Can You Spot The Differences?
Filed under: Exclusives! > Britney Spears > Photoshop Awardz
We eat our own words!
A rep for Britney Spears has told us that the pop star's new Candie's campaign is not as heavily Photoshopped as we previously speculated.
To prove the point, an exclusive image of the singer was released to PerezHilton.com (top pic).
We're told the picture is "raw" and unretouched.
Hmmm….inneresting.
If you compare the two photos (untouched above, retouched below), we're pretty sure you can spot at least a couple differences.
Can ya???
What are they???
Posted: July 7, 2009 at 7:45 pm
ummm let's start by the hair, the FACE, I mean the whole face but most of all the eyes, the belly, the hips umm I think that's all …
BTW I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE Brit
X.O.X.O
Covered the roots to her hair, intensified the color of the pic to make the colors brighter, photoshopped a weeeeeeee bit off her thighs, covered her tummy, and that's about it.
the original looks way better than the retouched one!
Shades in retouched photo are lighter (skin tone, shirt, etc.), roots touched up and stomach hidden. That's really not much in the world of photoshopping.
Roots, her stomach seems to disappear and reappear! ahaha! the shades are different, her face is photoshopped, basically she needed a lot of work! ;] aha!
Why is this such a big deal! She is friggin' GORGEOUS either way! STUPID AMERICANS have the worst body image issues. Seriously, over here NO ONE puts up with this shit. Britney's personal life is her personal life. She puts out music, some like it, some don't, end of story!
butt is bigggger on top, colour corrected stomach isnt' showing in the bottom one.
looks like they made the shirt baggier in the bottom one though which is weird. Lol
Britney is looking great either way! Keep it up girl!
She's still very good looking, sans shop. Haters go to hell.
They obviously brightened the whole picture. They lightened her skin. Took away the dark roots and the flyaway piece of hair. Made her face smaller, specifically her forehead. Hid her stomach, which in my opinion actually makes it worse because it makes her torso look dramatically shorter. And also trimmed off of her thigh.
her bum, hair, covered stomach and the colour brightness of the photo are the only things i can see have been edited
There really isnt that much of a difference. Just proof that she is more beautiful in the original picture and that she doesn't need retouched. This chick is beautiful. Keep doing what you do.
Not heavily photoshopped my ass.
Her face looks completely fucking different. They got rid of her stomach for some reason, they made her legs thinner, they gave her skin more of a peachy glow, they got rid of the dark roots….
But the face… seriously? They could seriously say with a straight face, that it wasn't heavily photoshopped? REALLY?
her roots, the nose, the belly, the thighs/butt, the coloring… the jawline even looks a bit slimmer in the touched up pic… She looks FANTASTIC in both pics tho
shorter torso, smaller facial features, retouched air, smaller ass and thigh, bigger boobs, tan
Yeah, in both pics she is a lip syncer. Without the guts to sing live.
honestly… I hate britney spears and her celebrity prescence. But theres nothing done to that picture that isnt done to most digital images. Sharpening, soft focus, color correction, and light airbrushing. They airbrushed a stray hair and also airbrushed the shirt to cover her midriff, maybe SLIGHLTY on the leg.
These things are commonly done to ALL portraits, including children, making them attract your eye, making you buy the portraits and the products they promote. Hey, got you guys talking, didnt it?
all normal process of changing it from raw to jpg. a few things were retouched, her hair, her belly doesn't show in the new retouched shot, a couple of folds in her jeans, the color tone of the image, more contrasts…… it seems, to me anyway, that they tried to stretch the area around her boobs lol
not much photoshop, i do this for a living, photography… and this is very very minor touch ups.
they hid her stomach from showing
touched up her roots
made her booty just a tad smaller
but look @ the face…..it's the same hotness:)
her skin, her hair, her stomach, her thighs and her ass.
i think the original would of been fine though
Brit's got a dancer's body and even so stomach hidden?hips altered? she looks deformed. anyone with that anatomy would be unable to walk. yuckk what message does this company want to send?
plus, since when did Heidi whatshername become the standard for beauty?
stomach covered, roots touched up, thinner butt
The 1.5 inch brown roots showing, about 5 inches taken from her waist/belly and some tint/color adjustment to a warmer tone.
The second one is ludicrous.
her body looks better in the untouched one.
yeah, her hair is off and her face color is a little uneven, besides that she looks pretty good
LOLL her roots. her tan. her tummy. her butt. oh thats cute.
The original pic was great, IMO
Photoshop is not much different than make-up. Take off most stars make-up, (or any female's for that matter), and they look a lot plainer than even her first "raw" image.
umm the colors of her clothing and skin and brought out. to make it more appealing her shirt is pulled down. slim down on her butt. and thats really it. and iguess her roots. it wasnt that much photoshopped.
who cares her face looks GORGEOUS in both and no one takes a perfect pic…of course they r gonna fix her shirt from showing her stomach and her hair and as for the other things they changed who cares.
the top one looks better than the touched up one
wow ! britney looks better in the UNtouched picture than in the retouch lol big deal wow
Overall you can still recognize her in the untouched photo, she still looks really pretty…NOW take the new louis vuitton ads Madonna just did and compare them with the untouched ones, you could play spot the differences for a week just by looking at all the wrinkles and blemishes on her skin!!!
