Ah man, I immediately thought of another recent case of a smartphone manufacturer faking their phone's camera shots[0] (turns out TFA links to it as well). Just a single instance of this kind of fraud is enough for me to write off a brand forever, frankly. If you're lying to my face before I even bought your product, who knows how much else you're lying about. Zero trust for companies like this.
Yep - zero trust is exactly right... I bought a Samsung smart watch for Black Friday for $280-ish. Figured "hey - this will probably have better calendar/application support than my Garmin watch!"
Nope. Literally can't get it to vibrate/alert when a notification comes through unless it's through Samsung's SPECIFIC applications. So my HipChat messages, Gmail inbox, etc have ZERO notifications even though it WILL show as a new notification on the watch face. Before anyone gives me crap saying "you screwed up the settings" - trust me, I didn't, and I've tried everything.
I learned my lesson - Samsung is a faceless company with zero attention to user experience, and customer support. It is of no surprise that they outright lie about their features - which is EXACTLY what using a DSLR stock photo for this marketing is. An outright lie.
I will stick with my Garmin devices from here on-out and am looking to switch ecosystems for my phone as I'm on an S8+ that disgusts me as a user (Bixby, bloatware blah blah).
Samsung is completely untrustworthy. I might buy another television from them in the future as the screen quality on my Samsung televisions has always been great. But their smart appliances are a joke. Read the reviews for any of the required Samsung "Smart" Apps and you'll find terrible software that doesn't work. Where it does work, at best it technically meets the advertised criteria, but in other cases it seems like bald-faced lies.
I've got a Samsung washer/dryer. They're fine. But the advertised smart features don't work without the app, the App basically doesn't work, and while they say they can be connected to the Wi-Fi, they can only be connected to Wi-Fi via WPS. If that was ever justified, it certainly wasn't justified in 2015/2016 when I bought them. Had I bought them for these features I'd have been furious.
I bought a Samsung phone (S9) over black Friday. Returned it already. Their apps were incredibly heavy handed and invasive.
The photo app had a hard coded button on top of my camera viewing area which linked a way to buy things via a samsung app. I was appalled. I also couldn't turn off the Bixby assistant without first making a new Samsung account.
Heh - I was stuck at Costco getting tires installed the other day and ended up buying one of those watches. My favorite part so far is the Bixby app, which presents itself as a Siri-like assistant that collects all of my contacts and GPS data, because hey, but fails on everything I ask it, including dead simple questions like "Where's the closest Starbucks?"
Are there more trustworthy options for Android smartphones in the US? I was recently shopping for an upgrade from my LG G4 and settled for the S9+. I'm pretty satisfied, actually, but it really felt like I had an extremely limited selection
From my understanding, the only flagship-level choices that aren't big hassles to to get are Samsung (Galaxy/Note), Google (Pixel), OnePlus, LG. Of those, LG seems to be the only one that's not constantly plagued by trust/privacy issues (although in my case, I wanted to try a different brand so I didn't end up going with it).
I bought a new Samsung Android tablet for the kid in September 2016. It came with Android 4.4.4 and assumed that it could be updated to at least 5.1 or possibly 6.x since it was a device that was shipping new from the company.
E-mail from Samsung support (I'm in the UK) simply said
> please be advised that updates are released in batches, release dates can also vary by region, network and device. As of the moment, if the updates are not yet showing on your device, then we may have to wait until it becomes available and we are unable to confirm when will that be.
After being a loyal Nexus Android phone user, made the mistake of getting a recent Samsung Galaxy phone. Never again. Updates will undo menu settings and break user settings arbitrarily, that if if Samsung even respects your settings configurations. Don't get me started on the uninstallable Samsung bloatware that is redundant to Google apps (calendar, photo gallery etc) that breaks all the time and backs up your data on its own if your aren't careful.
