Eliot 19 Sep 06

Do either of those women *need* to be slimmed? What a weird feature.

Thijs van der Vossen 19 Sep 06

They just made me never buy a HP product again…

meh 19 Sep 06

I thought this was a joke. Given all the controversy surrounding HP recently, what a poor product feature choice. This is bound to get bad press.

Darrell 19 Sep 06

Wow. What a statement on HP and society.

my photog's secret 19 Sep 06

I just refuse to take pictures of fatties. They take up too much space on my memory card.

Mark 19 Sep 06

Why are ya’ll so put off by this? Photoshop has had the ability to do this forever - are you going stop buying Adobe products too?

HP is all about pushing the boundaries of innovation now. Sure, it could be considered “icky” for them to build this kind of feature, but you can’t argue the innovativeness of it.

At least they did something other than add reflection filters.

justin 19 Sep 06

“Yeah, I put on a few pounds since that photo was taken…”

Darrel 19 Sep 06

I’m squishing your head!

“Why are ya�ll so put off by this? Photoshop has had the ability to do this forever - are you going stop buying Adobe products too?”

I don’t think Photoshop calls it ‘fat chick filter’ and markets it as such.

“but you can�t argue the innovativeness of it”

How is it innovative when you yourself point out any image editing software has been able to do this for years?

sb 19 Sep 06

can you make yourself fatter as well?

rafi 19 Sep 06

I don’t think it’s bad rap for HP - it’s just a reality check - we’re fat. Cudos to HP for recognizing it how awful americans are and trying to make a buck.
I’m buying one!

Sharp Lily 19 Sep 06

Never buying an HP product again seems a bit harsh, but how do you explain to people who actually see you in person, though? “I’m vain.” ??

Peter 19 Sep 06

sb: in the demo it shows the slider starting in the middle, so presumably yes, you can fatten up your subjects too.

Mark 19 Sep 06

Because Darrel,

HP innovated the new function within the camera and eliminated the need for third party post.

Like it or not, that’s innovative.

Mark 19 Sep 06

Because Darrel,

HP innovated the new function within the camera and eliminated the need for third party post.

Like it or not, that’s innovative.

Dan Boland 19 Sep 06

So even thin women need the slimming effect? Geez, no wonder so many women have eating disorders.

Jeff Croft 19 Sep 06

I would be more interested in a “bigger ta-tas” feature, myself.

Joe Ruby 19 Sep 06

Heh, too funny. And a sad commentary about our increasingly obese society.

As for the story behind it, it’s likely due to recently publicized photos of Rosie O’Donnell and Katie Couric in which they were also “slimmed.” I wouldn’t doubt at all that HP’s is trying to capitalize off that.

Sean 19 Sep 06

“I would be more interested in a �bigger ta-tas� feature, myself.”

Isn’t that what MyFreeImplants.com is for?

Stephan Cleaves 19 Sep 06

Hrm, you move the slider toward the + (plus) sign to slim the subject, shouldn’t it go toward the - (minus) sign? Also the slider appears to start in the middle so apparently you can also widen your subject which would make it a thickening effect :)

Glenn Davies 19 Sep 06

Who ever came up with this twisted idea makes all marketers look very bad. Just when some people are looking at regulating how gaunt a runway model can be, HP says to every young woman (the target audience is the woman in the ad), “you must look thinner” to look “right”.

Wow, someone call Donald Trump - someone needs to get FIRED!

Stephan Cleaves 19 Sep 06

Hrm, you move the slider toward the + (plus) sign to slim the subject, shouldn’t it go toward the - (minus) sign? Also the slider appears to start in the middle so apparently you can also widen your subject which would make it a thickening effect! Now you can see how you’ll look after a week of eating junk food :)

Glenn Davies 19 Sep 06

Who ever came up with this twisted idea makes all marketers look very bad. Just when some people are looking at regulating how gaunt a runway model can be, HP says to every young woman (the target audience is the woman in the ad), “you must look thinner” to look “right”.

