Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Unrealistic beauty standards apply to babies too

Posted by on Nov. 16, 2009 at 9:12 PM
  • 10 Replies

 http://www.parentdish.com/2009/11/16/airbrushed-photos-of-babies-spark-controversy/?icid=main|htmlws-main-w|dl3|link7|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parentdish.com%2F2009%2F11%2F16%2Fairbrushed-photos-of-babies-spark-controversy%2F

Airbrushed Photos of Babies Spark Controversy

Critics are outraged that some parenting magazines admit to airbrushing images of babies that run on their covers, but industry insiders say that almost every photograph in a magazine is retouched.

The hubbub started when a BBC documentary, My Supermodel Baby, revealed that the publication Practical Parenting and Pregnancy retouched a photograph of 5-month-old baby model Hadley Corbett. According to The Daily Telegraph, the magazine's casting director, who was not named, told filmmakers that the child's image was airbrushed: "We lightened his eyes and his general skin tone, smoothed out any blotches and the creases on his arms. But we want it to look natural."

Hadley's mom, Esther Corbett, tells the Telegraph that she was neither surprised nor offended that her child's image was altered. "You kind of know that they do it because if you look at the front cover of magazines, most of the images don't look really real," she says. "But it didn't put me off."
Plenty of other people are put off, however, and some say that the practice is "shocking." Jo Swinson, a U.K. political leader, campaigns against airbrushing in magazines. "People will be appalled that a magazine would not think images of beautiful healthy babies are alright as they are and instead have to conform to some standard," she tells the Telegraph. "The idea that babies must look more perfect – that they can't have creases in their skin – shows the obsession with a particular ideal. Where does this end?"

"You will have parents thinking, my baby isn't attractive enough, how do I make my baby more attractive?" she says.

Industry insiders who have worked with children in media say that retouching photographs -- of everything and everyone -- is standard operating procedure at most publications and is in no way sinister. A friend who has a long resume working with children's publications tells me that the goal is to improve the likeness by adjusting the color, lighting and yes, getting rid of drool or flyaway hairs.

With photo-editing software and services readily available today, plenty of parents are doing the same thing with their private snapshots. I'm not above editing out the chocolate smears on my kids' faces to get the perfect holiday card, and I don't think I'm alone.

-----------------------------------------

Holy crap.....babies being airbrushed , taking out natural "flaws" that make babies beautiful just the way they are.

Bleh.................What is your opinion? Normal or just going too far?

 

Photobucket


by on Nov. 16, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
SpcCraftsWife
by on Nov. 16, 2009 at 9:14 PM

im not really sure on this one. i dont think i would be outraged if it were my child, but at the same time i see what the point is about a child having plenty of natural beauty... i dont know...

DeLaina,  Wife of SPC Jonathan Craft <3, Mama to daughter Natalee Michelle- 17 months,  and baker of one little bun in the oven-6 weeks!

Septpreggo
by on Nov. 16, 2009 at 9:15 PM

i would never airbrush pics of my own daughter of course but i have no problem if its for an advertisement and the baby showed up and had scratched their face or something and they took it out for an advertisement for baby wash or something

HungarianQueen
by on Nov. 16, 2009 at 9:17 PM

I get that all babies have "natural beauty", but I can easily understand why airbrushing babies is a positive for parenting magazines. Consumers are more likely to pick up the magazine with the perfect cute baby and dream away about their own life rather than the not so perfect looking baby. Honestly, its not that big of deal, IMO.

MelonballBounce
by on Nov. 16, 2009 at 9:18 PM

I read this earlier today and I think it is bullshit that they airbrush creases and fat folds out. WTF, that is the cutest thing about babies! Babies are supposed to be adorably chubby!


