Can someone confirm this as a nude filter?
Because those posts aren't allowed here.

Provence said:

Can someone confirm this as a nude filter?

Yes, I’m pretty sure it is. If you compare the full-scale version of this post (Google image search is your friend) with the parent post #1497418, the editing is quite obvious in some areas:

• The outer highlight along her left (our right) hip was not redrawn while removing the side-tie and ends pretty abruptly. I think the ’shopper forgot to finish that.
• Below her right (our left) breast there’s a brush stroke going over the chest outline.
• The areas where the straps over the shoulders were redrawn have bits of purple remaining near the otherwise skin-coloured lines. The brush strokes are also slightly visible. The ’shopper probably didn’t put too much effort into that. This is mostly visible in the full-size ’shop.
• All almost all lines have slight rainbowing from the scanning process (like chromatic aberration) and are rather soft, while the redrawn outlines are sharper and more solidly coloured. This is also mostly visible in the full-size ’shop.

I think the nude filter is based on a different scan from the same magazine image, explaining the slight rotation and different colours. The ’shopped image also seems to have some kind of noise-removal and light sharpening filters applied to it.

I think the missing rainbowing is the biggest indicator that this image was ’shopped after being scanned instead of being an alternate take by the artist.

... there’s also a horrible alternate nude filter of the same image available. :(
Those people should just stop wasting their time and look at images that are nude in the first place, if they must.