Product photography and computer generated images

<p>More and more I'm seeing computer generated images replacing photography and in most instances the differences are so subtle that average viewers probably wouldn't even take notice. </p>

<p>This Cadillac page is such an example. The "All New Architecture" image just below the top has a slider to control rotation and also offers an exploded view. Such an image would be nearly impossible to create by traditional means and I imagine this was made from 3D CAD rendering:<br>

<a href="http://www.cadillac.com/ats-luxury-sport-sedan.html">http://www.cadillac.com/ats-luxury-sport-sedan.html</a> </p>

<p>I'm having a hard time differentiating real photography from computer images on the remaining pictures on that page, but it probably makes sense for companies making products which are computer designed - the design files already exist so it's a relatively small increment to make them into advertising images. </p>

<p>A few years ago, I had foolishly thought that maybe product photography would survive as a professional area since amateurs typically lack the skills to come close to an acceptable result. It didn't take people needing the images long to realize that the person in the mail room with the P&S was not doing the job. It's like the home-made local TV ads for restaurant food that looks like .. you get the point.</p>

<p>But I'm very sure that Michael is right about the threat to photographic professionalism here is not from amateurs but from computer-generated images. Apparently, from my sources in the area, this has happened and is happening a lot more quickly than people had expected.</p>

<p>I find it even more annoying in video. A lot of science programs these day intersperse actual video with CG graphics and such is the quality that it's often impossible to tell. So the video shot of some newly discovered animal or an apparently wonderful close up of a distant planet may just be CG mock-ups.<br>

They should be forced to mark generated shots with a warning like they do on trailers for video games - i.e. 'not actual footage' !<br>

As you hint - eventually nothing will be 'real'</p>

<p>Many overlook the point that commercial pictures are ALL only illustrations -- I don't know if the term "pictorials" is used any more. Saying that some image or other isn't "real" at this late time in the history of photography seem very naïve. CGI renderings are of things that <strong>can't</strong> be photographed and are labeled as such unless they are advertising. The photo-realistic CGI stuff is enormously expensive to do for just a conventional-looking product illustration without existing CAD material . There is still room for conventional commercial photography. <br /> Amateurs of all kinds are blamed for <em>stealing</em> business from the pros all the time. Businesses that use inferior work are themselves amateurs and do poorly or fail.</p>

<p>I don't see CGI as replacing lots of product photography areas, such as food, or hand-made musical instruments because no CAD material exists. As Michael says, CGI might replace photography in areas where the CAD source material exists, but as Alan says, it's too expensive when it doesn't.</p>

<p><Chas><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Amateurs of all kinds are blamed for stealing business from the pros all the time. Businesses that use inferior work are themselves amateurs and do poorly or fail."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan, I have to confess that I no longer know how to differentiate pros from amateurs in product photography, at least in the realm of low(er) end products. I'm also not sure that superior photographic work necessarily results in better business successes either. <br>

<br>

I see "inferior" work in local businesses all the time - restaurants, shops - but seemingly inconsequential. The only conclusion I can draw is that customers can see through the facade and able to differentiate content from fluff. In other words their purchase decision is not swayed by appearances. <br>

<br>

Upping the gradation, medium size businesses - trucking companies, small manufacturers, law and accounting firms - might place greater emphasis on presentation but even there the photography is often middle-of-the-road acceptable and apparently inconsequential. <br>

<br>

The top tier appears to be where quality presentation matters, but it also must communicate product messages in the most efficient and effective manner or risk losing its audience. This is where pretty pictures in itself does little; it needs to be in the context of the product/service in its totality where photography often fails, albeit professional in quality. <br>

<br>

Consider another Cadillac page just under the main header. It says "Click to Interact" with the V8 engine to reveal a 360 script made of hundreds of images which you can spin around. The "Click" option is there to reduce load time in megabytes of data required. <br>

<a href="http://www.cadillac.com/cts-v-luxury-sedan.html">http://www.cadillac.com/cts-v-luxury-sedan.html</a><br>

<br>

For all its whizbang, it's questionable whether the spin experience enhanced a potential customer's perception of the product be it CG or real photos. <br>

<br>

From a marketing point of view, I think the most effective photography is one which complements a brand-image which preexists but it also means a photographer's job is made much easier. For example, any number of amateur or professional PNet members can make competent "Applesque" images, but to make an effective "Googlesque" image will be another story. <br>