Septpreggo
by on Nov. 16, 2009 at 9:18 PM

oh yeah i forgot to add when i take my dd for professional pictures i wish they could because i have this one beautiful pic but she has a huge booger hanging out of her nose that i didnt notice and in another one she has drool dripping down her mouth thats not altering her looks its fixing the picture, but no they couldnt do it

u can bash all u want

AngelaVega
by on Nov. 16, 2009 at 9:20 PM

I hate beauty pageants, especially when they involve fake tans and makeup for children, but I think magazine retouching is a little different. I think in a magazine you would want every photo as visually appealing as possible for marketing purposes. Babies aren't going to look at the magazine and say, "I want to be pretty like that." You know what I mean? And as for parents who see beautiful kids in magazines and think their babies aren't good enough because they aren't as "pretty," the problem lies with them, not the magazine.

weddingtoddler boybaby girltwin girlsboy n girl
Angela:
Fiancee to Elijah <3
Mommy to Ethan & Lily :)
Stepmom to Marisa, Katie, Daniel & Emily!

MelonballBounce
by on Nov. 16, 2009 at 9:24 PM

LoL, no that kind of retouching is different. I totally get editing out boogers, I've done that to my own daughter's pictures where it was an otherwise gorgeous picture except for some noticeable boogies in her nose or something.

Color correction, tiny retouching for drool or stains or something, etc I get that.
I don't get the need to airbrush creases off babies and try to make them look smoother or thinner or whatever. I'm sure there are some magazines that edit the child's features too and that stuff... It's creepy to me.

Quoting Septpreggo:

oh yeah i forgot to add when i take my dd for professional pictures i wish they could because i have this one beautiful pic but she has a huge booger hanging out of her nose that i didnt notice and in another one she has drool dripping down her mouth thats not altering her looks its fixing the picture, but no they couldnt do it

u can bash all u want



SpcCraftsWife
by on Nov. 16, 2009 at 9:26 PM


Quoting AngelaVega:

I hate beauty pageants, especially when they involve fake tans and makeup for children, but I think magazine retouching is a little different. I think in a magazine you would want every photo as visually appealing as possible for marketing purposes. Babies aren't going to look at the magazine and say, "I want to be pretty like that." You know what I mean? And as for parents who see beautiful kids in magazines and think their babies aren't good enough because they aren't as "pretty," the problem lies with them, not the magazine.

very well put. i could never look at a magazine with a beautiful (however retouched or not) baby and be like, man Natalee, you need to clear that skin up dontcha? most mothers (rightfully) think that their baby is gorgeous regardless of "imperfections or flaws"

DeLaina,  Wife of SPC Jonathan Craft <3, Mama to daughter Natalee Michelle- 17 months,  and baker of one little bun in the oven-6 weeks!

MelonballBounce
by on Nov. 16, 2009 at 9:26 PM

Totally agree with that one. I thought that line of the article was ridiculous. What parent is seriously going to think that their kid isn't 'beautiful enough' b/c of a retouched picture in a magazine? Not a stable one, lol.

Quoting AngelaVega:

I hate beauty pageants, especially when they involve fake tans and makeup for children, but I think magazine retouching is a little different. I think in a magazine you would want every photo as visually appealing as possible for marketing purposes. Babies aren't going to look at the magazine and say, "I want to be pretty like that." You know what I mean? And as for parents who see beautiful kids in magazines and think their babies aren't good enough because they aren't as "pretty," the problem lies with them, not the magazine.



Septpreggo
by on Nov. 16, 2009 at 9:27 PM


Quoting MelonballBounce:

LoL, no that kind of retouching is different. I totally get editing out boogers, I've done that to my own daughter's pictures where it was an otherwise gorgeous picture except for some noticeable boogies in her nose or something.

Color correction, tiny retouching for drool or stains or something, etc I get that.
I don't get the need to airbrush creases off babies and try to make them look smoother or thinner or whatever. I'm sure there are some magazines that edit the child's features too and that stuff... It's creepy to me.

Quoting Septpreggo:

oh yeah i forgot to add when i take my dd for professional pictures i wish they could because i have this one beautiful pic but she has a huge booger hanging out of her nose that i didnt notice and in another one she has drool dripping down her mouth thats not altering her looks its fixing the picture, but no they couldnt do it

u can bash all u want


exactly they shouldnt be changing their facial feature or body size but i totally understand that they would need to retouch especially with babies because they drool and spit up and scratch their faces, which doesnt do good for an advertisement

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)