Pamela Anderson, 46, poses nude for French magazine
 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...20_634x410.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...00_634x945.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...24_634x905.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...94_634x931.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...05_634x805.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...92_634x422.jpg

[LINK]

Nice :thumbsup

indeed:thumbsup

Amazing Photoshop skills!

Weird square nipples

This :2 cents:

she still looks so fucing hot!

Until you remove the makeup and airbrushing, then she looks like an old hag!

Still looks amazing and super hot :thumbsup

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...39_634x750.jpg

What the hell is wrong with you freaks...?

That hair doo turns me off

Now I can fap to this.

Sexy as fuck!

same 100%

x3, that pixie short hair look on females immediately has me ask myself, "does she like box?"

no way her skin is smooth. :2 cents:

I trust that the photoshop artist was well compensated... :winkwink:

http://cdn02.cdn.justjared.com/wp-co...rson-loose.jpg

http://factecards.com/files/2014/01/...s-aged-777.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1437574/th...-LAUER-900.jpg

:stoned

ADG

You guys!

Those paparazzi pics are shot by guys who have the camera set on "continuous" shooting and just keep their finger pressed on the shutter button. They are literally shooting hundreds of pics a minute.

Then they pic the ones that catch a person's facial features or body postures or shadows from the lighting to pick the most unflattering one that they can.

Trust me, they can (and in my wife's trash mags) and DO make the best looking people look like shit when they catch them just right.

When Pamela Anderson is made up and posing right she is indeed still super hot.
And when she's caught in a split second shot with her facial muscles relaxed or in just the right body posture for a mili-second...she can be made to look like shit in that photo.

But that's not how people look in real life. A photo catches one split second. And doesn't convey the animation in a person's face and body that makes them who they are.

You could do the same thing to pretty much ANY girl and make her look really super-crazy good, OR really haggard and bad.
I see it in my wife's trash mags all the time. Hollywood actresses that are simply stunning caught in a pic that makes them look like shit.

Well said, Robbie. It is stupid to judge by some bad photos. Just think logically - there are many 44 year old women who still look good so why would you think a celebrity like that would look worse?

Still looks great..

She's not the Baywatch babe anymore but she sure has history and still looking good.

Lesbian haircut...Eugh!

Sorry, her nostrils are just too big.

:1orglaugh

I'd do her anyway.. :)

Posting nude and then having them photoshop the hell out of you isn't exactly all that impressive.

I don't care for the short hair.

http://karlismyunkle.com/

here is a blog of some of the uncensoreds

Im sure no airbrushing was involved.

You won't find even one big photoshoot in any magazine that doesn't have a lot of photoshop work done on it.

Dang, you guys sure are critical.

Me? I KNOW that bitch is fine as hell. My only problem isn't with photoshop...it's with her taking out her big giant implants and replacing them with the smaller ones.
I liked the big melons better. :jerkoff

I'll pass, since with Pamela Anderson you may get a side-helping of Hep C... :helpme

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2lftj8XIIL...a-Anderson.jpg

:stoned

ADG

We believe you. But those pics are super photoshoped.

Shes really gone downhill.

Yeah, they are. So are the pics in every "glamor" shoot.

She's 46 years old. I think she looks better than most girls who are 26. Her body is definitely hot. And her face is beautiful in a milf-y style (not the teenager fresh young look, but a WOMAN look).

And again, why on Earth would anybody NOT photoshop this kind of a shoot as much as possible?

Whether the girl is 26 or 46, this kind of "soft" focus shoot is supposed to look exactly like that.

It's shot by photographers and edited by photo editors whose experience and talent are WAY above the paygrade of any of us GFY "experts".

And even looking at the paparazzi "bad" pics of her, it's easy to see that she's a beautiful woman who will turn heads when she enters a room.

It's stupid for people to put up an airbrushed photo of her on BayWatch in her 20's and put it side by side with an un-airbrushed photo of her in her 40's.

Hell, I'm a handsome devil right now. But I wouldn't want you to put up a pic of me in my mid-20's side-by-side with a pic of me now. Of COURSE I'm not gonna look like a young stud at my age.

Come to think of it...I didn't look like a young stud when I WAS young. lol

Yeah, if both of you are openly bleeding all over each other.

Ignorance...

And I wouldn't worry too much about YOU having to "pass" on Pamela Anderson. I doubt very, very seriously that she would ever notice you or I in a million years.

She was hot on Bay Watch, too much sex made her look older now.

stills too hot!!!

I know all magazines do that. But fuck all this pics looks so unnatural. They remind me cyborgs or cartoon heroes. Why not to do light touches instead of deep deep photoshop? They just make her look the way she would like to be(or they want her to be). All looks so fake - for me personally not even interesting to watch.

of course you would - at least just for the record:2 cents: