A 2nd Lauren ad discoverd with the distorted body. Will Ralph fire this model too?

http://industry.bnet.com/advertising/10004355/a-second-ralph-lauren-photoshop-mess-emerges/

A Second Ralph Lauren PhotoShop Mess Emerges
By Jim Edwards | Oct 15, 2009

ShareMyBNETEmailDiggFacebookTwitterGoogleDeliciousStumbleUponNewsvineLinkedInMy YahooTechnoratiRedditPrintRecommend0A second ridiculous Ralph Lauren ad featuring an already-skinny model Photoshopped down into an implausibly emaciated bobble-head doll has emerged. The new one (click to enlarge) was found in Australia by PhotoShop Disasters, the blog of choice for bad fashion advertising.

Like the original Fillipa Hamilton disaster, (below) which appeared in a Japan department store, the new ad shows a model whose head is the same width as her waist — something that does not happen in real life (unless you are dying from starvation).

That both ads were edited in the same way suggests it is not a one-off mistake by a rogue foreign unit. It’s starting to look more like Lauren’s art directors are all receiving similar instructions.

________________________
Here's the 2nd picture that came out:



And this was the first model, Filippa Hamilton. She was just fired for being too fat. Geez, I wish I had a weight problem at 120lbs :grr:

That stick figure looks diseased.

Because whoever is doing this has no idea what the human body looks like. They should be fired immediately.

Someone around here said that fashion designers obviously hate women, because they design clothes that look best on teenage boys...no hips, no boobs, etc....

dg

I know they're photoshopped, but I can't for the life of me understand why. Even at 5'10" and 120 lbs, the model who got fired would be too skinny for my preference.

Remember the uproar about the Dove girls a few years back? The picture of real women in their undies? Those ladies were HAWT.

And of course I understand that my preference means nothing at all...

:eyes:

She is very beautiful. Ralph Lauren is nuts.

even near realistic. Either they were farmed out to China or they were done by a four yr. old. The perspective is even obviously wrong. So my guess is that this is to get attention and free advertising. Then they can also use these images to fire or lay off people so that they hopefully will not be sued for ruining these models careers.

and use that as evidence of reality?

Are they really that dumb?

I think Lauren's firm should look into hiring some CG deisgners if they want unrealistic models that are properly lit and have no artifacts to "tell the tale". Hey, if they did that, they could create as many unrealistic models as they like, and they wouldn't have to put up with the silly, unrealistic notion that a woman has to even look human to sell clothes! I've seen some CG images on this site that are just absolutely amazing and totally convincing; for example, this is a CG model (the larger version on the site has no artifacts):



That could sell their clothes, and it would be a moment's work to make her lose 50 pounds!

Joy!

who the hell got paid to do that to photos and kept their job?

Felippa Hamilton is so much more fluid and beautiful as is. Why change her?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTatzj_uBKU

Every mag cover shot, every celebrity photo has been retouched and photoshopped into oblivion. Not just bodies either. Hair, eyes, you name it. And it isn't only shrinkage. Sometimes boobs and asses are made bigger, a la J-Lo butt. It's all fake. The only way women are going to stop it is through their wallets.

Thank you.

Towards the end, there's an interview with Kate White, from Cosmo. She says that women need to protest, but also back up their words with dollars. Because when it comes down to it, the ad/fashion people will only change when the money no longer flows in. I've worked on some promotions as a naive junior where "real" women were used to splash a new mag launch or product. Every time, the numbers have sunk like a rock in a pool. That's what Kate White says as well. So it seems that while women claim they want to see others like them in the mags, their buying habits say otherwise.

So, ladies, buy into REAL, not fake, if you want things to change.

On edit... guess it would've been good to actually post the link. :dunce:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-goldman/ralph-lauren-model-i-was_b_320443.html

So many women have complained for so long about the fashion industry... but I sure don't see them suffering much from lack of patronage.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/10/13/january-jones-gq-cover-boobs/



I've seen Mad Men. Jones is only 5'6" and not that big it the chest area. The boobs they gave her for the GC cover makes that girl who plays Joan on Mad Men look flat chested.

;-)

She's got Pam Anderson chest on that one.

Their asses and boobs are routinely altered - higher, bigger, rounder. And of course, everyone has glorious thick manes and brilliantly hued eyes. :D

There was an email floating around our office last year with a vid depicting some really unbelievable work done on Hollywood actresses. Wish I still had it to post here. It was shocking and enough to make anyone feel amazingly good about herself.

It looks like an amateur attempt at photo shopping. There is no sense of proportion. Who would want to buy clothes from a company who doesn't even have a clue what real women's bodies look like?

out of business...what they're promoting is sick.

Not all but runway models are sooo thin.



This is from lil AA's photo shoot last spring. The model was completely gorgeous but did not seem unhealthy. But she is not a runway model, who are all like 5' 10" and 105 lbs.

something over there has gone very, very wrong.

that published that is was faked.

maybe these are being done by that cute little girl in the PC commercials
nah she's better than this really

He's always used healthier looking models but I guess he's gotten whacked in his old age.

Who knows?

I so want to take a keyboard and smack the photoshop hack