... because I need all the help I can get.

But this ain't really about me. It's about an interesting article I just read. A journalist in Kansas City mailed out her picture to 27 different designers around the world and asked them to make her beautiful, according to what is beautiful in their own country. It's really interesting to see the extent some of them modified her picture.

My favorite is her original picture. I really don't think she needs any help at all because she is naturally quite beautiful. But of the ones that were touched, the Italians and the Romanians did the most tasteful work. It seems like they prefer a more natural look.

However, the UK and the US dropped the ball on this one. What the hell is that?! Reminds me of the Korn song "Freak on a Leash". She doesn't even look human. I guess this means we're the most superficial? Of course, it's kind of silly to draw such broad conclusions from a simple social experiment.

http://www.elle.com/news/beauty-makeup/pho...;linkId=8623818

Not sure if to laugh or cry when I saw the Morocco one.

Very interesting article. It's cool to see how the beauty is perceived in some countries.
If I were a photographer I will chose the colors used by Bangladesh from the left picture with Argentina style of make-up. That girl has awesome eyebrows

If I absolutely had to pick from the touched up pics then I'd probably say she looks the most attractive in the 2nd picture from Bangladesh, the one on the right hand side. Maybe it reminds me of the typical Anglo / Irish skin tones of my homeland ladies haha

But in terms of beauty, it's irrelevant isn't it ? If we take any woman or man at their natural state then we're all going to find the beauty in the ones we're most attracted to, regardless of make up or airbrushing.

So if we had thousands of non edited pics to start with, some people are going to find the non edited pics more attractive on some but prefer edited ones on others. It all still boils down to personal preference rather than level of photo shopping.

Just goes to show that there is no universal concept of beauty despite all the presumptions otherwise.

A lot of the photos have a lot to do with balancing the skin tone/complexion to whatever is presumambly preferred by the particular country. A lot do too much photoshop correction of the foundation/concealer/highlighter type and you then end up with a supposedly flawless complexion but really have one that looks rather doll like and waxy. Then some compound that by chucking on 'blusher' to try and add a 'natural glow' to the cheeks but over do it. The woman has nice cheek bones but the 'blusher' and air brush contouring just don't work for her facial shape. The choice of makeup colours is poor; if you really want to do a bright lipstick go with subtle eyeshadow, liner and mascara - you should either draw attention to the eyes or the mouth but not both. Less is more...

At the end of the day though it's artist impressions of what they think she would be made up to look like in a fashion/beauty mag. Most of the makeup photos in those mags are about product placement and awareness. They're not about beauty or indeed subtelty but to show that the latest lipstick from whoever is a more shiney, sparkly, deep red than the competition...

I think this experiment is lesser about “.. how people around the globe define female beauty”, but how skilled the designer is with photoshop

I must say Pakistan stands out for me. I like the fact that mainly shadows and color corrections were used to hide or accentuate certain areas (hair, mouth, etc) instead to simply clean things up or remove them. Ok, to change the eye color is maybe a bit much in terms of reality, but it fits to the overall image.

There you go, you said it better than I could !



Damn right.. you're already beautiful enough... biaaatch !

Now if you really wnt to know how much makeup may transform... It's all a bit DQ to me but interesting nonetheless

http://www.artfilemagazine.com/article/portrait.php

Warning - the images may offend some.