Well, did Samsung promise this notification feature in their marketing campaign? I considered buying one for this exact feature, but decided not to buy it after TMobile sales folks confirmed that notification worked with Samsung apps only. I don't think however Samsung deliberately misled or lied. Now that isn't to say Samsung support is wonderful -- I personally wouldn't recommend buying anything other than TVs from Samsung.
> Nope. Literally can't get it to vibrate/alert when a notification comes through unless it's through Samsung's SPECIFIC applications. So my HipChat messages, Gmail inbox, etc have ZERO notifications even though it WILL show as a new notification on the watch face. Before anyone gives me crap saying "you screwed up the settings" - trust me, I didn't, and I've tried everything.
You screwed up the settings. It defaults to only allowing a short list of (mostly Samsung) applications, but you can configure it. Galaxy Wearable > Settings > Notifications > Manage Notifications and enable those applications you want to see notifications from.
I have a Garmin forerunner 235, and there's no way I will ever replace it with any of those "smartwatches" nor apple or Samsung, the user base they target are absolutely to different (Garmin is a fitness watch with some smart capabilities, Apple/Samsung is a smart watch with some fitness capabilities).
I have a Samsung Gear S3 Frontier smart-watch, paired with a Sony Xperia X Compact (i.e. no samsung). My friend has a Samsung Galaxy Wear, paired with a Sony Xperia XZ Compact. Neither of us use any Samsung applications other than the required "gear"/"galaxy" app.
I'm getting Gmail, Telegram, Slack, and all sorts of other notifications just fine, and can reply to them.
So while their software sucks (unlike the hardware, their smartwatches are by far the bets ones out there), you did indeed fuck up your settings. Or you use an iPhone, which there is poor support for.
Also, while it's not a particularly trustworthy company, this specifically has nothing to do with trust.
Sometimes mfgs don’t have enough oversight over their creative agencies. Often agencies use interns for these kinds of image search —and things fall through the cracks.
Not exculpating the mfgs or agencies just putting it out there that sometimes it’s some poor schlep who ends up holding the bag.
The poor schlep did what his manager told him to do. The manager used the schlep because he wasn’t given budget to do it right. So, don’t excuse the behaviour the organization enabled it.
While Huawei may have cheated that particular phone's photo taking ability, I have a Huawei P20 Pro, and can vouch it's easily the best phone camera I've ever used or seen (it has triple Leica lenses). It doesn't match my Fuji mirrorless camera in some ways, but its shockingly good for a phone.
This is a reaction I see a lot (and used to be tempted to have as well), but it is imo a mistake, grounded in the fact that we tend to think of companies as individuals whom once they've betrayed us, are likely to do so again.
Companies like Samsung, while they claim to have a "culture" are, at the end of the day nothing but a large group of ever changing people, whose responsibilities in what the company does is quite often nil even when they are the one making them on the company' behalf.
We can't deal with companies with tools nature equipped us with to deal with other humans.
Organizations most definitely have their own cultures including codified practices, management frameworks, and a culture of "X." Patterns of behavior emerge from those cultures, and can lead to success or failure. It's been studied quite extensively - browse HBR.org to see research and theory about this.
If you're fortunate, the company you deal with as a customer or employee has a culture that rewards competence and high standards of behavior.
If you're not, you as an employee or customer or member of the public may suffer. Look at recent scandals involving Wells Fargo, Uber, police forces in certain cities, and others. Or companies that release crappy or copied products time after time. These aren't cases of "rogue employees" or "isolated cases." It's often a broken culture or one that encourages people to break rules, or even break the law. See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace... about how this manifested itself with Uber.
You've just described a composite, changeable entity that's unable to keep an eye on honesty, and as such one that is very likely to do the same again.
> I immediately thought of another recent case of a smartphone manufacturer faking their phone's camera shots[0] (turns out TFA links to it as well).
