GimmeSumSugar 0 Report post Posted July 17, 2007 It's probably been posted way back but there's an absolutely ACE graphic commerical photographer/artist that has done many celeb portraits and the difference before and after shots are stunning. And not necessarily in a good way. Because they perpetuate stereotypes of huge breasts on women, uber curves, flawless skin, the 'cheekboney' look that isn't normally there in real life (to the same extent) and totally different colours in tone which really change a person. I don't understand why you cannot be pictured looking as you do everyday, made up or not, even if you have a few minor spots at the time because it's normal. We go on and on about bullying at school over looks and bullying in the workplace as adults but we help to perpetuate it with magazine airbrushing that make people fixate on a certain idea of what's 'right' or beautfiul. It really bothers me that people can't get past this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tyler 408 Report post Posted July 17, 2007 Just my 2 cents worth: Remember the line from Devils Wear Prada where Tucci's character talks about the magazine not just being a magazine, but being a "source of hope." Thats why magazines do it and why people continue to buy them. Yes, we are comforted in knowing that people are just like us, but part of us also wants the glamour and the hype and the hope of perfection. Its why Julia, Faith, Nicole, etc all get airbrushed, its why most movies stars are studs, etc, or why Martha Stewart, Sandra Lee and Rachel Ray pitch the idea that you can have the perfect home and why Cosmo, Maxim, Playboy tell you how to have the perfect sex. We have enough cellulite, stretch marks, saggy boobs burnt TV dinners and have-sex-and-rollover-and-go-to sleep in our everyday lives, that we don't need it in our fantasy life. Not saying its not superficial and petty, just offering it up as an explanation why people can't "get past it." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgr0602 0 Report post Posted July 17, 2007 found this one, makes the changes even more obvious Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hedda_louella 1 Report post Posted July 17, 2007 found this one, makes the changes even more obvious OMG. Where did you find that fabulous back and forth thingy?!? I definitely want to visit that site - if it's a site that does that sort of thing for other pics as well. Fantastic! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgr0602 0 Report post Posted July 17, 2007 found this one, makes the changes even more obvious OMG. Where did you find that fabulous back and forth thingy?!? I definitely want to visit that site - if it's a site that does that sort of thing for other pics as well. Fantastic! found it here Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hedda_louella 1 Report post Posted July 17, 2007 found this one, makes the changes even more obvious OMG. Where did you find that fabulous back and forth thingy?!? I definitely want to visit that site - if it's a site that does that sort of thing for other pics as well. Fantastic! found it here Thanks! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Freckles 79 Report post Posted July 17, 2007 Okay, I'm not a Faith fan or a Faith hater... I'm Faith neutral. But... I think she's a very attractive woman in real life, and as a celeb i'm sure he has trainers and plastic surgeons and beauticians and hair dresseers whom she uses liberally. And the fact that even a woman who is naturally pretty and has heaps of the best help that money can buy - the fact that such a woman "needs" to be air brushed extensively is freaking bizarre to me. J Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuzhuchichezhan 0 Report post Posted July 18, 2007 Okay, I'm not a Faith fan or a Faith hater... I'm Faith neutral. But... I think she's a very attractive woman in real life, and as a celeb i'm sure he has trainers and plastic surgeons and beauticians and hair dresseers whom she uses liberally. And the fact that even a woman who is naturally pretty and has heaps of the best help that money can buy - the fact that such a woman "needs" to be air brushed extensively is freaking bizarre to me. Agreed. I have no real idea who Faith Hill is, to be honest, but she looks fine in that first un-touched photo and the fact that they felt they had to slim down her arms is, to me, rather disturbing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Serendipity 12 Report post Posted July 18, 2007 Someone brought an InStyle magazine to work and I missed the first part of her conversation where coworker was talking about how pretty the celeb on the cover was, so I glanced to see who she was talking about and there was a photoshopped pic of Catherine Zeta Jones, looking virtually like another person altogether. Airbrushing of famous faces and bods has gotten to a totally comical point lately. Faith Hill looked perfectly fine in the 'before' photo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgr0602 0 Report post Posted July 18, 2007 Someone brought an InStyle magazine to work and I missed the first part of her conversation where coworker was talking about how pretty the celeb on the cover was, so I glanced to see who she was talking about and there was a photoshopped pic of Catherine Zeta Jones, looking virtually like another person altogether. Airbrushing of famous faces and bods has gotten to a totally comical point lately. Faith Hill looked perfectly fine in the 'before' photo. this cover? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted July 18, 2007 (edited) I think that looks pretty much like CZJ. This one, of Jennifer Garner doesn't look at all like her to me. What is it with giving everyone Jennifer Aniston's chin? Edit: Interesting, the pic showed up when I posted it. It's on this webpage: LINK Scroll down and click on the one that's a cover on the left. (And while scrolling check out her "asian eyes" in the second picture down where she's wearing the blue skirt!) Edited July 18, 2007 by MC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgr0602 0 Report post Posted July 18, 2007 Can't see the pic MC , but I think with giving everyone JA's chin it makes hers look less bad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leaivory 2 Report post Posted July 18, 2007 I think that looks pretty much like CZJ. This one, of Jennifer Garner doesn't look at all like her to me. What is it with giving everyone Jennifer Aniston's chin? Edit: Interesting, the pic showed up when I posted it. It's on this webpage: LINK Scroll down and click on the one that's a cover on the left. (And while scrolling check out her "asian eyes" in the second picture down where she's wearing the blue skirt!) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Serendipity 12 Report post Posted July 18, 2007 I think Jennifer Garner's cover photo looks like a cross between young Brooke Shields and Marlee Matlin, The CZJ cover just seemed to be generic brunette with absolutely no facial contours and digitally fluffed hair. (Actually, I'm just jealous that no one retouches photos of me! ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leaivory 2 Report post Posted July 19, 2007 (edited) Mimoo Is A Fake? Filed under: Beauty Buzz > Mariah Carey Mariah Carey is known for having her pictures airbrushed to within an inch of her life, but this is taking it to a whole new level. PerezHilton.com reader Tasha sent us this photographic evidence that Mimoo’s ad for her new fragrance campaign is a fraud. Apparently, Mariah’s head was plastered on Gisele’s body from an old photo shoot. Damn, girl! http://perezhilton.com/ Edited July 19, 2007 by leaivory Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgr0602 0 Report post Posted July 19, 2007 I don't believe that's the first time she's done something like that Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theempress 80 Report post Posted July 19, 2007 I think Jennifer Garner's cover photo looks like a cross between young Brooke Shields and Marlee Matlin, The CZJ cover just seemed to be generic brunette with absolutely no facial contours and digitally fluffed hair. (Actually, I'm just jealous that no one retouches photos of me! ) The photos of Jennfier Garner do not look like her at all; the last photo bears a resemblance, but that's it. I think it is funny that the cover photos, especially, are manipulated so much that if the magazines did not plaster the celeb's name right on the photo in a huge font, I would not know who it was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted July 19, 2007 I think it is funny that the cover photos, especially, are manipulated so much that if the magazines did not plaster the celeb's name right on the photo in a huge font, I would not know who it was.Exactly! If you have to look for the captions to see who it is....... that's crazy. Thanks leaivory for posting the pics Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leaivory 2 Report post Posted July 19, 2007 Thanks leaivory for posting the pics No worries, MC. Your original pictures appeared again when I posted mine as attachments. Not sure how that happened, but... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alpierce 9 Report post Posted July 19, 2007 I wonder how many celebs know just how much their pics are manipulated or if they have input into it. In these photo's JG basically doesn't really look like herself at all. Who is that woman?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hedda_louella 1 Report post Posted July 19, 2007 I wonder how many celebs know just how much their pics are manipulated or if they have input into it. In these photo's JG basically doesn't really look like herself at all. Who is that woman?! They all know. Mostly they leave it to their PR peeps to give input, if they have enough juice to have photo approval. Garner's layout looks like several different people had some nice snaps taken. One of them almost looks like her - but not quite. Another looks like, dare I say it..... JLo! Very strange. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted July 20, 2007 I wonder, do their agreements with these photographers state that the originals are deleted? Otherwise, we'd have all sorts of blackmail material held back. In the "olden days" before airbrushing, they had to look pretty good to begin with. But not now..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hedda_louella 1 Report post Posted July 20, 2007 I wonder, do their agreements with these photographers state that the originals are deleted? Otherwise, we'd have all sorts of blackmail material held back. In the "olden days" before airbrushing, they had to look pretty good to begin with. But not now..... Depends on the celeb, the agreement and the photographer. Annie Liebowitz will tell them to eat shit and die, but others will easily agree to destroy "bad" shots. They could always do some amazing things with just lighting and make-up. Even going back quite a number of years, photos could be (and were) re-touched. They couldn't achieve the complex, completely-different-person look that they can today, but they could change them quite a bit. Still, you're right in that the standards were a lot higher. Someone truly hideous like Cameron "pizza-face" Diaz could never, ever, ever have had a career back then. It just wouldn't have been possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
galaxygirl 0 Report post Posted October 10, 2007 (edited) Hey! Her Frankenboobs don't look like that, neither does her Frankentummy!!!!! Edited October 10, 2007 by galaxygirl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silliness 1 Report post Posted December 18, 2007 Weird, they actually put fat on Julie Styles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
