Women with 7-foot-long legs now have a place to shop online for pants!

Thanks for being awesome, Romwe (Via PS Disasters)


  1. The Photoshop job here makes it look like her leg end about 2″ from the top of her boots, and that she’s just kind of floating around. 

    1. Go ahead and laugh, but until the mid-80s, I wore Levi’s with a 26 waist and a 40 inseam.

        1. I loved button-fly Levi’s.  I never felt cooler, slimmer or more comfortable than when I could wear them. 

          I’ll be making fun of you for shopping at Sears later, though.  :^)

      1. I seem to recall you saying in some previous comment that you had an inseam of 36 (this is my inseam too).  So, are you wearing your pants lower, or have you lost four inches in height in your old age?  :^)

        1. Although it seems counterintuitive, your inseam shrinks as your waist grows. And pants were much tighter then. Also, for a while they didn’t seem to make anything longer than a 34.

          1. There’s also the fact that shrink-to-fit button-fly 501s (what we just called “Levis” back then) shrink a lot.  My 30 X 38 Levis fit a skinny guy who was 6’2″ and 140 lbs.  Not all that incredibly tall.  But I used to be able to find that size at Sears.  I’m still 6’2″, but now the same length inseam in the shrink-to-fit indigo denim is labeled a 36, and the preshrunk ones are 34.  In my experience, I haven’t been able to find 30 X 38 Levis anywhere in over fifteen years, not at Levis.com, nor in one of their stores.

            Though it really seems to me that their sizing numbers got changed a few years ago, I still have trouble finding Levis long enough for my legs in Los Angeles, particularly in the Valley.  And again, I’m only 6’2″.  Sure, I see a lot of relatively short guys buying their jeans at the North Hollywood Sears, but not to the point where I feel like the lone giraffe in a veldt full of springbok.

          2. I would normally wear a 34 now, mostly because the fit is just completely different. No more zipping your jeans up to your sternum.

          3. @Antinous_Moderator:disqus : You kinda just gave me a flashback to childhood.  There was that extended period of time – let’s call it the 80’s – when Levis were not at all cool.  So they were cheap, which meant my mom bought them for me.  I hated them with a fiery passion because they were stupidly high-waisted, and I’m short-waisted.  Damn things rode on my ribs. They were hands-down the most uncomfortable garment on earth.  

          4. I’m so glad the high waist went away.  Nobody looks good in those, not Freddie Prinze, not Bob Mitchum, not John Ritter, certainly not me.  I like the current low-rise jeans (within reason).  But I sure do miss bell-bottoms.  Only Cliff Burton knew how to wear jeans in the 80s.

  2. Oh, sure.  The places that make pants for women with seven-foot-long legs always assume those legs are going to be rail thin.  What about women with more beefy, or even normally proportioned seven-feet-long legs?  Is there a place for them to shop?

  3. How does this even happen? I think even a drunk monkey (if you could teach her how to use Photoshop), would look at that and say, “Ok, I did something wrong.”

    1. I’d guess this isn’t really a PS disaster but a web server disaster.  They probably made photos to fit one set of x-y dimensions but the slot on the page is for a different size.  The server is resizing the image to fit by stretching it.

    2.  It’s the result of a “content-aware scale” (ie. Seam Carving — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seam_carving … They’ve probably got an automated tool (or a very lazy employee) that they run on their photos, which includes using a “smart” scaling function in order to make it fit the desired size. You can tell this is the likely culprit by the strange skewing of the floorboards.

  4. With the rest of her outfit (those sleeves!  those gloves!  those boots!)  this woman may just be a pirate with extra long, skinny legs.

  5. Another fail: the last image in the set is a mirror of the first image.

    I’m going to assume these images are created by a program somehow, and were never reviewed by a human prior to being put online.

    1. The other leggings/pants seem to be on humans or passably humanoid mannequins.  In this one, the back heel is off the floor, which would be pretty hard to balance without muscles and a cerebral cortex.

      On the other hand, the forearm appears to be about six inches long, but taking foreshortening into consideration, possibly in proportion to the thighs.  It’s the lower legs that are the problem.  My guess is that there’s a very thin person en pointe and attached to some kind of stilts.

  6.  No, the floor is the proof, if anything. They’re using a type of scaling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seam_carving that selectively stretches some areas more than others in an attempt to change the image dimensions without damaging areas of high-detail. This is why the top part of the image (the chair, etc.), which are much more detailed, have remained “normal”.

    1. The fact that I didn’t even notice the fun house flooring is probably due to decades of living in warped old Edwardians in SF.

  7. Much like steroids in baseball (topical this week because of the Hall Of Fame vote), Photoshop is a plague in advertisement, the lazy shortcut.
    But unlike baseball, which addressed steroids although much too late to contain long-lasting legacy damage, advertising will continue to sink further down the hole.

    Then again, advertisement is a plague in itself, isn’t it?  So a plague that affects a plague may not be something that we should be concerned about.

Comments are closed.