I wanna see before and after shots of a man in Manscara.

What was the other wacky male makeup thing?

Most of the makeup-less shots are candids, which are almost always less flattering.

Seriously -- the Marilyn makeup-less pictures aren't candids; they're posed, but just with no makeup. Which is why her makeup-less pictures look so much better than the other actors' makeup-less pictures.

The Halle makeup-less picture seemed posed(ish), and it's notable that her makeup-less picture is one of the only "good" ones.

(Also, I think I've been living in a cave, because there are about 3 of those actors who I don't even recognize, in either state [makeup-less AND made-up].)

A *lot* of those "no makeup" pictures were from movies.

So rather than "no makeup" they're "lots of makeup that's meant to make this person look bad"?

See, I *knew* that you can't trust the made-up photos, in the sense that they've been colored and curled (or straightened) and carefully lit and then retouched in Photoshop (or whatever) afterwards.

But to find that I can't trust the makeup-less photos? Man.

But to find that I can't trust the makeup-less photos?

Is there anything you can trust on the internets these days? I mean, besides LOLcats....

Hmm... some of the no make up pictures are from movies, most notably the one of charlize theron, I think. But plenty are just paparazzi pics.

I think Julia Roberts is rather pretty without makeup, though the lighter color of her hair is not great.

The widow's peak and heart-shapedness of Marilyn's face is always so startling.

Is there anything you can trust on the internets these days? I mean, besides LOLcats....

I also trust the FAILBlog, xkcd, and Dinosaur Comics.

How many of these movies can you recognize by their fonts? [link]

McCain Takes $2300 Contribution from Owner of Gay Sex Site Manhunt

Best comment:

Those curtains are hideous.

If a picture of two shirtless men making out is worksafe for you, then this site is worksafe.

Is there anything you can trust on the internets these days? I mean, besides LOLcats....

PhD comics is practically a documentary.

But plenty are just paparazzi pics.

Yeah, but -- they're exceedingly unflattering shots, which is, I supposed, the hallmark of the paparazzi picture industry. If someone wanted to do a fair comparison of No Makeup vs. Makeup, it should be done the way the Marilyn one was -- with the no makeup picture being a posed shot, instead of an attempt to make the person look as bad as humanly possible.

I remember when we were back on whatever board it was that allowed user pics, and I would occasionally make my user pic a horrible shot of me -- weird angle, blinked at the wrong time, mouth gaping like a hooked trout, etc. -- mostly for Rio's amusement.

[Interlude: COME BACK RIO!!!!]

But I don't actually look as bad as those pictures made me look, not even in a makeup-less state.

A comparison should actually involve, you know, comparable things. If you slapped some makeup on -- was it Drew Barrymore? -- but got the same weird angle, gaping mouth, puffy face, she'd still look bad. Just with makeup.

(Hmm. In retrospect, I seem to be arguing against some point that no one has actually made. So I'm arguing with the pixels of the Interweb, I guess. Chalk it up to not enough coffee yet.)

PhD comics is practically a documentary.

Heh. Cool site.

On this one:

[link]

my first thought was, "If they're involved in research, wouldn't they be using some Unix/Linux OS instead of Windows?"

Oh, that must be the guy's personal machine....