

​

 

[deleted30160651]

 

[deleted30160651]

It pays to hold your temper- road rager loses argument big time

 

[deleted30160651]

It pays to hold your temper- road rager loses argument big time