Wow, someone call Donald Trump - someone needs to get FIRED!

tim parsons 19 Sep 06

What a horrible idea… a lot women in America and a few other countries already have a bad self image of themselves. This just helps make it worse. Advertising, marketing, fashion and now technology companies are pushing towards making it seem that every women should be the same size.

There is variety and beauty in all creation. Maybe HP needs to take a closer look.

Bad idea… plain and simple.

Kevin 19 Sep 06

The sad part is that this was shown to me by someone who isn’t design-savvy at all, and thought it was a great idea.

People (americans) who aren’t the hip socially-conscious type immediately think it’s great and have a “what’ll-they-think-of-next” response. It’s nauseating, but true. I’m sure HP knows this, and there are many more of “them” than “us”.

Don Wilson 19 Sep 06

Sounds like everyone in the comments, even the original poster, is suggesting that HP thinks women “NEED” to be slimmer. Stop acting like this is such a horrible thing. What can actually be considered horrible is if they build in an auto-slimming feature. Keyword: auto

But, svn readers we are, let’s look at it at face value (if it’s something appearently bad), and degrade it all we can without thinking outside the box.

Kevin 19 Sep 06

Reality =
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2462444

I give up. We’re doomed

beto 19 Sep 06

I first thought it was a practical joke of yours. Then I followed the link.

Corny and tasteless, yes, but darned if they won’t sell like hotcakes in America. You know what I mean.

Morgan Spurlock is probably laughing his ass off at this.

Joe Ruby 19 Sep 06

“apparently you can also widen your subject which would make it a thickening effect”

That’s for taking pictures of anorexic models. ;P

Right, Don Wilson, what else are you gonna use this “feature” for?

indi 19 Sep 06

Might be useful for someone who really is overweight and wants to see what they would look like slimmer, or who wants to send “slim” photos to family and friends who haven’t seen them in a while. I don’t think the models shown are the real target audience … I think Joe’s right about the Rosie O�Donnell and Katie Couric angle here.

beth 19 Sep 06

Some Myspacer somewhere is rejoicing.

Seth Thomas Rasmussen 19 Sep 06

The only thing more pathetic than this idea and the people who came up with it are the people who would attempt to defend it, whether through purchasing this product or coming in here and trumpeting irrelevant platitudes something like “this is innovative.”

“Innovative” does not necessarily imply that something is good, and simply stating that something is supposedly innovative does not make your commentary relevant.

But thanks for the hot air.

Gayle 19 Sep 06

Are you fucking kidding me?

Oh god, you’re not.

Gross.

Dan Boland 19 Sep 06

Sounds like everyone in the comments, even the original poster, is suggesting that HP thinks women �NEED� to be slimmer.

So you don’t think it’s distasteful as hell to use a woman who’s already thin and healthy-looking as the example of the new feature? That’s the part that gets me the most — the message that “you can always be thinner.” What marketers everywhere seem to forget is that girls are picking up on these messages in droves. Eating disorders are well on their way to being an epidemic in this country, and no one seems to give a shit.

Seth Thomas Rasmussen 19 Sep 06

The problem with that argument, Senor Boland and the rest, is that it’s not ultimately the responsibility of HP or [insert glamour mag here] to keep some would-be-fatty from gorging themselves.

We should not reward this kind of behavior, but we should not act like this is the equivalent of forcing somebody to do anything.

Martin Stanhope 19 Sep 06

It’s brown Zune colour again!

p-daddy 19 Sep 06

I bought the camera and the actual filter settings are as follows:

Jupiter

Mad William Flint 19 Sep 06

Hey, if you can turn the dial the other way I’m in.

And btw: While not exactly svelt, we’re far from being as fat as they say we are.

Andy Lee 19 Sep 06

I’m just pissed they don’t have a “make taller” option. Bastards.

Andy Lee 19 Sep 06

I’m just pissed they don’t have a “make taller” option. Bastards.

p-daddy 19 Sep 06

that should’ve read:

Jupiter>Roseanne Barr>Rosie O’Donnell>Your wife after 15 years>Big Pussy from the Sopranos>Your Uncle>Your actual girlfriend>12 beer goggles>The girl who just blew you off at the bar>Kate Hudson>Paris Hilton>Kate Moss>Paramecium

Joe Grossberg 19 Sep 06

“‘Innovative’ does not necessarily imply that something is good, and simply stating that something is supposedly innovative does not make your commentary relevant.”

Exactly. I doubt people would be so openly excited about a “make the subject look more Anglo-Saxon” feature.

Our culture’s conception of beauty is unacceptably narrow (pun intended) and marketing like this is exploiting and perpetuating this societal disease.

Aaron Blohowiak 19 Sep 06

FLCL anyone?

Mark 19 Sep 06

Thank you, Matt.

Shakti 19 Sep 06

It’s disappointing to see that nearly everyone, before knowing much about the origination of this feature, is already flaming. Even the usually more analytical, less-bandwagonish like Gruber have entered the fray. HP provides a service; the market decides if it’s a good one. Who the hell are you (or me) to tell fat women if they should or shouldn’t digitally slim themselves in pictures? Yes, I said women, and yes HP seems (again, this is pure conjecture) to be targetting women because THAT’s probably where they’ll get — according to market research — the most bang for their buck.

Seth gets it. Give that holier-than-thou attitude a rest.

Jef 19 Sep 06

Anyone who thinks this ISN’T twisted should ask themselves why there are no men or children in the examples.

Many camcorders in the past have had “squeeze” and “stretch” effects, but they were marketed as goofy, gimicky toy-like features for anyone to play with. Nothing more.

HP’s message HERE is that women look terrible and must be made skinnier to look better.

It’s not the technology, it’s the marketing. And this particular marketing sucks.

Shane 19 Sep 06

Dove put a dent in traditional marketing by promoting somewhat real looking women in its ads. HP just came and pushed that dent back in. What a shame.

Jef 19 Sep 06

Anyone who thinks this ISN’T twisted should ask themselves why there are no men or children in the examples.

Many camcorders in the past have had “squeeze” and “stretch” effects, but they were marketed as goofy, gimicky toy-like features for anyone to play with. Nothing more.

HP’s message HERE is that women look terrible and must be made skinnier to look better.

It’s not the technology, it’s the marketing. And this particular marketing sucks.

Will 19 Sep 06

They probably used thin women in their demo because the software probably doesn’t work very well and “thinning” out an actual fat person would result in an end result that looked like crap and wouldn’t sell the feature.

So if you take someone who looks good already, reduce their width by 5%, they still look good and the resulting image manipulation doesn’t look stupid.

Either way, a stupid feature for a stupid company.

Aaron 19 Sep 06

Poor advert choice. Unfortunately it might work. Probably next we will see one that auto-filters off blemishes. Sigh

Funny though is that if you have a double chin, it will just look like a very long double chin…

Jef 19 Sep 06

Who the hell are you (or me) to tell fat women if they should or shouldn�t digitally slim themselves in pictures?
===========

So if HP comes out with a camer that makes black people look whiter, lessons “Jewish Features” or enlarges women’s breasts you’d just say “market demand!” and deny that there’s anything wrong with that?

Surely some people would use those features, so why not??

Here’s the thing: Photoshop can do all of these things and more and there’s NOTHING wrong with that. If someone really wants to do any of these things, that’s fine by me.

What I object to is the fact that it’s being built in as an everyday feature to the camera. Photoshop exists if you ever need to do this. Building it into the camera and advertising it in this way clearly takes it from “you can do this if you need to” and raises it to “you should use this feature all the time because you need it!”

That’s a big difference and THAT’s the problem. I have no issue with the technology…it already exists. It’s the implementation and the marketing in THIS case that’s the problem.

hirbie 19 Sep 06

I am so confident in my physical appearance that it offends me that I grew up in a culture which supports a lack of confidence in one’s physical appearance. Shame on us. You too HP.

Drew Pickard 19 Sep 06

Uh, Photoshop does not have a “slimming” filter.

Photoshop has a bunch of painting and general photo-manipulation tools.
Photoshop doesn’t adjust model photos - people do.

Now, if Adobe created a filter named “Binge & Purge” we might have a real comparison here.
Regardless, it would still happily fall under the “Filter> Distort” file menu. :)

Shakti 19 Sep 06

Jef, I admire your enthusiasm, but unfortunately you are argument is not relevant. Actually, you’re caught up in a variant of the Straw Man fallacy. Look it up.

Jef 19 Sep 06

Shakti, I understand straw-men and do admit my attempt at an analogy was too clumsy and ineffective. It was not my intention to create a straw man, but I should have thought that one through a little better.

But I do want to repeat what I feel was the only good part of my last post:
===
Building it into the camera and advertising it in this way clearly takes it from �you can do this if you need to� and raises it to �you should use this feature all the time because you need it!�
===

I feel no regret about THIS part of my statement as I feel it sums everything up nicely. Quite simply, just about all advertising sends the message �you�re not good enough.� If it didn�t what would move people to buy their product? That�s pretty normal, but it�s the ads that take on subject matters like this that lead to problems.

Tell me I�m not good enough because I wear the wrong clothes and I might waste money at the GAP. Tell me that I�m too fat, however, and you have to wonder just how much your ads contribute to America�s every-present eating-disorders.

ALL advertising is a bit evil, and we live with that. I�m not here to bring down the system. It�s the ads that cross over from �a bit evil� into �quite a bit more evil� that catch my attention. I�d count this as one of them.

wismari 19 Sep 06

Any thoughts on the functionality and results? I enjoy SvN because of the comments generated on usability and design aspects. Everyone seems to have jumped on the body issue-node of this feature. Any thoughts on the results the “artistic effect” this might produce in the hands of a regular user?

wismari 19 Sep 06

Any thoughts on the functionality and results? I enjoy SvN because of the comments generated on usability and design aspects. Everyone seems to have jumped on the bodyissue node of this feature. Any thoughts on the results the “artistic effect” this might produce in the hands of a regular user?

H.B. 19 Sep 06

“…it�s grossly irresponsible to add a feature to a consumer device that is almost certainly to be a contributing factor in the development of eating disorders like anorexia nervosa and eating disorders like body dysmorphic disorder.”

I think that you’ve still got some work to do to prove your claim that it is “almost certain to be a contributing factor in the development of eating disorders…” I for one don’t believe that a digital camera has that much influence. Without providing any sort of evidence, I could just as easily claim that it will lower such disorders, as people will be less worried about having their pictures taken now.

My point isn’t that this is the case, only that you’re making a claim that seems very overboard.

Roy 19 Sep 06

I wish people would quit assuming companies should take more responsibility for shaping opinions and tastes. Doing so seems to suggest that you’ve abdicated your responsibility to do that for yourself.

Or is it just other people — the unthinking ones — you are worried about?

If you disapprove, don’t buy the camera.

Jim 19 Sep 06

How would the ad have looked if HP was targeting the camera’s “negative slimming” abilities at male college students?

What would they call that feature?

How about “chubbify”? “broaden her horizons”? “engorge”? “massive attack”? “swollen pride”?

Ah, fun in the dorm…

We might even start seeing more self-portraits on Flickr. I can’t wait.

Jen 19 Sep 06

Roy is wrong.

Mark Gallagher 19 Sep 06

You have to admit it, the UI of this feature is nice and simple.

The demo is also simple and well done.

A bit wacky …. yes, but a mild offense compared to the many other things in life to rant about in our blogs.

nex 19 Sep 06

me, i’m just not able to “never buy an HP product again”. you see, i haven’t ever bought an HP product in the first place.

D Zine 19 Sep 06

I don’t think this is such a bad _feature_, (especially if “the camera does put on a 10 pounds”). In fact it might educate people even more that tabloid/celeb/ad photos really are about post editing. Some people still take the covers photos they see as gospel. (No one’s that hot in real life….except maybe Ms. Alba).

It can be a fun tool (think Photo Booth) but the _marketing_ *yikes* is just what’s embarrassing and in poor taste for HP.

Joe Ruby 19 Sep 06

ML: Blame the buyers, not the producers? That’s like saying blame the drug users, not the drug dealers.

Anyhoo, this camera or those who’d want to buy it doesn’t bother me — they’re both silly. Besides, I’m gonna create my own camera that has a “tan” filter — it’ll be a huge hit with pale-skinned geeks!

Chris Carter 19 Sep 06

Shame on HP for selling a product people will actually buy.

If you want to combat anorexia and eating disorders then quit:

1. Watching television
2. Watching movies
3. Buying magazines
4. Playing video games
5. Buying “lean” foods
6. Ogling women

HP isn’t causing any problems with this, its just given some needy people what they want. You know what I’m sick of? This whiny, PC attitude that society is somehow responsible for causing and fixing someone’s insecurities and problems. I know that sounds callous, but we’ve gotten way too used to people doing things for us and not fixing ourselves.

End rant.

Torley 19 Sep 06

Is that some sort of pinch distortion? Seems like a more layman understanding applied to a visual trick.

Also seems like whoever’s photo is being taken has to be in the center for it to work, otherwise you might as well be slimming down a pot of coffee or some trees. :)

Seth Thomas Rasmussen 19 Sep 06

Jen is a sheep. Bray on, future sweater.

And yes, Joe Ruby, you blame the drug users for being drug users. Your unspoken assertion that the dealers make the users is so ridiculous, I can’t even begin to wonder how you might think it fits in any semblance of an interpretation of reality.

You can’t turn around without seeing ads for nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, pain relievers, etc. etc. etc. Do you do them all simply because you’re offered? Give us a fucking break, and come back to reality, bud.

Captain Seth 19 Sep 06

Ahoy! I nearly fergot what day ‘tis.

Avast, mateys, and make yer own choices. ‘Tis all we’ve got, when all is done and plundered.

Aye. Arr.

Kelly Smith 19 Sep 06

Heh heh…I good go on for days with those new Photoshop filters. In fact, might go ahead and build some:

Filter> Distort>Puke&Binge
Filter> Distort>BackShave
Filter> Artistic>De-fugly
Filter> Render>SmoothFat
Filter> Stylize>MakeKateMoss
Filter>Artistic>RemoveTwinkyEffect
Filter> Render>Liposuck
Filter> Distort>FattyRender

indi 19 Sep 06

I’d just like to point out that at the bottom of the demo page at HP they do have a picture of a chubby guy.

I don’t quite understand the argument that this feature condones or encourages anorexia or bulemia. If anything it is a side-effect of our looks-conscious society. Or perhaps HP is recognizing the obesity explosion and seeing a market for people who just don’t want to deal with their real looks. I’m not saying that’s socially healthy, but it is capatism at its finest.

Aaron Blohowiak 19 Sep 06

Smooth out the wrinkles.

theorist 20 Sep 06

What a rip-off. Those trees don’t look any slimmer in the second photo.

Jon H 20 Sep 06

I suppose it would help if they could come up with a person who actually looks fatter than they are in a regular photo, for whom the ‘thinned’ picture is actually more accurate.

Spike 20 Sep 06

“only uses women models � perfectly healthy looking woman at that.”

women.

Linsey Dawn McKenzie 20 Sep 06

I doubt that any woman will buy an HP product once they see this. Its vile. Women have enough pressure on them to comfirm to society when it comes to their figure without a computer company adding to the pressure. Don’t these people have any sort of brain? Who is controlling the advertising?

Joe Ruby 20 Sep 06

LOL, how idiotic, Seth Thomas Rasmussen — drug dealers are completely innocent? And you’re also saying that ads have no effect whatsoever? I think you need to stop using yourself, “bud.”

Gayle 20 Sep 06

Interesting how the usernames of most of the people who think we need to get over this seem to be male (with some exceptions, in both directions). It’s easier for y’all; you don’t have cosmo and project runway and eat lite and stores whose clothes only go up to size 12 yelling at you from every angle that you’re too fat. Every woman I’ve shown it to has been disgusted. It’s yet another pressure, yet another product that tells us we need to be thin, we should WANT to be thin. It’s infuriating. I don’t give a flying fluck who you are, NOBODY needs a slimming feature.

*fume*

Darrel 20 Sep 06

“This is our society�s problem, not HP�s. Don�t blame the dealer, blame the user.”

