[AC1]

Ok this is probably going to be one of these worthless without picture kind of deals, but still should be interesting.

Well, we had a backup model come in to model our clothes for our e-commerce site due to a scheduling conflict with our regular person. This backup model was featured on the Maxim 100, a model on Deal or No Deal, and various other gigs. She was hired purely by portfolio pictures. That was a huge mistake. When she came in, she apparently couldn't even fit into our clothes (we don't even have a true contemporary fit which would be even smaller), so we had to get bigger sizes for her, and even then she was bursting out of them.
I saw the photos today, and I have to say that they are NOTHING compared to what is on her website portfolio. She was much thicker all around (body, legs, etc), looking like she had let herself go. In her Maxim and portfolio pics, she was HOT and slender but the pics we took looked like we picked up some "crack whore off the street" as one of my coworkers called it.
Personally I was grossed out by how she looked in some of the pictures and we are not going to use them at all according to the e-com director. We could have used people in the office and we would have gotten better pics. What a waste of resources.
Well anyways, now I wonder about all the "models" in mags. How much Photoshop goes into them. I am so disillusioned.

Sorry to be vague about the details/pics, but don't want to get in trouble or be liable for anything.

 

[iluvcans]

dude,

this is crazy. not many people here will understand this post. i think it's sad that you say this about any woman.. trying to live up to a "media standard" of a professional model is a major problem for many women (and many guys as well) with respect to their self-image..


nearly all models in the major ads--are edited.

this is so sad to read.

 

[JaGWiRE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC1 Ok this is probably going to be one of these worthless without picture kind of deals, but still should be interesting. Well, we had a backup model come in to model our clothes for our e-commerce site due to a scheduling conflict with our regular person. This backup model was featured on the Maxim 100, a model on Deal or No Deal, and various other gigs. She was hired purely by portfolio pictures. That was a huge mistake. When she came in, she apparently couldn't even fit into our clothes (we don't even have a true contemporary fit which would be even smaller), so we had to get bigger sizes for her, and even then she was bursting out of them. I saw the photos today, and I have to say that they are NOTHING compared to what is on her website portfolio. She was much thicker all around (body, legs, etc), looking like she had let herself go. In her Maxim and portfolio pics, she was HOT and slender but the pics we took looked like we picked up some "crack whore off the street" as one of my coworkers called it. Personally I was grossed out by how she looked in some of the pictures and we are not going to use them at all according to the e-com director. We could have used people in the office and we would have gotten better pics. What a waste of resources. Well anyways, now I wonder about all the "models" in mags. How much Photoshop goes into them. I am so disillusioned. Sorry to be vague about the details/pics, but don't want to get in trouble or be liable for anything.

I'm young, but I'm beginning to learn makeup + airbrush / digital editing = can make a lot of okay / average looking women into beautiful glossed up women who you'll never find on the street.

 

[lan]

I thought it is well known magazines are really glamed up. You got duped if she wasn't remotely like in her pictures. Maintaining one's body in such an industry is key. Can you complain to her agent/agency?

 

[1911]

yeah i agree with the former comment. a "this isnt working out" would suffice as opposed to all the derogatory comments. i would bet some bucks that the guys making the desparaging comments were no brad pitts either. i can see your point in that a model is judged by her looks and that is a fact of life..but to demean and reduce the worth of someone is not a way to live life imho.

 

[AC1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iluvcans dude, this is crazy. not many people here will understand this post. i think it's sad that you say this about any woman.. trying to live up to a "media standard" of a professional model is a major problem for many women (and many guys as well) with respect to their self-image.. all models-- in all mags are edited. this is so sad to read.

I deal in an all image environment/business. It is just how it goes.
This is not about womens image or a moral discussion about my views towards women.
This is about false advertising. Pretty much like lying on your resume. I realize all model mags are edited, but how much difference there is was astonishing.
BTW the co-worker comment and other not forgiving views I heard were all from women.

