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 used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”
61–70 of 274 posts
Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphon…
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.
a) According to another comment there's a disclaimer there too: "The contents within the screen and images are simulated for illustrative purposes only". Most will never see it as those disclaimers are always buried as far as they think able to get away with. usually small point font, grey on grey, and on screen for too little time to read if it's a video.
b) Not really. Whether "Shot with iPhone", or DSLR pics cropped to the phone screen, they both imply to Ms Average that they could take their phone out of their purse and achieve the same results. Otherwise why bother with campaigns like that? Unless Ms Average has a bunch of slave flashes and lenses in there too it cynically misrepresents. A simple tripod or monopod mount would be OK, as that still fairly represents "what's in the box".
Like the GP noted, phone cameras are surprisingly good within their well known limitations. They could achieve perfectly good, but honest, advertising photos just by staying within those limits. They would just never achieve the results an SLR with large, fast prime lens, and large sensor, or even arrays of additional equipment plus phone could.
A vague disclaimer does not, and should not, replace honesty and presenting what's "in the box".
Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”
#63Ah 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…
Its pretty hard to find a company that never lied in ads
Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”
#64Ah 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…
Its pretty hard to find a company that never lied in ads
Which says a lot about the state of our legal systems.
Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
True many car ads are actually cgi
Yep, most are. In fact CGI effects studio The Mill have a shell of a car that can expand/contract to fit the proportions of most regular cars, that can record its surrounds enough to build the environment for rendering, and that can be driven in place of the real car when shooting. The car being advertised is then edited in over the top, using the recorded environment to ensure accurate lighting and colours. http://w…
That's really cool! Here's a video with more details:
Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Can confirm at least that it can be done better than this. I used to work at Apple and you better believe they cared about details like this all the way up the chain. Every photo we used had to come from a marketing-blessed source, all modifications were auditable in source control, and the end result was blessed again by marketing.
What source control software did you use for the pictures?
Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> They reflect company values and culture. If it was from Samsung. This could have come down to a single decision by a very low-level person, or likely a contractor. Samsung's marketing execs dropped the ball in not supervising the campaign properly, but I'm not ready to fault Samsung generally because of a dozen poorly-managed publicity shots. Instead, I judge them by how they react to this mistake. Do they pull th…
This sort of thinking on brands is always a puzzle to me. Samsung certainly takes credit for every good thing done by their employees and contractors. Why does a radically different standard apply when they do something bad? Even if it made sense in some light, it's still a bad approach, because it means people with power and money are never held accountable for things that happen on their watch.
We hold them to account by not purchasing their products. But we call out the mistake for what it is: underhanded marketing. It isn't like they installed spyware or were handing personal data to foreign governments.
Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”
#68Ah 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…
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).
Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many fuck-ups do you require before writing off a company? Would the entire board have to personally come and shit in your mailbox?
The question isn't how many, but the scale of the fuck-up, and what it represents about the company. Maybe 5 people would have known that this ad campaign was using a non-phone-produced photo. Apparently that is enough for you to indict the 300,000+ people who work there.
It's not indicting 300,000+ people, it's one person: the chairman of Samsung Electronics for not having set a culture where blatant lying results in negative repercussions.
Re: Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question isn't how many, but the scale of the fuck-up, and what it represents about the company. Maybe 5 people would have known that this ad campaign was using a non-phone-produced photo. Apparently that is enough for you to indict the 300,000+ people who work there.
It's not indicting 300,000+ people, it's one person: the chairman of Samsung Electronics for not having set a culture where blatant lying results in negative repercussions.
Did you give him a chance to fire this marketing professional in Malaysia?
299,995/300,000 behave well. 5 people misbehave. Bad culture!