Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Caught (Again) Using DSLR Photo To Advertise Smartphone Camera (theverge.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the embarrassing-stuff dept.

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.

60 comments

  1. If you want a laugh... by squiggleslash · · Score: 0

    ...find a consumer electronics catalog (Sears will do) from the 1980s, and look at the color TVs. Let's just say that either those TVs had superb color and resolution, color and resolution that would put today's modern 4K TVs to shame, when taking pictures of hot air balloons and wind surfing sails, or the practice of showing a placeholder image has been part of the advertising since electronic screens were first invented.

    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.
    1. Re:If you want a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In this day and age? Actually, I'm sure people would expect to be able to get that quality. No phone will compare to a DSLR, but with a skilled photographer modern phones really can take impressive photos. The 80's ads were dishonest, but it's even worse now that the differences are more subtle and to many people it's no longer seemingly out of the realm of possibility for phone cameras to be that good. Still boggles my mind that a company as large as Samsung doesn't have a skilled photographer or can't work with a freelance one to do it right. I don't know anyone who trusts ads, but I also don't think that's an excuse to let companies get away with lying; long way to go there though, deceptive ads aren't something unique to Samsung...

    2. Re:If you want a laugh... by nasch · · Score: 2

      Normally there is fine print that explains that the image isn't real. Watch any smartphone commercial and you'll see it at the bottom of the screen. Apparently Samsung didn't do that this time.

    3. Re:If you want a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      ...find a consumer electronics catalog (Sears will do) from the 1980s, and look at the color TVs

      My personal favourite was always the TV commercials for TVs.

      With this new Shony Bullshit 9000, you can enjoy crisp images like the one we're displaying on your TV right now ... ummm, yeah, really?

      but I'm pretty certain that nobody in their right mind looks at a photo on a webpage or print and thinks ...

      I would argue that people blindly believe crap like this because they don't stop and think. They just think "wow, gotta get me some of that".

      Several years ago it became quite obvious that car commercials really don't show cars anymore. They show 3D renderings of the car in some perfect idealised bubble. Then they show you how 'capable' the vehicle is, when there's no physical vehicle being shown.

      That commercial showing how rugged that truck is? Well, that truck was never filmed doing that, it's all CGI these days.

      And that commercial showing a tasty burger you'll never see in the store? Well, let's just say it's probably not edible because it's all been faked to give the appearance of a tasty juicy burger, but it's really a bunch of stuff you would never eat.

      Ad companies operate on illusion, and most people are don't understand, or don't stop to ponder that the difference between that illusion and reality can be quite stark.

      If you assume 50% of everything you see in an ad is complete bullshit, you'd be half right. ;-)

    4. Re:If you want a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not take a DSLR photo of the phone showing with a photo it took on the screen.

    5. Re:If you want a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the ads that say "professional driver, closed course, do not attempt" really are showing the truck doing that (quite probably touched up).

    6. Re: If you want a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, even in this "day and age", rules of optics still apply and the lens of a smartphone is still a wide-angled lens of questionable quality.

    7. Re:If you want a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some idiots, that claim we should all throw away those needless DSLRs and other cameras, because a smartphone is "just as good, if not better".

      Boy, do I feel like an idiot, with my 300mm, stabilized zoom lens, when a tiny smartphone, with a tiny noisy sensor, and tiny dirty glass is "just as good, if not better".

    8. Re:If you want a laugh... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It goes beyond color accuracy and resolution. A true depth of field range can't be achieved with a lens that small. They were using real depth of field to show what fake simulated depth of field would look like. See the article for yourself - they're doing a lot more than using it as a placeholder image on a phone screen. They're advertising it as the actual capability.

    9. Re:If you want a laugh... by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      "Better" is subjective. A good quality smartphone is just as good, if not better...DEPENDING ON CIRCUMSTANCES. For a pixel peeper or printing an 8 foot banner, the DSLR is certainly going to be sharper. But for normal size prints and online use, the phone is likely as good for most people. Now with the level of computational photography being done on Googles phone, you can actually get cases where it takes a heck of a lot of photoshop skill just to convert that DSLR image into something that looks as good as the what came straight out of the phone (I'm referring, of course, to the overall lighting of the image, not the pixel level sharpness).

