Faking fashion photos

<p>The Swedish retail-clothing company, H&M, has admitted to grafting real model's head on computer generated bodies. They didn't seem to go out of their way to disguise it as every body clearly had the same pose and proportion. The practice raised a few eyebrows but H&M "<em>defended their technique by explaining that they designed a body that can better display clothes made for humans than can humans, similar to mannequins in department stores. They then “dress” the forms and digitally paste on the heads of real-life women.</em>"<br>

<a href="http://www.styleswept.ca/2011/12/hm-admits-to-using-virtual-bodies.html">http://www.styleswept.ca/2011/12/hm-admits-to-using-virtual-bodies.html</a><br>

Click on the images for large view. </p>

<p>This story reminded me of something I came across - faked images of the moon in a book published in 1874 made by photographing plaster models of craters. However, "<em>Astronomers were perfectly aware of what they were looking at, but they felt that because they were photographed, it added a layer of authenticity to the undertaking that simple drawings didn’t have.</em>" Take a look at the video in the following link:<br>

<a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/mocked-up-moon/">http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/mocked-up-moon/</a></p>

<p>In your view, is there anything wrong with H&M's practice, and do you buy their argument? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, you would have thought they could have done a better job on that gigantic thumb. Other than that, I don't have any problems with it. From a person's self-esteem standpoint, what difference does it make if it is a "real" model or a computer generated one? What if it had been a male model with an airbrushed 6-pack (I don't recall anyone being up in arms over the movie <em>300</em>!). From a photographic point of view, again, I have no issue. A great many ads are already done with vector graphics: it can save a business money while achieving the desired goals. I don't see photography being replaced any time soon with these methods, they are simply different tools and any person or business should be allowed to choose the right tool for the job. I suppose the "offense" is that it is a "real" person's head. But again, does that mean if the whole thing was computer generated to look real it would be ok? Or that if a live model with similar assets would be ok? Or that a live model that had been digitally retouched would be ok? What line are we trying to draw? I am a wedding photography. We use Portrait Professional software. I have yet to have a bride who has seen the before and after versions of their portrait prefer the before version. Ever. It is what people <em>want</em>. In terms of advertising, I don't care where or if a line is drawn. It's advertising. Now if we are talking <em>news</em> reportage, I will have a different opinion!</p>

 

<p>John, I'm with you if I put on a photographer's hat, but I can also see the social backlash from this type of practice. </p>

<p>There was a new imaging tool presented last month at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which was<em> "designed to quantifies changes made by digital airbrushers in the fashion and lifestyle industry, where image alteration has become the psychologically destructive norm."</em><br>

<a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/11/photo-alteration-analysis/">http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/11/photo-alteration-analysis/</a><br>

and <br>

<a href="http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/Hany_Farid/Research/Research.html">http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/Hany_Farid/Research/Research.html</a></p>

<p>The topic has probably been beaten to death but increasingly I'm observing attempts at influencing the culture in order to reverse the trend. </p>

<p>Here's an amusing alternative - everything altered except size:<br>

[<a href="http://models.com/v-magazine/v-size-2.html">Curves Ahead</a>]</p>

<p>How is this any worse than leading people to believe that the beach resort is pristine and has beautiful people in bikinis every where you look?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but I can also see the social backlash from this type of practice</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I guess that is what I don't get. Social backlash? Again, what if it were simply a real model with those features/assets. Are we saying we need to regulate how people look so that everyone feels better about themselves? Are we saying we need to be more sensitive to the self-esteem challenged? I missed the memo that proclaimed unequivocally that life is fair. It's life. You are not getting out alive. Wouldn't it make more sense for those upset with this form of advertising to focus their concerns educating people that their self-esteem shouldn't be tied to some magazine cover? BTW, Michael, I am not coming after you, but after a society (or writer) that believes this advertising needs to be regulated. Europe is a disaster. American, hopefully, staved of a financial meltdown. We don't have enough water for people. But hey, that model's head is on a computer generated body and women all over the world should take note, stand up, and say this is wrong!</p>

<p>Similar concept predated by three decades in the Albert Finney movie "Looker".</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"BTW, Michael, I am not coming after you"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phew! :-) </p>

