is it just me . . .

tomandcourt · October 2011

Or did the people at Carter's photoshop a Caucasian baby to make it look more . . . ethnic? The picture just looks weird to me.

jess08200 · October 2011

Yes, it does look strange to me too!

Sofka · October 2011

LOL

maybe the LO is Indian (from India), some of them have blue eyes

the teeth look weird though

Hey Jellisy · October 2011

My biracial cousins are pretty striking, one has my cousins red (well reddish) hair but her dad's coloring and one of the boys has his moms green eyes and freckles.

LindseyJW · October 2011

meh. my DD has gray eyes and a perky, button nose. my cousins have red hair and freckles. DH has a niece with blue eyes. one has a gorgeous rich caramel color and dark wavy hair and honey colored eyes.

there are so many different color and feature combinations these days that it's impossible to say that the picture was photoshopped for this purpose.

but i do agree with pp that the two teeth seem misplaced.

SammiD79 · October 2011

LOL, that's hilarious. Most definitely does not look natural.

LindseyJW · October 2011

SammiD79:
LOL, that's hilarious. Most definitely does not look natural.

hilarious?

i can see this child looking different to you if you havent actually seen many babies of color, but exactly what doesn't look natural? is it odd to you that a baby of color would have the features that this baby has? are you implying that all people of color must look a certain way?

i don't understand. in fact, this thread kind of makes me go Confused

tomandcourt · October 2011

LindseyJW:
SammiD79:
LOL, that's hilarious. Most definitely does not look natural.
hilarious?
i can see this child looking different to you if you havent actually seen many babies of color, but exactly what doesn't look natural? is it odd to you that a baby of color would have the features that this baby has? are you implying that all people of color must look a certain way?
i don't understand. in fact, this thread kind of makes me go

Sorry, this wasn't meant to offend. And I don't find it funny . . . the bigger image looks (badly) photoshopped, and I was just surprised that they would do that.

rnin02 · October 2011

I think its the teeth. Babies with teeth don't sell one piece outfits well as far as i am concerned. Put the kid in a "real" outfit

mcatmay · October 2011

Talking to my newborn photographer (she does commercial shoots for Similac), they most likely DID photoshop or put the features of several babies together. When they were looking for babies for the Similac photoshoot, they melded the features of several different babies together to have the 'ultimate' baby - the photographer was somewhat disgusted and disheartened by what she learned from doing that campaign.

Sofka · October 2011

mcatmay:
Talking to my newborn photographer (she does commercial shoots for Similac), they most likely DID photoshop or put the features of several babies together. When they were looking for babies for the Similac photoshoot, they melded the features of several different babies together to have the 'ultimate' baby - the photographer was somewhat disgusted and disheartened by what she learned from doing that campaign.

wow, I have no words

(glad Similac never got a penny from me!!)

LindseyJW · October 2011

tomandcourt:
LindseyJW:
SammiD79:
LOL, that's hilarious. Most definitely does not look natural.
hilarious?
i can see this child looking different to you if you havent actually seen many babies of color, but exactly what doesn't look natural? is it odd to you that a baby of color would have the features that this baby has? are you implying that all people of color must look a certain way?
i don't understand. in fact, this thread kind of makes me go
Sorry, this wasn't meant to offend. And I don't find it funny . . . the bigger image looks (badly) photoshopped, and I was just surprised that they would do that.

thanks for the clarification, tomandcourt. and my comment was directed at the pp who said it was hilarious. i don't understand what is so hilarious about a baby that has features that seemingly from this thread are assumed to not be had be babies of color.

even if the picture was photoshopped, it is wrong to assume it MUST have been photoshopped because the baby has certain features. this assumption makes many implications, none of which are assumptions i think you want to make.

i agree that the picture looks odd and would also posit that it was photoshopped. but the only feature that makes me think that is the obviously wrong placement of the teeth. anyone with a baby knows that babies don't normally grow teeth on the side of their mouth first!

it is shameful what similac did, there are so many beautiful babies in the world, with so many beautiful features. there is really no need to photoshop them. but this is the world we live in where no commercial image can be taken at face value. still, i think it crosses a line when it is assumed that because an image of a person of color has certain features, it must be a photoshopped image of a Caucasian person.

Want a personalized experience?

is it just me . . .

Re: is it just me . . .

Choose Another Board

Search Boards