PRODUCT PHOTOGAPHY: a thing of the past?

[digitmstr]

<p>Here's something to ponder: with all the amazing 3D modelling <a href="http://www.evermotion.org/item_319_hdmodels_cars_vol__3.html">software</a> available, along with ever increasing computing power, is product photography eventually going to disappear?</p>

<p><br /></p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>I seriously doubt that product photography will ever disappear completely. Products designed under CAD systems will use their native rendering as a supplementary tool for product illustrations, but I doubt it'll be to the exclusion of photography.</p>

<p>Then there are the countless products not designed by CAD - it'll be cheaper to hire a photographer than to input the product to computer, at least for now.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>If anything perhaps product illustrations will improve. Decades ago, illustrations in technical manuals and product catalogs were typically of much higher standards, in part because those photos were often heavily retouched. At some point retouching fell out of favor, apparently during the interim between large format film and digital eras, when smaller 35mm and MF negs were too difficult to retouch, or perhaps it wasn't considered cost effective. So we saw some poor quality product photography and illustrations for instruction manuals and technical manuals.</p>

<p>If "traditional" product photography disappears it may be a bad thing for photographers, but it'll be a good thing for consumers and those who need clearly illustrated technical manuals. And it will just shift the field from one form of illustration - the "capture" end - to another, the post production end.</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>As a photographer, I am amazed at the type of rendering that can be done. Not only light but, materials and even air quality. Mxing all of this software with photography and various other programs (like Photoshop) presents the most creative env. ever. All I can say is: I do NOT miss my smelly darkroom! ;p</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>if they can do it for car photography, why not for everything else?</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Probably because the technology isn't there yet to convincingly render such things as food and clothing. Then there are products such as cosmetics and jewelry where consumers will likely only respond to "realistic" photography which include humans. </p>

<p>I see commercial photography everywhere I look, and I think it's unlikely to be displaced in any meaningful way any time soon.</p>

[k5083]

As a false-advertising lawyer, I would say no. A CG rendering will be accused of misrepresenting the appearance of the product, the way too-heavily-retouched photography now sometimes is.

[digitmstr]

<p>I don't think you can classify it as false. Everything is ads is enhanced, of course. When you look at a picture of a model (totally retouched) along with a makeup product, what is that? <br>

BTW, there is plenty of modeling for food and clothing. Look at <a href="http://www.luxology.com/gallery">this site</a> , for example...</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>You can check their galleries by category. <a href="http://www.luxology.com/gallery/image/?mode=Category&id=21">Here's the product gallery</a> ....scary!</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>And <a href="http://www.luxology.com/gallery/image/index.aspx?mode=Category&id=19&page=0">here's </a> some PHOTOREALISTIC stuff...Make sure to look at all the pages, it's amazing stuff. <br>

<br /><br>

The point is that companies will find it more cost effective and they will also like the fact that nothing is set in stone. Everything can be changed at any time. Much cheaper than re-scheduling a photoshoot.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Answering as a CAD jockey first and photg second...</p>

<p>The CAD images are used often in industry during development phases, to show the people holding the purse how the product will be, or present different options.</p>

<p>But once you've got production units, no.... I don't think the CAD has any advantage over actual product, and the very real liability that somebody mentioned of "false advertising."</p>

[py-photography]

<p>My company uses 100%(or very close to 100%) renderings in our Operation Manuals and sales ads.<br /> Pro-Engineer Wildfire has a great rendering engine. With our models accurate down to the last fastener and wiring harness etc... Any company putting that much effort put into the design stage is sure to use more and more renderings as time goes by.<br /> So I do see more company's using renderings more and more. Simply because a new look is only moments away.. no need for the product to be finished up the etc...<br /> Will it take over product photography, I don't think so. But I do see more and more company's using rendered images, where a photographer was once the only option</p>

<p> </p>

[digitmstr]

<p>I don't agree with the false advertising claim. First of all, if you are taking a shot of a bottle falling in water, for example, that has nothing to do with reality. It's a VISUAL tool used to sell product. However you make that image is up to you. If you put a sexy model next to a car it doesn't mean you get the model when you buy the car! <br>

The whole idea that images created by modeling, photography or any other form of digital or analog means is false advertising is null. There is no merit to that. There have to be SPECIFIC legal parameters to meet that claim and they have nothing to do with which medium you use to make an image.<br>

There are many examples of ads shot with film in which you have scenes that couldn't possibly occur in reality (chairs flying, water pouring out of glasses against gravity, etc...) - is that false advertising? No1 If you see a skier next to a body deodorant, does that mean you'll sky better by using it? Not!</p>

 

[k5083]

<p>Okay Giampi, you can edit the next 900-page ABA treatise on advertising law, instead of me.</p>