      And of course, they always say the best camera is the one you have with you. I've got a DSL with plenty of lenses (including Canon L series), but honestly unless the purpose of me leaving home is specifically for the act of taking photos, I don't drag that thing along. If I did weddings (I don't), I of course would never dream of professionally photographing someones wedding with a phone. But if I were attending a wedding, honestly I wouldn't dream of dragging along my DSLR these days. When I go on vacation I still tend to bring along my DSLR with me just because I can't stand the thought of not having access to it when it need it, but in reality it gets used for way less than 5% of my photos.

    10. Re:If you want a laugh... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Pictures of food used to advertise the food MUST be the actual product. Now, that does not mean that the burger in the picture was put together by some minimum-wage high schooler, it wan't. It was put together by a professional photographer and food stylist who will take hours getting everything just right. But it is the real food.

    11. Re:If you want a laugh... by fropenn · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that you are looking at the image on a monitor (or phone screen) with its own limitations in resolution and coloring. It's like when they show 4k TV advertisements on TV - we are supposed to be amazed at the clarity of the picture they are showing until we realize we are already viewing it on my non-4k TV.

      But, nevertheless, showing a picture that wasn't taken by the device they are advertising is deceptive and misleading and they should be called out for it if not sued.

    12. Re:If you want a laugh... by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

      But it's possible to put a digital photo on a website. If we were talking analog cameras, then your point would make sense. And anyway, Sammy could have done any colour correction they wanted. The practice of using a DSLR and try to pass it off as a photo taken with one of their phones reeks of massive scam. Intel tried to pull something with computer graphics once, when they had a videogame rendered backstage with a proper GPU and tried to pass it off as something that came out of their integrated GPUs. So the practice isn't new. God bless disclaimers...

    13. Re:If you want a laugh... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      I still quote a billboard I remember seeing back around Oklahoma City in the late 80s.

      It was a very enlarged picture of some fancy expensive bottle of whiskey. The ad copy merely said, "Not actual size. (too bad)"

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    14. Re:If you want a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm on vacation, I want the best "background" shots available.

      I can play with the f-stop, aperture, etc, to get what I want in the shot.

      if I just want to take selfies, or get an idiot off the street to take my picture, I give them the "disposable" smartphone.

      Now, don't get me wrong. The smartphone is good, because I can use it as a card reader for the DSLR, and upload my pics, without lugging a computer around.

      Zoom lenses let me get those shots like I'm "just there", where I can't be there.

      But for the "selfie" crowd, the phone camera is more than good enough.

    15. Re:If you want a laugh... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      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?

      Back when Sylvania made consumer TV sets, they had a TV commercial that, even as a kid, I thought was extremely clever. The V.O. announcer said something like this:

      "Have you ever noticed that commercials for TV sets always show you how good the picture is, by displaying that picture on your CURRENT TV?
      We at Sylvania think that is silly. So we invite you to visit your local Sylvania dealer and see for yourself just bright and clear the picture on the new Sylvania ColorBrite TVs are."

    16. Re:If you want a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but to a person like me who is picky about photo quality, pictures takes with a "smart" phone will never be as good as photos taken of the same subjects at the same time with a better camera! And yes, I can tell by looking. Phone cameras use a tiny (usually plastic) lens which will always result in inferior photos to those taken with a camera with a larger optical glass lens.

    17. Re:If you want a laugh... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Normally there is fine print that explains that the image isn't real. Watch any smartphone commercial and you'll see it at the bottom of the screen. Apparently Samsung didn't do that this time.

      Curiously enough, iPhone ads always say the images are real at the bottom of the screen...

    18. Re:If you want a laugh... by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Some other countries don't allow this level of deception in advertising.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    19. Re:If you want a laugh... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      In this day and age? Actually, I'm sure people would expect to be able to get that quality.

      So you believe that are becoming more gullible than they used to be? Maybe it comes in waves. When I was young it seemed like people were more trusting. As I got older it seemed that people became more skeptical/cynical. I know that my teenager is a lot more gullible than I was at any age after 9 or 10 years of age. So perhaps that is the case.

      Granted, I think that we were all a lot happier back in the days when the government lied to us and we believed it. So maybe there's something to being overly trusting.

