If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
75 percent of Ikea catalog images are CGI
On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 20:30:13 -0000, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , RichA says... Seems only fair. Since about the same amount of product there isn't Swedish, it's Chinese. https://petapixel.com/2014/08/28/fli...raphy-see-cgi/ To a certain it's the future of photography. Image processing software adding computer generated content to photos to enhance them. Photos taken by cameras won't go away, they will be enhanced by software. But it's lying. I want to buy what I see. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
75 percent of Ikea catalog images are CGI
On 2/9/19 9:04 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 20:30:13 -0000, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , RichA says... Seems only fair.* Since about the same amount of product there isn't Swedish, it's Chinese. https://petapixel.com/2014/08/28/fli...raphy-see-cgi/ To a certain it's the future of photography. Image processing software adding computer generated content to photos to enhance them. Photos taken by cameras won't go away, they will be enhanced by software. But it's lying.* I want to buy what I see. It's an ethical conundrum. Suppose Ikea has a common table. The photographer shoots it on a green screen (or white or black background). The art director decides it would look better in a dining room, so he drops the table into a stock photo. The table is still as it was when photographed, only the surroundings are changed. And you are not buying the surroundings, only the table. Is it lying? It could have been photographed in that dining room, but for economy and efficiency, it was not. Suppose the art director decides that table would look better in the well of the US Senate, so he drops it into a stock photo of the US Senate chamber. In my opinion, the first example is acceptable, the second crosses a line. The difference being that the first photo could have existed, the second not so likely. Let's go back to the first example. Now, the art director decides the table needs a floral centerpiece and some dinner settings, so he drops them in. (These items may be Ikea products also.) Again, the table could have been photographed this way originally, but it would have cost more. You are still buying the table (and perhaps the items on the table), they look just like in the photo, just not all combined. Where does "enhancement" become "lying"? -- Ken Hart |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
75 percent of Ikea catalog images are CGI
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: Suppose Ikea has a common table. The photographer shoots it on a green screen (or white or black background). The art director decides it would look better in a dining room, so he drops the table into a stock photo. The table is still as it was when photographed, only the surroundings are changed. And you are not buying the surroundings, only the table. Is it lying? It could have been photographed in that dining room, but for economy and efficiency, it was not. given that ikea's app does that and more, they are perfectly happy with whatever you want to call it. no green screen required. that's the old school way. a couple of taps and anyone can preview their products in their home, office or some other setting. https://i1.wp.com/digiday.com/wp-con...IKEA_AR_APP_PL ACE_Master_still_7-4.jpg https://media.wired.com/photos/59c17...aster/pass/ike apleace-FA.jpg |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
75 percent of Ikea catalog images are CGI
On 2/9/2019 9:04 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 20:30:13 -0000, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , RichA says... Seems only fair.* Since about the same amount of product there isn't Swedish, it's Chinese. https://petapixel.com/2014/08/28/fli...raphy-see-cgi/ To a certain it's the future of photography. Image processing software adding computer generated content to photos to enhance them. Photos taken by cameras won't go away, they will be enhanced by software. But it's lying.* I want to buy what I see. Why would you have a problem with it if the object you want to buy is accurately represented? I would think that if it is *not* accurately represented it doesn't matter how that came to be. In other words, this isn't really a photographic matter, it's an ethical issue. -- best regards, Neil |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
75 percent of Ikea catalog images are CGI
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 06:30:38 -0500, Neil
wrote: On 2/9/2019 9:04 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 20:30:13 -0000, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , RichA says... Seems only fair.Â* Since about the same amount of product there isn't Swedish, it's Chinese. https://petapixel.com/2014/08/28/fli...raphy-see-cgi/ To a certain it's the future of photography. Image processing software adding computer generated content to photos to enhance them. Photos taken by cameras won't go away, they will be enhanced by software. But it's lying.Â* I want to buy what I see. Why would you have a problem with it if the object you want to buy is accurately represented? I would think that if it is *not* accurately represented it doesn't matter how that came to be. In other words, this isn't really a photographic matter, it's an ethical issue. It isn't even an ethical issue. It's just another step along the away from the wood cuts you used to see in the old mail order catalogues. They went on via drawings to paintings and now onto an even cheaper and easier way of showing the customer what it is they might be buying. The next steps will be via virtual reality. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
75 percent of Ikea catalog images are CGI
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: To a certain it's the future of photography. Image processing software adding computer generated content to photos to enhance them. Photos taken by cameras won't go away, they will be enhanced by software. But it's lying.* I want to buy what I see. Why would you have a problem with it if the object you want to buy is accurately represented? I would think that if it is *not* accurately represented it doesn't matter how that came to be. In other words, this isn't really a photographic matter, it's an ethical issue. It isn't even an ethical issue. It's just another step along the away from the wood cuts you used to see in the old mail order catalogues. They went on via drawings to paintings and now onto an even cheaper and easier way of showing the customer what it is they might be buying. The next steps will be via virtual reality. already there. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Illegal alien population increases by %88 percent in US since 2000 | Jim Nason | Digital Photography | 0 | November 17th 07 06:09 PM |
Illegal alien population increases by %88 percent in US since 2000 | greg3347 | Digital Photography | 2 | October 31st 07 04:58 PM |
Bottom 20-percent D70s image dark | k-man | Digital SLR Cameras | 19 | September 29th 07 01:57 AM |
Catalog | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 5 | August 22nd 06 01:11 AM |
Catalog crunches | theo | Digital Photography | 0 | October 14th 05 05:38 AM |