Britney is beautiful!!!
why would they want to take away her ass?!!
britney is sexy they was she is
sad …
roots & position of hair, skin tone, major work on the stomach and butt, crease on left jean leg, flaps on boots
and people that's not her stomach hanging out!!! it's her hip showing, her pants are down a little in that area
lol, they did a LOT of retouching and ironically the original looks BETTER! it looks like there's something wrong with his stomach/ass in the touched up one, and she looks plastic. the retoucher should be fired!!
she looks really good, even before the retouching
Her butt is smaller, the contrast is darker making her look tanner, her forehead is smaller, her stomach is not showing, her nails are noticeably bluer, and her roots are touched up. just sayin.
her roots her thighs her nose her forehead!
u can barely tell the difference unless u envy or hate britney spears. they made the color of the pic more vibrant and they hid the stomach. i believe that's it.. the face is as stunning as the claimed "retouched" by the ugly perez. whatever. britney looks hot.
Britney looks HOT whichever way!
Are you serious? She doesnt even look HUMAN in the retouched one. She looks complitely retarded…they made her stunning face look weird and her eyes look smaller…she looks so much better in the untouched one.
And GUT? WHAT? Her tummy is showing just a lilttle, and why would they make her fabolous booty and those amazing thighs smaller…fucking idiots.
She's gorgeous and looks amazing, one of the most beautiful women in the industry and this is what they do…fucktards.
Roots gone, Lightened locks, Forehead smaller, Eyes and cheek re-done, Arm slightly thinner, Boobs look a bit bigger, Belly covered or should I say removed!, Butt and thighs slimmed down, skin lightened.
To be honest I prefer her untouched photo instead of the butchery they printed.
its pretty much just her lips cause there a lil
but i love her
I think she looks better in the unedited one. But not the whole root part.
hair, body in general, skin tone.
"not retouched", bullshit
shes still waaaaaaay hotter/sexier than butter face gaga…lol
she looks amazing in both …i actually think she looks better in the UnEDITED one its more zoomed in and all in all shes gorgeous!!
Nose slimmed down, hair roots, butt and legs thinned out, belly hidden, enck lines lightened, and even eyeliner on right eye looks lighter.
Her hair is fuller and roots are lighter, stomach covered and airbrushed some of it and her leg out. I have to admit, I much prefer the untouched version!!
You can see Britney, where the airbrushed version, she looks more generic.
She looks good either way! Love you Britney!
geeeeeez why'd they retouch so damn much? she's already stunning in the first one.
hmm.hair,face,ass and stomache.oh yeah! pssh they didnt photoshop anything!
I think the above picture looks better on the lower one she looks older and so plastic..
Roots are changed. The whole bottom picture is completely lighter. Her stomach isn't showing. Whatever Brit's rep told you is COMPLETE bullshit.
they shortened her torso too
i actually prefer the real pic!
Her stomach! hello!?
The "slimming down" and replacing the position of clothing is a bit much, but the color correcting, sharpening, clarity adjustments, etc are standard photography process. Go to your local main street photo studio and sit for a portrait. They'll make the same adjustments to you, whether you realize it or not.
Not to be a Britney Defender, but why does anyone care that she got some photos retouched? Its not her fualt and you know the photographers convinced her to do all that. She didnt come up with it on her own so..yea…and Perez i love you and all but take it easy on "Brit Brit".
Love,
//Rose-petal
I opened both with Irfanview so I could click back and forth between the two and check out the differences. It's nice how they made her hair look better and improved the richness of the color all around but I wonder why they erased a large chunk of her right hip. At first you don't realize it when just looking at the finished photo but seeing the "before" picture suddenly makes her figure looked weird and unnatural. Why can't people just look like humans and have that be good enough? It isn't like she's fat in the "before" photo.
her face seems a little wider and tanner in the second one. her roots are gone. her ass is a little smaller. no stomach is showing, and her boobs got bigger.
she didn't even really need any photoshop, all she needed was to get those roots gone and the picture woulda been fine untouched.
It's kind of crap which makes young women feel badly about how they look when looking at the faked photos of celebs and leads to a lot of self-esteem issues and dangerous dieting while trying to live up to the images of unreality in magazines. Apparently, it's not even possible for Brit to be that inhumanly thin - lol. You'd have to remove a hip for that!
2nd is brighter, her roots are touched up, and her beer belly isn't showing.
Her hair, her stomache, the tonality, her ass, and her boots.
There are definite differences. But I think the top one actually looks better!! The bottom one just looks fake.
Re: Brownin – 217 Stupid fuck. Retouching doesn't happen changing from a raw to a .jpeg. Douche!