Blame both. It’s usually the fault of both parties. Two to tango and all that…

Darrel 20 Sep 06

“I wish people would quit assuming companies should take more responsibility for shaping opinions and tastes. Doing so seems to suggest that you�ve abdicated your responsibility to do that for yourself.”

Yes, why can’t the entire planet stop caving into peer pressure? Stupid human race. But god bless those intelligent corporations. They know what’s best for us.

“And you�re also saying that ads have no effect whatsoever?”

Pfft. “ads”. They are not ads…they are public service announcements. How are we idiot consumers supposed to know what’s best for us if not for the kind hearted corporations who keep us informed with a daily stream of quality public service announcements? As a male, I was completely oblivious to the disgusting body hair on my body. If it weren’t for the generous contributions of corporate america, I woudl have never realized that I am a better man for spending my money on quality products and services like body razors, male wax systems, and that fancy Axe body spray. Had it not been for the big heartedness of these industries, I might have just assumed a bit of chest hair was normal. I would have been a freak of nature! THANK YOU CORPORATE AMERICA!

wiley 20 Sep 06

Yeah…well, this is a feature that screams gimmick — you know — like “GIMMICK.” Innovation would be some sort of advanced image stabilization, metering, etc.

Let’s be honest: HP has to go up against Nikon, Canon, Olympus, et al., The question is the what and the how. Panasonic seemed to manage it…

Who knows? Maybe Jay Z is behind it. Maybe needed the HP needed this camera for its secret investigations…

wiley 20 Sep 06

Yeah…well, this is a feature that screams gimmick — you know — like “GIMMICK.” Innovation would be some sort of advanced image stabilization, metering, etc.

Let’s be honest: HP has to go up against Nikon, Canon, Olympus, et al., The question is the what and the how. Panasonic seemed to manage it…

Who knows? Maybe Jay Z is behind it. Maybe HP needed this camera for its secret investigations…

Tim B 20 Sep 06

From TUAW:
“HP wants a little slice of the cool for themselves. They have hired a former Apple marketing exec to launch a revamped advertising campaign to get the kids thinking that HP is cool.”

They might get the Kids think that they’re cool, but I doubt any women will agree… and most men too. This is just lame. Boo HP, Booooo !

Jina Bolton 20 Sep 06

Ugh. You’ve got to be kidding me.

M 20 Sep 06

Weird.

Actually, the actual version of the pic looks much better than the slimmer one.

I think HP is just running out of ideas.

M 20 Sep 06

Weird.

Actually, the actual version of the pic looks much better than the slimmer one.

I think HP is just running out of ideas.

Jeff Hartman 20 Sep 06

Wonder what would happen to pictures of the stick thin Nicole Ritchie or Paris Hilton. Would they disappear with that feature?

Let’s hope.

Linsey Dawn McKenzie 20 Sep 06

Jeff, if HP could make a product that makes Ritchie and Hilton disappear they would have a winner on their hands! I”d buy one for a start! Seriously though, it is a vile marketing gimmick

Kevin Buchanan 20 Sep 06

Is it just me, or do neither of the women featured in the demos need any slimming at all? The first woman looks perfectly healthy, and the girl in the jeans looked a bit too skinny *before* the slimming feature was used.

Ryan Doherty 20 Sep 06

Here’s my response through their contact form:

I recently saw that there is a new slimming feature that comes with HP cameras. I am incredibly disgusted first of all that the slimming feature is used on perfectly normal women who don�t need to look any thinner. Second, I am even more disgusted that HP has decided to follow suit with America�s horrible fixation with dangerously thin models and women.

I expect more of HP and their products. I can�t believe this idea got anywhere. I don�t see how no one at HP stood up and said this is a stupid, useless feature.

While I haven�t purchased many HP products in the past, I certainly won�t be purchasing any in the future and I will be sure to tell my friends and family about this new, terrible feature.

HP has a great brand image and does make quality products, but this feature does not fit with it.

Hope that gets through to someone!

Chris 20 Sep 06

That is crazy!

Latepass 20 Sep 06

You guys are late on this one—they announced this feature in cameras months ago.

