Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

diyphotography.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 274 posts

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#121

Post by tooltalk »

peterangular wrote: post #25
amatecha wrote: post #2

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. [0] https://www.diyph…

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…

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.

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#123

Post by IAmGraydon »

gowld wrote: post #106
IAmGraydon wrote: post #100

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 larg…

Anyone cares if they want to know how a phone performs on its advertised function.

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.

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#125

Post by TeMPOraL »

googlryas wrote: post #114
TeMPOraL wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organizations are responsible for policing themselves. The only incentive they have for that is that the damage caused by "bad apple" may impact their bottom line. Per a book on risk management I'm currently reading, this actually is (or should be) accounted for in risk evaluation! So if we voluntarily refrain from punishing organizations for misbehavior of their people, we're severing the only feedback loop that kee…

I'm not saying no organization should be punished for the bad acts of members. I'm saying that one needs to consider the scale of the bad acts before pushing for punishment of an organization. Because there is always an opportunity cost, and you can't punish every organization that has someone who behaves badly(because that is every organization), so you need to pick and choose which ones are the worst offenders. And…

You can perceive the magnitude of it differently, that's fair. For me, it is a big issue, because Samsung made a bald-faced lie. This was no mistake, someone out there decided to lie to customers. For me, that's serious. Important enough that I'm that much less likely to buy a Samsung phone on the next iteration.

(But then again, I can't honestly exclude the possibility of buying a Samsung given the overall shitty state of Android smartphones. It's hard to find one that doesn't cause daily frustrations, and between various brands tried by me, my wife, family and friends, Samsung phones were so far the only ones that consistently didn't disappoint. So at this point I'm noting this incident as a bad mark on the brand, and I'll be reevaluating pros and cons when the time comes to buy a new phone.)

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#126

Post by Topgamer7 »

cgriswald wrote: post #58
peterangular wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 l…

Actually the Samsung dryers use some material in the drum that react over time and eventually fail. There was a good rundown by someone with the knowhow to explain why they fail. If I can find the video I'll link it.

Different video than I saw, but same explanation: https://youtu.be/0uDQaHiEfbA?t=29

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#127

Post by acdha »

btgis wrote: post #61

It doesn't look to me like they're pretending they took the picture with that phone. They are just using that photo as an example to show how the "background blur" feature works.

Samsung pays for PR, why contribute your reputation pro bono?

Everything on that section is talking about the phone. There are no disclaimers or the “simulation” notes ethical companies use.

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#128

Post by acdha »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #100

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 larg…

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.

Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

#129

Post by [deleted] »

amatecha wrote: post #2

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. [0] https://www.diyph…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN