Ralph Lauren model fired for being "too fat".. she's 120lbs!

liah

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/10/14/2009-10-14_model_fired_for_being_too_fat.html

"They fired me because they said I was overweight and I couldn't fit in their clothes anymore," she said. The 5-foot-10, 120-pound stunner was amazed to see her body digitally distorted for Ralph Lauren Blue Label.
"I was shocked to see that super skinny girl with my face," she told the Daily News. "It's very sad, I think, that Ralph Lauren could do something like that."

This is her "normally";




This is the ad that went out in Japan;



Now in fairness, I'm not sure as to how reputable that website is, but if it's true, it's absolutely frightening. The 2nd picture is just wrong all over. Fashion models are meant to be skinny, but that's just going WELL over the top.



Thoughts?

AARRRGH

They fired me because they said I was overweight and I couldn't fit in their clothes anymore

I'd like to know if that's the real reason she was fired.

Have Ralph Lauren released a statement on the matter?

shivvyban

The second one looks like its from a pro-an site.... and TBH a pro-an site that doesn't know how to use photoshop properly....

kenon

The second picture looks photoshopped.

liah

AARRRGH wrote: »

I'd like to know if that's the real reason she was fired.

Have Ralph Lauren released a statement on the matter?

A quick google scan says no but admittedly I haven't spent much time on it. I'll have a better look later.

kenon wrote: »

The second picture looks photoshopped.

That's because it IS photoshopped. The first picture illustrates how she really looks, the second illustrates how RL wanted her to look.

Khannie

kenon wrote: »

The second picture looks photoshopped.

+1

shellyboo

kenon wrote: »

The second picture looks photoshopped.

It was, that's the whole point of the story and the original post.

"The 5-foot-10, 120-pound stunner was amazed to see her body digitally distorted for Ralph Lauren Blue Label."

Morlar

The 2nd one looks like it was scanned on a flatbed scanner while the paper was curved, distorting it further or, it was very very badly photoshopped to exaggerate for effect.

I think another copy of the jap magazine cover picture as it actually appeared would be good. If they really published something like that, well, what kind of idiot would buy that ? I can't think of any men who would find that 2nd pic more attractive than the first, she looks like she would snap like a twig in the 2nd one.

liah

Found RL's statement on the matter:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33306914/ns/today/

FTA:

We regret that our relationship has ended as a result of her inability to meet the obligations under her contract with us.

Wonder what that means..

metaoblivia

They had Phillipa Hamilton (the model) on the Today Show yesterday, and Ralph Lauren did fire her, although the language they used was very vague. They went through her agency and apparently relayed that she wasn't fitting into the sample clothes provided to her for the shoot. According to Phillipa, she had been the same size as when they first hired her (when she was 15). But then later, Ralph Lauren denied firing her over her weight.

That photoshopped image looks really grotesque to me. Phillipa Hamilton has a wonderful body. 120lbs is thin for her height, but not completely out of line. I would consider her figure to be perfect for the Ralph Lauren brand, which is supposed to be "all-American." It's not like they're producing high fashion, conceptual clothes that require some alienesque model with lots of sharp angles. Real people are actually supposed to wear Ralph Lauren clothes, and you would think that would want to relay that with gorgeous models who don't look emaciated on camera.

Macha

liah wrote: »

We regret that our relationship has ended as a result of her inability to meet the obligations under her contract with us.

Wonder what that means..

Her inability to restrict herself to one head of lettuce and one pack of chewing gum per day?

r3nu4l

liah wrote: »

Found RL's statement on the matter:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33306914/ns/today/

FTA:


Wonder what that means..

You forgot to quote this bit from the statement relating directly to the second image:

The image in question was mistakenly released and used in a department store in Japan and was not the approved image which ran in the US. We take full responsibility for allowing this image to run as this is completely inconsistent with our creative standards and brand values...

AARRRGH

I'm not passing judgement on this one yet. One thing I've learnt from my many years working in offices is people very rarely are honest with themselves when they get disciplined or fired. It's nearly always due to their employer being evil rather than the fact that they're incompetent/whatever.

helimachoptor

2nd photo is edited it was in the papers 1/2 weeks ago.

However they really botched it. Frankly in the 1st picture she's really hot. In the 2 it looks like she's being twisted in half!

