200910221111

In 2007 James Gunn posted this gallery of truly frightening before and after photos in which normal little girls are turned into waxen nightmares.

The Creepiest Thing You'll Ever See (Via PonyPonyShow)

30 Responses to “Gallery of creepily retouched baby photos”

  1. Maddy says:

    I think this link just got lawyered into non-existence …

  2. Kevin Carson says:

    There are actually people who think this shit looks good? Well, it explains both JonBenet Ramsey and Tammy Faye Bakker. I actually see adult women who shave off their eyebrows and pencil in new ones, and then lacquer on makeup to create a dolls-head effect. If “rot your dick off at 100 yards” is the effect they’re going for, it works.

  3. Rynski says:

    thank you for this horrific photo that makes me want to puke – hahah.
    i linked to it since it illustrated my point in my column “the quest for picture perfect has gone too far.”
    check out the column if you wish: http://tucsoncitizen.com/rynski/2010/02/05/the-quest-for-picture-perfect-has-gone-too-far/

    thanks again – even though i shall now have nightmares!

  4. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Well, it’s better than doing plastic surgery on your baby.

  5. Stefan Jones says:

    I’d suggest a unicorn chaser, but it might have one of these creepy girloids riding on its back.

    Cripes, seriously, what were they thinking? Is this the result of subtle brain damage from cheap drywall leaking formaldehyde?

  6. holtt says:

    Hello Little Miss Sunshine!

  7. betwnmeanu says:

    As a parent to a stillborn child, I will try to explain the need for retouching: As a mother who goes into labor after carrying her child for months, now leaves the hospital with a casket and body rather than her a baby, we go home empty handed only with the horror and memories of that day, as well the hospital is so kind *sarcasim* as to give us a memento box, with a photo of your precious baby that we gave birth to. Now from experience nurses to my knowledge are no photographers and parents end up going home with a photo of there baby who on occasion may have been bruised or discolored to to the dregrees of trauma during birth. I for one have a single photo of my daughter, that i refuse to show, for the fear of people calling it “creepy”, although every day i go into that box, and look at my beautiful daughter wondering why people cant see her as i do….. hence the resaon why some familes choose to get there photo edited beause although my child was born sleeping she was till born to me…..

  8. coaxial says:

    Really? These are photoshopped images? Hell, I thought it was a “get a baby doll that looks your baby” place. Not that, that isn’t creepy as all hell either.

  9. Dewi Morgan says:

    Even beforehand, they’re pretty creepy, but afterwards, damn. It’s the mascara eyelashes that freak me out. Kids in makeup give me the heebie jeebies. Then again, I’m not that keen on it in grownups either.

  10. winkybb says:

    at the “phoejoe” site that did the photo above, there is a quote from the satified client….

    “Thats great. I would like the Free 8×10…I would like to just say thanks for making the changes…Sorry for all the changes. but ya’ll have worked with me and are very nice and kind. I hope to receive by next weekend so I can have them for her Nationals and will let everyone know where I got hers done at:):) Thanks once again and have a nice Day:)”

  11. Sekino says:

    What the hell is wrong with some people???

  12. LB says:

    For some reason, it’s the incessant need to draw new EYEBROWS on these children that bothers me the most.

  13. Halloween Jack says:

    I hope to receive by next weekend so I can have them for her Nationals

    Oh lord, a pageant mom. I hope the kid hasn’t been ruined for life already.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Colonizing the uncanny valley along with Ralph Lauren and Michael Jackson.

  15. LYNDON says:

    @shay guy – the impression of fakeness I think can be broken down like this:

    - general oversharpness and saturation/colourisation – makes things look like painting rather than a photo. I suspect there’s also more tone depth in the face than the rest of the image. Though that might just be the eyes (see third point).

    - missing shadows under chin, and a little under the hair. Messed up lighting is important for that ‘floating photoshop head’ effect.

    - I think the ‘not a real child’ issue is down to those freaky stepford eyes these people seems to insist on.

  16. Daemon says:

    The shopped pictures look a lot like child beauty pageant contestants.

    Only less creepy.

  17. adamnvillani says:

    I agree; I can certainly see why a family would want to have a retouched photo of their stillborn infant, whereas the motivation behind these glamour shots is just bonkers. Marginally less creepy, though.

  18. sad dolls says:

    SAD DOLLS!!!!

  19. blueelm says:

    The pic on the right is not ironic? Woah. If you’re going to retouch photos fine. Hell I retouch pics. Why not? I figure everyone works with photoshop these days which is why I don’t get this. It’s like cake wrecks. These are supposed to be professionals for god’s sakes! I clicked the link. Some of those weird flat eyes aren’t even drawn right. They keep the orientation of the natural eye but change the shape and contour so much they’d really be better off starting from scratch and drawing the face using the pic as a reference. At least it would look integrated.

  20. Anonymous says:

    WHY? Why didn’t they see a problem with this? Don’t they realise they made their child look like they fell to the bottom of the uncanny valley and hit every branch on the way down?

    P.S. AAAHHHHHHGH!

  21. VagabondAstronomer says:

    I too worry about these pageant moms. They start with the retouched photos, then, as the child grows into adulthood, they move to retouched body parts. All for a pageant. Swell.

  22. Anonymous says:

    No, the creepiest photos ever are the retouched photos of stillborn babies made to look like the babies are still alive. I would search for a link, but I really don’t want to Google “dead baby retouched photos” at work.

    • blueelm says:

      Those *are* the worst. But I feel some sympathy for the parents in those cases. They often get that one picture as the only reminder of the baby they tried to have. Strikes me more as the funerary portraits from the past. In those cases the retouch is an attempt to get rid of some of the obvious damage. The sad thing is, they’re often terribly done.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Idealized portraits are probably as old as painting. I’m appalled at the intolerance the other posters show to those who don’t share their sense of aesthetics. Can’t we all just get along?

  24. rduncan10 says:

    Have you noticed that more and more people (not just women) on TV are starting to look like this? Really thick, clown like make up, that makes their faces look like plastic. I always wondered if this was because of high definition cameras.

  25. Miss Jess says:

    I do believe they refer to these as “Glitz” photos – I’ve been watching way too much of that “Toddlers and Tiaras” show, God help me.

  26. jso says:

    Along with the rest of the comments, why do they need to do up the fake hair like that. What, they really want their baby to have the appearance of an underdeveloped 20-something? Ugh.

  27. Shay Guy says:

    @coaxial: Cross your eyes until the two photos fully overlap. They’re the same basic image. (Also useful for identifying copy-and-paste in comics!)

    And the thing is, I *can’t pin down* what exactly makes the one on the right look so fake.

Leave a Reply