Even then. Take a selection of equivalently priced film and digital cameras (adjusted for inflation) and give them to a range of photographers.

I'd bet large amounts of money that aside from the very top tier photographers using top tier SLRs, digital will beat film every day.

Hmmm. Debatable. Film is sort of "analog", so a good film picture can be blown up / magnified much more than a digital picture before it would look muddy/pixely. On the other hand, for anyone outside of professional photographers, getting a good digital picture is MUCH easier than getting a good film picture. I remember average-to-cheap film cameras that had to be focused, needed just the right light, no motion in the subject, etc. whereas even cheap digital cameras tend to auto-adjust to that stuff much better.

The Gist:

Guy in business suit looking thoughtfully out of window.
(Doubtful anyone who designs fine consumer goods, *actually designs consumer goods*, wears a suit). Maybe its supposed to be you! You avant-garde millionaire, you!

Person sketching watch designs. This is probably semi-close to reality, though they don’t show the hundreds of designs the visual designer creates that are dismissed at whim by the aforementioned, assumed (but inevitable even if not shown) suits.

People fiddling with plastic representations of what one would assume as the model for said watch design. Maybe realistic, though with the caveat that two people are sitting there going over said physical design, in any serious discussion concerning the actual physics of the end product. I can *not* imagine that nearly the entirety of this process today, both visual and mechanical design, are not done digitally.

Okay, there’s some CG. Because CG is the next step, rather than the first, least expensive step in any design process today. Who wants to quickly model everything in a matter of hours when you can fabricate expensive, physical material for iterative testing?

Holy shit, was that guy just looking at a wood cutout? I can’t even think of a shitty, sarcastic/realistic remark about that one. I might have misunderstood that shot.

Alright, now we’re machining shit. You can’t really fake that with a few grand for marketing. That’s the real stuff. (1.5m in)

No, they don’t sand/polish things by hand during the fabrication phase. That’s entirely too inaccurate and subjective to the assembler to leave up to human hands. (But hey: it’s a 2.5 million dollar piece of metal, so lets make those buyers feel good about their money spent).

Oh look: gemstones! (???) That's kingly.

More faux machining that is veritably inferior to quality mechanical assembly.

Oh shit, someone just turned a nob!

3.5 minutes in, and we see some actual hand-polished work that is legitimately viable to perform by hand.

Hey lets sand those nodules off the finished pieces, and micro-inspect those printed markings, because nothing about us says “accuracy” without a fallible human to do it. Also: what are they printing shit on there for? Was it pushing the price to $3mil to engrave the timestamps on the faces? That better be the highest quality electroplated coating, but even then I can't imagine that's superior than a tactile, physical representation.

Now they’re hand-engraving the sculpted ornamentation, but it’s one more point I can gladly give them because those kinds of human touches let you know at least some sort of artisan was involved. I can appreciate that, though realizing what I just said causes me to reflect on the inaccuracies of mass-production, and why we would take one over the other…

More microscopes. (Because if one notch is off, it’s back to the furnace for you!)

Awe shit, payday. A guy in a suit looking confident is walking towards your building!

Finally, the gear assembly. It certainly looks fantastic, photographically speaking. I can’t help but notice that all that detail is lost to hundreds of textural indentations or are due to stylized alternating polish/grinding. However, I’m confident that spending $2.5mil on this product would get me the absolute, most accurate, unnoticeable details (hand-made!) within a micro-millimeter of accuracy. Those indentations are like chrome on a street-racer in the 90’s: the more you have, the greater they perform.

@~8min, I’m pretty sure no one works like that at their desk. That posture would kill you in a month.

They know you can’t spin the head of a watch while it’s on your wrist, right?

Awe! It’s got 5 ringtones! That’s way more than any other watch I’ve even heard of! Except everything that doesn’t cost $2.5mil.


If I can take anything away from this that’s even remotely positive, it’s that at least millionaire shitheads are now being just as suckered as the rest of the consumer base. Let me sell ONE of those watches, and I would have enough money to overtake their business within a year, except for that I don't have the greed, dishonesty, and overall lack of morals that it would take to set up a quality factory, and trick such dickheads into buying (even superior BS) products.

Your video, Photographer of the World’s Most Advanced Jets, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

From Jet to Jet - Being the USAF Thunderbirds Photographer has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.

Photographer of the World’s Most Advanced Jets has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg on that post.

Sort of reminds me of *related=http://videosift.com/video/From-Jet-to-Jet-Being-the-USAF-Thunderbirds-Photographer

As a father of a young child and also a professional photographer, this is really close to my heart.

I really hate that people associate nudity with sexuality. Of course nudity can be sexual, but that's not the same as saying all nudity is sexual. Running around with nothing on is just something kids do. They aren't body aware and at that age they shouldn't be.

If we're going to make something illegal or think of it as wrong because some weirdo finds it sexual, well where the hell does that end? A lot of people have a foot fetish, so are we all to keep our socks on at all times? Really?

The photo of the little girl jumping on the bed is a great shot. It shows the carefree abandon of a little kid trying to amuse herself. To me it speaks to my inner child and makes me realise how much we've lost as adults. The nudity is important in this shot, but not for any sexual reason. When was the last time you just didn't care? When was the last time you thought it could be OK to jump on the bed naked? More to the point when was the last time that you didn't even have to think that and just did it, just because?

It makes the shot interesting that her naked body is not sexual. It's the opposite. It's innocent, there's nothing more to it. She's not at an age where all of these rules and restrictions should apply to her because they are meaningless to a toddler.

The problem comes when people take innocent shots like this and try to make out that they are sexual. That's when the damage happens. That's when the little girl is sexualised. Not by the photographer, but by the people who claim to be trying to protect the kids.

I haven't read everything above. I'm going to assume it's more of the same old argument that is always delivered when it comes to comic characters.

BUT here's something to think about:
When I was in art school. We drew and painted nude models. male female, old and young. none were particularly "attractive", just normal.

But the the Feminists banned together in our school and started chastising men, saying they had no right to ever paint/draw a nude female. regardless of how mundane the pose was - saying, "No man can EVER draw a nude female because men are incapable of not sexualizing them.
So many of the men buckled because these women were very threatening. I didn't paint nudes but but had over 50 messages left in my studio because I included clothed images of my female friends in my paintings.
As a result, one of the guys in a studio next to mine, started painting nude images of "Himself" because he was going out of his way to avoid them. Guess What. He came under fire for painting nude images of himself in semi-erotic poses (not pornographic) because he wasn't Gay. How dare he paint a male figure that way. ONLY the gay men should be able to paint men that way. How dare a Hetro male paint a nude figure of a male because hetro males only want to sexualize everything.

There was no escape, If you were a Hetro male, you were only allowed to paint landscapes or Men in Parkas it seemed. The point is, it doesn't matter what you paint/draw or even photograph, someone is going to find a reason to stand up against you because of their sexual hangups and preferences. They will read into your vision with all the hate they have built up for issues that have been used against them in their lives.

It sucks and that's the society we're living in. Artists have a choice. Either cave and conform or be suborn, stand up for themselves and carry on.. I, myself choose to be stuborn.

Edit: And I will not appoligize for being stuborn when it comes to my art. (no matter how badly I want people to like me.)

should I feel sorry for the photographs ? or happy for the CGI artists ? anyways, it's a great ad. Most ads are lies and half-truths, or not really related to the prodcts sold, but that's not the point, they work , and they know they work.

My point is that when people print photographs, or pages with large graphics, this font is saving 0% of 90% page coverage. So my logic is that his contribution to saving actual ink is very small. Plus most of the ink I lose (personally) is because the cartridge dries out over time.

Besides that, the font ONLY makes sense on a printed page, where it looks like a normal font after ink bleeding, etc. On screen, it looks like shit. And can't take advantage of sub-pixel-font-rendering employed by every modern OS on LCD displays.

Congratulations! Your video, 3D Object Manipulation from a Single Photo, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 2 Badge!

'Fstoppers reader Matt Rennells very astutely found a link to the photo file on Shutterstock that Burger King used in the ad. Shutterstock has an excellent policy of requiring a signed model release from the photographer, and that is in play here as it clearly states that they do have one. '

Removed from YT as a violation of their policy against spam, scams and commercially deceptive content.

*discard

*related=http://videosift.com/video/3D-Object-Manipulation-in-a-Single-Photograph

While I think the ad is tasteless, I thought large chain business built on reputation were above this, they haven't done anything legally wrong here.

If she posed for the photos, and was paid by the photographer as the model, she had to have signed a disclosure contract that allowed the photographer to sell her image. I'm guessing that it wasn't Burger King she posed for when these photos were taken but an independent photographer, or image bank like Getty Images.

So once she has modeled and collected her paycheck, (or maybe, no paycheck), she has entered into a contract whereby the photographer or artist who took the photos has full say on how those images are used, in this case sold to a major fast food chain.

And it's not Rape. In now way is this rape. Disappointing and a bit embarrassing and by-and-large a completely inappropriate ad for a family focused restaurant chain. But then Burger King is know for it's sometimes inappropriate ads.

I will also say that it was an unprofessional move to buy the model footage and not take their own photos with a willing model. Big companies who can afford it, should never be purchasing stock photos from a service for this very reason, someone will notice and call them out. Big companies have a professional reputation to uphold. This ad campaign was a cop-out, without professionalism.

I'll bet this ad was created by a secondary party as well, and not by Burger King staff creative. Sometimes large corporations can't police every ad that is made in their name - which is unfortunate. I work for a small company and it's often a nightmare trying to police all the creative that gets made which doesn't get filtered through the Public Affairs department.