Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Clothier Slammed For Using 'Perfect' Virtual Model

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the it-was-only-a-matter-of-time dept.

Businesses 471

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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cheaper (5, Insightful)

l00sr (266426) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 (4, Insightful)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313870)

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 (5, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313924)

They aren't far away, especially in japan.

Re:Cheaper (4, Funny)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313932)

Sheep herding?

Re:Cheaper (0)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313950)

you *could* call it that...

Re:Cheaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314066)

Baker? .... or more specifically, bread-maker

Re:Cheaper (5, Funny)

Gravitron 5000 (1621683) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314058)

You've been a Baa-aa-aa-aa-aad boy.

Re:Cheaper (3, Informative)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313938)

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

Re:Cheaper (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313948)

When they do ... This place will have a lot less ANGRY ~ TENSE ~ COMMENTS!!!!! Sorry, lets hope they invent something decent SOOON!

Re:Cheaper (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314010)

Gossip blogging?

Re:Cheaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313958)

Actually, a lot of model are quite intelligent. If you had an asset like good looks wouldn't you take advantage of it?

Re:Cheaper (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314108)

If this is not the only asset, what is the point? At the age when you are most capable of studying, spend time showing off your "assets", and be a female equivalent of Christian Weston Chandler (at best) for the rest of your life?

Re:Cheaper (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314420)

You could say exactly the same about every athlete out there, your career only lasts as long as your body is in tip top shape. Those that have played at the professional but not enough to retire go on to find other work when they're 30-40. I don't really see your point.

Re:Cheaper (2)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314524)

You could say exactly the same about every athlete out there

I can and I do.

Re:Cheaper (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313976)

What will dimwit hot chicks do for a living now?

I have some ideas.

Re:Cheaper (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314238)

TOWIE [wikipedia.org]

Re:Cheaper (4, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314314)

What will dimwit hot chicks do for a living now?

Marry rich and bang the pool boy on the side.

Re:Cheaper (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314368)

What will dimwit hot chicks do for a living now?

find a one-percenter and marry them?

(obvious, isn't it?)

Re:Cheaper (4, Interesting)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313886)

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 (5, Insightful)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 (4, Interesting)

ZenDragon (1205104) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313960)

By what logic?

Re:Cheaper (4, Insightful)

Tarsir (1175373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314384)

Yeah! A magazine full of faceless women isn't creepy at all!

Re:Cheaper (5, Funny)

netwarerip (2221204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314440)

Not nearly as creepy as a crawl-space full of them. Um, I mean, someone else's crawl-space full of them.

Re:Cheaper (5, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314538)

And I'm sure someone would still have a problem with it... equating the magazine to turning women into faceless/nameless sex objects.

Re:Cheaper (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313888)

You think it's more expensive to pay someone to put on some clothes and have their picture taken than to computer generate ideal human appearance for each item of clothing you sell?

Think again.

Re:Cheaper (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314080)

5-10 years ago, maybe not, but now? Once you have the computer model (probably freely reusable), the software to do this fairly quickly and easily likely costs less than 1-2 photo shoots with one of those models.

Re:Cheaper (2)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314112)

Yes, I think so. Have you looked at the sample images at the top of the article? They are identical except for the faces and the clothes they are modelling. Once you have the algorithm and a database of features/poses, it's trivial to generate hundreds or thousands of images a day.

Re:Cheaper (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314296)

might have cost a lot the first time, but after a while you can reuse the data with minor modifications to create "new" photos

like development, over the last 20 some years so much code has been written that all the IDE's come with lots of libraries now so you don't have to rewrite from scratch.

Re:Cheaper (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314496)

You think it's more expensive to pay someone to put on some clothes and have their picture taken than to computer generate ideal human appearance for each item of clothing you sell?

Think again.

Don't forget that clothes are often CAD/CAM products as well. It's a digital world, my friend.

Re:Cheaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313908)

It's cost cutting and also standard. Take a look at H&M's site. Now look at another clothier's site. I think it's easier to see what things look like because it's 3D and consistent across products. But I'm a dude, so what do I know about shopping?

Re:Cheaper (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314052)

But I'm a dude, so what do I know about shopping?

Obviously the important parts: it's boring and it depletes our precious monetary [credit] reserves.

Re:Cheaper (5, Insightful)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313966)

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 (3, Informative)

dintech (998802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314428)

Well, that's not strictly true. There has been a backlash against skinnier male mannequins [guardian.co.uk] and you do see them in some clothing stores. I blame the emos.

Alyx Vance? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314016)

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

Re:Cheaper (3, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 (5, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 (2)

jinushaun (397145) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314534)

It's similar to other product images in any other industry. It's costly to take a different photo every time just to show a different color or pattern. You see it all the time in tech and cars. Hover over the red car and it's just the same car painted red on the computer.

Re:Cheaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314542)

Eh, have you ever seen their mannequins? I don't think they'd have room for all of their organs and/or bones if they were human. They do like their images to have impossibly thin girls.

Having said that, while companies like H&M annoy me in that area, I don't really see the point in getting all indigent like some people do. Yeah, some girls get the wrong idea of what they should look like (frankly, Photoshopping ALL imperfections out bothers me more than this) but they need to learn for themselves what an acceptable female figure is. I worried about that stuff in high school but every guy I've befriended or gone out with has said that they prefer girls with at least a little weight. I even knew one guy who had a size 0 girlfriend who cracked his hip trying to sleep with her.

Frankly, I find it ironic that magazines portray an image that is so far off of what most guys actually like to see in women. Clothiers and magazines have loved the super thin look for a long time. Most guys, however, seem to think that women should have a level of softness to them. Women who are too thin will stab them with their bones. So a size 10 makes for much more comfortable snuggling/intimate activities than a 2.