 

[iluvcans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC1 I deal in an all image environment/business. It is just how it goes. This is not about womens image or a moral discussion about my views towards women. This is about false advertising. Pretty much like lying on your resume. I realize all model mags are edited, but how much difference there is was astonishing. BTW the co-worker comment and other not forgiving views I heard were all from women.

i find this fascinating..

i suppose it goes to the root of personal values. each of us have to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong here.

i guess i misunderstood-- i thought this was totally about this woman's image?

 

[Jmmmmm]

Look at these picture editor portfolio websites.

http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/digital.html
http://fluideffect.com/

Unfortunately you cannot believe any of professional pictures anymore. I used to know of a site that had some much more extreme examples, but I can't find it now.

 

[AC1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iluvcans i find this fascinating.. i suppose it goes to the root of personal values. each of us have to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong here. i guess i misunderstood-- i thought this was totally about this woman's image?

I understand the comments are raw and how it might not agree with other peoples personal values. But this is a reality I am involved in and have to deal with which I am not here to make excuses for or defend.

This was about the disparity between pictures and reality. How much manipulation there really is and the unfortunate consequence of following just "pictures".

 

[AC1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmmmmm Look at these picture editor portfolio websites. http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/digital.html http://fluideffect.com/ Unfortunately you cannot believe any of professional pictures anymore. I used to know of a site that had some much more extreme examples, but I can't find it now.

Interesting. I can see using manipulation to take out lines/wrinkles etc, which is done on pretty much all of our images as well.
But the comparison to the pics we took and of what the model had, we would have have to recontour her entire body. Actually that was what was so suprising is that the porportions were totally different between our photos and the portfolios. Now I know it is totally possible, didn't think it would be so apparent in a portfolio.

 

[JaGWiRE]

Speaking of an interesting comment myself..
A few weeks back my mom and I were looking at photographers as we needed to hire one. We came across our now photographer (he is considered professional I supose), and when we were looking at his stuff he had a recent portrait of a couple. The women looked absolutely STUNNING in this photo (I mean rediciulous), so I asked to see the original. Low and behold her makeup was all messed up, her face was nowhere near as smooth / clean as in the picture (she had freckles and was much darker skinned), hair was on her face, and overall she was like another women (she still was a great looking lady without a doubt, but she wasn't the super model like in the edited version.)

 

[axle]

I'm kind of suprised the OP is getting the comments he is... if you're a model, your job is to look pretty. To show up otherwise is... well, not doing your job. Like if I were a pilot who showed up drunk. I won't be fit to fly--I'd be in no shape to. I wouldn't be doing my job. Nor do I think the OP was attacking women. I don't think all women should look like the cover of People. But if you're paid to look like that, you better look like that.

It is a disillusionment. Maybe it's off season for her (in which case she shouldn't have taken the job). Otherwise there really is no excuse.

 

[plainsong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iluvcans dude, this is crazy. not many people here will understand this post. i think it's sad that you say this about any woman.. trying to live up to a "media standard" of a professional model is a major problem for many women (and many guys as well) with respect to their self-image.. nearly all models in the major ads--are edited. this is so sad to read.

Yeah, if your company can't design clothes to fit the average woman, or you don't know how to photograph a living being, don't blame the woman.

Skeletons are soooooo hot.

 

[euclid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iluvcans dude, this is crazy. not many people here will understand this post. i think it's sad that you say this about any woman.. trying to live up to a "media standard" of a professional model is a major problem for many women (and many guys as well) with respect to their self-image.. nearly all models in the major ads--are edited. this is so sad to read.

dude

read your own quote

 

[plainsong]

Besides the obvious shallowness of the OP, and yes he can counter with "it's a shallow industry" blah blah blah, but that doesn't fly IMO because nothing is ever done to change it. The objectification continues because it makes you money to do so.

But let's state the obvious: you hire someone site unseen and then are angry that the person doesn't meet expectations? That's won't go down in history as the brightest thing you ever did.