In fact, TFA wrote the earlier article, which suggests a good rule for other companies thinking about doing this: before you buy the stock photo, check if the photographer has called other companies out on doing the exact same thing in the past :)
You'd write off an entire massive company for the mistakes of Hauwei Egypt or Samsung Malaysia? It's not like this is central company policy, it's the people localizing the marketing.
It seems sufficient to write off any trust you might have in that brand's name on account of the name only. That is, if Samsung's governance can't keep its employees or subsidiaries from lying with its name attached in the past, there's no reason to think they'd be able to do it in the future. This also incentivizes Samsung to police its underlings.
Of course, you might have other reasons to like Samsung's stuff (reviews, prior experience), and you might also be stuck trusting no one because all large companies have similar issues (so you're forced to buy from untrusted brands).
But, yes. It doesn't take much for me to keep a note in my head "these guys are dishonest". OK, I may not boycott the company entirely, but it drops their perceived ranking in my mind wayyy down... which is exactly the opposite of what marketing is supposed to do, right?
Of course not - except in this case it’s multiple subsidiaries (Brazil, Malaysia, ...) which points to a systemic belief that faking a major feature is acceptable.
If you’re going to advertise your camera, and you do it by showing off a photo taken with anything other than the actual camera, that’s fraud.
If this was the first incident, then I would tend to agree with you. But this is just one of a long string of similar incidents that together form a pattern that reflect on the company values.
We don't owe companies anything. I'm a big proponent of not putting up with shitty design, and after a lot of bad experiences with Microsoft they're dead to me. I don't mind missing out on a good version of Windows sometime in the future, it's not worth dealing with their current awful software. Same goes for Samsung with the permanent Bixby button and Touchwiz UI. I'd rather reward good design like we have on the Google Pixel and iPhone X{'','R','S'} lines.
Personally, I've written all companies by default. Seeing things like that from both outside and sometimes inside, I came to conclusion that most sales&marketing material is simply full of shit, and unless your company gives me evidence otherwise, I'm assuming anything not casually verifiable is likely to be a lie.
Also, RE Samsung vs. Samsung Malaysia, etc. - that's a flip side of having a brand. If you want various groups of people to inherit good reputation from the common pool of a brand, you should also expect they'll all inherit bad reputation too.
Buying a car has nothing to do with this specific discussion about advertising practices. Besides, none of us would be there when the parent commenter buys a car anyway, so what difference does that make? /s
Which is part of the reason why advertising is a cancer on society, and why it shows the ridiculous double standard we have on the societal level about exploiting people we know vs. total strangers.
> The contents within the screen and images are simulated for illustrative purposes only.
I don't really have a problem with Samsung using a higher res DSLR photo for the purposes of illustration of their background blur technology. I will always check review sites to get real sample images to evaluate a phone's camera technology.
Edit: I assume this was downvoted because it comes across as cynical but that isn't what I meant to express at all. I don't expect companies to lie to me and I don't trust companies so little that I assume they would lie to me. I view this as more of an example of a company's marketing showing their product in the best possible light. It's clear most companies will want to do that so I prefer to go to review sights to get a better overview of the both the good and the bad before making a purchase decision.
To do the Portrait Mode post processing, I believe that they need a depth map to separate foreground and background elements. So, unless they use a phone with the hardware to capture this depth map, then it's impossible to use that post processing technique.
Instead, they found a photo of trees, duplicated it, applied a gaussian blur to the duplicate, then cut the girl out of the original picture and pasted her into both tree photos.
The final product has nothing to do with Samsung or it's products; it wasn't taken on a phone, nor processed on a phone, and there is no way you could use a Samsung product to capture of photo of that quality, since it was taken on a DSLR, and the post processing that they used is NOT Portrait Mode, it's Photoshop.
I think you are being down-voted because, despite the tiny disclaimer, the main content of the page heavily suggests that the images are from the phone camera. This is scummy.
I understand that the disclaimer would be missed be most people but I don't see the background blur photo as communicating "this is what our camera can do". To me it says "Our camera can do background blur and this is an example of a photo with and without background blur". Maybe it's too subtle a difference and in that case, it's fair enough that Samsung would get flack for poor communication.