</p>

<p>I'm thinking mostly of small, home-town business where the pro really feels the competition from the "anything for a buck types." True -- it may not matter to their bottom-line and may even make the locals think they are frugal and more trustworthy. What I always wonder is why the pros don't get real and hit the road. I had friends in that kind of market just a half-hour from a major metro area who wouldn't hit the bricks with their portfolios. Customers can be quite fickle and give work to someone who just shows up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"What I always wonder is why the pros don't get real and hit the road. "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan, I suspect the reason is because pro photography is primarily a business and not every photographer has the personal makeup or chutzpah to run it as such. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm having a hard time differentiating real photography from computer images on the remaining pictures on that page, but it probably makes sense for companies making products which are computer designed - the design files already exist so it's a relatively small increment to make them into advertising images.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You will notice a difference if the ad shots have been made with an 8x10. There are still some very capable and knowledgeable photographers like i.e. Dietmar Henneka in Germany who shoots cars exclusively with large format for the top brands in Germany, Italy, France, England.</p>

<p>That these fantastic photographs will be manipulated with photoshop later is a different story.</p>

<p>Question: Do you still think the ad industry is honest, fair, respectful? That's a tell tale story from the last millennium.</p>

<p>If a company tries to cheat me with cheap images for exclusive or expensive products, they won't get my money. If they don't let others live a decent life, why should I support them?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"If a company tries to cheat me with cheap images for exclusive or expensive products, they won't get my money. If they don't let others live a decent life, why should I support them?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jens, I see it as a sign of the times where everything is going virtual or CAD/CAM where feasible. Technological progression will demand different skill sets from its population. Unfortunately that leaves some of us out of the loop unless we are able to catch up. </p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see it as a sign of the times where everything is going virtual</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When will we (the humans, the nature) go/turn/become virtual?</p>

<p>Until today I'm living in a real world. I'm working in it, making my 'real' money in it, can meet real people all over the globe if I travel (in new terms 'social network'), talk to my real neighbors, can touch everything... and I really enjoy it :-)</p>

<p>IMHO the virtual world will lead to disasters: remember the 2008 crash, caused by 'virtual money', which only existed on some computers?</p>

<p>Sometimes I wonder how many people are already living in a parallel world...<sigh></p>

<p>Jens, it's a bit different when computers are used for design and simulation. </p>

<p>Modern cars such as the Cadillac are entirely designed and modeled in computer prior to prototyping. The advantage is that every error or potential problem can be caught before production - the routing of pipes and hoses, wiring, parts accessibility for service, aerodynamics, crash worthiness, all can be simulated and verified prior to committing millions and to avoid discovering and fixing problems later. </p>

<p>The result is less time-to-market, reduce defects, lower cost, and a a better product for the consumer. </p>

<p>All sophisticated products are now made this way including computers themselves; imagine creating a modern laptop with its intricate parts and assembly in a small package, hard drives, cellphones. </p>

<p>Simulation is also needed when something has never been tried before such as the first flight of a brand new airliner, astronaut/pilot training, battlefield simulation. </p>

<p>As mentioned in earlier posts, these product CAD/CAM files already exist at a sufficiently high quality to replace traditional photography. It's not a conspiracy against photographers, rather simply a new reality. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's not a conspiracy against photographers, rather simply a new reality. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hehe, no, for sure not. But it is an artificial look. Besides this the fact remains that everything has to be 'cheap', except for the asking price of the product for the prospective customers.</p>

<p>Cutting out service providers kills jobs. Cutting costs for higher profits kills jobs. But I guess that's something good ol' America didn't understand yet.</p>

<p>I guess you know that the US gov is walking on very thin ice with their debts. They don't accept a limit, and instead of creating new jobs in a real world they steer directly to the big band which will shake the globe. Lehman Bros. was a slight move of air compared to what we will see very soon.</p>

<p>It's jobs in the real world - the virtual world never managed to make real profits. In most cases they just burnt money.</p>

<p>Anyway, let's wait and see.</p>

<p>Jens, allow me to offer another perspective. </p>

<p>100 years ago, FORD convinced the public that an automobile was cheaper to buy and own than to buy and maintaining a horse and having to feed it for a year. Ford's success with its Model-T meant untold numbers of newly created automotive jobs at the expense of the horse industry. </p>

<p>The global automotive industry continues to grow and employ more people every year over the previous year. In Canada, consumers now have a choice of over 200 models of new cars. </p>

<p>I think everyone will agree that modern automobile factories and manufacturing methods are the only practical ways to remain competitive and supply the world's need for cars. No one will suggest going back to methods of the 60s regardless of its nostalgia.</p>

<p>Product photography is just another small step toward progress and some day it will not even be a topic of conversation. </p>

<p>Let me add, if I may. </p>

<p>Product brochures and catalogs which photography is included are no longer driving forces of sales. People now rely on the Internet for information and user experience as their primary decision-making process. Word-of-mouth has become so important to product credibility and sales that manufacturing are still catching up on marketing and advertising strategies. </p>

<p>Businesses have also become less formal. The days of salesman in suits are long gone in an age where skateboards and ping-pong tables dominate the offices of Internet corporations. People are also becoming more receptive to low-res photos and videos regardless of products being pitched. </p>