| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2011 09:23:36 PM · #1 |
linkie
Thought I would throw this out as just saw this..... Interesting and obviously a cost saving. What you guys think? |
|
|
|
12/09/2011 09:51:45 PM · #2 |
Doesn't bother me at all. The argument that computer generated ersatz models that are based on the dimensions of real ones that are in themselves not of normal proportions are perpetuating unrealistic expectations is sorta funny. It's okay to have an unrealistic human, but you make it into pixels and that's blasphemy!
Why aren't these people out boycotting mannequin manufacturers too?
I guess my thinking is that if they pass the test as normal to most people, they clearly aren't that unrealistic, since they conform to expectations we already have and have accepted. That the fashion industry is insane is no news. |
|
|
|
12/09/2011 09:59:09 PM · #3 |
Kinda surprising that they would use 3d models since that would seem to cost more than the pennies they pay real models.
Message edited by author 2011-12-09 21:59:24. |
|
|
|
12/09/2011 10:00:15 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
12/09/2011 10:04:21 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
buy our cameltoe |
aaaaahahahahaha |
|
|
|
12/09/2011 10:50:27 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
Originally posted by skewsme:
buy our cameltoe |
aaaaahahahahaha |
That's a computer generated cameltoe. ...a feature which could be a popular app by itself. ...maybe there's a cameltoe photoshop action... |
|
|
|
12/10/2011 12:04:02 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by o2bskating:
Originally posted by skewsme:
buy our cameltoe |
aaaaahahahahaha |
That's a computer generated cameltoe. ...a feature which could be a popular app by itself. ...maybe there's a cameltoe photoshop action... |
Wasn't it Christopher Walken on SNL..."Needs more cameltoe." |
|
|
|
12/10/2011 02:01:24 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Doesn't bother me at all. The argument that computer generated ersatz models that are based on the dimensions of real ones that are in themselves not of normal proportions are perpetuating unrealistic expectations is sorta funny. It's okay to have an unrealistic human, but you make it into pixels and that's blasphemy!
Why aren't these people out boycotting mannequin manufacturers too?
I guess my thinking is that if they pass the test as normal to most people, they clearly aren't that unrealistic, since they conform to expectations we already have and have accepted. That the fashion industry is insane is no news. |
I would expect a man to have this opinion.
Bottom line....12-14 year old girls dont know they are photoshopped. Their bodies start changing in puberty and start getting a stomach pouch that most girls/women get and is completely normal. However, they see these pictures that they feel they must emulate to be pretty, even though they are fake, and in turn SOOOOOOO many turn to bulemia and anorexia.
Its a very very real problem, and using only skinny models AND THEN additionally photoshopping them is a huge part of the problem |
|
|
|
12/10/2011 02:21:32 AM · #9 |
| If more women walked around naked, men would have a more realistic expectation of what the female body looks like and we wouldn't have this problem. |
|
|
|
12/10/2011 03:25:45 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Fiora:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Doesn't bother me at all. The argument that computer generated ersatz models that are based on the dimensions of real ones that are in themselves not of normal proportions are perpetuating unrealistic expectations is sorta funny. It's okay to have an unrealistic human, but you make it into pixels and that's blasphemy!
Why aren't these people out boycotting mannequin manufacturers too?
I guess my thinking is that if they pass the test as normal to most people, they clearly aren't that unrealistic, since they conform to expectations we already have and have accepted. That the fashion industry is insane is no news. |
I would expect a man to have this opinion.
Bottom line....12-14 year old girls dont know they are photoshopped. Their bodies start changing in puberty and start getting a stomach pouch that most girls/women get and is completely normal. However, they see these pictures that they feel they must emulate to be pretty, even though they are fake, and in turn SOOOOOOO many turn to bulemia and anorexia.
Its a very very real problem, and using only skinny models AND THEN additionally photoshopping them is a huge part of the problem |
I would expect a woman to have this opinion.
Bottom line... men are groomed to be over masculinized beasts that they are not with ripped muscles. Male models are excruciatingly unrealistic, being of such slender proportions that even thin athletic males are far too heavy to meet the criteria. The body fat required to have the extreme definition flaunted by male models is in many cases not healthy for individuals to pursue.
But, this is missing your point. Just as you have missed mine.
I realize, and do not deny, that the expectations are unrealistic and do not manifest in society in a positive fashion. But frankly, going after computer generated non-existent people seems almost silly to me. Here's the thing- you and I both know that those CGI models are pretty much the same as REAL models who take horrible care of themselves, which I think is a more realistic thing to be upset about.
To me, there is no reason to be additionally upset at fake models than real models. The differentiation is pointless. If you are upset (rightfully so, I am as well) with the expectations that are portrayed, then getting up in arms suddenly about fake models is silly. The problem has been around for much longer, and is also exemplified by the mannequin molds used and the emaciated and gaunt living models. Your offense to fake unrealistic models should be the same as to fake real models. I could see your opposition to my statement if these fake models were in fact so disparate from real models, but honestly, they are more healthy looking than many runway models that have huge careers.
These "models" are completely fabricated, and I completely agree with your ire at photoshopped ads of people, that's fair. But as I said... these aren't half as bad (ironically) as the real models out there. I'm not fond of the trend, but hardly think this is where to put the blame at current. As I alluded to in my initial post, it's far more telling and troublesome that the models fooled people (meaning, these fabricated unrealistic 'women' looked like real women) in their idealized appearance than that a fashion company is fabricating their models. |
|
|
|
12/10/2011 10:46:28 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
If more women walked around naked, men would have a more realistic expectation of what the female body looks like and we wouldn't have this problem. |
Move to a country where there's lots of nude beaches, then! :-) And while we're on the topic of public nudity, it's currently about -10 outside. You want public nudity? You go first.
Message edited by author 2011-12-10 10:51:19. |
|
|
|
12/10/2011 12:44:50 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
If more women walked around naked, men would have a more realistic expectation of what the female body looks like and we wouldn't have this problem. |
I dunno, I've seen lots of naked women of all body types, colors, sizes... but can't say I'm completely immune to what Hollywood and the mass media feed me. I can say I wasn't terribly impressed with the last Victoria Secret show though.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2011 12:50:18 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
That's a computer generated cameltoe. ...a feature which could be a popular app by itself. ...maybe there's a cameltoe photoshop action... |
I think I'd pay more for a "un-cameltoe filter" since some swimsuit manufacturers seem to install cameltoe into the swimsuit bottoms from the factory.
And while we're at it, can I get an un-muffintop filter?
Message edited by author 2011-12-10 12:51:19.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/29/2025 07:38:19 PM EDT.
