|
That picture is just.... ridiculous.
Jacob Vorpahl - OneBrightSpot
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The camera adds 10 pound and photoshop can take of 40.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
And the Streisand Effect strikes again. :)
Should read "alledged" DMCA abuse. Ralph is out of line this time. I'm totally siding with the PS Disaster guy and boingboing on this one.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
ladyhawker edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
Are we arguing over ethics or law?
I have to side with RL on this one. Fair use?! Anybody see the "your advertisement here" button on the top of the boingboing page?
P.S. What's up with the overweight model?
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
David Stone Photo edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
Good thing this photo wasn't taken in France....
They would have needed to add a disclaimer acknowleging the fact the original was altered......
Not that anyone with at least one working eyeball couldn't have drawn the conclusion on their own.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You sir win Quote of the Day.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Lol. Absolute disaster.
I guess the peoples from the marketing department have to stop eating those hallucinogenic pills.
If I where a magazine editor I would never publish that.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
iwolkow.de edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
mr-volkoff:
Not sure you know what the role of the Editor at a magazine is.
However, Boing Boing is firing both barrels with this one!
www.boingboing.net/2009/10/06/the-criticism-that-r.html
Apparently Lauren and the boys are pissed off so they asked Boing Boing to take it down.
Not only did they NOT take it down, they reprinted it, and called them out on the stupidity of not understanding Fair Use. Which this case clearly - CLEARLY - is.
But then anyone demented enough to think that anorexic and deathly looking young women are sexy are beyond anyones reach anyway. I will be making my voice heard at the cash register... Love Polo. I have purchased my last Lauren product. Not advocating boycotts, but I do have my list.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
Don Giannatti (aka wizwow) edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
|
Wizwow
I may be wrong, but I think the editor has a lot of influence on what gets published and what not.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
iwolkow.de edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
Last I knew, fair use for criticism was a valid exercise. Unless that's changed. In which case there's a lot of abuse to be had starting soon...
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I kinda wonder what drugs does the AD and the retoucher of that photos do... or are they simply mentally challenged? the same to RL because defending that photo is just some serious grade of a mental health problem.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There's skinny jeans and then there's RL jeans!
Seriously, that image is so bad, how could anyone approve it for an ad campaign let alone, actually let it go to press?
Wow.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@ "mr-volkoff" -- a magazine editor has control over the magazine's content, but not so much over the advertisements. That would be the realm of the marketing department of the publisher. Most publishers have clear guidelines about the content of ads, which pretty much mean that if the advertiser has money, any content is OK.
Censorship is hardly ever a good thing.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I always look at dead people near Halloween?
What a hoot...bet the picture came from iStock
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I can't believe that several, even many, people (let alone the guy who retouched it in the first place) looked at that image and said "Yep, that's the one. That's the image we want to use to sell our products."
RL should fire all of them, and then stop throwing out ridiculous threats.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
How could that even get through the production process!?
wizwow: Editors of newspapers/magazines can dictate anything that goes into publication. They have the final say in what does and does not get printed.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
stephenkirsch edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
|
mr-volkoff
Mr Hargis is quite correct and in MOST magazines, the editor and the advertising departments have very little cross over. That is established so that the editorial decisions are NOT weighted by advertising concerns. Otherwise, you end up with editorial being written to boost ad sales of particular products - "payola" so to speak.
And my 40+ years in the business helps to understand the realities as well. Are there magazines where the advertising and editorial are in collusion to build certain brands, products, political parties, and elected officials?
Heh... you betcha... but that is not the way it is sposed to be.
Stephen_Kirsh.
NO. That would be the PUBLISHER, NOT the editor. Editorial is rarely hooked up to advertising. Sorry. That is incorrect.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
Don Giannatti (aka wizwow) edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
|
@Tim and Stephen: the only way they could choose it is produced by a mix of hardcore drugs plus "celebrity in my mind" ego and a bit of "yeah we are edgy".... pretty much the same cocktail that has been killing magazines around the world (consumers are tired of paying for magazines with lots of typos, tons of bad photos, bad post, processing bad advertising).
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Now, if they were just selling corsets....
(oh, and photoshop disasters is using Ralph Lauren as a verb now)
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
wiredfool edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
(... holding back my post until Tokyo Boy gives us the thumbs up)
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
Brandon D. edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
Just to be the Devil's Advocate here for a second:
Before you ride away on that moral high take a second to look for a second opinion on this story.
It's an ad, supposedly mass produced, still we have nothing on this story than a poor iPhone shot (possible photoshopped!) with no reputable source to validate it. It could just be someone snapped a light box at a shopping mall and played with it. In fact, this story is being followed by millions of people all over the world and still no second sighting?
The RL lawyer issuing a take down notice is most likely a lowly intern at some local law office who's just following orders from internet illiterate higher ups in the food chain.
Does anyone seriously believe that RL would OK an ad like this? I am an art director myself and if I had OK'd a photo like this I'd be fired on the spot.
So let's hold the heavy artillery until someone, somewhere, can validate that photo of a photo.
We still don't even know what country the image comes from.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I would. You wouldn't believe the crap that slips past people until you point out the flaws.
istockphoto cd albums are classic, but there's been billboard disasters too.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
TokyoBoy:
You may have a good point. I have been all over RL's site. And while his women are noticably on the the thin side, there is NO equivilent of this ad showing there at all. It is an ad for the Blue Label line of clothing, and the model in the POP shot is featured in the catalog as well.
www.ralphlauren.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=2794256&a...
In the pants and shorts area, check out the "Tartan Pants" which may be what the ad is for. The women in these shots look fine. No out of whack PS at all
Here is a look at the current Blue Label ads running in America:
about.ralphlauren.com/campaigns/photo.asp?lpath=&lang...
Note that this young lady is well proportioned and without any kind of Pshop treachery.
Hmmmm...
There is a lot of buzz, but at this point no corraborating evidence that the original photo was NOT retouched by the person who originally uploaded to Photoshop disasters and started this whole thing.
I have been looking into this for a longass time today and still cannot find any other folks who may be able to shed further light on a single image taken... where? Uncanny Valley is a made up SciFi term for robotic cities... so we do not at this point KNOW that the picture is from a real POLO store or not.
This is a mea-culpa moment for me. I cannot find a trend at RL, nor in any of the magazines I looked at today that show this as any more than a strange anomaly...
Of course if it is indeed a real ad by POLO, then all bets are off.
The verdict is NOT in on this episode.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Brandon D: Thanks for giving me the first LOL moment of the day! (I read your post before you edited it too...)
@Wizwow: You have just been appointed Offical Witchhunter General of The Strobist First Brigade, let's see if we can flush them out! It'll be interesting to follow. I shot a mail of to their press dept. but I doubt I will get an answer.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
Tokyo Boy edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
If it wasn't a RL ad, then why did Ralph Lauren claim it was theirs in the DMCA letter? All they had to do was say, "Hey, that's not ours, somebody modified it" - and the Internet Witchhungers (led by wizwow) would be all over it, seeking to punish the errant photoshopper.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@Bill:
It's quite possible that RL didn't find it very amusing that someone had taken one of their ads, butchered it, and then claimed it as "real"....
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Bill: With all due respect, they didn't claim it to be "their ad" in the DMCA. They "objected to the use of copyrighted material" (which is what a DMCA is for). They used whatever tool they had at their disposal, in this case it was a DMCA.
If it is a fake ad they could claim it as damaging their reputation and sue the originator for damages.
RL is a pretty big corporation and judging from my own experience in fashion and the world of corporate communication depts., these battleships don't turn around quite that easily. Also, they tend not to speak in simple terms.
Before they can offer any sort of real statement they first have to find out the facts behind this, and if millions of Internet users can't find the original image and prove it to be official, nor the photographer, nor the person who uploaded the original image, I can only imagine it's going to take a lot of time for RL to get to the bottom of this.
RL, like most corporations, do not issue public statements lightly.
We should also consider the rights of the model, the photographer, the agency and the buyers of this "ad" (if it is a fake), who are likely not one bit amused by this. I doubt many shooters on this forum would stand idly by if someone took a paid work from their photostream, photoshopped it to look horrible and then pasted a logo on top of it.
