5 ms·

>it sounds like you don't view using a DSLR here as misrepresenting the product in the advertisement? Not really. I'm saying that it's already largely misrepre

>it sounds like you don't view using a DSLR here as misrepresenting the product in the advertisement? Not really. I'm saying that it's already largely misrepresented through 99% other factors. The use of the DSLR is such a small factor that no one should really care whether it is used or the phone camera.

sethhochberg 8y ago
Fair enough, yeah - proper lighting even with a smartphone on a tripod would go a long way
michaelmrose 8y ago
This is terrible logic. You are acting as if the statement was the quality of the camera and if a similar enough picture could in theory have been taken it is almost true to the extent that if an identical image could have been taken it would magically transform into a truth. The actual statement was that particular image had been taken by that device which was 100% false. In fact it rarely makes sense to talk about degrees of truth people are either misleading you and nothing they have to say is worth anything or they are being truthful.
- vortico 8y ago
  "Misrepresenting the product" means to fabricate a result that misleads potential customers to think that they will get a similar result when using the product. If (for the sake of argument) a DSLR and phone camera produced identical results, they would not be misrepresenting the product because customers will happily get the results they saw on TV. The implication or direct statement that the result is actually produced from the phone is a lie, but it's harmless to the customer. It is harmful if the result is vastly different than the normal circumstances of operating a phone camera because of lighting, photographer's skill, and hours of editing. What I am claiming is that DSLRs and phone cameras are in fact very identical, so this (in itself) is not misrepresenting the product.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    I insist on the truth you are satisfied as long as its "truthy" https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17FOB-onlanguage-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17FOB-onlanguage...

sethhochberg 8y ago

Fair enough, yeah - proper lighting even with a smartphone on a tripod would go a long way

michaelmrose 8y ago

This is terrible logic. You are acting as if the statement was the quality of the camera and if a similar enough picture could in theory have been taken it is almost true to the extent that if an identical image could have been taken it would magically transform into a truth. The actual statement was that particular image had been taken by that device which was 100% false. In fact it rarely makes sense to talk about degrees of truth people are either misleading you and nothing they have to say is worth anything or they are being truthful.

vortico 8y ago
"Misrepresenting the product" means to fabricate a result that misleads potential customers to think that they will get a similar result when using the product. If (for the sake of argument) a DSLR and phone camera produced identical results, they would not be misrepresenting the product because customers will happily get the results they saw on TV. The implication or direct statement that the result is actually produced from the phone is a lie, but it's harmless to the customer. It is harmful if the result is vastly different than the normal circumstances of operating a phone camera because of lighting, photographer's skill, and hours of editing. What I am claiming is that DSLRs and phone cameras are in fact very identical, so this (in itself) is not misrepresenting the product.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  I insist on the truth you are satisfied as long as its "truthy" https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17FOB-onlanguage-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17FOB-onlanguage...