There's only one way out of this for Nokia. They need to release new photo's and video's created with the new Nokia Wndows 8 Phone right the f * now. With as much EXIF and/or metadata as possible. If I was Nokia I'd hire the best photographer-artist the world knows and make a big splash about it.
On the other hand, it is very easy to edit and fake EXIF and metadata. Adding EXIF data fields to demo pictures does not increase the credibility.
All right. How about hiring the best photographer-artist and letting people sign up and co-create photo's with them? Everything will auto-upload to the cloud in the artist's album live. No cheating there and I'd sure go for an experience like that.
"Professional driver on closed course." "Screen image is simulated." "Product enlarged to show detail." etc. etc. Yes, yes, we like "truth" and all. Especially when they're selling a camera after all, but getting a great cameraphone image and getting an image that will work on tv are two different things. No real surprise. Maybe disappointment, but no suprise.
Except there's no implying or warning, just outright lying about this being a sample image.
Agreed. They should have small disclaimer text at the bottom. And that's what everyone should be up in arms about, not that they faked it in the first place.
I know there are rules for food advertising, but don't know about other types of products... There's not a safety liability issue like with cars, but.
How to botch your annual device announcement; you know the one the whole company is riding on by Stephen Elop with a special Forward by the guys who ran RIM into the shitter.
No way... Fake pictures in ads? Who would have thought!
It's not just a picture IN ad, it's also picture OF what's advertised, and that, at least in some parts of the world, is required by law to be real.
I guess it depends on the amount of ‘real’.
Is post-processing allowed, for example? If yes, everything including light spikes could be claimed to be artificially added, not resulting from using different equipment. If pictures are required to be straight from the camera—well, there still are inevitable pre-production and (more importantly) RAW conversion steps.
There is definitely something up. The Register got their hands on one but the minders managed to stop them sending the photo externally: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/05/handson_nokia_lumia_... "Alas, the Minders leapt into Red Alert mode to prevent me transmitting the results, you'll have to take my word for it."
Andrew Orlowski has to be one of the most unreliable troll journalists and last person who's word I will take at face value.
I agree and I take things he says lightly, but he's right on this one.
Here is an apology from Nokia: http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/09/06/an-apology-is-due/ Here are videos (OIS off and on) shot with a Lumia 920: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6...
They need to release one for the photos, too, now. It's not just the photos from that video, but others as well. This is turning into a PR disaster for Nokia. Companies should remember that ethics and truth pays out in the end. Nokia has been too close to Microsoft lately, and some of Microsoft's habits must've rubbed off on them.
It's not just a picture IN ad, it's also picture OF what's advertised, and that, at least in some parts of the world, is required by law to be real.
I guess it depends on the amount of ‘real’. Is post-processing allowed, for example? If yes, everything including light spikes could be claimed to be artificially added, not resulting from using different equipment. If pictures are required to be straight from the camera—well, there still are inevitable pre-production and (more importantly) RAW conversion steps. There's a need for more complex regulations here.
> There's a need for more complex regulations here.
I'm not sure about that. The general "don't be a dickhead" rule and the resulting public stink for those who don't follow seem to work ok in this case.
No way... Fake pictures in ads? Who would have thought!
I've heard[0] that ‘big’ camera makes like Canon or Nikon regularly advertise their products using photos made with completely different equipment. It would be more surprising if Nokia used actual photos made with Lumia in promotion materials, I guess. [0] http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/h3d-1.htm : “For those of us in the press (Ken), we laughed when we looked at the EXIF data of Nikon's PR photos of the D3. The…
Let's be careful about what we're talking about here. If the pictures are of the actual camera and are about showing the physical product then they're no doubt often shot in a studio with a proper studio camera. That's (probably) what Ken is talking about and there is nothing underhand about that.
If on the other hand the pictures are about showing what kind of results the camera can produce then I very much doubt they'd risk faking it by using a different camera.
I just mean it is a lens with a very similar optical schema than the Canon 17-40L. The diffraction pattern around light sources is very similar. I played around with this lens some time before with my previous DSLR (now i am a Nikon user) and enjoyed it really. I don't mean it was exactly that lens, but something very close - definitely not fixed f/2.0 cheap lens of a smartphone, that kind of halo with 'rays' around…
Gotcha. Definitely didn't doubt the article; just wondering what you meant. Thanks!
Also the article is most likely wrong about calling these artifacts purely diffraction-related, creating diffraction images that big and visible would require too small focal ratio, which is unlikely for night conditions, because they increase exposure time which is already too long. These are just a consequence of internal back-reflections inside the lens optics which manifest itself on extreme contrast parts of image (bright light vs dark sky). Especially obvious on astronomical images, where control of focal ratio is manual and it's almost always open fully to collect as much light as possible - of course, focus depth is of no meaning for astronomy - and the quality of this lens allows for perfect images even when wide open. Bright stars always looks like this on Canon 14-40L.