Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Caught (Again) Using DSLR Photo To Advertise Smartphone Camera (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Over at DIYPhotography (which we spotted via Daring Fireball), writer and photographer Dunja Djudjic says that she caught Samsung Malaysia using one of her photos to advertise the portrait mode capabilities of the Galaxy A8 Star, a midrange phone that came out over the summer. Djudjic suspects that Samsung licensed the picture from her through the photo site EyeEm, so payment isn't necessarily a problem. But Djudjic does say that the photo wasn't taken with an A8 Star. Instead, it was taken with an (unnamed) DSLR she owns.
Samsung doesn't state outright that the photo was taken on the A8 Star, but it's certainly implied by the page it's on, which is meant to illustrate the phone's capabilities. The page doesn't note that the images are simulated, and after showing Djudjic's photo, it proceeds to show the A8's dual rear cameras, implying a connection.
Samsung doesn't state outright that the photo was taken on the A8 Star, but it's certainly implied by the page it's on, which is meant to illustrate the phone's capabilities. The page doesn't note that the images are simulated, and after showing Djudjic's photo, it proceeds to show the A8's dual rear cameras, implying a connection.
And you can't blame them, there's no way to fairly represent a screen image via other media (in that case print, in this case as part of an ad, squished, stretched, and color adjusted, intended for viewing in a web browser), so why bother?
I don't think - maybe I'm wrong - but I'm pretty certain that nobody in their right mind looks at a photo on a webpage or print and thinks "That's typical of the quality I'd get from that camera shown next to it."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
....to laugh at this story being on Slashdot. And the Big Mac you buy looks like the one you saw on TV? It is advertising, people. Sheesh.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
An advertiser would NEVER EVER create a misleading ad!!!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
This phone camera is so advanced, its reflection looks like a Nikon D850!!
#DeleteChrome
I would guess that people who are not serious about photography are more interested in having a good camera on their phone, not less. Because that is their only camera.
Given that DSLRs and mirrorless are used now in professional videomaking and even moviemaking, you're so full of shit you're bursting at the seams, ready to shower everything with a smelly eruption of vile putrid defecation product.
Off topic, but that is a cool picture
Even people who are serious about photography care about their phone camera, because that's the camera they have on them at all times. Inevitably even the keenest photographer will find himself wanting to shoot something when he doesn't have his DSLR to hand, and in that situation will want the best result possible with his phone.
Oh no... it's the future.
Can I record the shit shower with a Samsung?
In a war between an inference and a statement, the statement always wins.
"All images simulated" beats your inference every day of the week.
It's called advertising, folks. Whipped cream in ads is actually shaving cream. Meat is on display under reddish lamps. Everything is fake. You can't trust the manufacturer to tell you if their product is any good. They're not going to tell you what's wrong with it, not before the next model is out.
The page doesn't note that the images are simulated, and after showing Djudjic's photo, it proceeds to show the A8's dual rear cameras, implying a connection.
Actually, it does (at least now):
* All specifications and descriptions provided herein may be different from the actual specifications and descriptions for the product. Samsung reserves the right to make changes to this web page and the product described herein, at anytime, without obligation on Samsung to provide notification of such change. All functionality, features, specifications, GUI and other product information provided in this web page including, but not limited to, the benefits, design, pricing, components, performance, availability, and capabilities of the product are subject to change without notice or obligation. The contents within the screen are simulated images and are for demonstration purposes only.
* All images simulated for illustrative purposes.
But does it really matter? Even if they were real images, they'll have been made under ideal lighting conditions and hand picked from hundreds if not thousands of images so don't reflect real-world conditions. And this ad campaign was likely put together before the phone was available to take any photos let alone to go out and do enough photo shoots to find suitable images.
If you want to see how it does in real-world conditions, wait for the independent review sites to review it because most users will never duplicate the image quality seen in an ad.
Mirrorless and DLSR take fantastic video you idiot. Let alone it's not an afterthought on mirrorless.
It depends on what you're photographing.
Standard, everyday simple portrait, street photography, gee whiz type stuff perhaps.
I certainly don't whip out my smartphone when a hawk flies over, a long exposure with a tripod or even a macro shot.
Thus my disagreement about the " camera you have with you " argument.
For many situations a smartphone camera will suffice. For many others, it will not.
The image in TFA is meant to illustrate samsung's supposed shallow depth of field. Which lens did she use? what focal distance is the subject? what is the aperture setting?
In this situation the lens parameters are more informative than the name/model of a DSLR.