Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses News Technology

Clothier Slammed For Using 'Perfect' Virtual Model 471

Posted by Soulskill
from the it-was-only-a-matter-of-time dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clothier Slammed For Using 'Perfect' Virtual Model

Comments Filter:
  • Cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

    by l00sr (266426) on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:54AM (#38313836)

    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.

    • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HBI (604924) <kparadine AT gmail DOT com> on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:57AM (#38313870) Homepage Journal

      For the models, though, this gives very immediate application to the common threat that "You can be replaced by a computer".

      What will dimwit hot chicks do for a living now?

      • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Chris Mattern (191822) on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:59AM (#38313890)

        What will dimwit hot chicks do for a living now?

        Same thing they did before mass media made it possible to have a career as a model. They haven't come up with a computer that can do the world's oldest profession yet.

        • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:03AM (#38313924)

          They aren't far away, especially in japan.

        • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Funny)

          by svendsen (1029716) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:04AM (#38313932)
          Sheep herding?
        • Re:Cheaper (Score:4, Informative)

          by HBI (604924) <kparadine AT gmail DOT com> on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:05AM (#38313938) Homepage Journal

          How about this [welookdoyou.com]? A little remote scripting and...

        • When they do ... This place will have a lot less ANGRY ~ TENSE ~ COMMENTS!!!!! Sorry, lets hope they invent something decent SOOON!
        • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Baloroth (2370816) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:08AM (#38313988)

          What will dimwit hot chicks do for a living now?

          Same thing they did before mass media made it possible to have a career as a model. They haven't come up with a computer that can do the world's oldest profession yet.

          "Yet" being the key word.

        • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09, 2011 @12:07PM (#38315356)

          You're so offensive. I've dated a lot of models, there are slutty, dumb girls, but there are just as many nice, smart, good girls. They're just normal people.

          If someone came up to you and said "I'll pay you $1000 to let me take a picture of you,", and you say "ok"... that doesn't make you a dumb slut.

      • What will dimwit hot chicks do for a living now?

        I have some ideas.

      • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CohibaVancouver (864662) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:33AM (#38314314)

        What will dimwit hot chicks do for a living now?

        Marry rich and bang the pool boy on the side.

    • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sandytaru (1158959) on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:58AM (#38313886) Journal
      One of the commenters in the article pointed out that if it was "really about the clothes" then they'd not have any faces on the models. They'd look like mannequins.
      • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheCRAIGGERS (909877) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:05AM (#38313952)

        Perhaps, but the same could be said for real models. If all they really cared about was the clothes, they wouldn't show the model's faces, either.

        But they do, and for obvious reasons. They're not just trying to sell you $2 of fabric for $55- they're trying to sell you a self-image boost. And they must have found that a beautiful face is a big part of a beautiful body.

        • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Interesting)

          by ZenDragon (1205104) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:55AM (#38314552)
          Have you ever been to H&M? The entire premise of that place is to sell "designer style" clothing for cheap. Sure its not Ross or some second hand store, but I applaud their attempt at making more choices, more affordable. And on that note, if they want to save a little money on models/advertising to keep their prices down then I am all for it. Although honestly I think the one on the left in the article looks kind of creepy like a Real Doll [google.com]. Very weird. Obviously not quite the real thing.
      • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tarsir (1175373) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:41AM (#38314384)
        Yeah! A magazine full of faceless women isn't creepy at all!
      • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Interesting)

        by niko9 (315647) on Friday December 09, 2011 @11:30AM (#38314924)

        Because faces, eye color, hair all matter when women wear an outfit. For example, certain color or pattern dresses look better with blond hair. Certain cuts of a shoulder or neck line can look better with different shaped faces. Short hair vs long hair for certain styles. It all matters when putting it together.

        It's the same with makeup. You use certain shades and strokes of color to help balance a woman's face or accentuate certain aspects, e.g., cheekbones.

    • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Superken7 (893292) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:06AM (#38313966) Journal

      Absolutely. I doubt they can't find a model with such a body; sure they can. It's about making the process much shorter and cheaper.

      I don't see anyone complaining for the mannequins not being human beings and being too idealistic. Also, keep in mind that this was done for both women and men, and yet protests are raised only for the aesthetic demands placed on female bodies.

    • Re:Cheaper (Score:4, Funny)

      by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:24AM (#38314206)

      If the movie Looker [wikipedia.org] is any indication, this can only end in a lot of deaths and a nude scene with Susan Dey.

    • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ihmhi (1206036) <i_have_mental_health_issues@yahoo.com> on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:45AM (#38314444)

      Fashion designers apparently use rail-thin models because they lack the curves of your average woman and therefore the folds, lines, depths, etc. of their clothing will be more emphasized.

      That is, fashion models are generally nothing more than walking, living mannequins. I'd be glad to see this particular part of the fashion industry disappear altogether. How many of these women are naturally that skinny, and how many torture and damage their bodies to fit into that archetype?

      • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

        by wisty (1335733) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:58AM (#38314588)

        Yep. And you notice that "super models" and actresses are a lot plumper, with decent curves, and sometimes even a tiny bit of body fat. Women have to look like they can survive pregnancy before they are sexually attractive (thought there'll be some weird fetishists who'll say otherwise). A rail-thin model is essentially a self-propelled coat-hanger, not the epitome of beauty.

        • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ShavedOrangutan (1930630) on Friday December 09, 2011 @12:39PM (#38315740)
          There's a range for optimum fertility, and the cave man in me knows exactly what it is. Emaciated fashion models aren't likely to produce healthy offspring. Obese women will have more difficulty conceiving. If a woman wants to know what a man is attracted to, put down the Victoria's Secret catalog and look at a mens magazine. Those models are not skinny!

          My wife is pregnant and starting to show it and my inner cave man thinks she's so HOT!

          Thanks for the "self-propelled coat-hanger" quote. I'm using that next time I see her browsing a fashion catalog.
        • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

          by BlueParrot (965239) on Friday December 09, 2011 @02:22PM (#38317048)

          You know, as somebody who has always been slim enough to frequently get comments along the lines of "you need to eat more" (and it really isn't fun to get told that when I'm perfectly healthy ), I get a bit ticked off with sentiments like this. Yes, it's horrible that the fashion industry makes curvy women feel bad, but the reverse is not a good idea either. I think it was in the UK authorities banned pictures of a slim model as "socially irresponsible" recently, because she was too thin. Thing is, she looked very similar to myself, and my doctor thinks I'm fine ( as does the BMI scale , even though it is obviously not all that reliable ).

          There's a wide range of healthy body weights, and calling people on the lower end of the scale names because you're upset with how those who are chubby are treated will only make things worse. Replacing one set of really harmful sentiments about body weight with another will result in people feeling pushed to fit some very narrow line between "omg, you shouldn't be so slim, you must have some eating disorder" and "too 'fat' to be a model".

      • Re:Cheaper (Score:4, Interesting)

        by microbox (704317) on Friday December 09, 2011 @12:25PM (#38315586)

        and how many torture and damage their bodies to fit into that archetype?

        I too will be relieved if this part of the fashion industry dies. However, the female obsession with thinness is only indirectly related to the fashion industry. Beauty is part of female social hierarchies. Women will /always/ create beauty standards to discriminate high-status and low-status women. It is the human condition. (This is something that feminists refused to acknowledge exists.)

        And status-anxiety is just a form of suffering.

        So -- removing pictures of women from magazines simply treats the symptom, but not the cause.

    • Re:Cheaper (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Alomex (148003) on Friday December 09, 2011 @11:40AM (#38315052) Homepage

      Still sounds like a terrible idea

      I'm missing something here. Why is it a terrible idea? This is not a rhetorical question. I fail to see the moral failing or social downside in this. Could you care to explain your objections?

    • 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

  • So what (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:57AM (#38313864)

    '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.

    • Re:So what (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nyctopterus (717502) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:29AM (#38314268) Homepage

      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.

      Oh yes they do, they just can't back it up with force. Deal with that.

      • by Surt (22457)

        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.

        Oh yes they do, they just can't back it up with force. Deal with that.

        And oh yes they can. Backing up your opinion with force is a time-honored tradition.

  • by zAPPzAPP (1207370) on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:57AM (#38313882)

    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.

    • Artifical humans are required to show their robot indicator hologram at all times.

      for fundies, this would be the number of the beast. that scares a lot of people.

      but... for robots, its only the number of the batch. nothing to worry about!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You mean like a big glittery "H" on their forehead?

  • Rules (Score:3, Insightful)

    by masternerdguy (2468142) on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:59AM (#38313894)
    First to invoke rule 34.
  • Photoshopping (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dan East (318230) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:02AM (#38313912) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • I'm sure the originals were based off of a real person, and probably touched up a bit with photoshop

      RTFA, and you'll see that they were based off dolls, and photoshopped to make them look more human.

    • H&M's spokesman said that there were no real people used, and that the models are, indeed, total 3D computer models. The claim is that these are not real women touched up with Photoshop. These are 100% computer generated images.

      I have a hard time believing it's true, but it's damned impressive if it is. Best CGI ever.

  • by PSVMOrnot (885854) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:02AM (#38313916)

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:16AM (#38314118)

      Considering how cheap is to rent processing power and disk space nowadays, it's perfectly feasible. There's only one flaw, which in your geekiness you wouldn't find it so obvious. People want to be lied to. They don't want to see an image of themselves wearing something and compare it with the perfect model. When they buy clothing, they tend to imagine it looks on them closer to what it looks like on the model, not how it does in reality. Pretty much like the monkey getting angry at the mirror.

    • by migla (1099771) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:20AM (#38314144)

      Hmm... One could step into the booth at H&M and strip to have a kinect (pehaps enhanced with robo-tweezers to detect firmness) make a 3d model of your body which could then be used to show off any clothes (physics properties of which of course have been entered into the machine).

      The clothing-simulator would of course try to lie, pulling certain parameters in the direction of perfection to more efficiently get you to close the deal.

    • by l00sr (266426)

      Actually, there is a product like this for retailers which basically involves a robot modeling clothes [cnet.com]. An interesting idea that I hope catches on.

  • by rodrigoandrade (713371) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:07AM (#38313974)

    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).

    • Yeah they're pretty fake looking, right off the bat you can see both pics have been mangled pretty hard in Photoshop. It's hard to tell that they're completely artificial though, I could believe that the pics were based on real women at some point.

    • by Surt (22457)

      I think the point of the article is that even though everybody knows all models in all fashion magazines are shopped, that it still puts out an unattainable standard of beauty. People still see it, their brains process the images and are affected, regardless of the fact that they know it isn't real.

  • by iamhassi (659463) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:08AM (#38313990) Journal
    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"
  • by guanxi (216397) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:08AM (#38313994)

    ... 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?

  • by Technician (215283) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:10AM (#38314018)

    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?

  • by singingjim1 (1070652) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:11AM (#38314026)
    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.
  • by DeathToBill (601486) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:16AM (#38314098) Journal

    ...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!

  • by AB3A (192265) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:29AM (#38314266) Homepage Journal

    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?

    • by itsdapead (734413)

      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...

      OMG! OMG! Are you saying my teeth are crooked!? Daddy, I want them whitened!!! OMG! Its all your fault for not having proper dental when I was six. I HATE YOU!!!!

  • so what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by v1 (525388) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:43AM (#38314412) Homepage Journal

    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?

  • by Shoten (260439) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:56AM (#38314568)

    Look at it this way...the virtual models are more likely to pass a Turing test than the real ones...

  • by onyxruby (118189) <onyxruby AT comcast DOT net> on Friday December 09, 2011 @11:10AM (#38314686)

    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.

  • by Riceballsan (816702) on Friday December 09, 2011 @11:12AM (#38314718)
    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?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09, 2011 @11:19AM (#38314774)

    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.

  • by k6mfw (1182893) on Friday December 09, 2011 @11:29AM (#38314906)

    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.

  • Aimi Eguchi (Score:4, Informative)

    by iONiUM (530420) on Friday December 09, 2011 @11:45AM (#38315118) Homepage Journal

    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 [wikipedia.org].

    People figured it out pretty fast though. So, this sort of thing is not without precedent.

  • by Hast (24833) on Friday December 09, 2011 @11:57AM (#38315258)

    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.

  • by lga (172042) on Friday December 09, 2011 @12:14PM (#38315440) Homepage Journal

    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 [looklet.com] 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. [latentexistence.me.uk]

  • by blind biker (1066130) on Friday December 09, 2011 @12:21PM (#38315532) Journal

    Those look anorexic. Is this really considered "perfection"?

  • by Anachragnome (1008495) on Friday December 09, 2011 @01:07PM (#38316064)

    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.

  • RTFA (Score:4, Funny)

    by SST-206 (699646) on Friday December 09, 2011 @01:45PM (#38316598) Homepage
    At last! A /. story where everyone is guaranteed to RTFA! ;-)
  • by roc97007 (608802) on Friday December 09, 2011 @02:25PM (#38317084) Journal

    > '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?

To understand a program you must become both the machine and the program.

Working...