H&M computer generated models

[msrisotto]

Link

Another crap excuse of - no one's complained so we can't/won't do anything about it! Aargh! It's a crap excuse and it makes me SO MAD! [vent]

I am not bothered by this.

If they do computer generated models then:

1 - Does that mean that it's not actually a photo of the item of clothing? That's annoying.
2 - Can they do custom computer-generated models, so I could input my measurements and see the clothes on a model who is my shape and size? That would be good.

I like ASOS where they have the video with a model walking up and down a catwalk so you can see the clothes moving, and they tell you that the model in the video is 5'10 and wearing a size 8. It's useful to figure out how long things will be.

From the point of view of wanting to buy clothes, having them on models or on mannequins or on computer-generated models is equally useful/useless, because the chance of any of those things being exactly shaped like me is very slim. (pun unintentional)

But if the models were "normal" sized women, they still wouldn't actually be the same shape and size as me. Women vary in too many different dimensions.

But (playing Devil's advocate here) the point of these pictures is not to show us what women's bodies look like. It is to show us what the clothes look like.

Hang on a sec - this pose is the one they use in their outfit selector/virtual wardrobe thing. It's not the same model they use throughout the site to advertise the clothes. Although because every single item of clothing must be photographed on the same mannequin at the same angle for the virtual dress-up game I'm sure they probably reuse some of the photos for the smaller thumbnails e.g. looking at different colours of an item.

I still think it's problematic that it's that particular size but for a dress-up simulation/game it makes sense that they would have only one size - it just multiplies the amount of work, otherwise. Whereas for general modelling you can photograph each item of clothing on a differently-sized model, if you wished.

So it's like a paper doll?

Here's the tops page for example - a few examples with the generic plastic "model" but plenty of real women in different poses (although admittedly they are all a similar size)

And this is the dress-up thing.

Yes works like a paper doll.

Sorry, what's the problem? Agree that it's not necessarily healthy to only have perfect representation, but equally can you expect any company to not show its wares to best advantage? Additionally, this would be a criticism of using a 1/10,000 style body type and not the actual act of using a mannequin.

I don't think that the concept of computer generated mannequins as such is a bad idea - it's the implementation that sucks!

I'm currently working on a piece of software that does something vaguely related: it creates custom fitted sewing patterns on the basis of a whole array of measurements that are fed into the system. In fact the main rationale behind the thing is that no two bodies are alike and that standardised clothing simply doesn't do most of us any justice at all.

That having been said: using mannequins in this particular way just seems to reenforce the idea that all women of all ethnicities and ages should basically look the same. Even size adjustable 3D models can hardly do a real woman justice: They're just fatter versions of a standard shape. In order to get anything like a realistic depiction of your body in 3D you'd literally need dozens of measurements; no customer is going to spend two hours measuring and inputting data just to get an idea of what a dress might look like in them.

IMO this also allows for even more unrealistic body shapes. Photoshopping may have its limits in terms of what can still be made to look halfway realistic - 3D modelling knows no such restrictions seeing as it's basically building from scratch.

However, as a software developer I'd love to see more ways in which technology can be used to combat damaging stereotypes.

I get that this happens, after all, they use hair extensions to advertise shampoo and hair dyes, and false eyelashes to advertise mascara, etc.

But what I don't get is - are women's bodies not good enough to advertise bikinis? Sure - the manufacturers want to make their product look as good as possible - I get that, even if it means, depressingly, that only model-stature women end up being used. But will their product not look its best if it's put on an actual woman? Does it need to put on a mannequin to look its best?

Or is it a cost issue? Is it cheaper to model the wares on a mannequin which can be used over and over again, or use computer-generated images which can be created instantly with the push of a button? But surely, they need to hire a model, in order to use her face and replicate her skin colour? So they won't actually be saving any money there at all.

I do just feel that the message is really insidious - that no human woman's body is good enough to really make our product look its very best, so we're going to have to use a mannequin/computer-generated model, which we can tweak and distort into an actual 'perfect' (read: unrealistic and therefore unattainable) shape.

This isn't about model-proportions which only a teeny, tiny percentage of women can ever hope to achieve, but about computer-generated proportions, which NO-ONE can hope to achieve.

Slinking - Maybe it's an aspirational thing.

I didn't realise how it was being used but I do still have a problem with it for reasons you have outlined in the last two paras of your post. It's part of a problematic culture where women are repeatedly only shown one particular body shape/size and told that an inch of fat or other 'imperfection' is a heinous crime. Using fake women is actually a logical step from that platform.

I dont see why they need to do this as the bodies advertised I see on the streets all the time. Loads of women have this type of body shape imo

As Bertie has said - the fake woman is not being used to advertise bikinis. The fake woman is for playing dress-up, so of course she has to be precisely in the same pose and in precisely the same shape because they are only going to take one photograph of each item of clothing and then you click to put it on the dolly.

This is the bit that really strikes me.

""What's so extraordinary about the H&M models is that everybody would just accept it. That says something about how normal it has become to use artificial images of women. We just brush past them. The worrying thing is it gets into your head, particularly the heads of young women.""

Its so true. Think of all the advertsing hoardings and shop fronts we all walk past. Its only whan you actually stand and look hard at the body proportions it really strikes you that it isnt a real person.

Can anyone tell me why some fashion retailers do this?

It does not make any sense. Surely they make and sell clothes to normal sized people so should they not at least put them at least on normal sized models? OK, I accept that they want to make clothes look good but I have seen clothes that look good on normal sized RL women (and men) as I walk down the street. It can be done. I mean who is that actually decides what body shape to put in the pictures? Who is the mythical arbiter of ideal body shape - or has the entire fashion industry just become kind of hooked on extreme body shapes?

There are fashion retailers that use normal sized models that are popular and sell a lot.

Can anyone tell me why some fashion retailers do this?

Apart from the "perfect" body issue, I actually strongly suspect that it may be about cost.

If you consider the money involved in casting actual human models, getting stylists, makeup artists, hair people, paying a photographer to take pictures, then retouching and so on and so forth I suspect the savings may in fact be considerable.

Which of course is a powerful incentive as far as companies are concerned.