Khannie

shellyboo wrote: »

It was, that's the whole point of the story and the original post.

Oops.

I thought it also looked like the paper was curved. Still though, at 120 pounds (8.5 stone!) and 5 foot 10 she's very slim, no question about it.

liah

r3nu4l wrote: »

You forgot to quote this bit from the statement relating directly to the second image:

I don't buy that part, though, which is why I didn't quote it.

They can't mistakenly release something like that. It has to go through editors, the heads, publishers, etc. before it's released. How they can do all that by mistake is well beyond me, for that many people to approve it before it gets sent out and not ONE of them realised it was a mistake prior to release? It just sounds like they're trying to cover their asses.

liah

Khannie wrote: »

Oops.

I thought it also looked like the paper was curved. Still though, at 120 pounds (8.5 stone!) and 5 foot 10 she's very slim, no question about it.

If the paper is curved, the way it bends (if you look at the top and bottom corners) would mean it would bend TOWARD the camera, which, for all intents and purposes, would mean it should look bigger.. not smaller.

kenon

shellyboo wrote: »

It was, that's the whole point of the story and the original post.

"The 5-foot-10, 120-pound stunner was amazed to see her body digitally distorted for Ralph Lauren Blue Label."

My bad, I've a low attention span so I just look at the pictures...

Nick_oliveri

They more than likely don't specify what weight the model has to stay under in the contract. Or there would have been court cases arising from these incidents.

You would wonder what image that RL are trying to portray with such skinny models and their clothes. Its a bit of an exclusive club really, if you can fit into this size 2 you're in!

Lia_lia

Yuck.

Handsome Bob

liah wrote: »

This is the ad that went out in Japan;

Thoughts?

Thoughts? That picture is outrageous.

r3nu4l wrote: »

You forgot to quote this bit from the statement relating directly to the second image:

I call that good PR backtracking.

This doesn't surprise me to be honest, for anyone who has had to endure Janice Dickinson's show you'll know what I'm on about.

Clare Bear

I don't think a photo like that would go down well here. It's disgusting. Look how gorgeous she is in the first one, I thought this crap was starting to go away! Maybe looking like a sick anorexic girl is still cool in Japan :rolleyes:

Chucky the tree

If she can't fit into there sample clothes what's she complaining about?

pikachucheeks

It's just ridiculous.
What sort of message is that sending out to modern-day women?
The photoshopped image is disgusting. She looks like some sort of praying mantis.

Swizz

Want



Do not want

4zn76tysfajdxp

In fairness, anyone who doesn't think the first image isn't also Photoshopped is deluding themselves.

Sea08

Vera Victorious Armband wrote: »

In fairness, anyone who doesn't think the first image isn't also Photoshopped is deluding themselves.

Oh most definatly, but at least in the first image her head isn't bigger than her pelvis. The second image reminds of an alien, a big giant head with a seriously tiny body.

liah

Vera Victorious Armband wrote: »

In fairness, anyone who doesn't think the first image isn't also Photoshopped is deluding themselves.

Hence having "normally" in quotation marks in my OP.

FunkZ

That's terrible... she just has a really big head! I jest, I jest XD

Gauge

Been watching this doing the rounds on my RSS feeds all week... Ralph Lauren pretty much managed to turn it into a giant PR screwup.

The image was posted on Photoshop Disasters because... well, yeah. Ralph Lauren then DCMA'd them and boingboing.net.

They released a statement which was a nice gesture I guess. Not sure how sincere it is, seeing as they probably only released it as damage control when seeing how well the DCMAs worked out:

"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."

Here's another image from them (from Sydney, Australia):




They're just... insane really. They didn't just photoshop the models to look completely unnatural... they photoshopped them straight into the Uncanny Valley. And the clothes she's wearing don't even look real, so it's pretty much a failure as an advert for clothes. They look like something one of my Sims would wear.

MizzLolly

One of the major problems I have with the modelling industry is how young some of these girls begin. If I recall correctly, the girl in question here began modelling for them at 15/16. That, alone, should tell the people at RL that their image is unreasonable and unrealistic. At that age you are not fully developed. Your hips may well get bigger, your chest will grow and you'll generally just fill your frame out a little bit more as you get older. Why on earth can't they use adult models to fit into their clothes? Surely if they need 15 year old models to do their shoots it should indicate to them that their sizes are ridiculous and that their clothing is far from accessible to normal, every-day women?!