I am not read up on American law but most countries (including Sweden, China and Japan where I am active) have laws prohibiting libelous usage of other people's copyrighted images (i.e. you can't just buy a picture of a smiling man from a stock photo agency, put his head on a picture of a nude lady and publish it with the logo of McDonalds, it violates the right of reasonable use).
Finally (so far) the RL has hired a law firm to do these kind of DCMA stuff for them, you'd be surprised how often they are used. This law firm doesn't necessarily double check everything with RL's in house lawyers, in fact they are paid to do this on their own, and they are just following the manual they are give which is written to be as general and all inclusive as possible. Usually these kind of routine DCMA doesn't even reach the heads of the law firms, but are sent on rote by junior members or even clerical staff (which may or may not even be outsourced).
Corporation move on a different time scale than us, so let's be gentle and at least offer our condolences to the principal victims in this: the photographer and the model of this image!
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
My question is, if it is indeed a fake, why on earth would they simply send a DMCA letter without any sort of explanation that it was altered and not the actual ad? Especially since that would have most likely been the quickest way to get it taken down.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Tim
Like I mentioned above, sending out DMCA are mostly a task set on automation. It happens without much (if any) back and forth between HQ legal depts. (if there are any) and legal reps (as in this case). This is to save time and money. DMCA are a catch all way to communicate with ISPs about possibly illegal material on their sites until the proper legal depts. have the time to go over the case in more detail.
Think of it like having a noisy neighbor. You call the police to get them to shut up, the police arrives and things go quiet, regardless of the cause behind the ruckus order is restored and concerned parties can sort things out quietly and on their own time. This is as opposed to just letting the noise go on and spending a lot of time to figure out if the reason (illegal or not) behind the noise.
The DMCA is a way for corporations to do damage control. But as in this case, firing too much of a broad shot into a fray can cause even more damage, especially when your DMCA has no effect (Boinboings ISP is not in the US I think, whereas Photoshop disasters ISP is). ISPs are bound by law in the US to heed DMCAs if there is a reasonable cause (in this case it obviously was).
Finally, if the legal representative of the corporation would have asked for permission to HQ they would have failed in their job as "firefighters" and their contract would probably have ended. It can take years for an issue like this to get resolved internally in a big corporation before a public statement is finally offered. Especially if people's careers are on the line.
@Everyone:
This is my take on what happened. Someone in Kuala Lumpur (or Dubai or St. Petersburg or Dallas or Rio or Shenzen or Seoul) runs a shop selling RL products and wanted a small poster to cover an empty ad space near their shop. They took (without asking HQ or getting the proper permissions) a picture from a catalog and sent it to a local photoshop (like a Kinkos or something for our American readers) and asked them to make a semi-transparent B3 sized copy. The guy in the shop is a Photoshop fan and volunteered to make the model skinnier to match local tastes or demographics better, the assistant shop manager agreed and handed over the $2.65 for the work, happy to have something quick and easy to put up over the offending white spot.
In two weeks time word filters down that RL HQ is looking for this ad and the people behind it, the local shop manager (who's merely a hired hand in a small national chain of clothes resellers or even a fake brand factory outlet) quietly sneaks out and removes the poster, no one will ever find out.
Please keep in mind that there are hundred of factories all over Asia and South/Central America churning out fake RL clothes and goods with the POLO logo. These shops need fakes ads too.
So again, let's not cancel our christmas orders for POLO socks right away shall we? Let's see how this plays out.
And please remember that Boingboing (bless them, absolutely one of the best sites on the Internet) thrives on this kind of controversial issues. They get page views from these kinds of arguments, their advertiser base goes up, they get more money to buy cool toys and organic food.
Not to mention the free publicity for RL.
Edit: My scenario above is just one reasonable explanation behind this ad. The number one most reasonable explanation is that it is a simple hoax to mess with Photoshopdisasters.com. (where this story started).
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
Tokyo Boy edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
|
Tokyo Boy:
Excellent points well written.
I like reading your comments, and you are quite correct in your reasoning. I will be looking with skeptical eyes upon this story until I learn different.
Nicely done.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The Drudge Report just linked to this article:
shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/image-of-ultra-thin-ralph-...
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The model's name is Fillipa Hamilton, she is pretty thin but not that thin!