    20. Re:If you want a laugh... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It's almost like Samsung regularly cheats on benchmarks, lies in their advertisements, participates in price-fixing and collusion in order to screw customers, bribery of government officials, and blatant proven theft of intellectual property.

      Who would have figured that they would continue this behavior, as any fines or punishments have been far less than the profits of continuing to do so?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    21. Re:If you want a laugh... by DigressivePoser · · Score: 1

      And then there's the Samsung engineering organization that put out leaking refrigerators, SSDs that slow over time (840 EVO), and exploding phones among other things. I unfortunately am the owner of said refrigerator and two of those SSDs. Sometimes I wish I could slap a JDAM kit on my fridge, drop it from 20kft, and guide it right into the window of the CEO's office.

    22. Re:If you want a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Glass lenses? You fucking n00b, fluorite lenses are what you want.

    23. Re:If you want a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was necessary to simulate CRT images for print. 480i television photographed horribly. The scan period made a bright band partway through the image and the scanlines tended to bloom. Television images looked much better in person than photographs of them suggested.

      And actually, I'm looking at some 70s/80s advertisements for televisions and the simulated images are not that inaccurate. Mostly the color depth and contrast are too high but the TVs themselves are so small on the page that the resolution is a pretty good match. If you'd used a magnifying glass on a 1.5 inch printed image from a cheap 80s magazine you wouldn't have gotten much more than 480i unless it was some super-glossy artbook.

      Ads from the early 60s had deceptive fake screens that took up most of a page but those were stopped pretty quick as the wake of the 1959 Rapid Shave FTC case bubbled its way through ad agency consciousness.

    24. Re:If you want a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favourite was always the adverts on VHS tapes for DVDs showing how much clearer and crisper the DVD images were.

    25. Re:If you want a laugh... by nasch · · Score: 1

      Interesting!

    26. Re:If you want a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even high end lenses with fluorite elements also contain glass elements, and in most new designs, UD glass is replacing fluorite

      Ya fucking tard.

    27. Re:If you want a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...iPhone ads always say the images are real at the bottom of the screen...

      Haven't seen any ads, but the images ARE real, we just don't really know what they've been taken with.

  2. GAY GOOK SLANT GNAA GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1
    G_N_A_A (G.A.Y N1GGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
    gathers G.A.Y N1GGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being G.A.Y N1GGERS.

    Are you G.A.Y ?
    Are you a N1GGER ?
    Are you a G.A.Y N1GGER ?

    If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then G_N_A_A (G.A.Y N1GGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
    Join G_N_A_A (G.A.Y N1GGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time G_N_A_A member.
    G_N_A_A (G.A.Y N1GGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing G.A.Y N1GGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of G_N_A_A if you join today!

    Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

    First, you have to obtain a copy of G.A.Y N1GGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it.

    You can watch G.A.Y N1GGERS FROM OUTER SPACE on Youtube.

    Second, you need to succeed in posting a G_N_A_A "first post" on slashdot.org , a popular "news for trolls" website

    Third, you need to join the official G_N_A_A irc channel #G_N_A_A on EFNet, and apply for membership.
    Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

    If you are having trouble locating #G_N_A_A, the official G.A.Y N1GGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
    If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the G_N_A_A Java IRC client by clicking here.

    If you have mod points and would like to support G_N_A_A, please moderate this post up.

    This post brought to you by Penisbird , a proud member of the G_N_A_A

    G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
    N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
    A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
    A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
    G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
    N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
    A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
    A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
    G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
    N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
    A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
    A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
    G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
    N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
    A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#G_N_A_A________ ________S
    A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
    *_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C
     Gary Niger gary_niger@G_N_A_A.us G_N_A_A Corporate Headquarters 143 Rolloffle Avenue Tarzana, California 91356
    Enid Al-Punjabi enid_al_punjabi@G_N_A_A.us G_N_A_A World Headquarters No.33 Kyutei Bld. 2F, Shinjuku 2-11-7, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan ????????2??11-6
    Copyright (c) 2003-2015 G.A.Y N1GGER Association of America

    Ich Bindawalross (London) - G_N_A_A (NYSE:

  3. If you're buying a smartphone by nehumanuscrede · · Score: -1

    because of the ( usually ) falsely advertised awesomeness its camera ( with it's teeny tiny sensor )possesses, you're doing it wrong.