<p>As a matter of academic discussion, John, and because I'm not in the industry and lack the education, maybe you or someone can educate me as to why the fashion industry manipulate photos without exception. Is it because their audience expect and demand it? Or is it because of the industry's implied but not stated intention to manipulate its audience? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>someone can educate me as to why the fashion industry manipulate photos without exception.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would say that that assumption is false. As Jeff Spirer pointed out with his resort reference: "manipulation" takes place in any industry I know of. Automobiles are "Photoshopped" to be sleek and sexy just as much as a human model. There are <em>food stylists</em> to make food look better than it is... even going so far as to use elements not even present in the actual food! As photographers, we manipulate light & pose to bring out the very best we can of <em>anything</em> we photograph. Heck, look at the mutual fund industry. Every mutual fund out there claims to be the next best thing. If you dig deeper, you find most funds don't even beat the market average. And then if you really think about it, most mutual funds <em>can't</em> beat the market average. Because then the average would go up and thus the curve changes leaving most funds again, below average. It simply isn't possible for <em>every</em> fund manager to beat the market. So I don't this is just a fashion industry "issue". I just think there is a segment of the population offended by the industry, period.</p>

<blockquote>why the fashion industry manipulate photos without exception</blockquote>

<p>How do you know that this is "without exception"? Have you surveyed everything out there? And how is this different from "advertising"? It really seems that you have made some extreme judgements here without any data to back it up.<br>

<br />FWIW, a lot of Ellen von Unwerth's fashion work is not "manipulated" beyond traditional print manipulation. Not that it matters.</p>

<p>Jeff, pardon my error. I meant to type "almost without exception" but even that might encounter objection. </p>

<p>I don't mean to inadvertently offend anyone or label the industry, and as I've said, my questions are neutral in posture and for personal education. </p>

<p>Okay, fair enough, every industry does it, but why? I would really like to know from an industry insider's perspective so I can better understand the point/counterpoint of the controversy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How is this any worse than leading people to believe that the beach resort is pristine and has beautiful people in bikinis every where you look?<br></blockquote>

 

You mean they don't??? I didn't know that!</p>

<p>While I am not an "industry insider" by any means, it would seem logical to me that if you want to sell something you should make it look good, as good as possible (and perhaps even better than it really is, whilst not breaking the law). You are not going to sell more than the next business if you have a model with some 'imperfections' wearing your clothes and the they have the 'perfect' model wearing their clothes..</p>

<p>Basically, what I am trying to point out is that "every industry does it" because if people see a more 'pleasing' image then they are more likely to have a favourable opinion on whatever it is selling and hence are more likely to buy it. If companies could produce an image that customers would prefer without digitally 'enhancing' it in any way then I am sure that is what we would be seeing..</p>

<p>I believe the nature of human beings is the key issue behind all of this. In a way, it's trickery because any viewer usually casts a discerning eye over any product looking for a flaw or imperfection.<br>

Our very nature is our own worst enemy as we all should know from experience that nothing is perfect.<br>

This behaviour has built a platform of standards which are seemingly getting higher, in not only modelling, but with any type of product presentation.<br>

Technology is also a driving force behind this, the better the technology eg software and digital cameras, then the higher the expectations from the industry and the consumer.<br>

This platform will only get higher and higher, commensurate with advertising and market forces.</p>

 

<p>From a photographic viewpoint, I have no problem with this at all. Even when the pictures are of real models, they have little to do with normal people in real life anyway. A woman who's 5'10" and 105 pounds doesn't bear much more resemblance to an average woman than a mannequin does. </p>

<p>OTOH, the fact that the clothes look better on mannequins than on real people (even models) indicates a lot about how out of touch with reality the fashion industry has gotten. It's probably going even further than ever toward inculcating young women with ever more unrealistic goals for how they should look.</p>

<p>We as consumers have to take some responsibility for our own expectations and what we put up with. If we didn't flock to Abercrombie and Fitch, they wouldn't keep bombarding us with images of white guys with six pack abs and emaciated young women.</p>

<p>They're doing what they want and what sells. If it didn't sell, they wouldn't do it. Sure, they're molding our sensibilities to an extent. But we allow ourselves to be manipulated.</p>

<p>I don't read fashion magazines, don't shop at Abercrombie and Fitch and am about to turn 58. I don't have to worry about them marketing sexy clothes for me. I just have to worry about the drug companies and doctors trying to convince me that I need a pill for everything under the sun. Guess what? I don't take any pills. I'm sure one day I will need some, but I'm not going to be sold a bill of goods in the meantime. When my cholesterol started going up, I adjusted my diet and started exercising. That won't work for everyone, because in some cases cholesterol will go up anyway, but it works for a lot of us. But my doctor told me I was the exception. Most people want to go right on eating crap and sitting on the couch and are happy to pop a pill.</p>

<p>I think the problem is staring at you in the mirror more than it is coming from the evil TV industry and fashion promoters. Just say No.</p>

<p>They are selling a product. Of course it's OK to airbrush, clone, manipulate, and create illusions. That's the whole idea of most of the commercial industry in the world. It can be bought into or not. For me, it's simply part of my peripheral vision, having very little overall hold on me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>whilst not breaking the law</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's been a few years since I took the class, but I was taught that you have to represent the product itself accurately, but the rest of the photo can be whatever you want. In other words, the dress has to look like the dress someone would buy, but the model can look like pretty much anything the advertiser wants. </p>

