Comments on: Beautiful women

Beautiful women

mojohand — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:39:10 -0800

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:46:51 -0800

Beautiful zombies.

By: availablelight

availablelight — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:48:19 -0800

Newsflash: women paid to be exceptionally beautiful, are still exceptionally beautiful underneath the heavy makeup and retouch. The grainy black and white, and soft lighting, is magic for anyone, though.

By: ciderwoman

ciderwoman — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:50:34 -0800

without...excessive retouching Excessive retouching? So has there been some retouching on these photographs?

By: chunking express

chunking express — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:55:20 -0800

It'd be good if they posted up the totally unretouched photos, otherwise, what's the fucking point? (Though maybe they are just fixing contrast, etc.) And yeah, the moral of the story seems to be, "Models still fucking hot."

By: MiddleSea

MiddleSea — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:59:14 -0800

I noticed that they all have pretty eyes, with or without makeup or retouching, I suppose that shouldn't be a surprise since its something that's hard to fake. Too bad they can't undo the horrible botox puffy lips thing. A side note, when I clean up a portrait in photoshop for someone older, I ask them if they want to take any years off, or just want me to give them a good night's sleep. 90% of the effect comes from smoothing out the bags under the eyes. Its nice to see super models aren't immune to this.

By: StickyCarpet

StickyCarpet — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:03:08 -0800

I live in a neighborhood popular with high fashion models. People with better facial recognition skills than me can name them as they walk by. Regardless, they're pretty easy to spot because they all look like high fashion models, even when they're walking their dogs. (All models have dogs, apparently.)

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:27:33 -0800

what

By: xingcat

xingcat — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:27:42 -0800

Newsflash: women paid to be exceptionally beautiful, are still exceptionally beautiful underneath the heavy makeup and retouch. Heh, exactly. And since models have to have minimal and/or no makeup on when they're on client casting calls, it's not really a big surprise that they're so good-looking without help. Publish the Polaroids that casting agents take, and most fashion models are going to look very close to what they look like in advertisements, because it's easier to work with people who look like that to begin with.

By: chunking express

chunking express — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:45:29 -0800

What would be more interesting is posting photos of singers/moviestars/etc that aren't photochopped up. (Apparently people were getting up in arms over Kelly Clarkson's cover image in Self.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:52:47 -0800

Newsflash: women paid to be exceptionally beautiful, are still exceptionally beautiful underneath the heavy makeup and retouch. Or in other words: Newsflash: Models fit definition of models.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:08:33 -0800

Access to this site is restricted due to inappropriate content Category / Categorie: "Lingerie and Swimsuit" Bah. They look exactly the same!

By: adamvasco

adamvasco — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:09:33 -0800

You posted this for the comments, right?

By: Muddler

Muddler — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:28:13 -0800

Newsflash: women paid to be exceptionally beautiful, are still exceptionally beautiful underneath the heavy makeup and retouch. I think it is hard to tell just how beautiful (a subjective issue in and of itself) a person is through a photograph. That said, I'm with smackfu in thinking that more than one of them looked like a zombie. Nice facial lines, yes, nice eyes, yes, but bony, unhealthy, and strangely proportioned is a description that fits for many models. I would go far as to say that Kristen McMenamy is scary looking and unattractive in that photo, while on the other end of the spectrum Shalom Harlow is strikingly beautiful. Nadia Auermann has a pose that makes her look like a joyful person to be around... So what did I learn? All the artifice that goes into setting up, taking, selecting, modifying and publishing a given photograph of a person dramatically changes our impression of their beauty...something I knew before, but like to have reaffirmed. Anyone can look ugly, or beautiful, in the right (or wrong) photograph.

By: RobotVoodooPower

RobotVoodooPower — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:47:38 -0800

Is that Sebastian Bach?

By: The corpse in the library

The corpse in the library — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:55:55 -0800

MiddleSea: "I noticed that they all have pretty eyes, with or without makeup or retouching..." I'm seeing a lot of eye makeup there, still, on some of them.

By: 23skidoo

23skidoo — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:14:17 -0800

What would be more interesting is posting photos of singers/moviestars/etc that aren't photochopped up. Faith Hill on the cover of Redbook, untouched and retouched. While checkout magazines do totally overshop their covers, I think that retouching is so commonplace that lots of photographers know they don't have to get a picture exactly perfect, because they can fix it later. For the B&W pictures of supermodels, the whole point was that they weren't going to get to retouch them. I bet if you got a kickass photographer using B&W film and nice lighting, you could take average people with nice skin and wind up with photographs where people are all ZOMG BEAUTIFUL

By: ob

ob — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:17:37 -0800

I misread the title of this post as "Classic models without orifice". It's a weird feeling when you steel yourself for something heinous and it turns out to be fine and in fact rather nice.

By: seanmpuckett

seanmpuckett — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:35:10 -0800

Black and white photography tends to bring out the beautiful in everyone. No make-up other than what they'd usually wear because the portraits were a complete surprise. No retouching other than the chemical B&W simulation from my software and some simple darkroom dodge/burn. (If there's magic, it's in the lighting.)

By: seanmpuckett

seanmpuckett — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:35:33 -0800

Crap. Forgot to add (self link) to that last comment.

By: statolith

statolith — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:20:02 -0800

Yeah. I'd be curious to see this shoot done in color.

By: ethnomethodologist

ethnomethodologist — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:06:54 -0800

The grainy black and white, and soft lighting, is magic for anyone, though. Also helps when none of your "mature" women is older than 44. 35 is YOUNG, people.

By: dabitch

dabitch — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:21:09 -0800

35 is YOUNG, people. Amen.

By: sexyrobot

sexyrobot — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:04:16 -0800

I would go far as to say that Kristen McMenamy is scary looking and unattractive in that photo, while on the other end of the spectrum Shalom Harlow is strikingly beautiful. Nadia Auermann has a pose that makes her look like a joyful person to be around... yeah diito...shalom is looking even better these days...and nadia was always my favorite...i remember one spread she did where they painted her coal black all over...amazing.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:42:04 -0800

Classic models without artifice How can you tell from the pictures that these women are without artiface? Some of them could be quite shallow and two-faced.

By: IndigoJones

IndigoJones — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:41:37 -0800

Some of them could be quite shallow and two-faced. Hard is the word I would use. Which would make sense. Tough business, modeling. Only the strong survive. (BTW, if they're anything like actresses, the notion that they are beautiful without make up has to be questioned. The camera does funny things, making the beautiful in person plain the made up plain in person striking. And that's before we talk retouching.)

By: yesster

yesster — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:15:45 -0800

Where's the man version of this kind of thing? And doesn't the angle at which the face is viewed have a big impact?

By: jfwlucy

jfwlucy — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:14:28 -0800

These women TOTALLY have make up on. I can see lip pencil, matte eyeshadow, brow powder and even some highlighting pencil. And note the qualifiers below. "seeing them without makeup, EXCESSIVE retouching or COMPLICATED styling adds a new layer to their allure" says the website. Photoshop has done its usual magic, albeit with a more experienced hand. Hey, wouldn't "Photoshop" be a great brand for a new line of concealer, powder, corrector, etc.?