Just something that bothers me tbh. If they claim to make clothes for real people, they should have real people modelling. Not barely legal girls who aren't even fully grown yet!

Blowfish

It's an uncanny resemblance:

CathyMoran

It reminds me - when I was 17 I had done a bit of fashion modeling...am only 5ft 2 in so it was petite...was 7.5 stone, they told me I needed to loose a stone for starters, I told them where to go...

It is funny that the only place where the models seem to be allowed to enjoy food is in the maternity fashion mags.

speedboatchase

Why do people care so much about the modelling industry, do you actually own or regularly buy the haute couture items that appear on these catwalks? It's the designers prerogative to choose how best to showcase their collection and whilst I personally am not attracted to the shape they want, it's not about appealing to "real women". Real women can't afford the clothes and aren't 6,3, and if the models were a size 14 and 5,3, the clothes themselves wouldn't look as they're supposed to and probably wouldn't look as appealing

I never seen men complaining when those Beckham Armani ads came out, claiming he was promoted an unhealthy image and making us feel bad, that we should be looking at a guy with moobs or a beer belly to make us "real men" feel better about themselves. Advertising and modelling are in the realm of fantasy and image projection, the only thing RL are guilty of is having dodgy photoshop artists, every other action is perfectly within their right

shellyboo

speedboatchase wrote: »

I never seen men complaining when those Beckham Armani ads came out, claiming he was promoted an unhealthy image and making us feel bad, that we should be looking at a guy with moobs or a beer belly to make us "real men" feel better about themselves. Advertising and modelling are in the realm of fantasy and image projection, the only thing RL are guilty of is having dodgy photoshop artists, every other action is perfectly within their right

What? How is David Beckham in any way, shape or form promoting an "unhealthy" body image? He's probably one of the fittest, healthiest people on the planet. I mean, look at him...





That's the image you're talking about, right? Is it unrealistic? Yes, for most normal men who aren't professional athletes, it's probably a tad unrealistic. Is it unhealthy? Fcuk no. If men out there want to go make themselves look like David Beckham, that involves improving their fitness, health and physique. If women want to look like these Ralph Lauren images, that involves starving themselves to an unhealthy degree - we're talking eating disorder levels.


There's a clear difference between the two scenarios.

Wibbs

Gauge wrote: »

Been watching this doing the rounds on my RSS feeds all week... Ralph Lauren pretty much managed to turn it into a giant PR screwup.

The image was posted on Photoshop Disasters because... well, yeah. Ralph Lauren then DCMA'd them and boingboing.net.

They released a statement which was a nice gesture I guess. Not sure how sincere it is, seeing as they probably only released it as damage control when seeing how well the DCMAs worked out:

"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."

Here's another image from them (from Sydney, Australia):




They're just... insane really. They didn't just photoshop the models to look completely unnatural... they photoshopped them straight into the Uncanny Valley. And the clothes she's wearing don't even look real, so it's pretty much a failure as an advert for clothes. They look like something one of my Sims would wear.

TBH the more I'm reading about this and seeing some of the images, I'm thinking that there's a windup going on here. That last image is a good example. There's no way in hell even a small local ad agency would let that out. Not because of the size stuff, but simply because it's incredibly amateurish. It's utter crap. The original image is not much better. maybe someone in Tokyo had a grudge or lost a contract and it got out that way?

Though Ralph Lauren are getting plenty of airtime on this. Hmmmmm

speedboatchase

Well unhealthy is obviously a wrong choice of words but the point I would make is that fashion models, be they catwalk or underwear will always have ridiculous levels of body fat and are meant to be exactly how the designers want their designs reflected rather than how WE might want them to look or what makes us feel better about ourselves. Underwear models have a bit more to meat on their bones, male and female but catwalk models male and female are always skinny rakes. This clothing model for ASOS is horribly skinny IMO http://www.asos.com/Unconditional/Unconditional-Wrap-Over-Jumper/Prod/pgeproduct.aspx?iid=711113&cid=6946&sh=0&pge=0&pgesize=20&sort=-1&clr=Aubergine for example but it doesn't bother me and I don't immediately want to throw up my lunch or feel like any other guy would to look like that.

