Kittylicious

Maybe it's Maybelline - Maybe it's Photoshop!

Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:15:54 AM

People seem to strive for perfection. Lots of people suffer from a bad self images, and want to look different than they do. There might be a bulge too much here and there, and some of the things we really want to change, isn't just that easy to change. So, how is it that models, singers, actors and actresses always look so good? How do the manage to always deliver fantastic pictures?

Maybe they're born with it. Maybe it's PhotoShop.

Let me give you a few examples!

Keira Knightly - suddenly got boobs, and also got a much more flat stomach. Her hair changed its tone into red-ish and her skin colour got weird - and I honestly prefer the original picture!

Here's Madonna. I wonder if they have made the original picture worse than it actually was. Anyway, they've changed her skin dramatically, made her look at least 20 years younger, removed bags under her eyes etc. The woman will be 54 years old in August - there's no need for her to look like she's 30 anymore! But that's just my opinion, of course.

This is an unknown woman, but she got PhotoShopped badly. They made her look if she's got the yellow fever or something. They removed her little tummy. They took away her love handles and made her thighs and arms thinner. Oh yeah, and they changed the colour of her underwear, and removed the water that ran between her legs.
She looked more like a real girl before!

Here's someone I don't know the name of, but she's probably an actress. She got her skin airbrushed and had all her moles disappear. They even added some lip colour, and made her cheekbones more visible... And they removed a bulged near her right arm.
Again: I liked the original better.

Last one is Nikki Webster, Australian singer.
She definitely got herself airbrushed, but at least they didn't change her skin colour into something totally unreal. The did something to her normal looking thighs, and removed moles etc. from her arms and back. Her hair looks more golden too. Oh yeah, and they removed a bulge on her back. It would have been nice if that one had stayed, to show that even normal weight girls have bulges!

What do you think? Which ones are the nicest pictures of them?

No more Nutella! :/Texting while driving

Comments

FlaRin # Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:23:37 AM

...because you're worth it!

\\edit : oh yeah. Preferences : generally, I prefer the original pic (the one on the left of each anyway, especially pic #3 - she looks very good before, not so good after. On pic #4 <PhoSho version> she looks *bloody* weird in the face. Madonna doesn't look too shabby for a 54 year old anyway - why bother trying to shine her up? :doesn't get it:

Mad Scientistqlue # Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:20:55 AM

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Dark FurieFurie # Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:01:44 PM

Now, I've no problem with photo editing being used to remove a few imperfections in the photo and touch it up a little, especially if they're aiming for something specific with the image. For example, the first image is obviously a period piece and therefore more accurate without her having uplift underwear. However, so prevalent in our culture is such underwear and so much does it prop up, for want of a better explanation, modelling and the common idea of a beautiful female body that one can see why the image would be changed so that Kiera has the breasts she might have if wearing a bra that shapes and lifts. More body has been added to her hair to make her seem healthier and her face has been rounded a tiny bit on the right for the same reason. Her naturally pale complexion has been changed to match the location too. These are changes I have no problem with in that image.

However, the natural slouch from drawing a bow that way has caused a tiny bit of belly to stick out and some over-zealous prick (from the same school of thought that thinks Nikki Webster in the last image must be the only human in the world who can turn around and keep their back looking as if she's facing forwards) with too much time spent editing womens magazines and turning beauty into something unattainable by anyone natural, has decided that this makes her unattractive so they've lopped it off. The result is a woman who doesn't look natural at all. All the rest of the changes may have worked if that belly had been kept as it was in the first shot.

In the case of Madonna, I think it would be a greater kindness if more images of her were released without all that work being done. She may stop dressing as she does then and start dressing for the body she has rather than the one that people create of her with the aid of a computer.

Spaggyj # Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:15:04 PM

"Normal weight" girl looks about 6-7 stone. Just saying. But yes, touching up a photo is one thing, but they remove all human elements and make them all plastic because they MUST be "perfect".

KittyliciousZaphira # Thursday, January 19, 2012 8:12:57 PM

I think the main problem with all the "corrections" of the models and celebrities is that it makes us "normal people" strive for something that we can't get. We are fooled to believe there is such a thing as perfection - that it is in fact possible to turn and look over your shoulder and still be flat as an ironing board. That it's not normal to have bulges here and there, and that it is possible not to age.

It's pathetic and it makes me sad.

Dark FurieFurie # Friday, January 20, 2012 1:12:19 PM

You poor normal people.

*walks in slow motion through a crowd of stunned onlookers*

Spaggyj # Friday, January 20, 2012 1:37:47 PM

Originally posted by Zaphira: