Ikea Catalog to feature more CGI images

<p>Originally posted on PetaPixel - </p>

<p>Reportedly Ikea is going to as much as 25% CGI images in their catalog - as opposed to using a photographer and studio. </p>

<p>Thoughts? </p>

 

<p>David, there was a discussion on this about Cadillac's use of CG:<br>

<a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00afbY">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00afbY</a></p>

<p>It makes sense to me that IKEA would go that route if the product CAD files already exist. </p>

<p>Here's the original Wall Street Journal article that PetaPixel picked up on:<br>

<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444508504577595414031195148.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_business_LeadStoryCollection">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444508504577595414031195148.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_business_LeadStoryCollection</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it makes sense for them to do it, they should do it. They are in the business of selling modestly priced furniture on a massive scale. Many of their products are available in different colors or need to be seen in different contexts both in print, online, and in other marketing material. Given the short life-cycle of many such products, and the fact that they're going to be showing them to audiences in different countries, often merchandised/accessorized/propped differently for different markets/cultures ... they'd be crazy not to use such tools.</p>

<p>"Thoughts"<br>

CGI is much better for product illustrations than photography. As the cost of CGI coming down more companies should be using it. Often CGI image can show things that can't be done with photography like inner view of the product etc..</p>

<p>Well, their furniture already looks like CG, so why not?</p>

<p>The kitchen illustrations shown in the article makes a lot of sense; colors, lighting and perspective can all be changed with a few mouse clicks.</p>

<p>I haven't been in an IKEA store in a while but it wouldn't surprise me if they use CG as a sales tool to sell complete kitchen renovations to perspective clients. </p>

<p>The issue that has spurred public interest in this story is the potential for deception. </p>

<p>Photography has, of course, itself been used to present deceptive images of products from the beginnings of its use in marketing. Still, folks feel that photography is tethered to "reality" in a way that gives photographic advertising images at least some minimal veracity unless they have been tampered with. As opposed to the pre-photography days when advertising images of products were illustrations, often quite fanciful compared to the real appearance of the product. CG returns us full-circle to the illustration days inasmuch as the image is created from scratch. But, an illustration can represent a product faithfully, just as photography can represent it deceptively.</p>

 

Anyone knowing Ikea (and who doesn't?) already knows that you have to go there and look at the things themselves if you want to know what they are like.<br>And that's not just Ikea, by the way. I think we all know we should not trust pictures used in advertisements. They can be good, "faithfull". They also can not be that.