Fauxtography is now the national pastime.

Some girls’ heads ended up on boys’ bodies, and vice versa.

Wow, that is clever. No one will ever notice!

/s

Can one photoshop nose jobs, like an ardvark type?

Officials from Lifetouch National School Studios Inc., the Minnesota-based photography company, said someone at the company made the alterations in an attempt to comply with the school’s photo guidelines.

MCKINNEY SCHOOL PHOTO GUIDELINES:

1. All students must have their heads in their yearbook photos placed on someone else's body.

2. Extra credit if the body is someone of the opposite gender.

3. Extra long necks are encouraged.

4. No fat chicks.

5. Nudity is OK, as long as chest is blurred out.

Minnesota ? Hmm...

can i get my face put on arnold schwartzenner's body circa 1980?

Imagine you have a boring job...processing photos of hundreds, thousands of high school kids. What might you do to make the time pass more quickly at work? Heh.

If you pay extra can you get Arnold Schwarzenegger's body? If you don't pay do you get Peewee Herman?

Eventually year books will only have pictures of Brad Pitt and Angela Jo Lee. :)

Edit the ugly right out of society!

Talk about change...

#8 Dainn ... LOL ... I wish I could spell as well as you!

Didn't some big time magazine.......People, maybe?........once put Oprah's head on Ann Margret's body? As I recall, Oprah didn't complain but Ann Margret was not amused.

Photoshop is like crack -- one hit, and you're hooked. And you have to keep doing more and more to get the same thrill.

Eventually, you find yourself selling your body on the streetcorner and faking government documents in an attempt to steal the presidency.

JUST SAY NO TO PHOTOSHOP!

Pointless photochopping.

Ho humm

The yearbook company was just "removing dust and scratches", huh? The kids in that school really must learn to take better care of themselves. Ha! Did they think no one would notice?

Good help is hard to find. All it takes is one dumb employee...

Odd changes. Air brushed skin or smaller features or color enhancement...maybe. But stretching necks and changing bodies?

re: #4 zombie

MCKINNEY SCHOOL PHOTO GUIDELINES:

1. All students must have their heads in their yearbook photos placed on someone else's body.

2. Extra credit if the body is someone of the opposite gender.

3. Extra long necks are encouraged.

4. No fat chicks.

5. Nudity is OK, as long as chest is blurred out.

Now that's hilarious! I'm laughing so hard I've got tears in my eyes.

I thought you found the actual guidelines and were posting them - so I began reading this in all seriousness.

This sounds like a disgruntled employee to me.

This school must have some pretty cool guidelines.

1) Nudity is A-OK!
2) long necks, AKA the Karen hill tribe, are encouraged!
3) Body swapping in photos shows our solidarity with the transgendered, go to it!
4) the fewer limbs, the better

Imagine how much time he put into this!

The last line of the story is priceless.
"I think it was somebody who does not understand ethics"

NO! Shocka!

It's all very unprofessional, but this:

Another girl is missing her clothing – and was left with a blurred chest.

is completely irresponsible and deplorable.

If it were my daughter's photo they did that to I'd find some grounds to sue the crap outta them.

re: #4 zombie

Ha! I was writing when I should have been reading. LOL!

re: #11 wolfie

Didn't some big time magazine.......People, maybe?........once put Oprah's head on Ann Margret's body? As I recall, Oprah didn't complain but Ann Margret was not amused.

National Geographic got caught in the very first Photoshop scandal when they moved the Pyramics of Giza a bit closer together to make a better composition. People were like, "Wait, are the Pyramids that near each other?" NatGeo got caught red-handed -- I can't believe they thought they'd get away with it.

But no one learned the lesson. The fakery industry has just exploded exponentially since then.

If the original medium was film, and they skimped on the developer-related chemicals, or equipment maintenance, it could be that many original pics were messed up. Then if someone had the bright idea of a digital fix instead of re-doing the pics...

re: #19 Charles

This sounds like a disgruntled employee to me.

Most everything like this, from theft to sabotage, is usually an inside job. Ask your local cop, he or she'll probbably tell you the same.

In this case, whoever did it certainly didn't think he/she was fooling anyone.

You can't turn in dozens of altered high school yearbook photos and think they aren't going to notice.

I blame Hugh Hefner for making photo alteration an acceptable practice.
//

re: #21 Charles

Imagine how much time he put into this!

