To think this picture of a child has been airbrushed???

[PrettyFlyForAWifi]

tablet.hm.com/gb/product/11624#article=11624-C

Is it me or do this child's legs look unnaturally skinny - please tell me they're not airbrushing kids' thighs now.

Its the camera angle and also the background that has been adjusted badly. I very much doubt it was an intention to make her look "slimmer".

It's all wrong. I zoomed in to look what was up with her nose (can't see what's wrong with it tbh) but her eyebrows are the same brow in reverse. They are exactly symmetrical, down to the "stray" hairs.

I wouldn't be surprised if it were a cgi.

I don't think she's been airbrushed either

She looks exactly like my 11 year old proportion-wise

The picture has been cropped and edited with exposure/white balance and stuff, but I don't think the actual model has been airbrushed

If you go into the kids section, the girl is pictured without the t shirt and her right thigh looks bigger in the other picture, so it may have been airbrushed.

The airbrushing of children's pictures should definitely not be allowed.

Also, i don't think that using terms such as, slim and fat are helpful for children, some are chunkier, or rather bigger framed. As long as they are in normal limits, "small" etc, would be better.

Carrying body fat, excessively and being bigger framed/built are two different things.

Sorry, i meant without the cardigan.

Email sent so we will see. sydlexic i think you've missed the point. This is a discussion about defending children against being subject to their images being altered, it's not about the child's appearance per se.

What's a CGI eskino?

It may have been airbrushed, but there are also other reasons why a child may look abnormally thin, stance odd and legs out of proportion: connective tissue disorders spring to mind. Ds looked unnaturally thin during his pre-teens and used to stand in bizarre ways.

I know quite a few children who are naturally this slim - ds1 being one of them.

However, they are at the bottom of the centiles and I would find it disturbing if H&M selected only these children to model clothes as it sends yet another message that this body shape is 'the only one to be'.

I think the top is wide so it makes her look slimmer iyswim and she seems to be standing at a jaunty angle My dd had legs like that when she was young her face looks quite peachy though I think they have added colour to it

Her eyebrows don't look the same to me. I zoomed in on my iPad, they look different, her eyes are different, she looks like a pretty, healthy girl to me.

I think the way some of you are picking her apart is quite shameful!

Her legs look just like the legs of most of the girls at my dcs primary school, long and slim. And her nose looks fine!

Her nose?? WTAF

She looks just like most girls, imo.

She doesn't look airbrushed to me.

sydlexic I love your name.

And her eyebrows look as symmetrical as mine do if I run an eyebrow comb through them.

I just assumed that they airbrushed all the photo's in magazines/online. Kids aswell. All of them.And men. And women. etc.

Exactly Oblomov.

We are not being critical of the girl's appearnece - far from it - but there is something unreal about the photo of her.

And I am not just talking about the fact she is slim, because many girls are just as slim at her age.

I know this thread is about the fact airbrushing pics of children is wrong, but I would hate for this child to read these comments even so. I know that this isn't the op's intent but I've reported it as really I don't think MNHQ should allow a young child's appearance to be discussed like this, even though it's all well meaning.

Aren't h&m notorious for airbrushing? They also use the same body or something and photoshop clothes on.

It looks like one girls lower body and another girls upper body to me !

However, I do know a lot of very skinny little girls, so don't think she's been airbrushed (airbrushing kids would be crazy!)

Anyone Who has ever played with polyvore or any graphics program knows auto crop gives that sort of result, it takes off shadows and makes everything look slightly thinner.

And of course catalogue shots have been cut out and tidied up

They might have just squished the pic to make it fit.

Just had another look and as well as the thighs, her eye whites have been made more white and her skin seems like it has had some sort of glow added to it. I didn't realise they did this to children's pictures :/

Of course it's been airbrushed! Half of her right leg is missing.

There's no way to discus whether or not a picture has been air-brushed without saying something about the appearance of the person in it. Posters are not finding fault with the girls figure, they are commenting on the likely hood of airbrushing or not. 'Funny nose' = unlikely angle, not 'ugly'.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if shots of kids were airbrushed. Awful when a child can't just be a child.