So, maybe call it a form of natural selection, but there is a point where you can't protect people from themselves anymore.

Having said that, I don't care much for H&M and don't buy their stuff because they're terribly uncomfortable and unflattering for my figure. Found a nice, small store that makes jeans that fit me and my body type quite well. It's amazing how much better you look when you're not wearing stuff designed for a twig.

So what (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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 (4, Insightful)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314268)

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.

Frogs with human scrotums on their heads (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313868)

what if frogs had human scrotums on their heads would they ribbit differently?

festivus pole dildo

Look at all the fucks I don't give (1, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313878)

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.

Re:Look at all the fucks I don't give (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314034)

paiute uses non-sequitur ...it's not very effective.

Robot indicator missing (4, Funny)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Robot indicator missing (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314392)

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:Robot indicator missing (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314472)

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

Rules (2, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313894)

First to invoke rule 34.

Photoshopping (3, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313912)

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.

Re:Photoshopping (2)

sydneyfong (410107) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313934)

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.

Re:Photoshopping (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314328)

[..] based off of a real person [...]

Arg, for the love of god, "off of" has got to be one of the stupidest grammatical constructions to find it's way into common use. Say "based on", as in "based on a real person". Jeez Louise.

Re:Photoshopping (2)

StormReaver (59959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314442)

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.

They're missing a trick here... (5, Interesting)

PSVMOrnot (885854) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:They're missing a trick here... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:They're missing a trick here... (3, Insightful)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:They're missing a trick here... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314198)

Alternatively, one could step into the booth at H&M and try on the damn clothes.

Re:They're missing a trick here... (2)

l00sr (266426) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314180)

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.

Re:They're missing a trick here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314224)

It's already done: metail.co.uk

Are we blind?? (2)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 2 years ago | (#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).

Re:Are we blind?? (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314122)

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.

if the models are virtual.... (2)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313990)

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"

Maybe it's just cheaper and faster ... (2)

guanxi (216397) | more than 2 years ago | (#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?

Re:Maybe it's just cheaper and faster ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314388)

Yeah. Like just try to imagine how much swimsuits and lingerie they'd sell if instead they hired Rosie O'Donnell to model them.

This is an issue for women (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314000)

There aren't many women in the audience of this site so the story doesn't resonate here.

Re:This is an issue for women (3, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314050)

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?

Re:This is an issue for women (4, Funny)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314520)

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.

Re:This is an issue for women (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314550)

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?

You are comparing women to a car, a dead inanimate object. You don't even see anything wrong with doing so. Seriously, dude.

This kind of blatant mindless sexism is exactly why smart women choose not to start a career in IT.

What makes it so different (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314008)

from using a mannequin, as always being done? Being too realistic? We can sue Pixar, Disney or the companies behind Polar Express or Beowulf for using computer generated actors?

At the bottom of the uncanny valley could be a lawyer ready to sue you.

Switchboard operators and models are replaced. (5, Interesting)

Technician (215283) | more than 2 years ago | (#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?

Perfect example of viral Internet marketing. (3, Interesting)

singingjim1 (1070652) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

And sometimes that's okay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314044)

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.

Not to worry! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314054)

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!

Re:Not to worry! (3, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314248)

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.

My "Cherry 2000" is booked solid now . . . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314074)

. . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_2000 [wikipedia.org] . . . 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 . . .

fat gorilla sex (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314076)

TURTLE POWER!

If you can computer-generate the models... (5, Insightful)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314098)

...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!

Re:If you can computer-generate the models... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314262)

+1 for the curves camp!

Re:If you can computer-generate the models... (4, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314362)

Figures I'd lose my mod points this morning. I looked at the article, and thought that the images were no different that a lot of high priced catalogs that seem to stuff our mailbox. I suppose my wife would be happy - seeing sharp angles for bones does not do it for me. If I wanted hard and angular, I'd climb into bed with a box of wrenches.

Excellent (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314106)

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.

Re:Excellent (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314208)

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.
I thought your lord Ron Paul just wanted to fire everyone who works for the government. Now you are favoring just firing everyone who works. What is the benefit of that?

Re:Excellent (3, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314288)

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.

Re:Excellent (5, Insightful)

uncle slacky (1125953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314422)

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.

Stupid (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314136)

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".

Is this really anything new? (1)

Sedated2000 (1716470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314156)

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.

Doesn't Matter (1, Insightful)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314168)

Had Sales.

I'm not seeing the down side here (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314176)

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.

Re:I'm not seeing the down side here (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314426)

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.

Why should they use realistic models? (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314252)

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.

What we teach daughters (4, Interesting)

AB3A (192265) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314266)

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?

Lower cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314294)

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.

I protest.. (1)

dell623 (2021586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314322)

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.

Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314348)

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 (1)

apcullen (2504324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314350)

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?

What's Old Is New Again (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314352)

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.

Re:What's Old Is New Again (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314458)

Sweet! I say we take this trend far into the future, and have clothing fashion role models based on anime chan-style proportions! Big heads! Large doe-eyes! HUUGGE feet! Tiny bodies with bulbous life-preserver booties-n-boobies! And long trailing ribbons and utility belts and sashes that magically float a few inches off the body. Good times ahead!

I just want to say that these models don't go far enough!

Im all for... (1)

hbean (144582) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314372)

...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?

so what? (4, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314412)

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?

Perfect my ass (2)

subsoniq (652203) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314512)

They look anorexic to me, not very attractive.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?