I was just about to say - aren't they in it to make a profit? Must be somebody bent out of shape with an axe to grind and payed hourly.

re: #29 Charles

You can't turn in dozens of altered high school yearbook photos and think they aren't going to notice.

But you'd think the editor or the production designer or the printer or the proofreader would notice.

How did so many poeople fall down on the job?

re: #12 zombie

Seriously! I have a friend who got Photoshop for Christmas and she is now incapable.....I mean incapable.....of keeping her little shoppy fingers off a photo.
She hands me a couple of prints from an Easter party:
My dress is green instead of blue. ("goes better with the table decorations")
My hair is up instead of down. ("can't see your earrings")
Earrings? I've never seen those earrings in my life!
And so it goes.
She CAN'T stop.

re: #32 zombie

But you'd think the editor or the production designer or the printer or the proofreader would notice.

How did so many poeople fall down on the job?

Yeah, but in their defense I don't think high school yearbook producers have the same amount of detailed fact-checking that the mainstream media does.

Cough.

re: #33 wolfie

Seriously! I have a friend who got Photoshop for Christmas and she is now incapable.....I mean incapable.....of keeping her little shoppy fingers off a photo.
...
She CAN'T stop.

Addiction is a terrible thing.

Sophomore Brielle Anderson said she's pretty sure her head is on a boy's body.

"I paid $80 for a cropped picture of my head on someone else's body," she said.

She noted that she's also missing a few inches of hair.

It's so bizarre! What a funny keepsake though. At least they're getting new ones; although probably not in time to have them signed by their friends, they'll have to sign the photoshopped ones. Holy cow, can you imagine the day they handed these out? There was probably chaos in the school. *remembers yearbook day in high school* LOL

re: #25 zombie

OMG! National Geographic?! I didn't know that. Wow!
Well, they sure set a good example, didn't they?

re: #21 Charles

Hopefully he was an entry level employee and it only cost the company $8.50 an hour for all that wasted time.

I am sure the company will now have to pay to have all those photos retaken.

The local arts council made a brochure for their annual outdoor music festival, and apparently couldn't find a photo with a big enough crowd from last year's event, so some of my friends are in the brochure's cover photo twice!

/City of Clones...

Usually, it's not until after your "friends" pass your copy of the yearbook around the class to sign autographs on the last day of school that your photo gets defaced. I guess the photography company decided to save all the class clowns some time.

re: #32 zombie

But you'd think the editor or the production designer or the printer or the proofreader would notice.

How did so many poeople fall down on the job?

A lot of those shops run on auto-pilot. They aren't getting paid to look at that kind of stuff, and therefore won't notice (even if they do).

I used to be a creative director at a large firm in SF, and saw amazing things coming from vendors that were paid to notice.

Dude, you got boobs.

re: #38 DownRightMeanAmerican

Hopefully he was an entry level employee and it only cost the company $8.50 an hour for all that wasted time.

I am sure the company will now have to pay to have all those photos retaken.

Yep, they're gonna pay.

re: #38 DownRightMeanAmerican

Hopefully he was an entry level employee and it only cost the company $8.50 an hour for all that wasted time.

I am sure the company will now have to pay to have all those photos retaken.

Yes. Further down in the article it says that Lifetouch is going to redo the pictures and pay for reprinting the new yearbooks.....ca $100 grand.

wolfie (#11),

Didn't some big time magazine.......People, maybe?........once put Oprah's head on Ann Margret's body? As I recall, Oprah didn't complain but Ann Margret was not amused.

TV Guide.

re: #38 DownRightMeanAmerican

Hopefully he was an entry level employee and it only cost the company $8.50 an hour for all that wasted time.

I am sure the company will now have to pay to have all those photos retaken.

Don't have to retake the photos, they're just reprinting, but...

It will cost the company $85,000 to reprint 1,100 yearbooks, she said.

Officials from Lifetouch National School Studios Inc., the Minnesota-based photography company, said someone at the company made the alterations in an attempt to comply with the school's photo guidelines.

The school wanted student head sizes approximately the same and students' eyes at the same level in the photos.

"Unfortunately, we misinterpreted what those guidelines were," said Sara Thurin Rollin, a spokeswoman for Lifetouch.

