WTF?
This absurd image is the work of Ralph Lauren's retouchers, who have had to apologise for making an already thin model's head bigger than her waist.
I don't think any further commentary is required for this image, except to say again, WTF were they thinking?
1
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: WTF?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16495
I caught this on the front page of Yahoo news, and was thinking of posting myself, glad someone did. I am also glad that photo retouching is being brought to light as a whole. When I first saw this, I was convinced that it was a parody, because it is just that obviously ridiculous. But to think that they actually might have been serious about this photo retouching disaster really infuriates me and leaves me disappointed at the same time.
Another thing I considered is that this was done deliberately, either as an advertising gimmick, or satire. I could picture some arts photographer or graphic designer of some sort getting so annoyed with the instructions of the company to make already thin models thinner that they finally threw their hands up and said "They want thin? I'll give them thin!"
I am interested to see where the shape of models is headed. Over the years models have been getting thinner and thinner. Then with the popularization of airbrushing companies had the power to make the already thinnest types of bodies even thinner. It seems now that this obsession with thin models has been pushed as far as it will go without yielding models that look downright inhumanly possible like the one is this photo. Now that the envelope has been pushed about as far as it will go what do you think will be the result? Will companies just keep showing models at the far end of the body size spectrum? Will some other shape become the "it" shape? Will the spectrum swing back to using models with a little more weight on them? I really am kind of curious.
Boing Boing has been having fun with this - after they posted the picture and critiqued it, Ralph Lauren sent them a copyright takedown notice. If you know anything about Boing Boing's philosophy on freedom of speech, you'll know they had fun with that one:
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/06/the-criticism-that-r.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/08/searching-for-the-sk.html
I agree about the photo, but is it really the best comparison to put it next to one where the model is wearing a billowing potato-sack style shirt? Isn't there one where she's wearing a shirt with a more similar cut to the one n the ad, so we can see what she really looks like?
Maybe it's not the best choice, but I think the photo still makes it pretty clear that the model is not a Betty Spaghetti doll.
Well yeah, I don't think we even needed an actual photo of her to tell that that photoshopped version is not possible. But I would have liked to see it compared to what she actually looked like in that outfit and pose, or a similar one, to see how MUCH they changed it.
If you follow the link there's a picture of this model in a more form-fitting dress. The difference in waist size is ridiculous. Also, the model herself said she's about a size 8.
For the sake of clarity, that's a British size 8. She's 33-24-35, which is a U.S. size 2.
That means that they made a picture of a woman about half the size of a size 2. Crazy.
Horrible....where was that image posted? In a magazine read by men or by women (mostly)?
Ew. Photoshop FAIL if I ever saw one.
Disappointing. This goes with an article I read yesterday that talked about body preference in Mauritania. The women are force fed because men think a heavy woman is prettier than a thin one. Bad either way, but at least in America girls arent forced to go to 'wife camps' to starve.
The Photoshopped image is right smack dab in the middle of uncanny valley for me (and my uncanny valley is pretty slim).
My first thought was that the retoucher has been watching too much anime.
Or playing with Bratz dolls.
That photoshopped picture doesn't even look like a human being. This is absolutely ridiculous, even for a fashion magazine.
why did they apoligize?
its not like people actualy think something that small is real anymore do to photoshop
you'd be surprised...
if people think that small is real they have bigger issue's then weight
Today I read an article and that model was actually fired by Ralph Lauren. She says the reason is because she was told that she is too big to fit into their clothes. She is a size 4 and I believe she said she is 5'10" and 120 pounds. Makes Ralph Lauren's apology look really insincere.
Today I read an article and that model was actually fired by Ralph Lauren. She says the reason is because she was told that she is too big to fit into their clothes. She is a size 4 and I believe she said she is 5'10" and 120 pounds. Makes Ralph Lauren's apology look really insincere.
Today I read an article and that model was actually fired by Ralph Lauren. She says the reason is because she was told that she is too big to fit into their clothes. She is a size 4 and I believe she said she is 5'10" and 120 pounds. Makes Ralph Lauren's apology look really insincere.