Ralph Lauren says sorry for incredible shrinking pelvis
Ralph Lauren has apologized for Photoshopping the pelvis of a fashion model down to inhuman proportions. Yesterday, we told you the tale of a recent Ralph Lauren magazine advert that takes the fashion world's taste for emaciated bodies to new extremes: Ralph Lauren Photoshop Disaster Ralph Lauren Photoshoppery After its debut …
I can understand altering an image to make the model more attractive, but this image is hideous. Who said "Yup, that's the image we are looking for, it's perfect."? The image is repulsive, whoever decided to roll the presses on this should be taken out and shot, repeatedly.
"We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the calibre of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."
Call me old-fashioned but how about they just settle for appropriately representing reality rather than the industry's prolonged emaciation fetish!
I have to assume Mr Lauren & most other fashion jerks are gay cos he & they clearly haven't a clue about what makes the female form interesting.
Curves, dear boy, curves. Write it big on your office wall.
Even unphotoshopped catwalk thinness models look unattractively boyish in figure to me. This monstrosity... ech.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE RIB CAGES OR SPINE. I want a women with curves , not an emaciated 12 year old boy looking thing.
Brilliant! I've been trying to think what it looked like and you're right. Someone said "yep, that's perfect", but then accidentally fed the model through the rollers of a printing press. It's the only way someone could end up looking like that!
'I DON'T WANT TO SEE RIB CAGES OR SPINE'
To be fair there is no way that woman has a spine.
Did I miss something? Nothing there that looks like an apology - just "we have addressed the problem". That's not an apology in my book...
From now on very time a woman asks me if X "makes her look fat" ... I am going to sliently curse Ralph Lauren.
What happened to that idea they had in France, where they were going to insist for magazines to post a warning on messed-with images?
Really the strangest thought, prompted by Kain Preachers comment,
I DON'T WANT TO SEE RIB CAGES OR SPINE. I want a women with curves , not an emaciated 12 year old boy looking thing.
Paying special attention to the last part, models often look like they are prepubescent in fashion photo's as a result of the photoshopping that goes on so often. I think in todays child porn fear riddled society that the simple accusation of attempting to make these girls look underage in the absurd retouching of photo's would surely put an end to touting these stick thin unappealing images. So how about it? If enough people complain that these pictures are reminiscent of child porn (ie flat chested, under developed and under nourished) they will be pulled and deftly avoided by most companys.
Then maybe we can finally see some realistic images in fashion/marketing and once again appreciate the bumps and curves that make women attractive.
"We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the calibre of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."
I hate this pseudo intellectual consultant speak. Why has "going forward" replaced "in future" in this sentence & countless other media soundbites. I assume some marketing consultancy charged some exorbitant fee to suggest that "going forward" has some connotations of making physical progress. Utter shite, it is just irritating.
What this should say is - "We sacked those responsible and now have a new department head."
Could El Reg perhaps include a warning like you get before TV programs now about photosensitive epilepsy or strong language at the article top before unsuspecting eyes read such lame drivel?
Ta ;)
...the time during the first O. J. Simpson trial where, by sheer coincidence, both TIME and Newsweek put the same photo of O. J. on their cover--but TIME had retouched theirs to degrade his appearance, the contrast strikingly obvious as the two appeared side-by-side on magazine racks. It was a huge embarrassment for them.
(There seems to be a healthy unanimity of the comments so far--healthier than most models' diets, I suspect--and said viewpoints are hardly unique to this forum. Would that the fashionistas and the droves of ladies who march lockstep behind their designs discovered what we of the other persuasion really admire.
Also, though anorexia nervosa is a mental condition that goes much deeper than trying to be stylish, I can't help but think of a cousin of mine who was afflicted with it. Less than a week ago, she died from the complications.)
Yeah - from now on they won't photoshop images to be like that. They'll insist that the actual models have crushed hips and no ribcage.
"After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman’s body........."
They needed an 'investigation' to figure that out?
What about an admission (and apology) for issuing DMCA takedown notices that were not justifiable?
"The image is repulsive, whoever decided to roll the presses on this should be taken out and shot, repeatedly."
Agreed, and if the person that allowed this was also that thin then they would definitely need "shooting, repeatedly" cos most of the shots would miss unless fired at from point blank range :)
No,
When a woman asks if X "makes me look fat" the correct answer is, "no, only Ralph Lauren makes you look fat."
This is why our fourteen-year-old daughter is slowly developing an eating disorder...
It's all a big puzzle to me.
I don't know very many blokes who are attracted to these stick insects - yet look in the pages of almost any catalogue and the models are like twigs. They look ill, under-nourished, most definitely NOT attractive, and, well, just plain wrong.
So given that so few blokes actually find this emaciated look sexy or attractive - indeed most seem to find it quite ghoulish - why does the fashion industry persist in this nonsense? Why do so many teenage girls seem to think that having arms and legs that look like they'll break in the slightest breeze is actually desirable?
Beats me.
I believe the position of the average bloke can be summed up in usual laddish fashion by "more cushion for the push'n" - who wants to make love to a lampstand?
