Slashdot Mirror
Clothier Slammed For Using 'Perfect' Virtual Model
Hugh Pickens writes "Swedish Clothing Giant H&M recently disclosed that the images from the company's website, showing models wearing the latest swimsuit and lingerie in generic, stock-form, are not just photoshopped but entirely computer-generated. 'We take pictures of the clothes on a doll that stands in the shop, and then create the human appearance with a program on [a] computer,' H&M press officer Hacan Andersson said when questioned about the company's picture-perfect online models. Advertising watchdogs elevated the controversy by criticizing the chain of lower-cost clothing stores for their generic approach to models, accusing the chain of creating unrealistic physical ideals. 'This illustrates very well the sky-high aesthetic demands placed on the female body,' says a spokesman for the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, one of the groups most critical of H&M. 'The demands are so great that H&M, among the poor photo models, cannot find someone with both body and face that can sell their bikinis.'"
Why hire a model, photographer, etc., every time you change product lines, when you can just mass-produce images on a computer? I'd guess that the motivation here is more cost cutting than aesthetics. Still sounds like a terrible idea, but I'm sure we'll be seeing more of this in the near future.
'The demands are so great that H&M, among the poor photo models, cannot find someone with both body and face that can sell their bikinis.'
Deal with it. Modern concepts of beauty as promoted by clothiers might be unrealistic, that doesn't mean anyone has the right to tell them what they can consider beautiful.
A significant portion of the world goes hungry each day. These people would see even the most emaciated bikini model H&M might pull off the streets in Sweden as looking relatively unstarved.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Artifical humans are required to show their robot indicator hologram at all times.
It may only be switched off by court order. This is clearly a violation.
First to invoke rule 34.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
This is just plain old photoshopping. The blurb makes it sound like she's a 3D computer model or something similarly advanced. I'm sure the originals were based off of a real person, and probably touched up a bit with photoshop like practically every social magazine and advertisement had has done for decades now. I'm not sure what all the uproar is about. Do people really think that amongst the billions of people on this planet that no-one has a body that looks as good as this "virtual" model? Sure it's not representative of your typical, average female, but it most certainly is not unrealistic. I just don't understand the evil / anti technology slant to this story. That's just a money saving / convenience type thing.
Better known as 318230.
I guess it's quite telling of my geekiness that my first thought on this isn't anything to do with stereotypes or the tragedy of young women being given unrealistic aspirations, but rather how the technology could be improved upon and put to better use.
I mean, they have the tech to computer generate a human form over the top of a mannequin wearing clothes right? So why not parameterize it so that people can customize the look to be them, like an avatar in $your-favourite-mmorpg-here?
Sure it'd take some work to adapt the tech and build some generative models, but suddenly you go from evil marketing tool to handy way to pick out a wardrobe and see what looks good on you.
I read TFA, but haven't visited H&M's site.
Only a legally blind person can't tell those pics are Photoshopped.
The chicks' bodies are EXACTY the same, except for the head/hair.
Even their faces aren't very naturally looking (sort of uncanny valley).
if the models are virtual does that mean they want virtual customers too? I mean if they couldn't find human models for these bikinis how are they going to find human customers to buy them?
Maybe they should have a contest with their customers, "Be the next H&M model"
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
... to use manikins and Photoshop, which are available to model immediately 24/7 and don't charge and hourly rate, then to use real people.
Now maybe the manikins are unrealistic but so are the human models. Anybody see Victoria's Secret models walking down their street today?
There aren't many women in the audience of this site so the story doesn't resonate here.
At the bottom of the uncanny valley could be a lawyer ready to sue you.
Model on the right in TFA has a face a lot like Alyx Vance. Is it just me though or do her shoulders seem a bit strange? Like they're a bit wider and lower than they should be?
Also they both look a bit too skinny and narrow-hipped for my taste, but that's just me. For some of us Serena Williams has the perfect body shape :-P
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The complaint appears to be based on the lower cost model of efficiency. The printing press operators, typesetters, telephone operators, and other high cost labor is being replaced by lower cost computer automation that is less prone to errors, never goes on strike, etc.
We reap the benefits of lower cost products, but moan the loss of jobs at the same time. Really, do you want to go back to the model of hand planted wheat and hand harvested and threshed wheat? If your daily loaf of bread cost leass than 1/3 of your income, you are benefiting from the economics of mechanized farming.
