To think Mother & Baby mag should be ashamed of airbrushing a baby photo?

[MintSource]

I buy Mother and Baby magazine now and then and find it useful but was really unimpressed with the current issue - they have airbrushed the photo of the baby until looks like a robot.

Why would they do this? Why would they think a baby didn't look perfect just as it is? Not buying mag any more.

If the baby was anything like mine I'd assume they were getting rid of snot and got carried away?

But yes, madly over the top.

Oh wow, they've gone way too far with that one haven't they?

They only ever have pretty white babies on the cover anyway ( or at least that's all I've ever seen ) so in that respect it's false anyway. Airbrushing is the least of it.

You do know that every single magazine cover in the world is airbrushed, don't you?! You didn't seriously think that M&B covers weren't?!

You're right, Surfer, that's awful, too.

Yes, the baby looks like a slightly freaky doll, with plastinated skin and big cartoon-animation eyes, but as Damson said, every glossy magazine cover in the history of magazine covers has been retouched and airbrushed, so it's hardly surprising.

Damson, of course. But never to the extent that a gorgeous baby looks like one of those vinyl 'reborn' dolls.

Is it not supposed to look like one of those stylised soft focus baby photos from the 60s/70s? I think that's what they're going for rather than just being over enthusiastic with the air brush.

I don't see why not if they airbrush adults?

If they don't think they look perfect just as they are, I don't see why they'd think it about a baby.

I wish they'd just give up airbrushing altogether really.

Well since most magazines believe grown ups are not beautiful enough for the front cover without airbrushing it follows that their offspring isn't that attractive without it either.

disturbing to say the least!

I hate seeing babies airbrushed. But it seems very common. For example - the baby on Pampers baby wipes (the pink pack anyway) - fair enough to remove snot or whatever, but to airbrush out hair, or smooth the complexion?

Very worrying indeed.

Reminds me of the opening credits for Toddlers and Tiaras.

V. disturbing.

Having worked in the business (hopes it doesn't out me) you'd be surprised what retailers do to photos of children.

Babies arrive to photoshoots with scratches on their faces from little finger nails, bruises on their knees from siblings, tears in their eyes when they randomly start bawling, snot (so much snot) and dribble. All of these are retouched out.

Also baby acne.

Industry secret... Sometimes the head of one baby will be out on the body of another if the baby didn't cooperate on the day (aka baby 1 has good position to show off clothing, baby 2 has better facial expression, put baby 2's head on baby 1)

I once saw a small girl (4 years) had her stomach flattened as it was hanging a tiny bit over the skirt (which was completely normal and she was in no way overweight)

This is almost every major childrens retailer. I won't name names, but you'd be surprised.

Although contrary to belief, no one puts makeup on babies or children for photoshoots.

The baby looks like it's wearing bronzer!

Totally normal all mags do it. It's nothing new.

Very disturbing. I don't blame you for boycotting the magazine. I hope others make a stand with you.
Now I know PND is a chemical imbalance in the brain and you can't blame magazines for that but I know one thing. They certainly don't help with pictures of babies with out a splodge on it. It can make new mothers feel very inferior.