That shape makes me think of a District 9 prawn badly disguised as human... Although as far as I can remember even the prawns had more proportional bodies.
They talk about integrity... In my opinion, any claim of integrity goes out of the window every time photography processing ("photoshopping") enters the stage for anything more than lighting correction, cropping and the like (hell, even changing the background a bit would be fine, given the leeway for such works of fantasy as marketing). Specially in changing how *people* look -- for better or for worse, of course.
Why can these people never just admit to being wrong? Someone MUST have signed off on that picture, whoever did the photoshopping isn't to blame, they asked for and approved this image.
I hate the fact that fashion pics are decided by gay men !
We do not want our women looking like boys !
cover the head, and that is a man's body ! Ewwwww !
I am now going to cuddle my gf, and enjoy her hips, and curves..
We have fired some poorly paid underling and hired a new one at peon wages with the assurances that they know photoshop better and won't make this particular mistake.
or else
Why even use models any more? Might as well CG it if you;re planning on photoshopping them to shit and back.
But then, why bother advertising at all? Jeans are just jeans, labels are there for stupid rich people to waste their money on. They seek out the most expensive they can afford to fit in to an imaginary social group
I failed at reading comprehension... When I read the first note about this I thought the picture was a joke created by photoshopdisasters, just like the ones regularly posted at worth1000.com.
Now it results it is a *real* ad? My mind boggles...
I hereby give up all hope in the future of mankind.
Terminator because Judgment Day is the best that can happen to us right now.
why many women allow themselves to be dictated to by the fashion industry. Its taste seems to be that of gay men - who aren't renowned for their love of real women's bodies at all.
It was Anthony Burgess, I think, who said he went to bed with a supermodel, and it was like sleeping with a bag of coathangers.
Spot on - gay men are dressing women to look like boys.
Some years ago I treated (mainly) women with eating disorders. I regularly advised them to go to a newsagent and buy a copy of both Vogue & Playboy - both contain pictures of scantily clad/naked women - and compare the pictures in both mags. I'd then ask "who do you want to appeal to - the readers of women's magazines or the readers of men's magazines?"
Claudia Schaeffer once said "many women say 'I want to look like Claudia Scheiffer'. I want to look like Claudia Scheiffer".
And a magazine gets criticised for not 'touching up' Sarah Palin. FFS.
Wow, for once the comments here make a girl feel appreciated and valued! You really like us! OK, seriously, sometimes the comments about women are a little less kind, so just posting to let you know I was impressed. Thanks guys!
Being one from the fashion world and holding a degree in Fashion Design, I have long known the reason such emaciated models were preferred on the runway. The answer to that is simple (and I dare any designer or avid fashion follower to disagree with me) they use less fabric and quicker to dress. So why are they so tall? at the shows more often than not, you are looking almost up their skirt half the time...it is simply so the potential buyers can see the hem...it has nothing to do with image but it has truly put a vicious message out to society.
Ralph Lauren blamed it on the touch up guy LOL. Now, that is truly classic. Makes me giggle so much. He didn't however provide us the "untouched up" photo of the model. I really doubt that a touch up designer would go to such extreme lengths to make this model look anorexic and prepubescent.
It is our right to exploit, explain, voice our opinions, share, convict and to applaud anything in this world.This message affects a lot of people from a name they have trusted for some time now. It mocks the body dysmorphic disorders, body image for women, real starving people in every country that look this way because they literally don't have food. It also sends the message of a female who is unable to procreate, or frowns on anyone with hips to make babies. Sterile, starvation and stardom are a deadly concoction and a false image of women to women. I don't see any emaciated men on there.
... What about the perjury? The necessary wording for the DMCA takedown includes, "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that..... (etc)"
Clearly the perjury part of the Act doesn't have any teeth, otherwise we'd be entertained by images of lawyers and executives for this and many other companies being dragged away in handcuffs.
Not for the image, for saying "going forward".
@Kwac: thanks for that. Have a daughter growing up and shall keep that in mind.
And I second ToeShoeGirl's sentiments. You guys can be pig-headed, gross, single-minded, simple-minded, etc. etc., at times, but you're now officially OURS after this outpouring. Thanks for the support. Many many smooches, dudes.
The "pre-pubescent" thing probably also applies to the popularity of Brazilians (the shave, not the people). I mean, can there really be anyone out there who *chooses* to do this except under huge duress from "peer pressure"?
Less seriously... Yeah, nail 'em on a child porn rap. Perhaps commenter David S is angry enough to hunt down a lawyer. Failing that, I imagine Harriet Harman is spoiling for a fight, always assuming we want her on our side.
I have always thought that is just easier to design clothes that fit someone (M or F) who has no curves.
Think about the complexity of a curvy woman's body ...I'll give you a minute or two ... now think about trying to wrap that closely in fabric... I'll give you another minute or two...
All those ins and outs, humps and bumps, it's bloody difficult, needs lots of darts and inserts and the flats (technical term for the pattern used to cut the cloth) quickly become complicated.
So in our age of instant satisfaction it's simpler to ignore real people and pretend everyone is straight up and down.