Paying a labor pool of nice looking models is a high expense of a limited resource and will no longer be sustainable as the number of clothing articles to be modeled rises with the new efficiency.
Automated phone systems enabled inexpensive phone calling. Do you really think your phone service would be anything like it is today if we all had to depend on the volume of Lilly Tomlin type switchboard operators to complete all calls. Phone plans including nationwide calling would not exist. Anything outside of a local calling area would be charged as long distance like it used to be.
The complaints are to preserve an outdated labor market against advances in automation.
Looking forward, the advertising market may enable consumers to 3D image their face and body to enable viewing a virtual model of themselves modeling the products. Does this swimsuit make my butt look big?
The truth shall set you free!
This is going to be the greatest thing for H&M ever. I wouldn't be surprised if they started the controversy themselves by complaining to some dimwitted blogger to get the ball rolling.
I'm 6'2" & 155 pounds (188cm & 70kg for our non-US friends). Far too many of my button-down shirts are ordered from internet tailors. H&M is one of the few remaining shops I can visit to find clothes that are long enough for my arms and legs without fitting like a tent. THEY KNOW THEIR AUDIENCE. If you aren't among it, please ignore 'em.
In the future, bold advances in genetic engineering and biotechnology will allow humans to transplant their faces onto idealized bodies in order to meet impossible ideals of physical perfection!
. . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_2000 . . . I'm surprised that this hasn't been used earlier. I always figured that the Japanese would be the first to come up with these. Imagine a shop window display with Anime-like chicks moving around like they are real.
Plastic surgeons would start offering "Sailor Moon"-jobs . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
...couldn't you come up with some that are attractive? I'm not into fat chicks, but bones sticking out is not a good look. Curves, please!
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Just like all other ways to reduce costs, increase efficiencies and speed, this is just one of them.
Any company that produces anything should be aiming towards having as few employees as possible, this includes using contractors, tools, computers, networks, robots, any kind of automation.
Hopefully it's going to be possible to run an entire company the size of H&M with only a few people at some point in the future.
Good stuff, H&M.
You can't handle the truth.
Could it be perhaps that the store simply wanted a virtual human that they could pay for once, never have to pay residuals, and could be used eternally as their "face" without ever aging, getting pregnant, or changing ever?
Really, we live in pretty good times that this is the worst thing people have to complain about.
FWIW about a 0.12 second Google search finds hundreds if not thousands of girls who would look indistinguishably as perfect as the models shown. It clearly has nothing to do with "there's no human that looks that perfect".
-Styopa
Companies have been using artistic renderings of products and people using or wearing those products for a very long time. Never have the depictions of those people included misshapen, obese, or otherwise less than perfect forms. The vast majority are closer to the "Barbie Doll" variety with proportions that are nearly impossible to be born with. I don't believe that the fact that these are more realistic looking changes anything. I'm surprised this made any new at all, unless as pointed out before, it was just to make headlines somehow.
Had Sales.
You could actually say that they are sparing a model from having to starve herself to meet their definition of "beauty". If we aren't perpetuating anorexia by paying models to starve themselves, this might not be all bad.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Out of the kindness of their heart? To placate someone's body image issues? Please. Which one sells better? I guess it's more complicated than that... You'd have to control for the clothes. You'd need to have virtual and real models wear the same clothes at different times.
I have repeated this to my kids numerous times: a person can go from good looking to ugly in the time it takes them to open their mouths and say something.
This seems especially alien to girls because every social cue they see on TV and in print seems to scream at them to make good impressions. As such, I really do not know what to make of all the cries of perfect models casting clothes.
What is a fashion designer supposed to do? Show their clothes on physically disgusting people?
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
H&M is lower cost? Lower than what? Gucci? If you've got that much damn money to spend on clothes, then you're going to get lied to. Deal with it.
How dare they use images of virtual models? They should go back to using heavily photoshopped images of attractive women that represent a tiny proportion of the gene pool--'realistic' but equally unattainable physical ideals for most women.
Is there a facebook page about this I can like so I can feel good about myself?
Seriously, this is like protesting the lack of fat mannequins in shop displays.
There will always be work for attractive young women, there are plenty of other real world stuff they can be used to sell, hell, they are widely used to sell virtually anything to men and women. And several research studies show that attractive people have an easier time finding work in many occupations, modelling isn't the only career where looks are an advantage.
