Quote: (02-02-2011 12:31 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:
I gotta agree with Aliblahba on this one. This only proves that you can take an unflattering picture of anyone (and vice versa, which explains the Facebook fatty-to-hottie phenomenon). What's more, a lot of the before pictures are of lower production value--bad lighting, low-def. In other words, this isn't apples-to-apples comparison.
I totally agree. You do get some chicks who massively benefit from make-up (e.g. Cameron Diaz has infamously blotchy skin) but people who do these with/without makeup comparisons always deliberately choose the most unflattering pictures possible. This shows a more objective comparison:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...-bare.html
In fact I'd say the third and sixth women down (although they are admittedly the youngest in the article) arguably look better without makeup.
Even the hottest women can look bad in a picture, esp with bad lighting, cheap cameras etc. The same even holds true for guys. I'd say I'm about a 7 for looks but in photos I can look as low as a 4-5 or as high as a 9.
I have one friend who insists that all women are ugly and "look like guys with long hair" without make-up. I think it's more to do with the kind of girls he gets - in my opinion most of them look like guys with their make-up on.