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Looks like an ad for the new "Ralph Lauren Bobble Heads"
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Great to see backlash on companies that try and bully quite criticism with this DMCA crap..... Great to see an ISP understand the law for a change...
It will no doubt get more coverage then it would have otherwise....
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I am so sorry I got involved in this one. I do believe it will be shown to be a hoax from the poster, and I do believe that Boing Boing may be in a little more tenous place.
We took the word of an anonymous website, from an anonymous source, of a picture no one else can find and summarily trashed a company. I for one will NEVER take part in anything like this until I know the facts and NO ONE is even looking. I spent an hour and a half late last night at the local Barnes and Noble carefully going through the fashion magazines and could not find one Ralph Lauren ad that even came close to this kind of photoshop work.
As far as the DMCA notice... if it comes out that in fact the ad was doctored and NOT representative of the real Ralph Lauren ad, I think Boing Boing may regret not taking it down.
Photoshopdisasters has been wrong before, ya know.
www.heathermorton.ca/blog/?p=3318
Is it not curious that Yahoo News hasn't interviewed the model, ad agency, models agency, photographer, art buyer, photographers rep.... anyfuknbody who could enlighten us? Why?
I think I know, but I feel really stupid this morning for letting myself be caught in the stanglehold of interweb stupidity.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
Don Giannatti (aka wizwow) edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
www.boingboing.net/2009/10/08/searching-for-the-sk.html
On Thursday, Polo Ralph Lauren released the following statement about the retouched ad: "For over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. 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. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."
:D
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yup, PDN just blogged the statement, too. It looks like it did come from RL: www.pdnpulse.com/2009/10/ralph-lauren-admits-poor-imaging...
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
that's nuts that they actually did design this. someone's head is surely rolling as we speak.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well - there ya go. I am impressed that they are simply taking responsibility for what was most probably a bad, very bad, decision from a lower level person.
Very good, RL, that shows the class for which you are known.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The image was mentioned on the local Fox affiliate here in LA today, nothing about the RL statement, just them showing the photo and talking about the public's response to the image.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Bad publicity is better than no publicity. Any chance RL did this intentionally to generate buzz?
Also, the image is PS'd to the point of being a characature of the model. It's almost humorous. I have a hand drawn characature of my wife and myself with big heads and skinny little bodies. And I've seen a number of greeting cards with similar PS efforts. So an art director might argue that anyone should KNOW that it is a photographic characature and not the real model.
Maybe someone within RL did it as a joke and hung it up on the wall next to his cubicle and some passer-by took a picture of it.
Any of those would meet with the statement that it originated within RL.
Aside: Did anyone notice that her neck is much closer to the right shoulder than the left freaky. It doesn't even look like it belongs on the body.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Wizwow: Thanks for the kind comment. It's good to read it.
@all: RL did the right thing in response to this and admitted to it, and they were fast about it too. I'd still like to know what agency this one came from, and a better scan. It goes to show that big companies really need to keep an eye on what leaves their agencies.
@scubajunkie: I don't think they did it to generate buzz, but it is def. a huge fail on the part of the agency.
Still, we don't know if this was ever meant to be released or for what market.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yeah it is hard to believe they intended it for release... that is really more something Ambercrombie would do.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ralph Lauren fesses up........
www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/09/ralph_lauren_pelvis_apol...
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
More drama! Filippa Hamilton, the model, was fired a few months ago and speaks out about the image:
www.pdnpulse.com/2009/10/skinny-ralph-lauren-model-fired-...
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thanks, for posting that link to the Today Show, Ken.
It's really sad, what's going on. And, it makes me wonder what we can do about it. I like beautiful women, but are we sending the wrong message to our moms, sisters and daughters? Of course th RL example was extreme, but at what point is the line crossed? Is it ok to take away 5 pounds? 10? 20? I've certainly shaved some women down in photos before. I've even done it a bit when I wasn't asked to because I felt it improved a picture. I haven't done anything really extreme but I have done it. We've all touched up complexions or lightened eyes etc., but at what point are we going beyond making a subject look their best and stepping into making them look like something they really are not? Maybe fantasy is ok, and we just need to educate people about self image and make sure they understand that imagery is not necessarily reality.