    If you're serious about photography, buy a device dedicated to such things.

    The same is true about video. Don't buy a DSLR or Mirrorless camera if your primary focus is Video.
    Go buy hardware that is designed for it and isn't a gee whizz afterthought on a convenient platform.

    1. Re:If you're buying a smartphone by nasch · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re: If you're buying a smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:If you're buying a smartphone by Tx · · Score: 2

      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.
    4. Re: If you're buying a smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I record the shit shower with a Samsung?

    5. Re:If you're buying a smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mirrorless and DLSR take fantastic video you idiot. Let alone it's not an afterthought on mirrorless.

    6. Re:If you're buying a smartphone by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      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.

  4. Don Draper Called.... by moehoward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ....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
    1. Re:Don Draper Called.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why have you come to accept this level of deception as appropriate when given the label 'advertising'?

    2. Re:Don Draper Called.... by G00F · · Score: 1

      Or the graphics on a shiny new PC game from the 80's and 90's right?

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    3. Re:Don Draper Called.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a moron. We would like our advertising to not be full of lies. Your burger analogy is stupid, too, as the McDonald's burger is still a McDonald's burger even if they have spiffed it up.

    4. Re:Don Draper Called.... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      In theory, there is nothing extra there not in a real Big Mac assembled according to corporate design.

      But they do pull extra lettuce and "melty" cheese to have it sticking out.

      And what's up with "melty" cheese? Per food advertising laws every noun is required to have an adjective, so cheese is...melted? Well no, not quite? It's cheesy? No...

      How about "greasy flavor blast, lubricating effect to the dry burger, and salt blast to increase flavor"-ey cheese?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Don Draper Called.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I don't expect the picture of the Big Mac to match the actual sandwich but I do expect the picture to not be a Whopper.

      Showing off your competitor's product as your own is just... sad and pathetic. Just like gaming the performance scores.

    6. Re:Don Draper Called.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is deceptive advertising, and where I am from, that is illegal.

  5. Re:GAY GOOK SLANT GNAA GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF U by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    you sick, racist jack booted nazi rethuglican scum! this will end. we are gathering up a stop to stop this hate! this is what you do, weaponize speech and we will no longer tolerate it. we have the house and we will write laws against this kind of hate.

  6. Re: GAY GOOK SLANT GNAA GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    You are an idiot...

  7. I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!! by sconeu · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for the first honest advertisement. "An adequate product for adequate people."

    2. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!! by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a Dudley Moore movie dealing with extreme truth in advertising I seem to recall from the late 80s or early 90s. Can't be arsed to go look it up right now; so don't remember the name.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    3. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!! by PPH · · Score: 1

      I think this might be the last one.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!! by IhateMonkeys · · Score: 1

      The movie was " Crazy People".
      Volvo, they're boxy. But safe!

    5. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!! by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      And now that I have read up on it, I understand why I never heard anything about it after the one time I ever saw the trailer. Looks like it was in the same league as Arthur II: On the Rocks, aka we speak not of it.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  8. You don’t understand by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    This phone camera is so advanced, its reflection looks like a Nikon D850!!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  9. Cool pitcture by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Off topic, but that is a cool picture

  10. Inference versus Statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a war between an inference and a statement, the statement always wins.

    "All images simulated" beats your inference every day of the week.

  11. Buy a Big Mac that looks like the one on the menu. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  12. Simulated by hawguy · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Simulated by twdorris · · Score: 1

      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.

      This. This hits the nail on the head and ends all further discussion. It *really* doesn't matter here. Nit-picking over disclaimers when you already know perfectly well that they're going to produce better looking pictures than you'll ever be able to regardless of whether they actually use the phone camera or not is kinda silly.

  13. Lens? by beckett · · Score: 2

    Instead, it was taken with an (unnamed) DSLR she owns.

    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.

    1. Re:Lens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, it was taken with an (unnamed) DSLR she owns.

      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.

      It was took with Nikon D7000 and Helios 44M-4 58mm f/2 lens. Shallow depth of field is artifical, they changed background, probably it is not even possible to have that shallow depth of field with that smal sensor without some postprocessing trickery.

  14. Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    The page now does say that the images are simulated. Problem solved?