If you click back and forth between the two at full screen size the changes are obvious. Her right hip was removed, her bum and left thigh trimmed down, her hair was changed a little on top, I guess to give more texture but also to hide where her roots were showing. That looked nicer in the "after" photo. The pics on Perez were really small size so were fuzzy when viewed full screen size and I couldn't tell as much detail but it seemed they enhanced her eyes a bit too and made her upper a lip a bit fuller as well. Her boots were also altered to hide some wrinkles in the leather or something so they were a bit smoother. Her upper right arm was made a bit slimmer too, even though that was really unnecessary. Her arms aren't fat. The boots looked nicer in the after photo and her hair too and also the color saturation but she really didn't need slimming down and changing her face is kind of offensive. She got famous being who she is, the same as many other celebs, so why isn't that good enough?
they completely changed the shape of her eyes. her stomach has been taken out and she looks like she has been cut in half on a magicians table and her two parts set on top of one another. her breasts have been greatly enlarged to cover up her "no stomach". pic #1 looks much better imo.
Its very easy to tell if the britbrit proportions are at all different..overlay the "untouched" photo over the "touched up" photo and then turn down the opacity…if all of the lines match up..her body is the same…if not…well then her body was photo shopped..
and obviously someone went to town on the brightness and color exposure of this photo..the poor girl looks like a oompa loompa after she murdered the poor horse of a different color…
I don't get why this photo needed to even see a adobe program..I mean all this could have been done if the lighting person even had a ounce of imagination…or talent for that matter.
It's just a high end camera, Perez. Did you even go to college?
WOW!!!…… I CAAAAAan spot the difference. She has mega-millions, and you wish you had as much as her. Who cares what some dumb magazine does with her normal parts!?!? She is HOT!
dammit…do they think we're idiots???????? of course the both pics've been heavily photoshopped!
Well, the hay is pinker!
Her butt
Her roots
Her nose
Her skin
Her eyes seem smaller in the photoshopped one, why'd they do that?
ogh perez are u insane.of course they are.this one is far away.look at the one she is more close.she lookslike a barbie.she looks plastic.shut up.of course they are photoshoped.look at her on streets.she is ugly now.its easy to post a pic like that where she is all dressed and far away.oh shut up.im not dumb like the most of her fans.actually brit is a big liar
they bleached her roots and took part of her 5-head away and the wrinkles in her jeans..let me look for more..this is FUN! Thanks Perez!
This is not heavely photoshopped at all.. as a student photography I can say these are just the regular ajustments.. Have seen way worse where people thought they looked like that in real life…
they got rid of her tummy showing..the overall coloring is diofferent too.
..ya know i think the original pic is better. looks more like the real Britney y'all
Re: ScottsGirl – we're not bashing her asswipe..perez just told us to spot the differences..AND WE DID!……..LOL
oh yeah..and her lazy eye is fixed in the 2nd one.
I like the top photo better!
wtf! her face looks sooo ugly on the untouched pic…omg she tries too hard. these pix look like there are 2 different persons on them…ugly-blayback singing ho!
I think her face looks better in the raw picture.
))
Still looks great without being retouched
more tanned, roots aren't showing, smaller ass, no stomach showing. how can they look at these pixs and claim there is hardly any retouching do they think that we are all blind haha
The hair and the belly!
britney shoud not have hired you perez hilton to open her circus tour, you fucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i hate you so much
eyes
nose
lips
face
butt
tummy
Not photoshopped much??? Neck, face filled out, skin smoothed, eyes, thighs and jean creases, tummy hidden, hair roots, hair colour enchanced….no, nothing really then! Good ol' Brit, don't blame her!
blv it or not i liked the original one more !!!
They photoshopped, and totally improved almost everything, especially that huge ass forehead. Covering the gut was a mistake though, gave her a pigeon chest. Raw? Hardly
erm, coming from someone who uses photoshop on a daily basis, i can say that it has been well used here. the colouring, getting rid of one side of her hips to make her look thinner, the hair dye, tonning down the bouncing flash off her boots, smoothing out the creases in her jeans, etc etc. they've even changed the purple tone of the background to pink. sorry reps, but this has been photoshopped to hell, although mariahs would still give it a run for its money!
what the hell did they do to her face on the low one?? dosent even look like her…
Less crazy eyes… and less turkey scrawn neck!
why did they photo shop her. She looks so much better in the untouched version.. natural… whats so wrong with being natural these days! boo to the mag
lol
Perez, u jack ass, who cares. Britney gave your sorry ass a role in her Circus and now you turn on her. There are some definate touch ups, but whatever it happens all the time, maybe not to you though.
BTW how is the eye, i am shocked it didn't happen sooner. The way u talk about people and call them names and then hide behind freedom of speech and press. I did feel sorry for you, but now not so sure
Her intire head & face is different & she is different in size from below……. she looks prefectly good in her origional, other then the nasty roots in her hair!