Models with no make up on

[Raymond Lin]

With women some of them look ill, they are designed to fit women with very little body fat, thats like saying a Ferrari is the best looking car because its designed to look amazing and out of the reach of 100s of millions of people.

With men they just look ill!

No, to YOU, they look ill. I don't think they look ill, they look like what women look like when they just got out of bed.

They are thin, no make up, they are normal human beings.

It is not ugly, not pretty, just normal human beings. They are supermodels are because after some makeup, they can look like what supermodels should.

Go find me 50 "average women" and see how they look.

 

[steve-h]

With women some of them look ill

I assume you mean the ones in the OP's picture...

It's obvious that that's the idea LOL - it's hardly flattering photography is it? It's the very poor lighting making them look pale, used in a way to leave enough room for shadows. Tie that in with no/weird make-up and tied back hair... all with no expression.

they are designed to fit women with very little body fat

So? I'm sure they offer lots of sizes.

thats like saying a Ferrari is the best looking car because its designed to look amazing and out of the reach of 100s of millions of people.

It is designed to look amazing and it is out of the reach of millions of people

With men they just look ill!

wat

 

[peterattheboro]

There's hope for me yet.

 

[Nerusy]

Well firstly models are quite underweight and that does not look attractive.

Secondly they don't employ girls as models for their attractive looks, models ARE usually not-attractive without the heavy make up. Usually weird body shapes are preferred.

Summary? It's not a secret models don't look that great without makeup. Their bodies are not attractive either...at least for my taste, sickly bodies with wide shoulders meh.

EDIT: models do not represent how an average woman looks, that's utter rubbish. Average women is much shorter and quite fatter hence got curves. Given that normal woman are not sickly underweight they also have a "pretty" face(or if you will a face that does not look like the girl in question is about to die).

 

[Aedus]

1st column, 3rd row down.

No amount of make-up can save that face.

 

[dowie]

Some do have funny shaped heads but i guess that's partly because you are comparing to the one next to it. Look at each on alone long enough and it will look normal.

No - they're particularly distorted in those photos they don't look normal at all looking at them individually - it isn't a case that their heads are like that in reality... there are recognisable faces there - Rosie Huntington Whitely, Elle Macpherson...

More likely that a shorter focal length was chosen to make the pics particularly unflattering. (notice the chests and foreheads lower and higher in the frame)

 

[buchtis]

Look like Eastern European prostitutes.

My God, some of their heads are disfigured to ****. Reminded me of the PS2 advert back in the day:

 

[dowie]

they don't have disfigured heads..... they're deliberately distorted.

 

[dowie]

http://www.ontakingpictures.com/2010/08/impact_of_focal_length_on_port/

look at the left hand pic - its distorted - this isn't due to lack of makeup her face is distorted in an unflattering way due to taking her pic close up using a 28mm lens.

In fact with the models in the OP a fair few of them probably do have make up on.

 

[Adrianr]

Well firstly models are quite underweight and that does not look attractive.

Secondly they don't employ girls as models for their attractive looks, models ARE usually not-attractive without the heavy make up. Usually weird body shapes are preferred.

Summary? It's not a secret models don't look that great without makeup. Their bodies are not attractive either...at least for my taste, sickly bodies with wide shoulders meh.

EDIT: models do not represent how an average woman looks, that's utter rubbish. Average women is much shorter and quite fatter hence got curves. Given that normal woman are not sickly underweight they also have a "pretty" face(or if you will a face that does not look like the girl in question is about to die).

No no no no. Models are models because they represent a certain very unique very uncommon beauty. I personally find many models very attractive. You're making a lot of sweeping statements in that post that may be true to your taste, but that's all.

Models are employed for their attractive looks, whether you find them attractive or not is irrelevant, plenty of people do.

Plenty of models look very attractive without any make-up on. Same goes for plenty of women in general. That's not just high fashion catwalk models either, though I'l presume that's the definition we're using given the content of the OP. Plenty of models do not look great without make-up on, plenty require a healthy dose of post production before you have other people swooning over them, there is no master answer.

Their body shapes are not 'weird'. They may not conform to common shapes and sizes but that doesn't make them weird. They have bodies just as beautiful as any woman with 'curves'.

Models do not have faces where they look like they're about to die. Having a jawline and cheekbones is not a give-away of their impending doom, just like having long thin legs or prominent collarbones isn't.

 

[2StepSteve]

Thanks for the freak show.

 

[dowie]

What, clothes look good on them?

Yes, yes they do...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJiyRdLfwtY

 

[Raikiri]

http://www.ontakingpictures.com/2010/08/impact_of_focal_length_on_port/

look at the left hand pic - its distorted - this isn't due to lack of makeup her face is distorted in an unflattering way due to taking her pic close up using a 28mm lens.