I know plenty of women who buy clothes online, they will feel pretty insulted if they are told that they are buying clothes in the hope that they can look like the models shown wearing them. I would think they would have given up by now, surely after the first hundred items or so they would notice that the clothes they buy aren't making them look like the models on the website.
I mean seriously. I went to their site and looked around it's pretty obvious that it's photo trickery in the works here. It's blatantly obvious that the models didn't wear every single top, trou, skirt etc in exactly that stance. What's funny is that the watchdog is complaining that it's creating unrealistic physical ideals? Have they noticed that one of the models nose is tilted while anothers tooth is shorter than it's twin (photoshoped? their designer should be fired). Both women models I saw had the same friggin belly. This is a joke... any intelligent person would have quickly noticed this - it's ingrained in our brain to notice something unusual on someone elses body - only a total idiot would think that those are real models.
yet another reason not to watch good morning america. While this might be moderately interesting to the slashdot crowd, is this really news? And really.... pushing a physical ideal is a problem now? Are we supposed to start idolizing fat and dumpy? Or worse... Robin Roberts?
I remember seeing store advertisements from the '60s and prior where they didn't use photos of real models either: They used illustrations. Usually with unrealistic proportions, too.
The people complaining the most vocally will not be happy until the day when every photo or moving image of a woman they see magically looks exactly like them so they can feel better about themselves. Maybe someday a computer can process virtual fatties modelling clothes individually for their TV or tablet.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
...promoting healthy body image and all, but no one expects General Motors to advertize their latest car in south central LA, why should clothing companies be required to advertize their products on ugly fat people?
"Give someone a program, frustrate them for a day... Teach someone to program, frustrate them for a lifetime."
Photoshopping is so common nowadays (not just for body retouching) you'd be a fool to believe any printed ad didn't have something adjusted. Might be litter removed off the ground, more people in the crowd, a tummy tuck or two, or it could be the entire shot was assembled from a dozen pieces. If you're crying foul when a CGI model is being drawn in, you probably have no idea how gullible you already are.
As long as the product itself isn't being photoshopped or a fake scale comparison (like that pool we saw recently where they'd pasted in kids of pics at about 50% normal size to make the pool appear larger) then I'm ok with it.
This is like complaining that the store has the clothes on mannequins instead of live models. Actually, I wonder if there was a similar ruckus back when stores started using more realistic mannequins?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
They look anorexic to me, not very attractive.
Look at it this way...the virtual models are more likely to pass a Turing test than the real ones...
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
'The demands are so great that H&M, among the poor photo models, cannot find someone with both body and face that can sell their bikinis.'"
"Models tend to be such conniving cunts that poor H&M cannot find anyone qualified to sell their bikinis"
Why bother with a model, photographer, support staff when you can use a computer that will never talk back or get fucked up on drugs......
They dealt with it.
This is just like the movie "Looker" with Susan Dey
One of the models is real, Cintia Dicker (I know, name, right?). But now that it's mentioned, it does appear that other models look a little CGI'd
Think Star Wars here, it's actually on topic. Think Jar Jar Binks and avoid any homicidal tendencies that come to mind.
What most people don't realize is that Jar Jar Binks wasn't a character, he was an advertisement. He was advertising the ability to create a fully functional actor for a movie on behalf of his studio to the industry.
This is the same idea, you find the features you want, replicate them well enough no one can tell and you can now axe the cost of labor. You can also be safe from things like 'model get DUI' or other such unpleasantness. Your also safe from an actress aging, getting pregnant, dying from an overdose and so on.
This of course has been helped by models and actors being so heavily Photoshopped that we've arguably already crossed the uncanny valley by changing the public perception of what a person /should/ look like. For lack of a better way to put, the public generally can't tell and only those in the industry are going to know better or even care.
Just as the last fighter pilot has already been born, at some point we will also say the last model / actor has been born. It's outsourcing plain and simple.
People that once thought it was the problem of factory workers and weren't concerned are going to get a really rude wake up call. The precedent was set with other industries and I can't think of any industry that is /safe/ from it.
Basically people are upset over using an ideal model that 0 people look like, instead of using traditional models that 1 in 10 million people can look like? It's ok to have an unrealistic standard of beauty when one person with the perfect genetic makeup manages to do it, but when it's a fake person it is entirely wrong?
"dimwit hot chicks" landing on a model contract are rare. I can say without searching too much that due to the number of women existing, probably more than 99% DID NOT land a model/actor/porn star/moderator contract, but are cashier at supermarket, manager , hair cutter, raising kid at home etc...etc...
