As if these women were butt-ugly in unretouched form. NOT.
She looks perfect to me.
Tough work, photoshopping pics for VS. Lots of eye strain.
Don’t see much difference in either set. She’s beautiful but needs a cheeseburger or two a day IMHO.
This is just standard practice for shoots like this.
The airbrushing of Hollywood starlets and stars was massive, involving multiple negatives and gallons of ink.
a tempest in a teapot to me
it’s just ad photography
they want the best lighting, crafting and photoshopping they can get
it has ALWAYS been this way in ads and most nude photos for mags and now online
Larry Flynt was the exception instead going for the gynocology under a bad bright light mode of eroticism...poorly done to me
Hefner and his airbrushes and doctotring photos all day and night
Guccione and his gauze lenses and 1890s sets and light fades
Helmut Newton and his black and whites with superb lighting and stark posings and the heels...ah...the heels...but he brushed too...Newton is the top dog to me actually
you want stark with all the warts check Richard Avedon and his ultra blemished black and whites...whew...not flattering
as for me I get it and don’t pick up on any reason to smear Vics Secret over it
the models look gorgeous either way
trust me...the older you get the more you notice how fine women are...if that is even possible..lol
there is a plethora of nice black and white nudes out there online...and I for one am grateful...that is to me the best medium to capture female beauty
It sounded like about a doutzen kroes making a racket in our tree yesterday.
dem wimens is way too skinny...could some one get them a cheeseburger and fries??
bfl
IBTHTP
In Before The Helen Thomas Picture...
