(if this thread is in the wrong sub-forum, please move it!) Recently, two pictures in my gallery were removed by the moderators. Some felt that the character depicted (Utopia, I call her) appeared to be too young, and when the mods discussed the issue there was disagreement, but the decision was to remove the pictures. I fully support/respect their decision, and do not wish to discuss the moderation per se. Rather, I would like to bring up the topic of how to deal with the issues raised by the concept of "apparent age" and 3D-CGI in general - from a perspective of the current scientific findings on facial beauty. ------------ When we morph faces in the digital world, we can create facial features that are outside the spectrum of normal human variation, and faces that might be possible, but very statistically improbable. German scientists have made a comprehensive study using compound (morphed) faces and photos of real human faces to figure out what are the common denominators of beautiful faces and how “beauty” relates to such things as “averageness” and “babyfacedness” (the latter being an aspect of “apparent age”). If you wich to read about the studies they have performed, and read more in detail about what they have found, you can go to: [url]http://www.beautycheck.de/[/url] These are some findings: 1) Making a composite face from several real faces gives the compound face a beauty rating higher than the average rating of the faces it was compunded from. This gives some support to the “beauty is averageness” hypothesis. 2) Comparisons between compound faces made from real photos with high and low beauty ratings respectively (a coumpound “sexyface” and a compound “uglyface”) enabled the scientists to say something about which facial features are considered “beautiful”. Here is a list for female beauty: Characteristic features of the female "sexy face" in comparison to the "unsexy face": Suntanned skin , Narrower facial shape, Less fat, Fuller lips, Slightly bigger distance of eyes, Darker, narrower eye brows, More, longer and darker lashes, Higher cheek bones, Narrower nose, No eye rings, Thinner lids. To see the actual compound faces, go to: [url=http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/prototypen/prototypen.htm]Female faces[/url] Such features cannot be said to be “average”, so this suggests that there is more to facial beauty than “averageness”. 3) Comparing composite images where characteristics of women and children had been blended to different proportions, “it could be shown that babyface attributes - such as large, round eyes, a large domed forehead and small, short nose and chin lead to a rise in attractiveness values.” The website further states that: “Only very few (9.5%) of the test subjects found the original adult faces most attractive. Most of the test subjects (90.5%) preferred faces with 10%-50% the proportions of the babyface scheme. This means: Even the most attractive female faces can become more attractive when their proportions are altered towards more babyfaceness.” This was true for both female and male test subjects, it can be noted. The preference seemed to center on a face that looked to be about 14 years old. 4) They sum it all up with this interesting statement: “Our study shows clearly that the most attractive faces do not exist in reality, they are morphs, i.e. computer-created compound images you would never find in everyday live. These virtual faces showed characteristics that are unreachable for average human beings.” ------------ When I create a character for Victoria 4.1 by DAZ, I sometimes blend different face-morphs, and sometimes just tune the dials by trial and error until I’ve created something that looks appealing to my eye. When doing so, if we are to believe the beauty-scientists, I am probably going to end up with a face that could rarely be found in real life – or perhaps a face that could not exist in reality, because it is a blend of grown-up and childlike features. When shooting for absolute stunning digital beauty, “Utopia”, or perfection, I am actually likely to create a face that looks to be about 14 years old or so, with some more mature features than usually found in 14 year olds, and also some pretty childlike features. That is simply how the human concept of beauty works! In my “artwork” (or rather: T&A-work), since I am aware of this effect, I usually try to “compensate” for this surreal and “youthful” facial beauty by making sure that my models have a fully adult “hip-to-waist ratio”. 14 year olds do not generally have very narrow waists, well rounded hips and full thighs – that is something you see more often in women 20+. I am not trying to make my vicky-morphs look underage – I am trying to make them look as beautiful as I possibly can, yet make sure that they appear to be 18+ years old despite their beautiful faces. So where should the line be drawn? How young can a 3D-CGI character seem to be, before we ought to react and do something about it? Kate Moss’s picture on the cover of Vogue in March of 1993 was taken when she was 18 or 19 (she was born January 1974), yet she doesn’t look a day over 14. She’s simply has a lot of “babyfacedness” – childlike facial features – which are an important part of our conception of facial beauty. Shouldn’t we be permitted to try and replicate her looks on a vicky-morph and post such images? She’s 18(+), after all… How about women like Christina Ricci, Winona Ryder, Angelina Jolie, Nicole Kidman, Pamela Anderson, (or even Asian Kitty - a porn star with a very petite build and youthful face, favourite of the “pigtails, lollipops and teddybears” kind of porno…)? If you were to morph their faces (say at age 24) into a composite, the image wouldn’t look a day over 14 either, since they all are “babyfaced”, but it would be a blend of adult and childlike features. I would suggest this: 1) For the face, draw the line at an “apparent age” of 13-14 years, if the face is beautiful. If, on the other hand, the face has many features of the “uglyface” in the german study, the line should be drawn at an apparent age of 18. That is a way to take into consideration how our brains construct the concept of beauty. 2) For the body, take waist-to-hip ratio into consideration, but only that. I know many women 25+ who have considerably less than a 30AA-cup (65A-cup by european nomenclature). I also know many women who shave their pubes. Those two cannot therefore come into consideration. Hips should be at least slightly rounded, and there should be a hint of a waistline. We ought to be allowed to make morphs of bodies like Asian Kitty’s, or at least something coming close to her petite build. 3) That 1+2 above needn’t mean that posting a very beautiful-looking face (babyfaced and looking 14 or so, like Kate Moss) on a very petite frame should be allowed. If 1, then not 2. If 2, then not 1. Get it? Any input?