"Thanks!" to Jeff who let us know about another "Photoshop snafu" over at J.Crew's website. The Cashmere Tuileries Jacket (Item 90849; $1,100.00, now $769.99) has two identical images in the "additional views" of the item page. What is interesting is that one image shows the jacket with a wrinkle on the left hand side, while the other shows the jacket sans-wrinkle.P.S. Besides the wrinkle on the jacket, I totally missed noticing the price tag on that jacket... "Wowzer!" That is a super-expensive jacket. :)
"Thanks!" also to Anon at 7:29 PM (in this post) who let us know about the Photoshop snafu with the Frenchie slicker (Item 11293; $165.00). She states it best: "Check out the enlarged pics of the Frenchie trench. Zoom in on the view of the right side (second pic). Focus on the apparent besom pocket just below the belt. As you zoom in it is photoshopped out and then on-seam pockets appear. Zoom out and the besom pockets appear again. Same happens with the last pic but if you look at the first pic, the besom pockets are not photoshopped out when you zoom in." I didn't even notice that pocket switch up! (Good catch Anon at 7:29 PM!)Did you notice these mistakes with the Tuileries Jacket & Frenchie Trench? Did you notice any other image bloopers recently? If so, please share! ;)
I ordered the Frenchie in papaya and promptly returned it! They did tell me on the phone about the pockets, but this is the least of the problems with this jacket. It is paper thin and a very boxy- overall not flattering & not cute:(
ReplyDeleteTwiga
I rely on the website photos when I decide to buy. If J. Crew fiddles with their stock photos (changing the color, cropping out cuffs, pockets, length, making a blouse look less roomy than it really is, etc.) they up their chances of getting a return from me. I try not to return items from online orders, but when it's misrepresented on the website, I think it's perfectly justified.
ReplyDeletePhotoshopping wrinkles in clothing I don't mind care so much though, although I remember someone pointing out that J. crew didn't photoshop out a model's tattoo. Wonder if that's bad for their "image" ;)
I don't appreciate the clothing being photoshopped...it seems like mispresentation to me.
ReplyDeleteTwiga: Thanks for letting us know that it is thin. I thought I was the only one who thought that! :)
ReplyDeleteAnon at 12:22AM & FFM: You raised really great points about representation. There are many items that I purchase based off seeing their images only. If they get significantly altered- it is misrepresentation.
Also, I appreciate the CSR over the phone telling Twiga beforehand about the pockets on the Frenchie. However, wouldn't it be easier to just fix the image instead of notifying all the CSRs about this glitch? ;)
The blooper with the Tuileries jacket was posted weeks ago. I know, because I am the one who posted it.
ReplyDeleteAnony 8:32 I remember your post because there was a lot of discussion around the odd bunching of fabric between bust and armhole on the ecoles and my velvet ecole was on the way. I made a note to check the fit once it arrived and it was fine. However I do check that area in the mirror every time I put the jacket on, expecting to see a large fold of fabric pop up. Funny how some things stick with you. LOL
ReplyDeleteThanks for the laughs, Alexis.
ReplyDeleteI'm so on the fence with the Frenchie. I love the idea but if it just doesn't work then I'll have to pass. Especially for $165. Too much to spend for something that will just sit in my closet.
There have been a number of photoshop alerts posted on this blog. Definitely some of them are to "clean up" the fit of items, which is really misrepresenting the product sold.
ReplyDeleteThere are also occasional posts highlighting poor quality, especially shoes: glue on the leather, missing stitches, plastic sole tearing away from the heel, etc.
It's very helpful but I'm sure we miss most of it. And even though the photographed item may not be perfect, it doesn't mean that the item you order is not properly constructed. You have to wonder about the quality control though, if they don't notice it in close-up photos even.
I have the Frenchie trench in my cart and I am still undecided. I think I can pull it off but I am not sure the look would last a few seasons. It seems very trendy.
Here's one: the high heel flare jean in clean indigo wash (#97106). From a distance, they look like great fitting jeans, but when you zoom in on the butt photo, you can see a huge seam to the right of the center. It makes the pockets uneven and it makes me wonder what the fit it really like (maybe a big gap in the back of the waistband?). Or maybe the fit is O.K., but they just don't make them small enough for the skinny models!
ReplyDeleteYikes. I hate the photoshopping. I like to be able to trust the picture! I was interested in the Frenchie slicker until I read Gigi's review of it - not good.
ReplyDelete^ me too! It looked totally shapeless, the collar was not like the styled photos and the papery fabric is not appealing either.
ReplyDeleteA nicer fabric and more structured tailoring would have helped Frenchie out a bit.
ReplyDeleteRE: HHF photoshop. Obviously they had to take the jeans in at the back to fit the model. Too funny!
ReplyDeleteWe probably wouldn't buy the clothes if J Crew didn't employ liberal photo alterations.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever seen great clothes in a store that look absolutely awful in catalog or web site images? I just bought the Ann Taylor nylon metallic trench, looks awesome in real life but really pathetic on the web site. If I'd only seen the web site photo I never would have bought the coat!
Alexandra - so true! I love the styling of Anthro items in the catalog but when they are just sitting on mannequins online the items can be quite boring.
ReplyDeleteI tried on the Frenchie in the store today because I was so curious. I had to see for myself if it was truly awful. I do have a waist, so when I belted it, it created a nice shape. That being said, the sleeves were so long that it looked like I was wearing a ruffled clown suit!! This was on a size 4 (I am 5'5" and usually wear a 4 or 6 jacket). BUT....I tried the JC sleeve-roll trick and it INSTANTLY improved the look of this jacket IMO. The proportions seemed to balance. If this jacket went on sale for $49 I might buy it and roll the sleeves up.
ReplyDeleteThat's very interesting about the sleeves, because they look downright short, like bracelet length, on the model in the web site photos. This model must have extraordinarily long arms. She appears to have very wide shoulders.
ReplyDeleteHahahaha ... if you enlarge that side photo and then zoom approx 9 times, you'll see both types of pockets on the same image! I love how that vertical slit pocket is so small it's only good for a couple of fingers. :)
on page 34 of the March catalog, Frenchie has the besom pockets. Same photo used for the DC JCAs post on this blog.
ReplyDeleteI didn't notice the mistakes, but mainly because I wasn't that interested in the jackets. I think they must have changed the design from the sample that they photographed in and the actual manufacturing.
ReplyDeleteI want to like the Frenchie, but it didn't fit right. The fabric is thin, but the Italian raincoat last year was thin too. It just seems to rustle a bit too much, and the shape is somehow frumpy. Maybe too much fabric around the waist area.
I like the atelier jacket this year, maybe more than the fiona last year. It's a lot less full around the waist and not so much ruffles.