Warning: Real people don't look this way.

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by alan_zinn, Aug 1, 2011.

  1. mtk


    It is amazing to me how stupid marketing people must think we are as a general public. I don't think my gorgeous wife is going to "Look like celeb WXYZ" if she uses product 1234. The cereal bowl on the front never looks like what is in the box. The burger in the add never looks like what is on the tray or in the bag.
    This is no different than the warning on the hair dryer..."Do not use while bathing".....It just never ends.
  2. Unfortunately, a reasonable percentage of the general public appear that they are that stupid. Some of the tween set do think the product will do that, also some of the mid 20's people in CA and elsewhere don't believe the sign that says if you slip in the water and go over the water falls, you will die. :(
  3. "It is amazing to me how stupid marketing people must think we are as a general public. "
    In societies where perception is reality, it is a marketer's job to create the most favourable impression, thus the primary purpose of marketing is to build brand recognition, create product identity and skew consumer perception of its product over its competitors'. It was never required to be truthful, nor should it be because it's all about the intangibles and unverifiables.
  4. Mark: The idea of an ad like that isn't to document specific expected results, but to inspire action (to buy, to use, etc). If you've been alive for a few years, you know how to calibrate your rational expectations. It's sort of like the way that only 12 year old girls take love letters literally, right?

    As for warnings about not using your hair drier while in the tub... you must realize that's not the manufacturer thinking you're going to be that stupid. That's trial lawyers convincing juries that the user - a normal person - couldn't possibly have known not to use electrical appliances in the water, and thus should be paid millions of dollars because of injury when doing so. You don't really think that the manufacturers want to have to say all of that, do you? They are forced to, by an insanely litigious sue-anyone-who-makes-anything industry.
  5. In Stalin's day, whole groups of people were air-brushed out of photographs as they fell into "disfavor."
    Here are some work shots of something in progress, as I discover the "context sensitive" choices in my new version of Photoshop. There's a lot of work left to do, but this shows the direction of the project at least. ;)
    In the words of a professional editing shop from years ago
    Altering reality since we found out it was possible​
  6. I wonder how much of our perception of reality (perception of what is possible or even so) is influenced by endless television and movies. How long before that perception overwhelms our first hand perception of reality?
  7. Well, there is also another side to it, however nasty that side might come across. Most women are reasonably attractive between a certain age if they have eaten sensibly and exercised. There are a handful of stunners who are just that, stunners. The reasonable lot are your Sex in the City brand five years over the hill or in the case of Kim, twenty years over the hill. Women want to beauty themselves as they are comparing themselves to others all the time. It isn't so much about pleasing the other half.
    In the industry I work in four days each week, I do happen to meet women who are in the stunning league. They do get spots once in a while. Why not hide it in an advert.
  8. Matt,
    I agree with the silliness of it all. I'm sure there is an hilarious web page somewhere with examples of the most egregious examples. It is the fear, against all reason, of being sued rather than the actuality of many real suites having gotten to a jury. Plus, the knowledge by the alleged victims that an arbitrated settlement, no matter how outrageous is relatively painless. The response by the ad people that the pictures are "aspirational" is inarguable.
    Holy crap Starvy! I mean, Holy crap Starvy… ! You leave me speechless!
    I'm waiting for you witty people to suggest some interesting
    warning labels.
  9. Well, similar to the "Objects in [the] mirror are closer than they appear" why not go with "Subjects in [the] image are less attractive than they appear" - that'll be safe advertisement then.
  10. mtk


    Michael and Matt, you are both right of course! I sell a major product line of recreational vehicle products and am all too familiar with litigation, marketing, I was just trying to point out like Alan the silliness of it all......
  11. Models are always beautiful! And they look great in the clothes in the ads. In fact they would look great wearing just about anything or nothing at all. But most people fall for that so to be a model one has to be beautiful.
  12. I wonder how much of our perception of reality (perception of what is possible or even so) is influenced by endless television and movies. How long before that perception overwhelms our first hand perception of reality?​
    It already has overwhelmed the collective subconcious of Americans for the past 50 years, sad to say.
    There are only two types of people in this world : Those with TV and those without.
    Models are always beautiful!​
    Bullshyt ! Most (white) models today are either underweight , over-tanned, or worse, both .... phooey !
    Looking like a heroin cadaver only works if you're Mick Jagger.
  13. As a photographer, I find a certain beauty in heroin cadavers. Of course the overweight and undertanned can be beautiful too. :)
  14. Some years ago, a well-known camera manufacturer advertised its new soft-focus portrait lens using a photograph of Joan Collins. The standing joke among our group of photographers was, "Use this lens and all your portrait subjects will all come out looking like Joan Collins." I think the advertising authorities should assume that the general public have some common sense.
  15. Anyone interested in the truth about "frivolous lawsuits" should watch the recent HBO documentary, "Hot Coffee." It may open your eyes to the lies you've been told about why America needs so-called "Tort Reform" and who is behind the campaigns for it.
  16. I guess we're just not that bright. Since they keep telling us we're not.
  17. "There are only two types of people in this world : Those with TV and those without."

    There are only two types of people in the world, those that think that there are two types of people in the world, and
    those that don't.
  18. Damon,

    You must be a lawyer. Or related to one.

    Maybe even a trial lawyer.