Lifetouch is bound to know exactly who in their company was assigned the job of getting these photos ready for publication.

The school seems to have wanted some degree of uniformity in the photos, which I would think could be done during the actual photo sessions, by making sure the camera is at a certain distance from wherever the student is sitting, and then just adjusting up or down depending on the student's height.

The nameless "somebody" at that company should be fired. Here's what one student said:

"I paid $80 for a cropped picture of my head on someone else's body,"

re: #46 gop_patriot

That DOES piss me off. All that $$ down the drain because some asshat thought it would be funny to screw around with a few pictures.

re: #33 wolfie

Seriously! I have a friend who got Photoshop for Christmas and she is now incapable.....I mean incapable.....of keeping her little shoppy fingers off a photo.
She hands me a couple of prints from an Easter party:
My dress is green instead of blue. ("goes better with the table decorations")
My hair is up instead of down. ("can't see your earrings")
Earrings? I've never seen those earrings in my life!
And so it goes.
She CAN'T stop.

Needed: 12-Step Program for PSA (Photoshop Addiction)
1. Realize you are powerless before your Photoshop Program.

re: #34 Charles

Yeah, but in their defense I don't think high school yearbook producers have the same amount of detailed fact-checking that the mainstream media does.

Cough.

Bwahaha. Then in that respect they did a better job!

OT: anyone thing its really strange that at 5:39 EST, Drudge still has no link to Kennedy's health issues?

re: #45 Geepers

wolfie (#11),

TV Guide.

Geepers, Geepers!
But no wonder Oprah didn't complain!

re: #37 wolfie

OMG! National Geographic?! I didn't know that. Wow!
Well, they sure set a good example, didn't they?

Here's the infamous cover of National Geographic with the moved pyramids and Bedouins.

It was the first time a major publication got caught absolutely red-handed. The three components of the picture -- eahc of the two pyramids, and the Bedouins on camels - -where overlaid separately.

re: #49 Shaky Louie

I think there's a growing market for that program!

This could start a whole new trend in yearbooks.

We had the little section of text you could put next to your senior picture which included memorable bits like "Fast times in '82 IROC. 83 spring break with buds. Jenny 4ever."

Now you can have: "Orgy at photostudio. Xtra arm. Cool blur effects with buds."

re: #43 Charles

Rollin declined to say if the company fired or reprimanded the employee who altered the images.

Lifetouch, one of the largest private companies in the country, said it will provide a corrected version of the yearbook to McKinney students by the time the school year closes -- at a cost of $79,500 to the company. The high school has previously won local and national awards for its yearbook design.

Firing someone cant be easy, but in this case I would make an exception,

a $79,500 exception, now that’s a lot of swearing.

Here's a pdf essay about the NatGeo scandal -- from 1982!

Who Moved My Pyramid?

It was the FiRST time the public became aware of digital manipulation of photos.

It was pre-Photoshop even.

mikeinmd (#48),

That DOES piss me off. All that $$ down the drain because some asshat thought it would be funny to screw around with a few pictures.

More than a few:

All told, 39 percent of the 1,486 photos were changed,

That's 580 pictures screwed with.

How did this ever get to the printer?

This fauxtography thing has been around pretty much from the day one invent of photography. It was called posing. Matthew Brady was particularly creative with the positioning of dead soldiers for civil war "reality" shots. That said, I doubt he would have put any of those casualties in a dress or presented them as an airbrushed nude. At least I don't think so?

re: #4 zombie

MCKINNEY SCHOOL PHOTO GUIDELINES:

1. All students must have their heads in their yearbook photos placed on someone else's body.

2. Extra credit if the body is someone of the opposite gender.

3. Extra long necks are encouraged.

4. No fat chicks.

5. Nudity is OK, as long as chest is blurred out.

HA! HA! HA!

You know - I would pay to have a copy of my senior yearbook reprinted if they'd photoshop out that stupid powder blue tux with the ruffled shirt and the giant collar.

A new feature for yearbooks could be face morphing with your BFF!

re: #54 wolfie

Get in on the Ground Floor now. Cash in later!

re: #61 karmic_inquisitor

You know - I would pay to have a copy of my senior yearbook reprinted if they'd photoshop out that stupid powder blue tux with the ruffled shirt and the giant collar.

