Comments on: Airbrushing Jessica Alba

By: Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:41:39 +0000

The first thing I noticed is that, in the original, her eyes actually had, you know, some sort of expression in them. That’s all but gone in the photoshopped one. Because, you know, a woman’s only attractive if she looks vacant.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:21:29 +0000

You do realize that these are two different photos entirely. I don’t mean just because of the editing, they are shot against different backgrounds in subtly different poses. She is looking in different directions, her hair is draped differently and her right knee is showing in the second photo. That doesn’t mean that the second image wasn’t edited, I am sure it was. All images that make it to a magazine these days, and not just those of beautiful women, undergo some sort of editing.

The editing is done to sell magazines which it apparently works well. I find such editing problematic as it creates impossible expectations. It makes some women hold themselves to unrealistic standards of beauty. Then again since when is marketing and advertising reality based?

By: Bleys

Bleys — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:54:07 +0000

It makes me wonder if her acting is better too, and if editing for some confused notion of female sexuality is why I cannot watch anything she is in without muting it. I would prefer to think that she is an intelligent an nuanced actress, rather than the carefully molded monotonous robot.

By: Cand86

Cand86 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:11:29 +0000

She looks so much more gorgeous in the un-airbrushed photo! And I have no idea why they’ve created such a horribly prominent collarbone … is that supposed to be sexy?

It’s also rather odd how in the finished product she’s looking at the viewer, but not in the first.

By: A

Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:48:54 +0000

The majority of the “flaws” in the first picture are related more to the travesty they have her wearing than her body. It’s horribly unflattering.

By: Isabel

Isabel — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:47:38 +0000

I can kind of see why they’d photoshop the colors, just because in such bright light they look a bit washed out. But really, her leg muscle? They can’t show that she’s actually toned and healthy, and her boobs don’t start where her collar bones are? That’s ridiculous. Her waist is small enough, why shrink it even more?

By: D

Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:27:21 +0000

I agree. The photoshopping makes her look
too “plastic.” I like the original natural
look, “flaws” and all.