You have to understand that this is for a catalog shoot: not high fashion, not runway, not super model territory. You're looking at cranking out 100-200 images in a day of 100 different sweaters, trousers, bikinis or what have you. Used to be that you'd hire cheap rookie models for this at (if possible less than) minimum wage. What do you get for an $8/hr model? Someone who whines, who doesn't know how to change clothes quickly, who doesn't know how to stand in the lights, who isn't necessarily exactly the right shape, etc. They're someone who is moderately attractive (her friends told her "you should be a model"), and it's certainly a way to pay your dues to get in to the business. But it sure isn't glamorous.. it's tedious, hard, long day kind of work, and realistically it's no different than photographing a series of angle iron brackets for a machinery catalog (which is probably what they'll do the next day in the studio). At least you don't have to spend all night in the darkroom developing film and making proof sheets for the client any more.
Good looking synthetic model mannequin and photoshopped headshots... a most practical scheme. Camera is locked off on a tripod, crew of dressers putting the clothes on the mannequins and rolling them into place. What's not to like? An assembly line process with automation.
Just stick Ron Jeremy into one of those outfits. Then no one can complain about anything "perfect." Forever. If they don't spontaneously combust.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Is there something akin a union for models in Sweden?
They use skinny models because they are all the same so when need to display a new clothing design, you can simply grab any of them and the outfit will fit. If the woman has curves, then the outfit needs to be fitted. Besides bust, waist, hips also need to consider shoulder width, torso length, etc. If all models are same stick women of size 0, then don't need to deal with fitting.
It comes down to productivity which is why sizes are small, medium, large and the material is stretchy so it really doesn't matter to get a good fit. Nowadays for fitted gowns (i.e. wedding dresses), they are ***all*** strapless which makes productivity much easier and don't have to deal with fitting the shoulders (not all women look good in strapless but they have no choice these days).
Same stupid mentality as programming of TV shows. It's either reality, law, medical, or a bankrupt remake. Instead of something new and creative, stick with something simple to maintain high productivity. So now they have virtual models which means they don't have to make the outfit at all!
However, as others have noted this is not exactly a new concept. They used virtual models back in the 1930s, 40s, 50s but those had to be handdrawn as computer graphics were not that great back then.
mfwright@batnet.com
She's too damn skinny anyway. Looks like a bar skank. Not sure why that sells.
Well, since they sell clothes, not computer models, it may be better to think: S1m0ne.
The movie missed many opportunities to explore the implications of a realistic virtual actor/model, but it was a start. Certainly a better example than JJ.
Recently in Japan, a new member in a pop group called AKB48 was "announced", but she was actually a CGI composite of of 6 existing members.
People figured it out pretty fast though. So, this sort of thing is not without precedent.
If the idea of a perfect female physique- which women track on and use as a measure of self worth because it's the number one thing men look at in a mate (sorry!) and women are in competition for "the best men" - if that idea is being set unfairly high, then does Bill Gates' and Larry Ellison's wealth represent an unfair assault on men's sense of their own self worth? In fact, isn't the 1% collectively such an assault?
You bet it is. Why do you think the 1% are so determined to hold on to that 60% of the nation's wealth in the first place? Because in the words of Al Pacino in Scarface:
"In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women."
Why do women care about this business with H and M at all? Because they don't want to be held to those standards. Why do they care about those standards? Because if you're not beating the competition or at least measuring up, then you won't get one of "the good men". What is a good man in the eyes of women? One with a lot of money and power. That's as true a statement about how women measure men as other is about how men measure women.
It's a sword that cuts both ways. Models, real and virtual, have the indirect effect of devaluing ordinary women in men's eyes. The constant projection of male wealth and power, both on TV, in the movies and in real life, has the indirect effect of devaluing ordinary men in women's eyes.
So I guess it's easier to blast fashion companies for using skinny-looking models instead of just admitting that being overweight is not okay as obesity is responsible for more preventable deaths and healthcare costs than anything else we have ever seen.
Honestly, why are these companies always seen as the "bad guys" when they are likely responsible for many times more people taking control and becoming healthy than our health educational system could have ever hoped for? I guess it's easier to blame them for their "unrealistic" ideals than it is to blame ourselves for our sedentary and over-indulging lifestyles transforming our bodies into something they were never designed to become in the first place.