Rob
(by straight I mean linearly straight not not gay)
Seems like the fashion world are keen to promote images where the body is that of an adult but the body is that of an adolescent.
"What this should say is - "We sacked those responsible "
... for sacking the responsible.
And then those responsible for sacking those have been sacked too, and replaced by a number of Wonder Llama's.
I shoot art nudes, male and female and would never hire a size 0 supermodel. Translucent skin over bone is not a look I like, unless maybe I was doing something with a concentration camp theme. Photoshop abuses like RLP just make body image problems worse, creating artificial and unnatural ideals of 'beauty'.
It's not just done to women either, check this example-
http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2009/09/ferre-abs-fab.html
with it's rather unusual abdomen. Haven't the people putting these ads together ever seen real, naked bodies before? If not, maybe they should get David Bailey's Democracy. Real people naked, all shapes & sizes and they're all confident enough in themselves to have done it, and they look great.
Maybe we need a campaign for real people, not plasticy, distorted mantis people?
So, the turdburglars at Ralph Lauren thought threatening a Canadian company with American laws was going to work?
.. so this means most designers are just plain LAZY! go on guys, use a bit of BRAIN power, to design a dress for **normal** people, you will win universal praise, and also sell a a LOT more clothes!!!
"Going Forward ...."?
Bleugh!
STOP IT!! and stop it NOW!
Before this is read I should point out that I had a good chuckle when I saw this on PSD; and it's the result of some really shoddy retouching and art direction... But, to address your "these models are gay" points against the fashion advertising world...
The job of these marketing types is not to show YOU a woman who YOU find attractive!!
That is ridiculously narcissistic of you; I fail to believe that none of you have realised that it's not about good looking people, it's about selling clothes, and probably not to you (as a reg reader). If the market research shows that thin and androgynous models sell more clothes, they will use the 12-year old boy looking models. As someone working in the fashion advertising world; who has done their fair share of retouching (in the past and to a better standard than this) and works daily with art directors, designers, photographers and models; I can assure you that we are ALL aware of your outrage, and some even share your views...but can't argue with your continued spending patterns.
As for warnings on these images - get real...all images, especially in advertising are not just manipulated, but more often than not, an outright lie. The creators are salesmen, never trust a salesman. Heed this advice and you and your daughters will remain eating disorder free.
You took the words right out of my keyboard. But going forward I would like to comment on the ugliness of current catwalk models and hope that going forward we could introduce some gorgeous gals instead.
You couldn't go out for a drink with these birds either! Going forward half a pint... BAM! she hit the deck.
Please allow me, a card-carrying gay man, a practicing homosexual ("practice makes perfect"), to refute your assertion that gay men don't know what makes a woman attractive.
One of the most glorious sights in my life was a pair of women bicycling along a highway, clad in the de rigeur Lycra shorts that displayed their magnificent pear-shaped butts to absolute perfection. No, I didn't want to have sex with them, but I thought the view was stupendously well done.
Unlike lesbians, who seem to be man haters for the most part, gay men don't hate women. We are merely indifferent to them from the sexual point of view.
Paris, because she exemplifies a not-very-attractive body shape.
PT got it right:
" ... What about the perjury? The necessary wording for the DMCA takedown includes, "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that..... (etc)"
They completely sidestepped the legal issue. Who cares about the picture? The problem is perjury - and they know it.
... is have advertising standards require a 'digital retouching' grade in the corner of altered photos. 1 for tone, 3 for smoothing, 5 for hideously mangling like they've fallen into a car crusher. Just a discrete number in a circle in the corner.
It's funny that a lot of the discussion around this story in the last few days has proved something about advertising and people's perception of advertising. Essentially it seems that the public at large accept and indeed expect advertising images to be shopped, it's only when it goes "too far" that it becomes a problem. It seems that people expect advertising to be lies.
Does advertising work or do people at large know that advertising is a lie, but still allow themselves to be influenced by it?
Not the models being gay, but anyway.
You may make an point about it being marketing but I don't believe it. What people accept as fashionable can change quickly (found this in a bookshop a couple of weeks ago and it was hysterical <http://www.amazon.com/Museum-Kitschy-Stitches-Stitchy-McYarnpants/dp/1594741115/> and it makes the point perfectly). I think fashion is driven by certain people (and a whole lot of magazine writers and 'it'-type people who stupidly parrot back the "this autumn's fashion is going to be...") and those people create 'looks'. They want to be different so they twiddle stuff then branch off to extremes to stay 'relevant'. The heroin chic look didn't appear because people found it attractive, it was created. Deliberately. I don't know any woman who found it attractive, in fact - key point - I don't know any woman who takes much notice of the dresses you make. They go shopping they buy what takes their eye. The only thing you've done that has any persistence is to create extreme body images which give some people problems, and you will continue to do it because you are trying to make a standout image for your brand and - other key point - distinguish yourself in a saturated market.
However you work in said industry, so I'd welcome your comments.
Why curse anyone? You already have the perfect answer at hand: "No dear, it's all the chocolate you're eating". Afterwards you will have no more problems, except perhaps breaking a nail on your harp.