The one that's still in the back of your closet today ?

re: #53 zombie

My parents have that one! LOL I need to call them and tell them. I'll bet they never knew about it, I sure didn't. Thanks!

I know that it is a prank, but it fails the first rule of pranks.It is not funny

I can see a very small amount of body-swapping, etc to happen if the student wore something that would look out-of-proportion after they resized the head and moved the face to keep the eyes on the same level. But it should not have happened on this scale, and digitally removing clothes is not good.

re: #67 RememberSekhmet?

I can see a very small amount of body-swapping, etc to happen if the student wore something that would look out-of-proportion after they resized the head and moved the face to keep the eyes on the same level. But it should not have happened on this scale, and digitally removing clothes is not good.

You're correct. I'm an old fashioned guy. I prefer to MANUALLY remove clothes

The UN is setting up a commission to investigate.

It will be composed of Reuters photographers.

re: #64 sattv4u2

The one that's still in the back of your closet today ?

With the leisure suits?

Rollin chalked the situation up to a misunderstanding between Lifetouch and school officials. "Our people misinterpreted guidelines for the yearbook,'' she said. Rollin declined to say if the company fired or reprimanded the employee who altered the images.

This is a misinterpretation of guidelines?

Another girl is missing her clothing – and was left with a blurred chest.

I'd say that's a severe misinterpretation of propriety.

I feel sorry for that girl, and I hope this is her graduating year. Kids can be very cruel to one another, and I hate to think of the kind of unearned reputation she may get from this style of misinterpretation.

that's hilarious! i wonder if there were any hitler or groucho marx mustache additions? a third boob would be funny... i wonder if this yearbook place is hiring?

re: #67 RememberSekhmet?

I can see a very small amount of body-swapping, etc to happen if the student wore something that would look out-of-proportion after they resized the head and moved the face to keep the eyes on the same level. But it should not have happened on this scale, and digitally removing clothes is not good.

This really shouldn't be necessary at all. If you remember school pictures, they are taken at a standard distance from both the background and the camera, neither of which moves. There really is no purpose at all - and no excuse.

re: #64 sattv4u2

The one that's still in the back of your closet today ?

LOL. What sux about the tux is that it was this velcroed thing that they'd slap on you. They took the pictures right before the school year started so it was still hot outside. My last name comes toward the end of the alphabet so the thing reeked by the time I slapped it on.

As for the ladies - they had a shoulderless velcro dress, so all the girls came in tube tops.

Remember tube tops? I sure do.

re: #51 ziggyelman

Drudge already had a link...

Fauxtography in Texas
Wait just a minute
I seem to remember Dan Rather is from Texas
?
You would think he learned his lesson the first time

re: #74 karmic_inquisitor

LOL. What sux about the tux is that it was this velcroed thing that they'd slap on you. They took the pictures right before the school year started so it was still hot outside. My last name comes toward the end of the alphabet so the thing reeked by the time I slapped it on.

As for the ladies - they had a shoulderless velcro dress, so all the girls came in tube tops.

Remember tube tops? I sure do.

Is everybody here born between 1957 and 1964, or does it just seem that way?

re: #75 Psaturn

Drudge already had a link...

it's there right now also

re: #77 zombie

Is everybody here born between 1957 and 1964, or does it just seem that way?

I'm born in 61, right in the middle.

re: #77 zombie

Is everybody here born between 1957 and 1964, or does it just seem that way?

I was born in 65 myself

re: #77 zombie

Is everybody here born between 1957 and 1964, or does it just seem that way?

Nah...I'm older.

/today's 60 is yesterday's 40.

re: #77 zombie

Is everybody here born between 1957 and 1964, or does it just seem that way?

I'm pre-1957 ,,,,,,,,,

damn ,,, I'm old ,,,,,,,,that doesn;t look good now that I read it ,,

re: #75 Psaturn

Drudge already had a link...

Now I see it...I swear it wasn't there before....perhaps I was so used to not seeing it, I missed it above the Bush photo....still took him forever to cover it...no big deal, Drudge didn't die or somethin' : )

re: #73 galloping granny

This really shouldn't be necessary at all. If you remember school pictures, they are taken at a standard distance from both the background and the camera, neither of which moves. There really is no purpose at all - and no excuse.

There may be very slight corrections needed. Digital solutions are more reliable than analog. But in most cases, the editing should be completely unnoticeable.