What is the right thing to do?
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
Steve.Korn edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
I agree Steve. The problem is in the subjects themselves alot of the time. I too have slimmed down women maybe bewteen 5 to extreme 20lbs. But I try to refrain so if at all possible. I only do it if the camera angle or pose makes them appear larger than they are in real life or distract from there natural beauty. I guess I have "shallow hal" vision bc I usually find something beautful about them. But they seem to be disgusted with pics of themselves...NOT ALL ...Ofcourse not the actually "models" I have shot but the "non model" girls/women that I have shot look at there pics like they are looking at a 3rd degree burn victim. Them I say you dont like the shot and they say they love the background and then start listing off the parts of them they do not like..My nose looks big...my this looks big..my that looks big.. and me and my assistant are looking totally puzzled like um are you looking at same picture? You look beautiful!!! Then I will post pics and people comement on how good they look and then they like it all of a sudden?????. WOW. I think it starts with love of ones self and sure magazines and movies and TV play a role but I am not sure how much we can do to help the way people feel inside? I would love to help though bc it is sad.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Can you believe that someone actually got paid to sit in a meeting, choose that shot, ordered the retouch and went ahead with it?????
And in the end we all pay a social price for irresponsible moves like this one.
One thing is for sure i will never buy RL stuff anymore.
Disgusting!
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think we should do what we do, don't be afraid to take images of beautiful women, but also realize that there is a lot more to women than just beauty. We need to take pictures of women who are strong, caring, intelligent, funny, athletic, wise, talented etc., and try to communicate that in our pictures.
We choose to focus on beauty with regard to women, we need to focus on and communicate more about the person. Beauty may be their thing, and that's fine, but there are a lot of really amazing women out there. My wife is one of them, she is an amazing person and she is beautiful. I'm always seeing real people who look all the more beautiful because of who they are. Our job is to see it and communicate it in our images.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Steve: I have a politic of not working in gigs when the photos containing negative health or women violence messages and I know I have lost gigs because of this politic but I am happy with my decision, most of my friends are women and I fully support a healthy life style but not to the extent of looking a skeleton, in fact I prefer curvy women.
I can´t deny that in some photos I have done cosmetic retouches: pull back tummies and the likes, but never to an extent that looks unhealthy and ridiculous.
I also enforce a politic where the casting process of the model should be done to find the right model for the job, no "jigsaw" shooting or the likes.
But I feel a responsibility of what my photos do in the wild and with this in mind I can´t do something like RL did.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I have turned away from Fashion lately. Not that crazy about the styles and especially the way women are portrayed. Unhealthy approaches to self image and some totally boringass photography (Elle, Vogue... WTF, guys). I still love W and some other smaller fashion magazines because they let the photographers run...
Not making a big deal out of it, and I don't discuss it much. I simply am not interested in photographing things that are not interesting to me.
I love so many fashion shooters, and still follow their work. But in Phoenix, the 'fashion' is mostly way too skinny girls who cannot move or give me anything... and it is too tiring to bust it out of them. Maybe it was easier before... I dunno.
It became a little too vacuous for my liking.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think we should do what we do, don't be afraid to take images of beautiful women, but also realize that there is a lot more to women than just beauty. We need to take pictures of women who are strong, caring, intelligent, funny, athletic, wise, talented etc., and try to communicate that in our pictures."
Hopefully, that's the lesson that photographers and models take from this episode.
And hopefully we learn that Photoshop is an "enhancing tool," not a sledge hammer:
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This is a lively thread. :)
BoingBoing is a top site, and personally I don't blame them for having way too much fun with this story. Someone at RL obviously overreacted and bitten off more than they could chew, hopefully that will be a lesson to them.
On a bright side, this is a good publicity against unhealthy body shapes. Some people are naturally thin and some are naturally big but most of us (I hope) can distinguish between healthy and unhealthy body.
And what we as photographers can do is help promote this healthier image by working with models who are not hurting themselves with stupid diets.
I try to look on bright side of things personally.
@Steve Korn: very good point.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
Dan Korkelia edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Strobist.com /
Discuss
You sir win Quote of the Day.
Feed – Subscribe to Strobist.com discussion threads