Samsung just isn’t a company you can trust. Period. The only consumer product they make that’s even half decent are their SSDs and even those are starting to lose to competitors.
Their TVs alone have had so many instances of them injecting ads into the ui, to spying on what you watch in plex, and many more.
Can you recommend any other SSDs, or some site that has meaningful tail latency/MTBF data?
I don't like sticking to them for SSDs, but I have yet to hear of one breaking, compared to a bunch of other name brands.
Indeed, I have an old 64GB 830 that is still working as if it's brand new.
So far I've had good experience with Crucial MX series, PNY CS11xx series of drives (YMMV widely depending on series, etc) and Sandisk, all have lasted through quite some use, but honestly I still prefer Samsung or Intel. I've been using the Crucial drive for long enough now that I'd probably make them a top choice too. Samsung, Intel, Crucial would be my top 3.
I've been running a Western Digital nvme for a couple of weeks now and it's great- but that says nothing about longevity. The speed of nvme is incredible though, so I really hope this drive lasts.
I wish I had some good suggestions myself but every other brand I’ve tried just hasn’t really kept up. Been having some good luck with an hp nvme (can’t recall model right now) but I suspect it’s probably just using Samsung memory
I suspect part of the reason they still have a fairly good reputation is that they really were some of the best Android phones available, a few years ago, but by now they're nothing remarkable (unless you're going by quantity of bloatware).
These sorts of 'illustrative only' graphics get pumped out every day in marketing design, even for large brand names. As a young junior designer, I once had a creative director ask me to use a Samsung phone asset to illustrate how 'Bixby Vision' or whatever it was called worked. He wanted an Asian language text in the background on a menu with the phone in the front, showing translated text. I attempted to comply with his request for a little while before pushing back gently; I was a greenhorn in the industry and didn't have a great relationship with the CD anyway.
Thankfully nothing came of it and we moved forward with another concept. But I was appalled at the time that he would have wanted me to grab seemingly anything off of Google Translate and create a graphic representing how the phone would supposedly work, all of which I was extremely uncomfortable doing. But I suppose he saw it as an extension of our other usage of stock imagery and device assets.
Samsung as a household brand is a disaster. I was relieved to scrap my 4 year old washing machine with 5 year warranty because of a Samsung guarantee fiasco (what do you do when they don’t respond for a few days and you have a household to run?). My 4in1 Samsung Lazer jet is also a disaster the WiFi drops off and never reconnects you have cut power reset. So this doesn’t surprise me at all.
These ads are made months before the product is released, and often the team making the ad does not have physical access to the product. Even if they could get access it is standard to use stock photography to keep cost down and get the ads turned around quickly. For the same reason restaurants use stock photography instead of taking their food to a studio or any other type of marketing
This. Why send your device out with a photographer and hope they can get a compelling image when they can browse thousands from a stock photo outlet and get something perfect in an afternoon? The stock photo will be much cheaper as well.
The same reason anybody uses a stock photo for anything. You can spend $10,000 and a bunch of time to rent a set, actors, techs and a photographer or you can spend $200 to buy a stock photo in a few minutes.
Samsung must have a nice view from somewhere within walking distance of one of their buildings. How hard could it be to have the intern go snap some pictures. Perhaps hundreds of pictures and then choose the best.
They all fake it. Even those few that are taken with a phone are so far removed from what a phone owner has, I think it would be more honest to label them with a huge "FAKED photo" banner.
> Here's an example for iPhone where they're using some complex mounting frame to connect a 35mm prime lens to the front of an iPhone. The phone becomes more like a smart camera back.