The RL thing is clearly being blown out of proportion. It was clearly was a mistake to print the original ad because the photoshop is just so laughable, whilst if the model was fired because she broke terms of her contracts, that's RL's prerogative and none of our business. I don't see the point of people getting their knickers in a bunch over all this and I agree with Lagerfelds comments during the week, though maybe not the tone.

Handsome Bob

shellyboo wrote: »

What? How is David Beckham in any way, shape or form promoting an "unhealthy" body image? He's probably one of the fittest, healthiest people on the planet. I mean, look at him...

That's the image you're talking about, right? Is it unrealistic? Yes, for most normal men who aren't professional athletes, it's probably a tad unrealistic. Is it unhealthy? Fcuk no. If men out there want to go make themselves look like David Beckham, that involves improving their fitness, health and physique. If women want to look like these Ralph Lauren images, that involves starving themselves to an unhealthy degree - we're talking eating disorder levels.


There's a clear difference between the two scenarios.

I'd say it could be mentally unhealthy for a man to be overwhelmed with such images.

What if you are some poor soul who doesn't have the looks or the bone structure to be any where near as good looking as David Beckham. Someone could drive themeselves around the bend trying but failing to live up to the standard set by the media. I know a guy who would always get dogs abuse for being very thin and gangly. He could never get a girlfriend and was known as the bloke who pandered to women to embarassing levels, only to be humiliated by them in the end. Eventually he, along with a friend, decided to hit the gym and adapt a red meat diet. The poor guy tried his best and did everything his friend did, but he stayed the same while his mate became ripped.

He did everything he possibly could of to improve his image but his body just wouldn't allow it. He gets laughed at by so many people and it really is sad to see. So I believe it works both ways, both genders can do untold damage to themselves mentally by pursuing an impossible standard.

Oh and Beck's bulge is totally photoshopped in that picture. :pac:

shellyboo

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'd say it could be mentally unhealthy for a man to be overwhelmed with such images.

I agree, the pressure is psychologically unhealthy for both genders.

But physically, to look like David Beckham is not unhealthy. You would be putting your life in danger to look as thin as those RL pictures though.

confusticated

MizzLolly wrote: »

One of the major problems I have with the modelling industry is how young some of these girls begin. If I recall correctly, the girl in question here began modelling for them at 15/16. That, alone, should tell the people at RL that their image is unreasonable and unrealistic. At that age you are not fully developed. Your hips may well get bigger, your chest will grow and you'll generally just fill your frame out a little bit more as you get older. Why on earth can't they use adult models to fit into their clothes? Surely if they need 15 year old models to do their shoots it should indicate to them that their sizes are ridiculous and that their clothing is far from accessible to normal, every-day women?!

Just something that bothers me tbh. If they claim to make clothes for real people, they should have real people modelling. Not barely legal girls who aren't even fully grown yet!

I agree if she was modelling grown women's clothes when she was 15, but aren't there RL clothes for kids too? Just saying she might've been modelling her own age group's clothes then.

Lockstep

Christ, just looking at the second picture gives me the heebie jeebies. It's unsettling.

It's just...wrong, on so many levels.

r3nu4l

liah wrote: »

I don't buy that part, though, which is why I didn't quote it.

They can't mistakenly release something like that. It has to go through editors, the heads, publishers, etc. before it's released. How they can do all that by mistake is well beyond me, for that many people to approve it before it gets sent out and not ONE of them realised it was a mistake prior to release? It just sounds like they're trying to cover their asses.

Erm, images like that CAN be mistakenly released. I don't work in advertising but I do work in medical communications and we are constantly firing edited, unapproved files back and forth between ourselves and our clients until finally the medical teams, regulatory and legal teams approve the final file. We have systems in place to make sure that only the final approved artwork goes to print but last year on one project we sent out the wrong file to a printer and only noticed the error two days before it was due to ship globally :mad:
It CAN happen and it DOES occasionally happen, all you can do after that is take steps to alter your processes. It may also be that it was someone's last day on the job and they deliberately (as a joke) sent out the wrong image, thinking someone would notice and query it but that never happened and it went to print.

