Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
|
|
#1
11-11-2013
And the thing is, they both looked a lot more beautiful without any editing...
magicslippers, proud to be a member of LeeFish since Oct 2013.
A screaming gravity cat (during daylight only) ☀☀☀
A screaming gravity cat (during daylight only) ☀☀☀
#3
11-11-2013
They at least were more *real* before the edit. But in a society where makeup is booming business, and thigh gap is required to even be a candidate for a modelling career, we shouldn't be surprised that we can't trust our eyes anymore.
I've always had an aversion against the use of too much makeup, just like I'm not a fan of piercings and tattooing either. I prefer the beauty that's in a person's character/personality, anyway.
I've always had an aversion against the use of too much makeup, just like I'm not a fan of piercings and tattooing either. I prefer the beauty that's in a person's character/personality, anyway.
#4
11-11-2013
Gosh. I knew they photoshopped pics for magazines, but never realized they did THAT much to them. Changing the actual facial features and the length of limbs and necks... sheesh.
#5
12-11-2013
If there's so little of the real person left, it kind of makes you wonder why there needs to be a human involved at all, doesn't it?
#6
12-11-2013
Yup, they could just take a picture of any bitch (a female DOG, people), or even her poo, and then do their magic on it.
|