— FEATURED —
The Man Who Laughs: grotesque Victor Hugo potboiler was the basis for The Joker
Eurovision 2013: An American in London
The Twelve-Fingered Boy - mesmerizing YA horror novel
ADVERTISE AT BOING BOING!
— COMICS —
Tom the Dancing Bug
TOM THE DANCING BUG: The Truth Behind the Nixonian Presidency of Obama
Brain Rot: Hip Hop Family Tree, Compton, Lonzo Williams and the Wreckin' Cru
Real Stuff: Bad Trip
— GUATEMALA SPECIAL SERIES —
Guatemala: protests condemn annulment of Rios Montt trial, while ex-president Portillo extradited to US
NYT Editorial Board: "Justice Interrupted in Guatemala"
Guatemala's Genocide on Trial: Kate Doyle
— RECENTLY —
Black Code: how spies, cops and crims are making cyberspace unfit for human habitation
We Can Fix it! - a graphic novel time travel memoir
The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek
Odd Duck: great picture book about eccentricity and ducks
Scatter, Adapt, and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction
Illustrator William Stout's Legends of the Blues - exclusive excerpt
Hackers prepare for first "national holiday" in their honor
Review: Disunion, the VR guillotine simulator
Mousetronaut: kids' picture book about mouse in space, written by a Shuttle pilot
Review: Pebble e-paper watch
— FOLLOW US —
Boing Boing is on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to our RSS feed or daily email.
— POLICIES —
Except where indicated, Boing Boing is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution
— FONTS —
Mark Frauenfelder at 11:16 am Thu, Oct 22, 2009
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
I think this link just got lawyered into non-existence …
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.
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!
Well, it’s better than doing plastic surgery on your baby.
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?
Hello Little Miss Sunshine!
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…..
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.
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.
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:)”
What the hell is wrong with some people???
For some reason, it’s the incessant need to draw new EYEBROWS on these children that bothers me the most.
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.
Colonizing the uncanny valley along with Ralph Lauren and Michael Jackson.
@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.
The shopped pictures look a lot like child beauty pageant contestants.
Only less creepy.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
I think, anonymous, that some of us don’t view making two year-olds look like hookers as idealized.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@shay guy: It really does look plastic doesn’t it?