I think we could all use a chill pill—its a fun feature—and like somebody else said, you’ve been able to do this with Adobe PS forever. And other cameras have features that let you brighten skin tones—is it a shame that those vendors are promoting skin cancer?

Latepass 20 Sep 06

You guys are late on this one—they announced this feature in cameras months ago.

I think we could all use a chill pill—its a fun feature—and like somebody else said, you’ve been able to do this with Adobe PS forever. And other cameras have features that let you brighten skin tones—is it a shame that those vendors are promoting skin cancer?

Anonymous 21 Sep 06

How ‘bout some exercise!? GEE, there’s an idea.

jenn.suz.hoy 21 Sep 06

I think we’ve just found 2006’s anorexia scapegoat…

Better yet, who DOESN’T want all their pictures to look like various pictures of the same skinny person in wigs? Personally, I put all my pictures into Photoshop, make them look taller, thinner, give them virtual breast implants and a little collagen in the lips.

mark j 21 Sep 06

People need to get over their vanity it’s no good for them or people around them, bottom line - HP as a global blue chip company needs to have more of a moral sense-check. A “Slimming Feature” is a very crude and immoral way of shipping units.

Numinous 21 Sep 06

I won’t attempt to comment on whether or not the inclusion of the feature is moral—that’s way beyond the scope of a comment on a blog.

I will say, however, that emaciated women aren’t attractive, and the woman as pictured in the original is more attractive than she is after being thinned.

mark j 22 Sep 06

the woman as pictured in the original is more attractive than she is after being thinned.

very true, maybe there’s nothing “morally” wrong in what HP are doing with this feature. Giving that their filter is crap at making people look “good” after being “slimmed”, it is in essence saying to the viewer - “you look good as you are, you don’t need to be slimmer”.

Who knows what they’re playing at!?

Sebhelyesfarku 22 Sep 06

Ryan Doherty is a moron.

fred 22 Sep 06

they should start thinking about improving their image quality instead of adding useless options.

Ernie Oporto 22 Sep 06

In the future, all photos will be doctored in some way, leading photographs to be unreliable and unadmissible. Tech will improve to the point you won’t be able to tell the difference at the hands of a skilled forger.

Ken 22 Sep 06

Let me ask you guys a question- Have any of you ever heeded the advice of some expert in the fashion industry who said that wearing black could make you look slimmer or that avoiding clothes with horizontal stripes was a good thing? If so, I would say the you are not in a place to pass judgement on a feature like this. This appears to be nothing new. HP just allows you to do it in the camera instead of your computer.

If I am not mistaken this effect is part of a bigger feature in the camera with many other filters that will affect a picture in different ways. Perhaps they intended to give the user some creative freeedom in their photographs, not make everyone think there are overweight

ceejayoz 24 Sep 06

All the “Adobe Photoshop lets you do this” folks are missing one thing - Adobe PS isn’t *advertised to the public* for that purpose.

Deeply Concerned 26 Sep 06

BOYCOTT HP’s PRODUCTS!!! WOMEN AND SOCIETY DESERVE MORE THAN THIS!!! DON’T SELL YOURSELF TO THE ECONOMY!

Rick 27 Sep 06

Last year’s Christmas card… 4 members of the family asked for my photoshop skilz to help them with a similar “slimming effect”, so I bet it is an attractive feature.

Francis Shephard 29 Sep 06

The issue is body dismorphia - as a result of mass media over the last 40 years.

The idea of having this as an in camera feature is a living testament to delusion, in western society.

However I must admit its being pioneered by company which originated in the worlds most “materialistic” country.

The feature is really an extension of materialism applied to ones own body. Slim is in. Mmmmm

That said it might bring a great deal of happiness and positive correction to overweight people, who need to see themselves in a better light, before they decide to eat less cheescakes.

Good on you HP. Improving the world one “altered” image at a time.

harlee 07 Oct 06

Okay let me get this straight, you all are mad b/c hp uses thin models for their “example” and that encourages girls who already look fine to develop eating disorders BUT if it used “fat” women it would be okay b/c they need an eating disorder right? You guys are all full of shit, you cant actually sit there and tell me that you would much rather look at a woman who is 250 pound than a woman whos 120, plz…come off it…