Britney Spears Without Photoshop for Candies
Tags: airbrushed, Britney Spears, candies ads, photoshop, pre-airbrush, retouching, unretouched
I don’t know what kind of illusion she thinks she’s shattering here (we all know that in real-life she looks like this) but Britney Spears has agreed to allow the unretouched images from her Candies shoot to be released alongside the digitally-altered ones that went to print. The Daily Mail says
Imperfections that can be clearly seen in the [above] un-airbrushed shot include blemishes on her calf [and] larger thighs. The airbrushed picture, however, tell a different story with a slimmed-down waist and flawless, skinny legs.
Meanwhile, in the un-airbrushed shot [below], she has areas of cellulite on the back of her thighs, a tattoo on her lower back (sometimes called a ‘tramp stamp’) is clearly visible and her backside is a little out of shape.
However, in the altered photo all of these imperfections have been wiped out – and she appears to have a pert rear, unrealistically smooth skin, slimmer legs and the tattoo has vanished.
Also noticeably absent? Her camel toe (I circled it in the before picture and drew an arrow to it in the after picture with my totally boss photoshopping skillz). I don’t know when it became a crime to have labia, but guilty as charged. You might as well have airbrushed out Cindy Crawford’s mole or Kelly Clarkson’s third chin. Selling her puss is all Britney Spears is really known for.
Ten more unretouched photos:













7 Comments, Comment or Ping
spatz
it that’s all the photoshopping they did then that’s not bad at all. she looks almost the same in the before just a little tweaked.
Apr 14th, 2010
Jon
Why put her in the magazine at all? There’s like a $1 million dollar photoshop bill in there and everyone knows she’s a lindsay lohan-esk crazy mess.
Apr 14th, 2010
anony
I’d still do her, no photoshop necessary.
But a full body condom might be…
Apr 14th, 2010
dev
The advertisement industry is making some boldly terrific steps towards some type of normalcy in the protrayal of REAL women.
Apr 14th, 2010
stephanie
She looks so much more attractive in the unedited ones. Honestly. She looks real.
Apr 15th, 2010
Alista
u can kinda see that shes not really a slut its wht ppl make her
Apr 23rd, 2010
Gregg
SHE LOOKS GREAT untouched! she is naturally pretty, just one and two touches to her body! but hey she has two kids!!!
Sep 5th, 2011
Reply to “Britney Spears Without Photoshop for Candies”