That’s... not an iPhone, though the video may have been created for a smartphone ad (I don’t know and I don’t think the video said)
In fact I didn’t see anything in that which specifically says Apple does it, and I’m pretty sure that Apple has said several times that they use an iPhone without any special lenses or attachments.
a) your article shows that there is a disclaimer on the ads about external equipment and shows a picture that it is possible to mount crazy lenses on a phone, but you are left to connect the dots yourself.
b) there is a categorical difference between using a different camera and presenting it as if it came from the phone and using external equipment to supplement the phone.
When you say "their phones" do mean the Galaxy S and Note flagships? Because there's a huge gap in camera performance between those and the mid-tier A-series.
A phone camera lens just cannot take a photo as good as a DSLR without having a proper sized sensor and a matching lens size... you can do all sorts of software tricks to make a photo look "better" but it's not physically possible, despite what their marketing teams want you to believe.
I can sell anything, you know? You know how many times I fake on the streets? You know? You have to fake. The guys that don't fake, they're the ones that get it the worst.
Who cares? They disclose the fact that the photo wasn’t taken with the phone right on the page. It’s for illustrative purposes, not to show the exact quality of the phone’s functions. The author of this blog also just outed a paying client. If they paid, they can use it however they like (within the terms of the licensing agreement). This is a great way for the author to ensure they never sell another photo to a large company.
I think even a minimum level of honesty in an ad requires that pictures that illustrate what the camera can are taken with this camera. I know lying is common in advertising but we shouldn't accept it and point that out.
They hide the note in very small text a long way down the page – way past all of the big, attention grabbing pictures, knowing that most people aren’t going to read down that far and consciously discount everything they saw.
Do you have a citation for the assertion that this was a paying client? She clearly says the opposite in the post.
What point is there in using the photo if not to trick viewers in to thinking its a photo from the phone. What exactly is it illustrating? Its deceptive and wrong. I have no trust for a company that tries to trick its users like this.
The point is illustration of a photographic technique. If you simply say "The camera has a background blur feature" that doesn't mean much to most ordinary consumers or help them understand why they might want that feature. If you say "Here is a photo with background blur" and "Here is a photo without background blur" they can instantly understand its value. The fact that they deliberately modified the photo to remove background blur should tell you there is a message they are trying to communicate here beyond "here is what our camera can do".
Interesting. So you normally get a feel for how a 16MP camera works by looking at low resolution photos? Personally, I go find full resolution photos posted by countless users and blogs who critique tech products. Do you also get upset when your fast food doesn’t look exactly like the image on the website? How about when your hotel room doesn’t have the exact same gloss as that photo on their website?
Again, they fully disclosed that the photo was not intended to show the quality of the camera. How can you claim they’re being deceptive? You are choosing to interpret the photo in a way that was never intended.
If she wants full control over her work, she should not sell it for stock photo.
I think if I were to buy a stock photo then find out the original photographer publicly complaining / shaming my work, I would be so pissed. I might just complain to Getty to have her removed / banned.
Wow, I must say I am surprised that something this seemingly-fraudulent managed to make it to the public website. I'm interested to see what Samsung has to say about this, hard to give them the benefit of the doubt, even if it's possible it's just a "marketer went too far" or "The images went from the mockup to the live site before engineering sent the samples".
If this feature works even remotely as advertised, they could have gotten at least a couple shots (and saved the intermediate images, I guess, to do the before/after).
Readit News
[0] https://www.diyphotography.net/huawei-passes-off-dslr-photos...
Nope. Literally can't get it to vibrate/alert when a notification comes through unless it's through Samsung's SPECIFIC applications. So my HipChat messages, Gmail inbox, etc have ZERO notifications even though it WILL show as a new notification on the watch face. Before anyone gives me crap saying "you screwed up the settings" - trust me, I didn't, and I've tried everything.
I learned my lesson - Samsung is a faceless company with zero attention to user experience, and customer support. It is of no surprise that they outright lie about their features - which is EXACTLY what using a DSLR stock photo for this marketing is. An outright lie.
