I’m just wondering if they used another shot of the same child’s actual mouth, or they just substituted in some “prettier” random mouth.
It’s like some bizarre Photoshop Frankensteinification! And never mind that it’s not what the actual kid looks like anymore…why bother starting with a snapshot of the kid? Just pick some random kid that looks similar and say “This is what your daughter should look like.”
I don’t get it. I mean, if they were making DOLLS of the kids, yeah, those would be pretty well done. But they don’t seem to be selling dolls, just weird photos that make the kids look like dolls…
That’s precisely what made it crappy. Can’t get past that - they gave her a noodle arm, removing all muscle. Looked like shit. I can’t believe that they actually published that piece of crap - The cover editor should have been fired for letting such a shitty photoshop appear on the front cover.
But these kids… they don’t look like dolls, and they don’t look like humans, and they don’t look like paintings… they look alien. That someone thinks that children should look like aliens to be beautiful? That is a seriously WTF moment!
And you could do a better job with Poser 3D. And it’s only $250. If the creator of that website is seriously running a business, he or she can afford it.
Seriously, does not the woman in the title art on the page I just linked to look realer than the “not” picture linked in Post 11?
Yeah, I’m not quite sure how to react. I mean, it’s really horrifying, but it’s so badly done! It’s so bizarre I don’t know what to say, except, I’d hate to see one of those…things…on a wall–at night–in a strange house… :eek:
I wonder if any of the kids are aware that they aren’t acceptable looking and must be turned into dolls (or worse, pictures of painted corpses)? I’m hoping this is a satire site, too, because someone thinking that the dead doll faces look better than pictures of real children and people is surreal.
(I saw the “udder bust” too - I’ll just assume it’s a typo for “under bust” and sleep better tonight. )
I think they just plunked her down on a picture of the lawn. That grass looks way too big to be in scale with the woman, and it’s at the wrong angle. Her head would have to be at about knee height.
No, I think the synthesized picture looks more real. At least it has proper shading from roundedness. The facial skin in the ‘not’ pic in Post 11 seems way too flat.
OHOHOH - I just remembered what these pictures are reminding me of - remember on “My Name is Earl,” when Earl couldn’t keep his eyes open for the passport photo, so they just glued some random eyes on his picture and used that? Yeah, that.
I thought of Doctor Who too, but not as imaginatively as you. I could only look at the first two links. Too creepy! The Stepford Children! They look like their souls have been sucked out.
Like a number of others, my first thought was “Stepford Kids” too. Or the other contestants in Little Miss Sunshine, who were doubly scary because they were moving. At any rate, maybe kids should display their own looks in photographs, rather than being edited into miniature adults who just look weird.
As for the bride, it seemed to me that the “before” picture showed a happy bride. The “after” picture showed Katie Couric on an extra-perky day.
Tools such as the retoucher used are undoubtedly handy, but just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should.
They’ve gone so far, why take a photo of the person at all? Why not just have some shitty Museum of Bad Art artist paint a hideous portrait of the person using MSPaint? Jeez.
I can’t show this site to my mom…it would kill her. She was a professional retoucher for years; she even had a retouch machine at home. If she saw these I think her head would explode.
This is the worst They claim that they are keeping her “all natural,” and “perfecting the photo without changing the child” But they gave her a completely different eye color, and made her eyes bigger!!!
)