<p>I think this is more human than displaying those anorectic models who have to suffer through hunger diets and stress. Indeed, these CGI people look more human to me than most of H&M photodisasters with 'real' people.</p>

<p>And seriously, why not. We get CGI pictures of many products and it usually helps visualize the product better than most photos. The same can work for bras. After all, the ad is made to make the product (bra) look good, not the person wearing it.</p>

<p>I'm all for fake CGI models. At least we KNOW they're 100% fake (if the admit it that is). While with heavily photoshopped, anorectic, carefully posed people, we're not quite in the uncanny valley and can almost mistake them for real. Many people do and want to look like those unreal models. At least nobody will want to look like CGI person. I hope.</p>

<p>I'm quite sure most of the commercial photographers will have a completely different view than the street, wedding, and documentary photographers, on this issue.</p>

<p>As much as we complain about the look and size of a model, there are hundreds of magazines and advertisers willing to tell women how imperfect they are, to sell their products and advice on how to become perfect. Fashion photography is about fantasy, not reality. Of course, not everyone wants or cares about being thin, but on some level we are concerned about looking good in our clothes.</p>

<p>Regardless of what H&M gives as their reason, I'm sure cost is a big factor. The cost of putting out a catalogue, or doing an ad campaign can be a major hit on profits, and since you're going to get complaints regardless of how the models look ( when is the porridge just right for Goldilocks), you go with profits. Even at the Oscars, the media concentrates more on how the stars look than who wins.</p>

<p>If the technology exist, people are going to use it. If it saves time and money, people are definitely going to use it, and as that technology improves, it's going to become harder and harder to tell the difference between munipulated and natural.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I never ever thought of photos as natural and tend to avoid that kind of vocabulary in relating to the subjects of photos. Photos are artificial, they don't occur in nature. They are man made. Subjects of photos are seen and transmitted, unnaturally, mechanistically, plastically. So I've always thought of photographed subjects as telling a story, conveying a message, fulfilling a perspective, representing something, symbolizing something, showing something, reflecting something. I never confused the subjects of photos with the things themselves and always realized the fabricated quality about it all. Even the most heart-wrenching and moving photos of war are not wars. If they were, I'd run away from them just like I would a war. My fascination with or draw to a photo of a hurricane or tornado does not mean I'd want to be in the eye of one or actually experience one. A photo of a beautiful, sexy woman is not a beautiful sexy woman. Never has been. Filtered, gauzed, lit, frozen in time, captured in flattering or unflattering light. Remember the old saying, "the camera adds ten pounds." We knew long ago never to trust a photo.</p>

<p>Distance. Artificial. Not real. Photo.</p>

<p>"Curves ahead"wise , a recent Australian study was showing that men preffer average looking women to models.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a recent Australian study was showing that men preffer average looking women to models</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whilst that may be true if you show some men photos of super skinny catwalk models and your average jane and ask them to pick between the two, I guarantee that if you show them pictures of 'super' models like giselle bunchen and adriana lima next to your average jane the guys aren't going to be picking the girl next door..</p>

<p>i will pick Giselle over any one, anytime!</p>

<p>Do i mind tha H&M use CGI body for the clothes? yes.. theres less job for me to do ; )</p>

<p> </p>

<p>From at least since the uproar over the excessively thin Twiggy (Yes, I'm that old) everyone knows that, by and large, fashion models do not represent the bodies of 99+% of the population. Remember the outcry when they thinned out the photo of Katie Couric for a cover shot. The only thing that has changed is the technology to accomplish this subterfuge. In fact, look at the publicity photos of Hollywood actors from the 30's and 40's, heavy cake makeup etc, nothing real there. It is up to parents to clue in their kids, to the degree necessary, that 'fashion' is a make believe world no more valid or valuable than any other fictional work. Even my wife, now in her 50's has complained in the past about not being more well endowed on top. I just reminder her that gravity always wins.</p>

<p>that's so funny - I was using some H&M studio shots as inspiration during a test shoot with some models. Somehow, I couldn't quite achieve that level of perfection and I felt so frustrated. I feel a lot better now :) Thanks for posting!<br>

Regarding social backlash, I for one don't have a problem. As a middle aged female photographer, I love looking at beautiful people - it fills me with joy! There are some beautiful and skinny girls (not anorexic) who look as perfect as dummies and dummies are modelled on them. Who cares? Anorexia and all that stuff is rooted more in family dysfunction than anything else. I've met sagging, physically unattractive people who are bursting with confidence and some of the most beautiful women I've seen (eg. a twenty year old international model), are convinced they're not pretty. </p><div></div>