A lot of the changes are just creative manipulations of the light, but the really interesting (and sad) changes are when they manipulate the shapes of the girls' bodies. What a sham. (no, not "shame")
Oh, boo fucking hoo. How dare people have wrinkles and features typical of an aging human being?! What freaks! I know I wouldn't have a wrinkle or an ounce of cellulite when I'm 50 because I'm totally perfect! Photoshop is misleading, but nobody wants to look at normal bodies… if they did, they would open their eyes to the world around them, rather than sitting behind their keyboard, experiencing a replica.
1) Gorgeous either way 2) No significant difference, she's just beautiful 3) Cameron is 38 and is simply not one of the genetically-blessed ones; she's *always* needed Photoshopping 4) Pff, sexy in both images, it's a magazine cover for Chrissake 5) She's forty-eight, man, it's Photoshop or don't let people take pictures of you 6) Pff what the hell ever, she looks great in both 7) She's a child and she's lovely 8) Kardashian looks like shit no matter what you do to the photo 9) Fifty-two very hard years of working and touring and she didn't look that good in the first place, come ON now 10) Meh, she's 40, she looks 40, so what 11) Dunno who that is but she should consider not being photographed in her underwear any more 12) Jessica Alba? Really? Yeah she was SO fug in the "before" image – that was irony in case you couldn't tell. This is stupid, can we stop doing this? I skipped 13 because it's just stupid.
It's sad that these women mainly look normal before, but the public only sees the photoshopped version which makes the real women go out and get surgery, work out way too much, get eating disorders…. All so they can try to look like the unrealistic versions of real people.
[...] answer to this question is because yours are REAL. All magazines tweak, airbrush, and photoshop images to the point of impossible and unattainable beauty. Playboy and the like is no exception. How can [...]
Honestly, I didn't see anything in those pictures that justifies the blatant lies of Photoshop. Some flaws here and there? Sure. Age catching up? Of course. So what? I find the less-than-perfect reality far more appealing. I know TLDR…
Generally I do not read post on blogs, but I would like to say that this write-up very forced me to try and do it! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thank you, quite great post.
Scroll To Top
#2
What did they change? She looks great in both.
Hair, neck, boobs and waste. Don't get me wrong she looks great in the before, but they changed plenty
A lot of the changes are just creative manipulations of the light, but the really interesting (and sad) changes are when they manipulate the shapes of the girls' bodies. What a sham. (no, not "shame")
Jessica Alba looks perfect without the photoshop there.
call me crazy but i prefer the original #6. i want a real woman, not a barbie.
Oh, boo fucking hoo. How dare people have wrinkles and features typical of an aging human being?! What freaks! I know I wouldn't have a wrinkle or an ounce of cellulite when I'm 50 because I'm totally perfect! Photoshop is misleading, but nobody wants to look at normal bodies… if they did, they would open their eyes to the world around them, rather than sitting behind their keyboard, experiencing a replica.
I think #1 is the ugliest thing to happen to Hollywood.
Who, Eva Mendes?
Have you SEEN her butt? It's EPIC.
Where are the men? I Know PLENTY of MEN that NEED makeup and NEED to be photoshopped TOO!!
[...] Penelope Cruz looks absolutely perfect pre-Photoshop – The Berry [...]
#9 I THREW UP A LITTLE…
[...] Click her to see more pics. [...]
1) Gorgeous either way 2) No significant difference, she's just beautiful 3) Cameron is 38 and is simply not one of the genetically-blessed ones; she's *always* needed Photoshopping 4) Pff, sexy in both images, it's a magazine cover for Chrissake 5) She's forty-eight, man, it's Photoshop or don't let people take pictures of you 6) Pff what the hell ever, she looks great in both 7) She's a child and she's lovely 8) Kardashian looks like shit no matter what you do to the photo 9) Fifty-two very hard years of working and touring and she didn't look that good in the first place, come ON now 10) Meh, she's 40, she looks 40, so what 11) Dunno who that is but she should consider not being photographed in her underwear any more 12) Jessica Alba? Really? Yeah she was SO fug in the "before" image – that was irony in case you couldn't tell. This is stupid, can we stop doing this? I skipped 13 because it's just stupid.
It's sad that these women mainly look normal before, but the public only sees the photoshopped version which makes the real women go out and get surgery, work out way too much, get eating disorders…. All so they can try to look like the unrealistic versions of real people.
[...] answer to this question is because yours are REAL. All magazines tweak, airbrush, and photoshop images to the point of impossible and unattainable beauty. Playboy and the like is no exception. How can [...]
Scary!
incredible! this doesn't look shopped at ALL! #5
My choice is Penelope Cruise. There is no diference in her pictures
I don't get number 5
Honestly, I didn't see anything in those pictures that justifies the blatant lies of Photoshop. Some flaws here and there? Sure. Age catching up? Of course. So what? I find the less-than-perfect reality far more appealing. I know TLDR…
Generally I do not read post on blogs, but I would like to say that this write-up very forced me to try and do it! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thank you, quite great post.