December 9th, 2008 -- by Bacchus
Airbrushing Jessica Alba
Jessica Alba is tasty. She does not need airbrushing, even when she gets it:
Keep nasty airbrush in pants! Do not take away bits of Jessica! All bits appreciated! DO NOT WANT Jessica-stealing!
Similar Sex Blogging:
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008 at 8:35 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Shorter URL for sharing: https://www.erosblog.com/?p=2693
Shorter URL for sharing: https://www.erosblog.com/?p=2693
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?
I saw this the other day and it made me really sad. They removed her leg muscle. They gave her Posh’s boobs (why make a woman with gorgeous natural breasts look like she got a shitty boob job?). They whittled her waist down to proportions most people would need a corset to achieve. It’s a shame, and it’s no wonder so many women have issues with their bodies.
leave her natural beauty as is….this photoshop crap is just that….they take a voluptuous beauty and turn it into a fake barbie doll. 3/4 of what is in ads in print is airbrushed and photoshopped. If you see these people in real life you are in shock.
I agree. The photoshopping makes her look
too “plastic.” I like the original natural
look, “flaws” and all.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.