When Digital Re-Touching Goes Too Far

[Jason Dunn]

It's not often that I see true abuse of a digital technology - technology is amoral; the people who use it are the ones who decide to use it for good or bad. This site that my brother sent to me (http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/retouch4a.html) is probably the worst thing of it's type I've seen, and I think it falls into the realm of technology abuse: it's one thing to retouch an adult model (http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/blonde/blonde1.html) (we live in an ugly, shallow world), but to do that to a child goes too far in my opinion. Most adults have self-esteem problems about how they look, but your average child under the age of ten is likely blissfully unaware of how the world works when it comes to physical beauty, and that's a good thing. I know very little about the world of beauty pageants, although if I combine what I saw in Little Miss Sunshine (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449059/) with what I intuit from this Web site (http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/retouch4a.html), I'd say that parents putting their children through beauty pageants probably don't realize the damage they're doing to their children. I suspect they'll be paying for it later with therapy bills or bail money.

Back to the digital retouching: look at the image below. The "child" on the right doesn't even look human any more. This isn't digital re-touching, this is digital re-construction. Everything that makes the child cute has been ripped away and replaced by a horrible digital mockery of beauty. Click through the samples to see more (this one is particularly awful (http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/retouch2.html)).

http://www.jasondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/freaky-child-distortion.jpg

Ultimately the "artist" doing this re-touching work is providing a service (and some of the work (http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/retouch.html) is perfectly reasonable), though I openly question her/his morals for offering to do this in the first place. The real blame here lies with the parents of the children for thinking that anything could explain why they'd take a picture of their child and let some digital hack take the natural beauty away and replace it with a synthetic, digital façade that looks like something out of a sci-fi movie than real life. This is just sad.

[Kris Kumar]

Yikes!

I liked the touch up on the wedding shots and the photo restoration. I believe those are justified. But I totally agree, especially with the kids, it is taking things too far.

What were the parents thinking!? The touch-up is costing the kids their innocence, on and off the photo.

[ghostppc]

That is just odd looking. Looks like the cartoon version of invasion of the body snatchers. The 3 dimensions of human texture taken away to be replaced with ken and barbie lookalikes.


After seeing them all, I have to agree that the wedding touch ups for the adults were pretty good despite the zombie eyes. And the restroration photo was very good though.

[Phoenix]

OK, I have to comment on this.

These "after" photos are just bent. I mean, they look like plastic dolls.

It's funny that you post this, because we just watched Little Miss Sunshine last night, and the whole beauty pageant thing with the little kids is nothing short of bizarre. And that's being kind.

I have nothing against the kids, of course, but the parents who put their little girls through this and dress them up to look "adult", have to have a serious mis-wiring in their brains. What IS the deal? These little girls undoubtedly have complexes and self-esteem issues, and at much higher levels than normal and at such young ages. And for what? These types of things, the levels of competitiveness (and all the issues that go along with that) are not things that kids are designed to deal with - these are adult issues. But of course, these pageants are not really about the kids, they're about the parents and other adults. Truthfully, the kids are just being used as unwitting pawns to help the parents achieve some twisted sense of personal success and fulfillment in their own lives based on their warped definitions of family, parenthood, and individual achievement and their obsessive need to "one-up" their neighbors (e.g.: "Look at what MY kids are doing!"). I'm certain enmeshment often plays a role in there somewhere, as well.

So who takes a photo of a beautiful child (who was created the way God intended), distorts it to these ridiculous lengths, and then says, "Ahhh, that's better!"? <Shudders> Talk about creepy. What a way for a parent to damage their child and reinforce within even themselves that their child will never live up to their absurd expectations.

Some of the sub-cultures out there are highly disturbing. And probably much darker than we realize.

[Felix Torres]

My first reaction at the "after" shots of the kids:
"Those aren't bad CGI models..."

I'm thinking folks working in the CGI business ought to look at the before-and-after pairs so they can work at recreating the "before" shots. Cause those "after" shots definitely fall in the heart of the uncanny valley. Gotta wonder about anybody that thinks that plastic doll look *isn't* creepy.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Apparently crazy face mangling lady isn't pleased with all the crap she's receiving about the horrid mangling of child pictures:

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/email-pranks/crazy-doll-lady.php?page=1

[Chris Gohlke]

Made it to digg as well

http://www.digg.com/design/Picture_Digital_Retouching_Taken_TOO_FAR

[Jason Dunn]

Apparently crazy face mangling lady isn't pleased with all the crap she's receiving about the horrid mangling of child pictures

Something Awful is often just...awful, but gosh it makes me laugh sometimes. ;-) That story was filed back in November 2006, so evidently this has been going on for a while. And here I was thinking I was ranting about something all-new. I should have known better. ;-)

I bust a gut laughing at the caption on this page:

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/email-pranks/crazy-doll-lady.php?page=2

Oh man, I'm killing myself laughing at the responses that Rich "Kyanka" Kyanka is writing to her. "these images are infringing the copyright laws of the doll baby children hybrids you have retouched for these (paying) customers" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ghostppc]

I bust a gut laughing at the caption on this page:

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/email-pranks/crazy-doll-lady.php?page=2


:rofl: that entire exchange pretty much sums it up this chick is an idiot! :crazyeyes: but it's funny as he--

i love what the author said: "SOMEBODY ON THE INTERNET MADE FUN OF HER PHOTOS. There's a special level of hell devoted to people like me. There's an Arby's on it."

"I am not sure what this message means, but when I woke up this morning, there was a Barbie doll nailed to my front door with a railroad spike. An accompanying piece of paper proclaimed "YOU'RE NEXT..................

Run away with me, Alycia! We must stock up on canned goods and Molotov cocktails. There is not much time left before Big Doll reads this message and dooms us all!"

i wonder if she took him up on his offer! :robot:

[Kennhead]

I think kids laugh about it. I doubt they already know that good looks can decide your social standing. Maybe later on they will even be reminded of these images and won't be ashamed of their minor flaws, as they know that most model pictures are retouched. They will be able to tell and show that to other girls in their age, either those who mock them because they compare them to media photos, or those who feel bad about their look.

That's one theory, or they will just be stupid teenagers.

And anyway, why are you participating in lynching the woman by supporting the megalomaniac "Lowtax"? That the forum members added insulting vulgar comments is less dangerous? Sure, Something Awful is adult humor, but kids will find a way to have a look at it. If a kid asks his parents what a "crazy pimp" or a "bitch" is and then starts using it towards young girls, won't it hurt a girl as much as bad looks?

Also, do you think kids have no other self-esteem problems than their looks? What about stuttering? And think about all the kids with a cleft lip or similar who get bullied by other kids in real life. It doesn't need a single adult woman to hurt kids.

[Pony99CA]

I think kids laugh about it. I doubt they already know that good looks can decide your social standing.
I think kids learn fairly young that looks are important. How many fat kids ("porky") or kids with glasses ("four eyes") get teased in elementary school?

Steve

P.S. The site has moved since this was posted. Here's a scary example (http://pageantphotoretouching.homestead.com/Hailey_digi.jpg) (I don't know if this was the one Jason originally linked to).