Why are you supposedly so insecure and passive (not that there aren't men like that too) that you take your ideals from a clothing advertisement? I mean aren't there enough great guys out there who would not only bang but also marry you? And don't you have a model of reality and a sense of good and bad yourself?
Because I'm sure you do! You just don't trust it. So: Please start to trust it.
Then again I see tons of cattle every day... standing in front of a pedestrian crossing with a red light and no car for miles in each direction. "But it's the rules!"
FUCK the rules! The rules are WRONG! (In this case.) And you should know that and be secure enough to know you know better!
Only idiots need rules. Non-cattle people know for themselves what is right and wrong. YOU know for yourself what is right and wrong.
You only have to THINK. REALLY think. For once in your lousy passive cattle life! Because the things you take for granted the most, are the ones you thought about it the least, and where you will find to be wrong all the time the most!
YOU define what looks good! YOU define things! YOU define who you are! YOU say what you are and aren't. You are NOT "just like that"! EVER. Period. That's a delusion and a cheap-ass excuse only passive losers use!
You don't look good because of the clothes!
The clothes look good because of YOU!
Enough said.
This gives me something good to look at when im on the pooper
Fascinating that none of the articles mention that the dudes are virtual as well. And they don't use any guys in the example images either. (If you visit the HM website it's easy to find some obvious body-doubles for swimming trunks.)
Focusing on issues with body images is not necessarily a bad thing, but only focusing on women is a bit sexist IMHO. Kind of ironic considering that's the drum they are banging on.
As I look at the two models closely, it's pretty obvious that they have the same body. I mean, the *exact* same body. Same shoulders, same hips, same cleavage, same posture, even the same navel. Only the faces are different.
Ordinarily, I probably wouldn't have noticed, but now that I have, it's a little weird.
Isn't this much better than a static photo of a real model that meets their ideal measurements? After all, if they CAN find a live female model to meet their ideals, then they aren't "unrealistic".
Surely, if there is enough backlash against "perfect" women, then they'll just add the option to input whatever measurements you like and re-render.
I would prefer to shop this way! Yes, I'm yelling... :)
I'm a fat guy with very little time to shop. Groceries; online, office supplies; online, media; online, etc; online...
Clothing? Nope, gotta go to a store. Why, you ask? Because clothes aren't static. They vary so much between vendors that I can't guarantee a good fit without spending exhorbitant amounts of cash. "Just buy from the same vendor" Can't, my weight fluctuates. Enough so, that when I'm ready to purchase new clothes--every 2-3 years--I'm physically different.
An adjustable, digital model would be ideal. Private and expedient. Just get naked, look in a mirror and match it with controls for the model.
You may not like being honest about how you look, but at least you won't have to try the stuff on in fitting rooms.
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
Why does everyone assume that this is all about keeping the costs down by not hiring models? H&M use computer-generated images because they allow customers to mix and match their clothes in a virtual dressing room. Most pictures have a "Try on" link underneath them. All the clothes still have to be photographed, and they still photograph actual models. The images have to be processed and prepared, so it isn't much cheaper than a regular photoshoot. H&M are using Looklet to do all of that, and other shops use them too. H&M never hid these facts or claimed that the photos were all real models either, there's no scandal here.
See my blog for the article I wrote about it.
A latent existence
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/
I dunno it seems to work well for selling virtual clothes in Second Life. I found a cute leather thong for my well endowed furry avatar. /sarcasm
I8-D
Those look anorexic. Is this really considered "perfection"?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
When a B movie sci-fi, becomes the used technology you know we have jumped the society shark.
Peace.
seriously .. why is this news? it actually makes perfect sense.
the whole up in arms "think of the children" or "dont be sexist" or "anti model" brigades are all jumping the gun ... shouldn't we be ridiculing those that look at CGI bodies (which are so obviously generated, confirmed and articulated as such) and think "I want to look like that".. how is this a 'perfect' body? when did H&M ever say that? have we all gone full retard?
sorry, couldn't resist a bit of puerile humor.
I'm suing Marvel. Thor is just way too buff. And he's a God. How am I supposed to live up to that?
= Na'vi modeling you next bra/swimsuit purchase? If it hasn't happened already, I can certainly see the clothing industry tailoring to the CG box office to make some advertising money, and not just in toony screen prints. Wait for some CG in-real-life movies to come about and you could definitely see this coming. Heck, the Japanese youth already like to dress up/act like their favorite Anime characters.
