So… this week ended up being all about butts. And it’s ending with videos dedicated to a butt. I don’t really know how that happened. Honestly. Anyway. On New Year’s Eve, JWoww and Snooki attended some event during which paparazzi took upskirt photos of JWoww. There were several photos taken by several paparazzi agencies including INF (the one I used above), GSI Media, and REX Features. Which operate independently of one another. So I’ll lean on Occam’s Razor and posit that the photos were not Photoshopped to appear less flattering. JWoww says otherwise. She actually posted videos in which she mistakenly claimed there was ‘a’ photo, as in one photo… when there were clearly several photos that were taken by different people… and said: ‘There’s a picture going round of my derrière which is pretty disgusting, pretty vile. To prove this picture wrong, I decided to video my buttocks because you can’t photoshop a video.’
Posts under ‘Crimes Against Photoshop’
Anne Hathaway covers Harper’s Bazaar February 2013 on which she appears to be having a Photoshop stroke. She’s a pretty girl but that’s an unflattering cover photo of her face. Right? Inside the issue, the 30-year-old says you’ve got it all wrong if you think she’s a ‘vanilla’ girl with no sex appeal because she’s wearing your grandmother’s support garments and good girls don’t wear corsets.
CGI Gwen Stefani who was shot in 2D and then rendered 3D the cheap way around covers Vogue Magazine January 2013. The 43-year-old’s real doll face and hat that looks like it was an afterthought added in post-production using MS Paint were photographed by Annie Leibovitz (well, who else?). Inside the issue, Stefani talks about basically nursing in between songs for 100 shows. More below.
- KIM K'S MOST SHOCKING PHOTO EVER? - Hollywoodite
- Jennifer Aniston Is Still Going Braless - Lainey Gossip
- Megan Fox Plastic Surgery: Before & After - TooFab
- Is Captain America Taking Steroids? - Lainey Gossip
- Miley Cyrus Suffers Makeup Malfunction - TooFab
- Who Is The Hottest Kardashian Now? - Reality Tea
- Anne Hathaway Braless In Sheer Dress - Lainey Gossip
- Christina Aguilera After MAJOR Weight Loss - TooFab
Britney Spears is on the cover of Lucky with someone else’s face and someone else’s hair. We’re only sure it’s her from the name on the cover right under the logo. Because all I see is Kim Zolciak’s wig and Teresa Giudice’s hairline neither or which signed up for this. But it’s okay, because the magazine issued an apology for subjecting innocent hairlines to this s**t. They wrote the day the cover came out: ‘Thank you all for sharing your thoughts on our cover! As always, we will share with our team and we’re sorry to have let some of you down.’
Britney Spears covers Lucky December 2012 on which she’s wearing someone else’s hair and someone else’s face because her own face is 30-years-old and the face on this cover is barely old enough to vote Romney only because she pushed the wrong button. And I concur from the hairline that’s someone else’s wig because the singer’s old face had a forehead and her new face does not. Whomever that is on the cover also gave an interview in which she admits to settling on her new dungeon master because he allows sweatpants in the house.
Natalie Portman shills for Dior about which I’d forgotten even though the entirety of the fragrance campaign is basically nudity makes you smell great. She’s also the face of their cosmetics, I guess, since she’s in these mascara ads in the UK that just got banned for being made of lies. The top image is the advert before anything has been retouched and the bottom image is the same avert after it’s been digitally-altered to make the lashes look longer. Dior admitted that the bottom photo had been retouched to ‘increase the length and curve of a number of lashes’ because some were ‘missing or damaged’ in the top, original, photo. Although, they insisted that making them look comically-long was ‘minimal’ alteration. But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK bought Dior a new dictionary so they can look up those words because they don’t mean what Dior thinks they mean. The advert can never be used again, as is, in the UK, because it’s ‘misleading’ and ‘exaggerating’ the effects of the product.