5 ms·

What's sad is not only the dishonesty about the material, but what it says about the product. Do they simply not have enough confidence in their own flagship s

What's sad is not only the dishonesty about the material, but what it says about the product. Do they simply not have enough confidence in their own flagship smartphone, with an apparently world-beating camera, to show an actual unretouched shot? A great way to crap all over the launch.

manaskarekar 14y ago
I think this is more of just a pigheaded move by the advertising team. Nokia camera's have been good in the past and I have no doubt this is probably a good one. One ad campaign is short lived, the photos taken by consumers who buy the phone on the other hand will continue to trickle in. It doesn't make too much sense for them to rely on this fact. What the whole brouhaha is that they probably thought 'It's just an ad, everyone does it, every knows how ice cream in ice cream ads is not real ice cream. And the delicious burger never looks the same in real life either.' Here's an interesting video from McDonalds on how they make their burgers look great. They admit the shortcomings of a real burger in the looks department and how they make it look so good. http://youtu.be/oSd0keSj2W8 http://youtu.be/oSd0keSj2W8
- ajanuary 14y ago
  In most markets the ice cream in an ice cream ad has to be ice cream. The ice cream in non-ice cream ads, on the other hand, can be anything.
  - pycassa 14y ago
    actually, i read some where regarding tips in food photography.. where they dont actually use ice cream.. let me find you the link.. it is more of an advertising thing..
    - allwein 14y ago
      The gist is that the item being advertised has to be the actual item as offered to the consumer. So in a cereal ad, the cereal featured has to be the actual cereal (even though they may go through hundreds of boxes picking out the perfect corn flakes to use). However, since they're not actually selling the milk that goes with the cereal, they're free to use glue or some other liquid that will let the cereal maintain it's crunch or otherwise enhance photography.
      - Evbn 14y ago
        So they are selling real flakes and a fraudulent crunch. Still fraud.

manaskarekar 14y ago

I think this is more of just a pigheaded move by the advertising team. Nokia camera's have been good in the past and I have no doubt this is probably a good one. One ad campaign is short lived, the photos taken by consumers who buy the phone on the other hand will continue to trickle in. It doesn't make too much sense for them to rely on this fact. What the whole brouhaha is that they probably thought 'It's just an ad, everyone does it, every knows how ice cream in ice cream ads is not real ice cream. And the delicious burger never looks the same in real life either.' Here's an interesting video from McDonalds on how they make their burgers look great. They admit the shortcomings of a real burger in the looks department and how they make it look so good. http://youtu.be/oSd0keSj2W8 http://youtu.be/oSd0keSj2W8

ajanuary 14y ago
In most markets the ice cream in an ice cream ad has to be ice cream. The ice cream in non-ice cream ads, on the other hand, can be anything.
- pycassa 14y ago
  actually, i read some where regarding tips in food photography.. where they dont actually use ice cream.. let me find you the link.. it is more of an advertising thing..
  - allwein 14y ago
    The gist is that the item being advertised has to be the actual item as offered to the consumer. So in a cereal ad, the cereal featured has to be the actual cereal (even though they may go through hundreds of boxes picking out the perfect corn flakes to use). However, since they're not actually selling the milk that goes with the cereal, they're free to use glue or some other liquid that will let the cereal maintain it's crunch or otherwise enhance photography.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      So they are selling real flakes and a fraudulent crunch. Still fraud.