    If so, just a heads up, when the Zombie Apocalypse comes, I'm really really going to have a tough time only shooting zombies.
  19. Richard, that sounds like a death threat. I've emailed your post to Josh's attention recommendintg that he cancel your membership and do a post with youir comment as an example of what kind of hate speech will never be tolerated here.
  20. How far will the "Photoshop Police" go?
    Turn the process around, (similar to JDM's two images). Are green screen images going to be banned, too?
    If not, why not?
    Maybe the governmental control exercised in the cosmetic ads, is due mostly from declining ethics on the part of editors.
    I chuckle at this here in the States...looking at all the bogus pictures on the checkout line Tabloids.
    Remember the TV Guide cover with Oprah's head, put on an old picture of Ann Margret's body and glittery dress?
  21. Holy crap guys! This topic was supposed to be for fun!
  22. Charles,

    Calm down.

  23. It was fun until Richard crossed the line. Is this threat moderated? This thread should be closed immediately and the abuse reported.
  24. Richard I look at your remark on the face of it, not in context with anything other than that you made a warning to a member and talked about shooting. These aren't private conversations with private contexts, there are no contexts other than those on the face of what you said.
  25. Charles, here's my interpretation:
    Firstly, a Zombie Apocalypse will never happen so it's clearly a joke on the face of it. Secondly, to us photographers, "shooting" generally means image acquisition with a camera.
  26. Charles,

    I appologize. I take it back what I said. When the Zombie Apocalypse starts I promise only to shoot zombies.

    Are we cool now?
  27. Of course, if the Photoshop Police go too far, we wouldn't have humorous images
    like the second photo link.
    The first image is generally listed as being Mariah Carey.
    The second photo is usually titled Victoria's Secret(?).
    Warning, probably NSFW.
  28. It doesn't matter if it was a joke. It was said and it can't be taken back. Michael, fair enough, yet in the context of Zombies, shooting means with a gun. I don't know if something is clearly a joke between friends, if Richard and Damon usually have friendly if sharp exchanges. Damon hasn't spoken up. The issue now, regardless of whether I have calmed down or accepted Richard's apology, is whether such remarks are to be tolerated and received dismisively by management/moderators or not.
  29. If the folks here, and on the other-side-of-the-pond, want truth in advertising, they should scrutinize the models in toothpaste ads. I'll bet any number of the models have caps, or have had a few bleaching/whitening sessions.
  30. Charles, I don't know the two guys involved in this exchange, and, until this point, haven't participated in this thread, but I just happened upon your interpretation of Richard's comment.
    IMHO, I would guess that fewer than 1 person in a hundred reading his comment would interpret it the way you did, ie, as a threat. Because, IMHO, you are almost certainly the statistical outlier, not Richard, there is no need for mgmt to do anything at all. It's too bad that the software used on photo. net is not like other bulletin board software which allows instant polls to be taken. I'm sure it would be as interesting for you as it would be for me to see if my p < 1% guess is correct.
    To gain some perspective on the exchange in this thread, I suggest you read about some of the real cases of threats and bullying on the Internet. In almost all of these cases, the perp refused to back down, apologize, defuse the situation, etc., and, continued this behavior over thousands of messages and for years. This is the exact opposite of what Richard did.
    IMHO, your ultra-cautious interpretation of this comment reminds me of the news stories that were common several years ago about how K-12 school officials were being forced by over-zealous rules to call police if one of their students was found to have brought an aspirin or asthma inhaler to school.
    Tom M
  31. My comment was meant to temper Matt's comment with an alternate view. Matt and I have differing political views. That said, I respect Matt Laur emmensely. His opinions, whether I agree or not, are always thoughtful and informed.
    As far as being a target, let it be known that the hunt for zombies knows no political boundary. I'll be there, right next to Richard, shooting those un-dead bastards, be it with a shot to the head or a headshot.
  32. Thanks Tom, I appreciate your perspective. I haven't been exposed to those real cases you refer to and agree that Richard did the exact opposite. I apologize to Richard and the community if I over reacted.
  33. Too late to fix my "immense" typo.
  34. Damon, A photo of a Zombie...really?
    Reminds me of a Bachelor Party...morning after...self portrait.
    Oh man, I sure do hope none of the rest of my buddies get married, again! <grin>
  35. Hi Charles - Thank you. If you are interested in some frightening summaries of cases of Internet threats / bullying, send me a photo.net message and I'll send you some links. I don't want to put any searchable terms up in public for fear of attracting such kooks to photo.net.
    Tom M
  36. So Richard -- it's OK by you to shoot zombies and *****ers.... or do you equate the two? How does that have ANYTHING to do with this thread? LOL.
    Some people really dig their own hole!
  37. Hi Damon. Thanks.

    I specifically did not mention the Hot Coffee incident, because that's a particularly bad example - for all the reasons it's understood to be. But surely you understand there are in fact crazy, crazy, crazy product/service liability suits running around out there, and legions of lawyers advising manufacturers to put absurd warnings on everything as a sort of inoculation. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, alas.

    Exhibit A: A refrigerator magnet (confession ... shot with a cell phone camera!).
  38. Eating prohibited?! Now I have to eat it!
  39. Let's be real, better a warning too much than a hotel as dangerous as this without warning: http://www.engrish.com/2011/07/standard-bond-villain-desk-control-panel/ .
  40. dlw


    IMHO, while Kim may have a couple of years on the others, she's the best looking.

Share This Page