Pre Airbrushed Gwen.

[ChynaSkye]

wow and I thought she looked bad here..

fyi...dont believe everything you see

 

[MiCHiE]

^Pic not showing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkincat210 She's almost 40 people! What do you expect her to look like?

40 is really not that old. But, she looks waaayy beyond that in the "before".

 

[caffn8me]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MxAxC-_ATTACK I can take anyones picture and add some film grain, and you too can look like crap.

Hey! I don't need all that special treatment to look crap. I can manage it naturally

 

[VeXedPiNk]

^^ Haha, you and I both!

 

[queenofdisaster]

i dont think thats real

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lara If I was being shot with a vertical light, I'd look haggard as well.

Before y'all cry photoshop to make her look worse, like Lara said, vertical light is DA DEBBIL!

 

[Katja]

And this is WITH makeup on. I don't get it. They couldn't done a better job on her eye makeup. Srsly.

 

[Shimmer]

for shoots like this, anymore the thought process is "Why bother? It can and will be fixed in editing anyway".

 

[kaliraksha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MxAxC-_ATTACK The picture came from here. theres a few more. She has killer legs. http://mizmonicamonroemoviereviews.b...photoshop.html

Thanks for the link, I also think she looks pretty decent for her age... I mean she probably leads a crazy life style and has every right to be tired, have a bad day, wrinkly, whatever. But damn, for 40.... wonderful body... it honestly looks like she takes care of herself. Just some lighting can be really harsh... and from what I've read... certain lighting is used because it makes it easier to retouch, which everyone knows will happen anyway.

 

[shadowprincess]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer for shoots like this, anymore the thought process is "Why bother? It can and will be fixed in editing anyway".

well, then there better not be a highly paid makeup artist involved here.. coz if there is... i cry FOUL play! if you cant even do a good job, you dont deserve to be paid.... makeup artists should NOT rely on PS .. they are supposed to do the BEST job possible.... that's what they are trianed to do.. that's what they are paid to do... it's really unfair if they slack off like that.. if so, ANYBODY can be a makeup artist...

 

[hyperRealGurl]

Just about 99% of all publicated images for magazines.. books... ect. are all PS. Its the nature of the bussiness making everything look beautiful, and flawless. MU artist can do thier very best job and put in 100% effort in their clients... but u work with what u have.. u have to be relaistic.. ( u cant work miracles) every single human on this earth is not flawless no matter what amount of MU u put on, some flaws cant be covered with MU. So i dont think its the MU artist doing a poor job putting MU on. At the same time u have to understand the nature of photgraphy also.. most photographers shoot in (RAW image form) so that it can be edited....since JPEG's are not that great for editing... so saying that (RAW Images show everything.. literally EVERYTHING... (just guessing) i want to say since this was taken professionally that it was taken in RAW form 2: the type of lighting that is used for a photoshoot is very harsh on someones features, so in situations like that it calls for editing. Personally i dont think Gwen looks that bad, 2: i think i want my picture PS'd hehehehe lol

 

[User34]

this can't be real. I mean I know celebs don't all have gorgeous skin but I don't think her skin with out make-up looks like that of a 80 year old. well at least I hope not anyway!

 

[Sonya Adams]

She has come into our shop on several occasions for clothing (Melrose) with AND without makeup, and I can certainly say that she's nearly as flawless as she looks in her photos normally.

There is NO WAY in hell that poor Gwen would ever let her skin get that bad and haggard looking. I sincerely saw nary a pimple on her regardless of the amount of makeup she was wearing.

 

[mzcelaneous]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperRealGurl At the same time u have to understand the nature of photgraphy also.. most photographers shoot in (RAW image form) so that it can be edited....since JPEG's are not that great for editing... so saying that (RAW Images show everything.. literally EVERYTHING... (just guessing) i want to say since this was taken professionally that it was taken in RAW form 2: the type of lighting that is used for a photoshoot is very harsh on someones features, so in situations like that it calls for editing. Personally i dont think Gwen looks that bad, 2: i think i want my picture PS'd hehehehe lol

That was the exact point I was going to bring up. Shooting in RAW will show even the most miniscule pore or baby hair on the skin. I shoot in raw and when time allows, I will show you the difference between RAW & JPG on my own face. Also, as Christine & Lara pointed out, the lighting is horrid. Bad lighting will enhance all blemishes by casting an unflattering shadow the skin. So it's safe to say that her skin looks worse due to photography, not photoshop.

What's the big deal anyway? We all know that no one has flawless, perfect skin sans make-up.

 

[Another Janice!]

Ya know...I never realized until just now...

Sharon Stone is beautiful!

 

[flowerhead]

Wtf? Is she really 50 and she's stopped taking her HRT?

 

[kaliraksha]

carmen electra pre airbrushing, i managed to find a huge pic of her-- but alas, she is still a pretty lady- just more real

http://www.skins.be/wallpaper/carmen...4130/1024x768/

 

[MACisME]

you're kidding right..

 

[~*Starlicious*~]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJones i think someone used photoshop to make her uglier when you see candids of her she never has THAT bad skin...

ITA!

 

[janwa09]

OMG. she looks like a witch!! And to think she's even wearing a ton of make-up..what more if she's not??