Beautiful women
August 13, 2009 5:39 AM   Subscribe

Classic models without artifice
posted by mojohand (27 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

 
Beautiful zombies.
posted by smackfu at 5:46 AM on August 13, 2009


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.
posted by availablelight at 5:48 AM on August 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


without...excessive retouching

Excessive retouching? So has there been some retouching on these photographs?
posted by ciderwoman at 5:50 AM on August 13, 2009


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."
posted by chunking express at 5:55 AM on August 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


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.
posted by MiddleSea at 5:59 AM on August 13, 2009


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.)
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:03 AM on August 13, 2009


what
posted by fixedgear at 6:27 AM on August 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


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.
posted by xingcat at 6:27 AM on August 13, 2009


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.
posted by chunking express at 6:45 AM on August 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


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.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:52 AM on August 13, 2009


Access to this site is restricted due to inappropriate content
Category / Categorie: "Lingerie and Swimsuit"


Bah. They look exactly the same!
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 7:08 AM on August 13, 2009


You posted this for the comments, right?
posted by adamvasco at 7:09 AM on August 13, 2009


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.
posted by Muddler at 7:28 AM on August 13, 2009


Is that Sebastian Bach?
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:47 AM on August 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


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.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:55 AM on August 13, 2009


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
posted by 23skidoo at 8:14 AM on August 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


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.
posted by ob at 8:17 AM on August 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


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.)
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:35 AM on August 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


Crap. Forgot to add (self link) to that last comment.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:35 AM on August 13, 2009


Yeah. I'd be curious to see this shoot done in color.
posted by statolith at 9:20 AM on August 13, 2009


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.
posted by ethnomethodologist at 10:06 AM on August 13, 2009


35 is YOUNG, people.

Amen.
posted by dabitch at 10:21 AM on August 13, 2009


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.
posted by sexyrobot at 11:04 AM on August 13, 2009


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.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:42 AM on August 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


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.)
posted by IndigoJones at 5:41 PM on August 13, 2009


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?
posted by yesster at 7:15 PM on August 13, 2009


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.?
posted by jfwlucy at 9:14 AM on August 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


« Older Most frequent flyer programs are kind of a raw dea...  |  The brain's plasticity has som... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments