> What's insulting about overprocessed photos?
This is a heavy walk-back from reptile wearing a rubber mask. It should not be hard to understand why that statement can be seen as insulting.
> You can clearly see that the arbitrary part of the face of the girl in front is literally blurred
Not really. It’s a bit smoothed but the smoothest parts of her face are also where the skin is stretched tightest from smiling. It is actually smoother in those areas. I don’t see a ton of difference in the foreground between the skin texture in the different photos.
Background is different but as you said, that’s blood from a stone. The data just isn’t there.
> It should not be hard to understand why that statement can be seen as insulting.
It's very hard to understand. It doesn't make sense that a criticism of the camera would be an insult to the subjects of the photo.
The criticism is that the image isn't an accurate representation of the subjects. If B is bad, and B != A, it doesn't follow that A is bad.
You take a picture of your wife with your phone. You show it to a coworker. They tell you that your wife looks like a reptile wearing a rubber face mask.
Your reaction is?
a. “Yeah, the slight over processing definitely turned my wife into a lizard person.”
b. “Fuck you.”
I would be insulted. My wife is a Grey. She permanently morphed out of reptilian form 222 years ago.