Does the picture natural? or did she go through Photoshop?

hahaha

its absolutely been touched up in an editor

but there isn't a magazine in the world that doesn't do that, except maybe hardcore photography magazines

Clearly dont know what normies get up to do you?
They love their cameras

you right by that

I want to cum in her bum, leave some semanny in her fanny and jizz in her PEZ dispenser tbqh. Who is this SUCCubus btw?

Someone who will never talk to you. Aka a woman.

the absolute state of magazines
so obsolete they cant even buy cameras

holy fuck are you fucking retarded. go back to yt.

Attached: untitled.png (328x154, 6K)

calm ur dick m8

like $100

When will this phone camera meme stop, they're already more than good enough for everything they're supposed to do, stop bloating phone prices, if you want to be a professional photographer get a real camera.

That's a man, baby.

Really?
Trannies usually hide their adams apple, and have male feet, hands and face.
Maybe it is harder to tell with indians.

Nah.
He's just a dumb meming, shitposting nigger:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aditi_Rao_Hydari

>Ugly brown thing.

Okay.
I thought there had been some progression in sex change technology I wasn't aware of.

What's up with those retarded clothes? she minus poo is like 6/10. Clothes make it a 2/10

My dad needs a fast and good camera for construction photos (related to his job).
Sometimes he needs to make a snap really fast and the only thing that's always with him is his phone.

Good cameras are not a bad thing.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aditi_Rao_Hydari
wow

Coveres are always photoshopped. Only exception is if they go out of their way to say "THIS IS NOT PHOTOSHOPPED! LOOK HOW GENUINE WE ARE!"

the only difference between a smartphone camera and dslrs is that a dslr is like 20 times cleaner at the same ISO, their lenses are way sharper and they need way less light at the same shutter speed.
none of this matters when you have a tripod, set up bright ass professional lights, bring clarity down by a shitton and airbrush the fuck out of your model because
>shutter speed can be as slow as 1/8 if the model stands still and the phone is on a tripod
>you can make the lights so bright that you get proper exposure at 50 ISO
>the detail you lose by using a shitty plastic lens and having small ass pixels doesn't matter because you don't want to see the shitskin model's facial hairs and pimples anyway

I'd bet you my left nut that they put on one of those cellphone lenses on it

Every photo is photoshopped in magazines

considering the amount of photoshop going into each of these covers, they might as well shoot them with literal potato

There is not a lot of women who consistently dress well. The ones that do, are elevated to the point where they aren't even real anymore.
Take Rachel Riley as an example.
As she is on TV, she wears a lot of different clothes and while there are a few missteps, she generally wear nice clothes.
I have no idea why that style isn't more prevalent. It is way sexier than than a bra with or without a jacket.

>any $200+ camera phone that can save RAW files with great lighting can produce pictures almost on par with DSLRs
Delusional retard who has never operated a real camera in his life.

sad to know that

Not all of us print things or have good monitors. Nor do we consume print media in any form. When would the difference even matter to us, captain tismo?

All phone cameras are a meme.

>Saying any company ever would put a cover without touching up the picture with photoshop to make the light/individual look perfect as fuck.

Do you really believe people look that good in realife with flawless skins and tones and the cameras capture all of it?

>almost on par with DSLRs
FUCKING KEK

Attached: wallpaper.jpg (1920x1080, 481K)