In fact with the models in the OP a fair few of them probably do have make up on.

I was about to say similar, a lot if not all of the shots look to have been taken on about a 30-35mm (full frame) lens which won't help matters.

 

[Angilion]

It's an interesting illustration of how much difference a skilled photographer can make. Seeing the results of a photographer using that skill to make a photo of a person look better than the person is so common that it doesn't really register, but it stands out a mile when they reverse it and make the photo look as bad as possible.

 

[Nerusy]

No no no no. Models are models because they represent a certain very unique very uncommon beauty. I personally find many models very attractive. You're making a lot of sweeping statements in that post that may be true to your taste, but that's all.

Models are employed for their attractive looks, whether you find them attractive or not is irrelevant, plenty of people do.

Plenty of models look very attractive without any make-up on. Same goes for plenty of women in general. That's not just high fashion catwalk models either, though I'l presume that's the definition we're using given the content of the OP. Plenty of models do not look great without make-up on, plenty require a healthy dose of post production before you have other people swooning over them, there is no master answer.

Their body shapes are not 'weird'. They may not conform to common shapes and sizes but that doesn't make them weird. They have bodies just as beautiful as any woman with 'curves'.

Models do not have faces where they look like they're about to die. Having a jawline and cheekbones is not a give-away of their impending doom, just like having long thin legs or prominent collarbones isn't.

Do you agree with me that fashion models are required to be size zero yes, they are very skinny, without makeup they look sickly and rightly so. It is safe to say a women that looks sickly is not attractive. Because they're so skinny their shoulders stick out giving them if anything a male-like appearance. It's not what being attractive was, the reason why you might like sickly underweight body is through years of brainwashing into us this image of a what beauty is.

Fashion models are not pretty, "beautiful" yes (most of the time makeup is needed to achieve that).

Attractive models are the glamour models.

And don't give me this models are employed for their attractive looks rubbish. You have to be tall (for women 5'9''+) and very skinny. Have to have prominent face features, the make up will do the rest. A girl with a conventionally pretty face can only hope to become a glamour model.

Edit: keep in mind that fashion model bmi is very underweight. When you are underweight you look "sickly". If you'd seen a model in flesh without make up. You'd be both very disappointed with the face and the body. I am really talking mostly about the body here. I am not talking about given beauty of a face or body even. Simply the fact the fashion models are severely underweight, they look ill without the makeup.

and if you find that sickly look attractive (without the makup and in person) then well I guess there is a reason people are freaking out fashion models are giving wrong image to the young girls and even males across the globe.

 

[Yosiah]

Wtf is going on here

and here

They dont look...right

When their hair is done properly, they will look perfect.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Deliberately unglamourous photos in unglamourous shocker. The photos in the OP are intentionally sans make up and pose so that the photographers/makeup artists/designers know what they are going to be working with. They don't want to see the models all glammed up because they won't be able to see the subtle differences in skin tones etc that could make/break that one shot they want.

Everyone looks awful in that kind of photo, model or not.

 

[steve-h]

Do you agree with me that fashion models are required to be size zero yes

no

they are very skinny, without makeup they look sickly and rightly so. It is safe to say a women that looks sickly is not attractive.

Refer to the comments on the photography~

It's not what being attractive was, the reason why you might like sickly underweight body is through years of brainwashing into us this image of a what beauty is.

or not.

And don't give me this models are employed for their attractive looks rubbish. You have to be tall (for women 5'9''+) and very skinny. Have to have prominent face features, the make up will do the rest.

That's exactly the opposite of the comments...

A girl with a conventionally pretty face can only hope to become a glamour model.

Not true.

Edit: keep in mind that fashion model bmi is very underweight.

BMI is garbage. I'm obese according to it...

When you are underweight you look "sickly".

While that's true... in this case it's the lighting and photography that's making them look sickly.

 

[Nerusy]

no




Refer to the comments on the photography~




or not.



That's exactly the opposite of the comments...



Not true.



BMI is garbage. I'm obese according to it...




While that's true... in this case it's the lighting and photography that's making them look sickly.

Sigh, I am not basing this on these pictures.
BMI does not take account of muscle. To discredit it completely is silly.
Fashion models are underweight, few years ago they had a crack down on severely underweight ones but still models are today underweight.

Being underweight makes all the bones stick out hence the weird shapes. The body simply does not have enough resources to look fresh hence the look half-dead without makeup.

Again I am not basing that on these pictures, I've met them in person.

 

[HypnoToad]

Make up, lighting and photoshop has a lot to answer for!