Face retouching settings should be off by default

Re:Face retouching settings should be off by default by michaelbuckbee on Sunday October 04, 2020 @07:43PM (#24683159)

This has happened in the fashion industry where there is size "inflation" as sizes don't correspond to physical measurements.

Size 5 in Brand A is tight so consumers prefer Brand B who has size 5 clothes that fit better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Face retouching settings should be off by default by crooked-v on Sunday October 04, 2020 @09:38PM (#24683799)

This kind of thing is why I'm happy that mens' clothes often use actual inch measurements rather than abstract 'sizes'.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Face retouching settings should be off by default by humbledrone on Sunday October 04, 2020 @10:14PM (#24683948)

At least for popular brands of jeans, the "inch" measurements have succumbed to the exact same nonsense: https://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a8386/pants-size-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Face retouching settings should be off by default by dane-pgp on Sunday October 04, 2020 @11:09PM (#24684217)

That article was written in 2010, but I can't help agreeing with its conclusion:

"But vanity waist sizing is so entrenched, it couldn't possibly be changed overnight, at least not without a government mandate. The only solution seems to be a gradual, year-by-year shaving of quarter-inch by quarter-inch until, in 2021, men's pants finally correspond with the label numbers — conveniently just in time for the New World Order's switch to mandatory full jumpsuits."

That sounds terrible, but it could still be an improvement over 2020.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Face retouching settings should be off by default by recursive on Sunday October 04, 2020 @10:31PM (#24684016)

For many years, I've noticed that 32 in one brand isn't 32 in another.

[ Parent | on HN ]