Sunday, April 11, 2010

Jessica, sans makeup?


















Okay, so the very top image is a paparazzi shot, and the rest are all from the new Marie Claire.I have had soo many people ask my opinion on this cover, and I will say that there was definitely some enhancements made. If you compare the top pic to the bottom one, you can clearly see that Jessica does not have black eyelashes in real life.Her eyes in the top photo are absolutely tiny in comparison to the images below, and they have quite dark shadows underneath. They either tinted her lashes, used extensions, or both. She also most likely has tight eyeliner on the upper waterline; many men wear that on screen or in print and it is quite subtle.
They are even claiming her haircolor here is 100% natural, and that there was no styling done for the shoot.

She defintely had some major help in the brow department-I am guessing that they dyed them brown.
She probably had been cramming on facials up to the shoot, just as she worked out an insane amount before wearing those Daisy Dukes.Isn't she a Pro-Activ spokeswoman? I see no signs (large pores, scarring)that she was ever acnaic in her life. Hmm.
I am intrigued by how crooked her face is-I am impressed that they didn't alter that. Her makeup artist must do some wicked shading on her nose and jawline!
I am assuming they did the old Scarlett O' Hara trick of pinching the cheeks and biting the lips?Because her lips in the top image are very very light in pigment.
A lot of artful shadowing and obscuring of her face, too.
She sorta looks like Jennifer Jason Leigh.What do you guys think-?

1 comment:

Jen G said...

you can tell they spent some time on creative lighting & posing vs the first candid shot. They probably took a million shots & picked the best. And I agree, she probably prepped way before the shoot.