Hot then Not: Before and After Magazine Shots
It's amazing, or maybe kind of scary, what a hair and makeup artist and photoshop can do for a girls image. Makes you think twice about hot chicks in magazine spreads.
CLICK READ MORE BELOW TO SEE THE FULL GALLERY
ALSO: What they looked...
posted by Manny @ 1:02 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
good LORD.
First off, those "before" shots look very photoshoped to look worse than they are. Second, none of them even look like the same girl. I mean, facial structure, eye shape, ect. Makeup can't change that. I highly doubt those are the real girls from the magazines. If this where the case, any ugly girl could grace a magazine you moron.
They are the same girls, it's obvious by looking at their teeth. Airbrushing is painting, so they can change the structure of the face and get rid of any flaws. It's not just make-up, it's touching up of the photos
I knew a girl who posed for Fredericks (of Hollywood). She was short, blonde, very short waisted and wide hipped, and had a face that jutted forward. BUT! Straight on her face was very pretty, aiming her hips at a slight angle made her look really curvy, and they "stretched" her pics to make her look leggy. Enough makeup and lights and all facial flaws disappear.
Its amazing what they can do with airbrushing and some good camera effects. A girl I worked with was alright looking, nothing to write home about. I saw some photos of her at her moms house and then later in some magazines. I wouldn't have said it was the same girl either. She had freckles, dark green eyes and a crooked nose. Taken at the right angle with a good light and with enough airbrushing she looked stunning!
What it is unbelivable.. is that still.. some of them.. can't look good! :(
Cheaters!! hahahaa
Generally all girls look completely different with absolutely no makeup on. Makeup just accents the best parts of the face. I think some of these girls would probably look half-fuckable if they just did their makeup normal.
I am a model, and I can tell you for a fact that those are the same girls in the before and after pictures. Although honestly, it does look just like them to me, so I don't know why anyone would have trouble figuring that out.
The truth is, most of the models in magazines really are quite beautiful to begin with, because extensive retouching like that runs a high price to the buyer, but if you look at celebrity retouching, you can see how different the pics really are.
The reason the facial structure changes (and you have to be stupid to think retouching these days can't do that. You can turn somone into a cow with retouching) is mostly because it smoothes EVERYTHING away. Take for example, the cover of Britney Spears's "My Perrogative" CD. Her abs appear flat and smooth, but with no definition. Abs don't look like that, it's too phony. Retouching just smoothes it all out.
Also, these girls are purposely shown at their absolute WORST for a before picture. These were probably done to show the ability of the re-toucher, so that's why the retouching is so heavy, and they look so very bad beforehand.
OMG... We need to think this through guys. We could have been beating off to ugly chicks all this time.
oh please, they look exactly the same. the only difference is the skin. they all have small noses, big eyes, and oevrall perfect features. now if you were to show me someoen with a big nose turn into someone with a little nose, then i would say that OMG Y ES MAGAZINES LIE, but for the most part, the only imperfect thing about these girls is their skin, which is easily solved by a trip to the dermatologist . and since some people are DISGUSTED then i guess there are better looking people in the world and its those better looking people that make us hate ourselves, not people in magazines.
Oh please. It's just a little concealer and some eyeliner.
WTF is that thing ... is it a human ? Anyways I've seen better ... :P
It´s the real prove of than how women lies us, that´s why we are victim´s, we don`t use make up.
The last chick looks like the crack head that lives around the corner...and in the after pic she looks almost as hot as Eva Longoria...SCARY!
I DO work on a very famous lads magazine. And yes, everyone knows Photoshop is the best friend of the ladies.
But you need good raw material. We wouldn't run this ugly c***s in a thousand years, even if Michelangelo himself airbrushed them. Besides, when you warn about the "hot spreads", you link to pages with no "real" photos at all. In The other very well knwon link you provide, the differences on the characters are related to time/ looks change, NOT photo edition.
That said, where did you pick this girls? www.contactahofordrugs.xxx? What's your point? That ultralow class porn mags use ugly girls and they barely do them a favour with cheap photo edition? I agree with that. But I think relating them to the "hot spreads" is utterly false.
And, btw, some good looking girls look even better in the natural.
it is real. get over it. this just tells u that anyone can be a model because these women are uuuggglllyyyy.
Post a Comment
<< Home