They could have gone about this better.
I understand the cost-cutting aspect, and to be honest, I cannot really blame them for that. But, they could have handled the whole thing in a fashion that avoided any misconceptions (or accusations).
Rather then paste different faces on a CG body with different bikinis, they should have used the exact same model, a real one that embodied the characteristics they sought, and created an interface that allowed a website viewer to swap out bikinis on that same model, paper-doll fashion. Pictures would be taken of the various bikinis on a mannequin that was built to match the model's real body so that the bikinis "hung" properly when overlayed on the model paper-doll.
I think that it would be obvious to the user that..
a) the bikinis and the model were photographed separately,
b) some sort of visual manipulation was used to make that possible, and
c) no trees were killed because it's a website instead of junk-mail.
The hard part is finding the right model, and the process of doing so is still subject to the issues of body perception in advertising. Perhaps the solution to that would be to provide a range of model paper-dolls, of varied body shapes, that the user could choose from so that they might more accurately match their own figure.
I always thought that the fashion industry, not the military, would invent the first terminator through their need for walking coat hangers.
How is this different from having Mannequins with perfect bodies in the stores?
Congratulations. They've developed a more advanced Kisekae set.
Completely a non-issue. Things like this have been around for 10+ years. The only difference is that now it has a lifelike face on it.
To be fair, the same apply for the male models. It's just perceived more unfair for women, since they seem to care more about not matching the body-ideal.
It was highlighted by a recent study, that while men on average are significantly more overweight, women on average are significantly more unhappy about their weight.
At last! A /. story where everyone is guaranteed to RTFA! ;-)
Co-operation beats competition
A women's intimates retailer in the US that caters to larger women had their ads rejected by networks because the women in the ads "showed too much cleavage" (or other similar lame reasons) for the time slots the retailer wanted to buy. They compared their ads to Victoria's Secret ads running on those channels in the same time slots and found that VS showed way more cleavage, butt, etc. (they actually measured, not subjective). When they presented this to the network, they didn't get much of a response other than "well, that's different" or "interesting, we still don't want to run your ad campaign."
In some cases, the ads ran 1 or 2 times and then were pulled by the networks due to negative response from their viewership so you may have seen them.
I know about this because someone close to me works for the parent company.
I remember feeling so demeaned and inadequate when I first saw that butch space marine shooting demons below the Doom logo -- and things have only gotten worse since then. When will gaming companies stop creating computer models of unrealistically muscular and coordinated men? We need more of this.
> 'The demands are so great that H&M, among the poor photo models, cannot find someone with both body and face that can sell their bikinis.'
This seems a bit disingenuous. It is much more likely that it's easier and cheaper to create the images online, but that wouldn't make a good story.
Seriously, doesn't ANYONE remember when clothing catalogs had artists renderings instead of photographs?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The images you see when you're shopping online are there to give you an idea of what the clothes look like. If you are comparing two different swimsuits, it makes sense that you'd want to see them in exactly the same context. That's exactly what this approach accomplishes. The more expensive approach of hiring a model and a photographer is inferior because it is not reproducible.
I hate to break it to them, but ideals are never realistic. That's the whole point. They might as well claim that the ideal gas law promotes an unrealistic physical ideal.
Pick the girl you want from the catalog and use your maker printer 9000 to print your fully functional new girl friend today!
*rechargable power cells, clothing and A.I.module not included
If they can virtually display the clothing on "Perfect" models, then it should be trivial using a free version of something like DAZ 3D to take the clothing model and place it on a proper model of the buyer. What we need is a simple scanner in every shopping mall where a person can simply step in and get scanned and what pops out is a fully morphed model of you, which can now be used for buying clothes that will actually fit, and look good on you. In fact at $5-10 a head for scanning, this itself could be a great little business for a mall kiosk. Sell the clothing modeling software to all the clothing manufacturers and a simple viewer to any clothes shopper. People could send their models to friend and family. Imagine no more returns, the time savings alone could streamline the economy by billions of wasted dollars of time and effort.
There's a Levis store in the mid-west that will scan you, and a robot will cut and sew you a pair of perfect fitting jeans in just minutes. This would be an example of technology that doesn't need to judge people, it could just serve them, exactly as they already are.