I will stick with my Garmin devices from here on-out and am looking to switch ecosystems for my phone as I'm on an S8+ that disgusts me as a user (Bixby, bloatware blah blah).
ZERO trust for Samsung.
I've got a Samsung washer/dryer. They're fine. But the advertised smart features don't work without the app, the App basically doesn't work, and while they say they can be connected to the Wi-Fi, they can only be connected to Wi-Fi via WPS. If that was ever justified, it certainly wasn't justified in 2015/2016 when I bought them. Had I bought them for these features I'd have been furious.
The photo app had a hard coded button on top of my camera viewing area which linked a way to buy things via a samsung app. I was appalled. I also couldn't turn off the Bixby assistant without first making a new Samsung account.
From my understanding, the only flagship-level choices that aren't big hassles to to get are Samsung (Galaxy/Note), Google (Pixel), OnePlus, LG. Of those, LG seems to be the only one that's not constantly plagued by trust/privacy issues (although in my case, I wanted to try a different brand so I didn't end up going with it).
E-mail from Samsung support (I'm in the UK) simply said
> please be advised that updates are released in batches, release dates can also vary by region, network and device. As of the moment, if the updates are not yet showing on your device, then we may have to wait until it becomes available and we are unable to confirm when will that be.
Of course, there never was any update.
My first Android device, I was not impressed.
You screwed up the settings. It defaults to only allowing a short list of (mostly Samsung) applications, but you can configure it. Galaxy Wearable > Settings > Notifications > Manage Notifications and enable those applications you want to see notifications from.
I'm getting Gmail, Telegram, Slack, and all sorts of other notifications just fine, and can reply to them.
So while their software sucks (unlike the hardware, their smartwatches are by far the bets ones out there), you did indeed fuck up your settings. Or you use an iPhone, which there is poor support for.
Also, while it's not a particularly trustworthy company, this specifically has nothing to do with trust.
Amazfit Bip owner
Not exculpating the mfgs or agencies just putting it out there that sometimes it’s some poor schlep who ends up holding the bag.
You mean... if we paid employees properly, it might prevent fuck ups like this?!?!
Companies like Samsung, while they claim to have a "culture" are, at the end of the day nothing but a large group of ever changing people, whose responsibilities in what the company does is quite often nil even when they are the one making them on the company' behalf.
We can't deal with companies with tools nature equipped us with to deal with other humans.
If you're fortunate, the company you deal with as a customer or employee has a culture that rewards competence and high standards of behavior.
If you're not, you as an employee or customer or member of the public may suffer. Look at recent scandals involving Wells Fargo, Uber, police forces in certain cities, and others. Or companies that release crappy or copied products time after time. These aren't cases of "rogue employees" or "isolated cases." It's often a broken culture or one that encourages people to break rules, or even break the law. See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace... about how this manifested itself with Uber.
You've just described a composite, changeable entity that's unable to keep an eye on honesty, and as such one that is very likely to do the same again.
In fact, TFA wrote the earlier article, which suggests a good rule for other companies thinking about doing this: before you buy the stock photo, check if the photographer has called other companies out on doing the exact same thing in the past :)
Of course, you might have other reasons to like Samsung's stuff (reviews, prior experience), and you might also be stuck trusting no one because all large companies have similar issues (so you're forced to buy from untrusted brands).
I won't buy a Samsung phone after what I read about its televisions spying on people.
I don't care that they're other people in other divisions. If everything is so blissfully separate, then don't have a single brand.
But, yes. It doesn't take much for me to keep a note in my head "these guys are dishonest". OK, I may not boycott the company entirely, but it drops their perceived ranking in my mind wayyy down... which is exactly the opposite of what marketing is supposed to do, right?
If you’re going to advertise your camera, and you do it by showing off a photo taken with anything other than the actual camera, that’s fraud.
If this was the first incident, then I would tend to agree with you. But this is just one of a long string of similar incidents that together form a pattern that reflect on the company values.
