Britney Spears releases un-airbrushed pics to show 'pressure exerted on woman to look good'

[sherby]

hurray

fgs the light is so bright on the 'untouched' it looks like it is touched up!

Hmm, but she's hardly a mess in the unretouched ones -- bit disingenuous if you ask me. I wish I didn't feel compelled to be cynical about it, but part of me thinks the real aim is to show off how good she looks in RL at the mo.

you can make anyone look fab if the light is bright enough

Very misleading.

This is the real "before" photo.

Actually, I think she looks much more 'normal' in the untouched pics. Bruises, cellulite and dry skin on the tootsies are real life (well, for me anyway). Well done her.

agree both with OP and Dorothea

It's definitely a good thing to get more of these un-touched-up photos out there. Just look at the difference the airbrushing makes - and that's someone with a personal trainer nutritionist etc. I bet lots of women (including me) will feel better about their own "flaws" as a result as they will know all those magazine pics are false.

On the other hand, I note you didn't see her releasing unretouched photos a year or two ago when she was a little less, ahem, toned...

I like the pictures. Not the swimming costume though.

UQD.

Honestly, I don't believe that initial photo is completely untouched.

Look at her hair, not a loose strand at all, and her face looks retouched too. I doubt her agent would let her appear untouched.

Nice idea though

plenty of pics of her hair in RL

It's bizarre how the airbrushers have a preference for 'plasticifying' her, look at her legs, they really do look like a barbie dolls!

Love the way they airbrushed out her camel toe

I think she's absolutely beautiful

Better without the dodgy make up and all that, just when she is looking a bit rough - beautiful girl.

No, of COURSE she has great make-up and has made herself look fab in the pre-touched picture. FWIW I believe it actually - far easier to make your face look 'perfect' with foundation etc.

I think 'good on her', and quite bizarre how we have come to accept the airbrushing as reality.

I think airbrushing should really only be used to remove blemishes. Can't stand the way it's used to reshape bodies.

It took me ages to realise that a lot of the pictures of what appeared to be impossible slim models, were impossibly thin, and they had in fact airbrushed out the visible ribs!! I actually believed it was possible to be that slim without being badly underweight.

Airbrushing like they do now, removes a lot of things that are totally natural, leading to thinking that bodies are in some way wrong. I've seen pictures where women are sat down, without any creasing to the stomach. Is that possible? In a photoshopped world, yes.

That "before" picture looks like it has been photoshopped to look like a before shot iyswim.

Saddened by all the cynicism on this post.
I think its great that shes done this and hoepfully its a positive step (albeit baby step) to getting airbrushing out of magazines. Its the main reason I boycott glossy mags. You know the type; on one page they're 'concerned' about a skinny celeb the next 6 are dieting pages; one one page theres a circle of shame or whatever spread where they point out imperfections of sweat or dry skin or spots, the next spread is of an airbrused celeb at least 2 sizes smaller than in real life.
I dont think its just young girls who are influenced by this hypocrisy.