The truth is that when we have already made up our minds we get tunnel vision and don't want to see the other side of the story.

It seems to me that you have made up your mind that RL are the 'big bad fashion company promoting anorexia' and that you are unwilling to consider that it could have been a simple, human error.

Don't get me wrong, I despise RL and most other 'fashion' labels for their portrayal of the perfect woman and the way they convince people that a pair of their jeans are somehow worth over €90 :rolleyes: when the same quality and fit can be got for €40 or so in some other shops so I'm no defender of them. I have however seen stupid mistakes made by companies in the past and know that this can happen.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I call that good PR backtracking.

This doesn't surprise me to be honest, for anyone who has had to endure Janice Dickinson's show you'll know what I'm on about.

Don't get me started on JD
See above for the rest. It may be good PR back track but it may also have been a genuine mistake that is going to cost someone their job and any future career in the fashion and advertising world. Bye bye career.

Any key?

yes it is may seem ridiculous and even unethical but she did not fulfil the criteria her employers expected when they hired her to do the job

RL wanted that skinnier than thou image

Its like if a football team bought a footballer and he didin't meet their expectations.He would be sold because It wasn't working for that team.

I know the skinny image is unrealistic but the fashion world is retarded.

liah

r3nu4l wrote: »

Erm, images like that CAN be mistakenly released. I don't work in advertising but I do work in medical communications and we are constantly firing edited, unapproved files back and forth between ourselves and our clients until finally the medical teams, regulatory and legal teams approve the final file. We have systems in place to make sure that only the final approved artwork goes to print but last year on one project we sent out the wrong file to a printer and only noticed the error two days before it was due to ship globally :mad:
It CAN happen and it DOES occasionally happen, all you can do after that is take steps to alter your processes. It may also be that it was someone's last day on the job and they deliberately (as a joke) sent out the wrong image, thinking someone would notice and query it but that never happened and it went to print.

The truth is that when we have already made up our minds we get tunnel vision and don't want to see the other side of the story.

It seems to me that you have made up your mind that RL are the 'big bad fashion company promoting anorexia' and that you are unwilling to consider that it could have been a simple, human error.

Don't get me wrong, I despise RL and most other 'fashion' labels for their portrayal of the perfect woman and the way they convince people that a pair of their jeans are somehow worth over €90 :rolleyes: when the same quality and fit can be got for €40 or so in some other shops so I'm no defender of them. I have however seen stupid mistakes made by companies in the past and know that this can happen.


Don't get me started on JD
See above for the rest. It may be good PR back track but it may also have been a genuine mistake that is going to cost someone their job and any future career in the fashion and advertising world. Bye bye career.

I recognize it could be down to human error, but the simple fact that there is a SECOND image (in this thread if you're curious/haven't seen it yet) with a completely different model kind of makes up my mind that it's hard for it to be anything but deliberate and that they're trying to cover their asses.

Once, maybe. MAYBE. But twice..? Don't think so.

needcar

tbh, i dont think there is much difference between the 2 photos, the first one is taken at a different angle with light coming in behind her, and she is wearing a baggy white vest- you can see that her hips even in this photo are not in proportion to her shoulders and her head still looks huge. the second photo contains a really awful pose but her hips are slightly turned to the side too so they do appear very strange. Her legs and arms look the same width though, so i'm not sure there was much of a touch up done.

sunnyjim

Tbh 120lbs is a bit chubby. That's like 60kg or something. If she's gonna let herself go and go from a size 6 to a size 8 she has to expect that they'll let her go.

*jk btw

Thomas828

It's a generally accepted fact that Ralph Lauren and their ilk don't live in the real world and they don't make clothes for real people. There's no point in getting hot under the collar about them. Because they're not worth it.

rannerap

the second picture is just scary tbh,no wonder most women have body issues with pictures like that to compare themselves to in the media

*giggles*

I'm not trying to be all like "big girls are better and more beautiful" or anything, but seriously, who are they trying to fool? She looks terrible in the second photo, the clothes don't even look good on her.


Maybe they were taking a hint from this guy:

Nick_oliveri

Relax..dont do it..

Sangre

Think must a huge wind up. The human brain would not register that 2nd photoshopped pic as a real person, or the first one for that matter. I think people are jumping too readily on this in order to bash the evil fashion industry.