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.
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?
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.
OK, I'll use a car analogy. All the cars on the commercials have a great wax job and no dirt or water spots, and they're always shot in great light. How come I can never get my car to look like that?
...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
I was thinking about that the other day when I was flipping channels and caught Surrogates. I wonder what would happen to body image over time in the world of Surrogates (or GiTS, if you prefer). Would people stick to realistic-ish forms or keep pushing the boundaries until within a few decades most people look seriously alien? It would give a very solid answer to the nature vs. nurture influence of sexual attraction.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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!
1. Nobody is my lord. You have your lords in gov't right now telling you what you can and cannot do. Ron Paul is the opposite of a 'lord', a guy who would stay out of your life.
2. The goal of work is to produce something for economy, not to give anybody a job so that they would have to spend their time working. That's what your lords, Keynesians want to do - to give you jobs.
All this nonsense about everybody just be given a job for the sake of them having jobs. Jobs are just means to the end, which is production of things people want and ability to generate income/profit.
The best thing that this society can achieve is to automate every single job that we do today, so that people can be freed up to do something else altogether. If you can't understand the basic principle that what we do today is trivial and we shouldn't be wasting our lives on it and instead we should be coming up with new, non-trivial things to do, while what we do should be automated away, then you are still stuck in cave-man mentality, AC.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
All very well, but I get the feeling that the things that most people would be "freed up to do" in those circumstances are likely to include starving and becoming homeless.
It *should* of course be used to create a basic income for everyone in order to allow us to pursue higher things, but I'll bet you it won't.
Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it.
The argument some women put forward is that idealizing these models perpetuates anorexia in the population due to women starving themselves to achieve the same body shape.
But if you hear the argument that it's the fault of men, don't buy it. It's not men, it's the fashion industry who wants living mannequins. Best case in point: Most porn stars do not have this kind of figure.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
They look anorexic to me, not very attractive.
To continue using your analogy. Your car wouldn't let you drive it if it looked that good, so be glad it doesn't less you lose your ride.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Companies should aim to have the optimal, not the minimal, number of employees. That will include some excess in basically every department to handle a surge in demand (you don't want to have to hire in reaction, that is an exceedingly bad position to be in).
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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!"
You forgot "newscaster". There are dozens of them now, who can't boil water without burning it. Can't pour piss out of a boot, if the instructions are written on the bottom of the sole. People who can fall of the Empire State Building, and get lost before they hit the ground. Dumber than any rock you've ever met. But, they've got great asses, and at least moderate cleavage, so they get on television!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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
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.
Because stick thin models don't cause the clothes to wrinkle in odd ways that make them appear less attractive. They could obviously try to do the same with virtual fatter models, but I suspect the shadows and such would make it look even more wrong.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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.
At last! A /. story where everyone is guaranteed to RTFA! ;-)
Co-operation beats competition
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.