Also, RE Samsung vs. Samsung Malaysia, etc. - that's a flip side of having a brand. If you want various groups of people to inherit good reputation from the common pool of a brand, you should also expect they'll all inherit bad reputation too.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
-Thomas Jefferson
> The contents within the screen and images are simulated for illustrative purposes only.
I don't really have a problem with Samsung using a higher res DSLR photo for the purposes of illustration of their background blur technology. I will always check review sites to get real sample images to evaluate a phone's camera technology.
Edit: I assume this was downvoted because it comes across as cynical but that isn't what I meant to express at all. I don't expect companies to lie to me and I don't trust companies so little that I assume they would lie to me. I view this as more of an example of a company's marketing showing their product in the best possible light. It's clear most companies will want to do that so I prefer to go to review sights to get a better overview of the both the good and the bad before making a purchase decision.
But it doesn't show their product in the best possible light. It shows some DSLR company's product in the best possible light.
It's like a magazine ad for a Kia, and inside the car photo the dashboard has been replaced with a Tesla's.
Instead, they found a photo of trees, duplicated it, applied a gaussian blur to the duplicate, then cut the girl out of the original picture and pasted her into both tree photos.
The final product has nothing to do with Samsung or it's products; it wasn't taken on a phone, nor processed on a phone, and there is no way you could use a Samsung product to capture of photo of that quality, since it was taken on a DSLR, and the post processing that they used is NOT Portrait Mode, it's Photoshop.
Their TVs alone have had so many instances of them injecting ads into the ui, to spying on what you watch in plex, and many more.
Last thing I’d want from Samsung is a phone.
So far I've had good experience with Crucial MX series, PNY CS11xx series of drives (YMMV widely depending on series, etc) and Sandisk, all have lasted through quite some use, but honestly I still prefer Samsung or Intel. I've been using the Crucial drive for long enough now that I'd probably make them a top choice too. Samsung, Intel, Crucial would be my top 3.
I've been running a Western Digital nvme for a couple of weeks now and it's great- but that says nothing about longevity. The speed of nvme is incredible though, so I really hope this drive lasts.
I suspect part of the reason they still have a fairly good reputation is that they really were some of the best Android phones available, a few years ago, but by now they're nothing remarkable (unless you're going by quantity of bloatware).
Thankfully nothing came of it and we moved forward with another concept. But I was appalled at the time that he would have wanted me to grab seemingly anything off of Google Translate and create a graphic representing how the phone would supposedly work, all of which I was extremely uncomfortable doing. But I suppose he saw it as an extension of our other usage of stock imagery and device assets.
The time and delay argument is a bit more valid. But if it is at the risk of such bad press, not sure it's a good idea.
Here's an example for iPhone where they're using some complex mounting frame to connect a 35mm prime lens to the front of an iPhone. The phone becomes more like a smart camera back. https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads...
I call it fraudulent, and should be in breach of advertising regulations.
That’s... not an iPhone, though the video may have been created for a smartphone ad (I don’t know and I don’t think the video said)
In fact I didn’t see anything in that which specifically says Apple does it, and I’m pretty sure that Apple has said several times that they use an iPhone without any special lenses or attachments.
b) there is a categorical difference between using a different camera and presenting it as if it came from the phone and using external equipment to supplement the phone.
2. Maybe some tops don't trust enough that the phone cameras are good and want to make a less risky bet.
Do you have a citation for the assertion that this was a paying client? She clearly says the opposite in the post.
Again, they fully disclosed that the photo was not intended to show the quality of the camera. How can you claim they’re being deceptive? You are choosing to interpret the photo in a way that was never intended.
I think if I were to buy a stock photo then find out the original photographer publicly complaining / shaming my work, I would be so pissed. I might just complain to Getty to have her removed / banned.
If this feature works even remotely as advertised, they could have gotten at least a couple shots (and saved the intermediate images, I guess, to do the before/after).