Rather than making people crazy about trying to conform to some "brain damaged, impossible ideal", make the technology empower each of us to look and feel as good as we possibly can. This is good for people, its good for business and its good for society.
Anyone remember the movie Looker ( http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3767927065/ ) where the would scan in perfect models and make them more perfect in the computer then kill the original model? Great movie and the technology is here.
bored not board
So H&M is not able to create clothes which fit real human beings. Oh, it's cheaper this way? That's a lame excuse for poor products.
cb
female body so what ? Everyone likes beautiful. Thats why we are not going sightseeing at landfills and instead going to louvre looking at beautiful paintings.
....' the list goes with contradicting unrealistic requirements.
And, from where that liberty of being free from 'unrealistic sky high ideals' for females comes ? They are placing innumerable unrealistic demands on men, and then they are expecting them - just read a few pages in cosmopolitan. All men have to endure some measure of shit because of what women read and conditioned for there - 'sexy, athletic BUT sensitive, successful, well-to-do BUT family-oriented, good looking, attractive BUT loyal
and its not that things like cosmopolitan are perpetuating these bullshit. they are just expanding/building upon the popular, common conceptions of women in the society - they just want these.
So, its alright when women actually desire such men, and even go to the length of actually attempting to SHAPE the person they are with into that shape (ALL do this to this or that extent), buuuuuuuuuut, when it comes to women, it becomes suddenly 'unrealistic' to place any kind of 'high standards' from men's side ?
Irritating self-indulgence and self-centeredness. this is what it is. ah, also hypocritical.
Read radical news here
The adds should via integration with facebook or whatever, realize who is looking at them and present a virtual model that is most pleasing to the target.
So, for example, when a woman looks at the advertisement, it should show a virtual model that looks like that woman views herself (as opposed to what she actually looks like.)
However, it may turn out that many women prefer seeing how some super-hot chick would look in the clothes. In that case, they can pick a model that is more unrealistically beautiful.
Maybe they can even pick the model they want to use. That way, they decide the level of realism.
I'm a woman. And I shop at H&M. I'm wearing an H&M sweater right now, in fact.
I don't see H&M's virtual models as anything different than the plastic mannequins in the stores. It would be nice if they were identified as such, that's all. I just had a look at their web page and while some of the models are obviously synthetic, some look like they might be real women. While they have other issues, I applaud American Apparel for using realistic-looking women in their ads. I shop there, too,
My viewpoint is different in another way. I'm tall and leggy, of reasonable weight, and I exercise regularly. I actually do look like a model. OK, I'm 50, so an older, retired model. Big deal...
...laura
'The demands are so great that H&M, among the poor photo models, cannot find someone with both body and face that can sell their bikinis.'"
Or... instead of scheduling shoots, dealing with flaky models and temperamental photographers they can have an unpaid intern use Photoshop to slap the marketing stuff together in a few hours. Even when they use real models they change the model's body shape, so this isn't about not being able to find the perfect shape.
I wonder what the feminists will say about this. Haven't they been complaining about the fate of these poor models being forced by those evil men to stay thin so they look good on camera. Now they'll probably be complaining that men have put the poor models with their thousands of dollars per day fees out of work and be campaigning to ban the use of virtual models.
Maybe this will solve the ego and body awareness types dilemma:
http://www.kinecthacks.com/kinect-fitnect-interactive-dressing-room/ ...see the clothing on your own body. Of course this won't stop grandma from wearing that leopard print catsuit or a "Rubenesque" woman from sporting that "Muffin Top" look.
-Eric
The idea of having "ideal"ly shaped models modelling outfits that can't be worn everyday is not new. It is in fact the basis of how fashion houses are built. Now whats new here is that the computer generates better store dummies in a virtual environment. Whats new and so whats to object? How exactly does it lead to further exploitation of the female body. OK
First, they came for the closed-course driving demonstrations, but I did not protest because I did not drive new cars on closed courses.
Then, they came for the underwear models, but I did not protest because (thank Providence) I don't model underwear.
looks fake to me
http://www.hm.com/us/product/95470?article=95470-B
I worked for a large clothing company (name not disclosed) in the advertisement department. They didn't use dolls but they did use a human and then they just photoshopped the different clothing lines and color options onto the models. It was cheaper than paying for models + photographer for several hours trying on different clothing. The photographer could take pictures of the clothing by himself and the models were only there to give the human form.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Is this really true? sound like any weird fanatsy movie.
best regards,
James, Modeblog