<p>Sometimes a picture of a product in an advertisement is intended and is understood by consumers as a claim about the appearance and condition of the product. Not always, but often. It also depends on who the consumer is. If your advertisement shows children's toys doing things they can't really do, you will get sued, because kids may not understand what toys can and can't really do. If you sell toys, in particular, you have to be very careful about showing pictures of the items that make them look better or more realistic than they really are. Reputable toy companies therefore almost always use actual photos of their products, minimally retouched, and not paintings, illustrations -- or computer renderings. The same is true of many items sold to adults. Your comments about models next to the product, etc. are irrelevant. What matters is does the picture misrepresent the appearance of the product in a material way. </p>

<p>Or, how about this: you're buying a used camera on ebay. The listing has pictures of the item. They look just like photos; you can't tell they're not. When you get the camera, it's all beat up. You complain to the seller that it looks nothing like the photos in the item description. He says, "Those weren't photos, they were computer renderings. The pictures in my item listing are a VISUAL tool to sell product. How I make that image is up to me, blah blah blah blah." Enjoy your beat up camera!</p>

[digitmstr]

<blockquote>

<p>>>If your advertisement shows children's toys doing things they can't really do, you will get sued<<<br>

Of course, and perhaps you should. However, the result of that lawsuit would depend on the meaning of "they can't really do". as you know. <br>

Take for example radio controlled cars. When you see a commercial on TV those video clips are edited to make the action look incredible. That doesn't mean that your child will actually be able to do those maneuvers. However, that doesn't mean you can't really do the stunts either - it simply means that the video is edited to show you the stunts in sequence. But, it may have taken 200 hours and 100 takes to get the right images on film. <br>

But, the point is and remains modeling is not inherently false advertising and that's a fact. You may disagree but, it is a fact. There is nothing about modeling that makes it false a priori. Nothing at all.<br>

I am sure you don't expect any given brand of ice cream or pie or wine, etc.. to actually look exactly the way it does on TV or in print! When I used to shoot food we used all sort of stuff to make it look great, including fake foods (or food that were encased in polygels, etc...; much like many fine restaurants do with their dessert tray: they bring a tray of fake desserts to give you an idea of what they look like and their size). But, that doesn't mean we shot a product selling pie and you'd get meat instead.<br>

Nothing looks in real life as it does in print and film ads. Air brushing is another form of altering reality as well. So, I still maintain that modeling is not inherently false advertising anymore than airbrushing is. Of course, ANY medium CAN be used to break the law but, that's a people problem, not a problem of the medium itself.</p>

</blockquote>

[digitmstr]

<p>Sorry, I had the QUOTE command on for the whole post above! My bad!<br>

To go back on topic :)<br>

Commercial photographers have to do whatever the ad requires. This doesn't change and never will. In the days of film this involved at times some very serious trickery both at the shoot and in post-prodution. The introduction of digital made things MUCH easier (and even safer in some cases!). <br>

Now, it's another step yet with modeling which not only allows to achieve certain images with greater control but, it also makes it possible to change things at any time, something that would have required a re-shoot. So, whether it's a more realistic ad or a totally far-out one, I think that modeling may well replace advertising/product photography in due time.</p><div></div>

[digitmstr]

<p>opps, wrong caption.. :)</p><div></div>

[digitmstr]

<p>another example...</p><div></div>

[digitmstr]

<p>...</p><div></div>

[digitmstr]

<p>...and</p><div></div>

[digitmstr]

<p>one more car...</p><div></div>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Why just product photography, why not ALL photography? For this decade, there has been the "do it in photoshop" trend, where people tend to actually substitute (or want to substitute) in-camera techniques for software post-processing, Taking it one step further, whole scenes can be rendered without leaving the house. Much more comfortable than freezing in the middle of nowhere to get a shot ;-)<br>

For product photography, renderings are practical when the manufacturer does the advertising and does have CAD models. Not all products have CAD models and not all product photography is commissioned by the manufacturer. But in general I think it's safe to expect computer renderings to stay in manuals and advertising.</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>A friend of mine was the founder of a company that makes 3D printers. At the moment, they are quite pricey but, they have certainly changed the way things are done, in may areas of manufacturing, especially where testing of parts designs in a timely and cost effective way is critical. For example: some car makers (especially those involved in Formula one and other auto sports) now use those printers to make parts "on-the-fly" while testing new engine designs. The part is made of a resin that is dense enough to last xxx laps. They take measurements, change the design, print the modified part, etc... until they get the results they are looking for. In the past that would have required 50 times as long with much highers costs.<br>

Eventually, 3D printers should be available in homes, stores and repair centers. If a handle breaks off your coffee maker you'll go online, print the part and put it on. In due time, just about everything around us will be 'digitzed' and available as CAD file of some sort. The hot shoe breaks off you flash? Go online and print another one :)</p>