| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
"Looked much better in the brochure..."
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Central Jersey | NJ | USA | Posted: 5:20 PM on 01.20.11 |
->> Interesting, if slightly slanted piece on hotel/resort photography and what the scene looks like from different angles.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/01/19/hotel.photo.fakeouts/index.html
Curious what people here think of this, as this (resort photography) isn't an editorial application, and by the referenced blogger-tattler's own admissions, much of the work is done in-camera, employing the various optical physics effects we all know and love: forced perspective, telephoto compression, heroic angles, and so on.
And should that mean that resorts should only be allowed to use normal lenses, at average adult eye level, stopped down and hyperfocused for nearly infinite depth of field, with a "natural" highly accurate color palette in terms of ∆e fidelity? What about photorealistic HDRI versus a clipped single image during extreme high contrast situations (i.e. a highly shaded, but open air breakfast verandah)? Is one more ethical than the other?
Is there a hard line or zone where tools in the photographic arsenal go from showcasing to exaggerating so long as the scene is not enhanced in post to add or subtract elements from the frame? Is this a line we want personal watchdogging by the industry and visitors, or do some favor some form of gov't intervention to somehow police it as far as deceptive advertising?
~~~
And wouldn't this make a great workshop roundtable at some tropical resort with an infinity pool? |
|
Dave Breen, Photographer
|
Somerset | PA | USA | Posted: 6:44 PM on 01.20.11 |
->> The line has been blurring for some time. We in photojournalism hold ourselves (and each other) to higher standards. But, we regularly use wide lenses and super telephotos, and we pride ourselves on finding new angles. This is done in the name of creative, yet accurate, documentation, and presumably we don't deliberately exaggerate or lie to our viewers.
We could argue that anyone sitting/standing/hanging where we (or our camera) were would have had the same view -- except for the stretching or compression that was present because of our lens choice. But a "normal" lens, by definition, sees things as most people do. And most people see things from eye-level, often while standing. Is this THE tool of ethical photojournalism?
I don't think Jack was "calling out" photographers who shoot "ideal" images for commercial clients, any more than he would criticize a portrait photographer for removing a high school senior's acne or the reflections in grandma's glasses. The client expects an altered reality in the finished prints.
Caveat emptor (Buyer, beware).
Caveat lector (Reader, beware). |
|
Keith Tharp, Photographer
|
Londonderry | NH | usa | Posted: 7:00 PM on 01.20.11 |
->> It's like getting pissed at McDonalds because your burger is dull, cold, sloppy, and not glistening with excitement like the one in the menu pictue.
Putting the digital manipulation asside, I have no issues with it, for the most part your vacation is going to be similar to those pictures, meaning it is going to be what you make of it.
If you follow the link to the site and look at the side by sides they have one labeled "The dissapearing building" where the photographer chose an angle that did not include a building adjacent to the pool but rather has the viewer focus on the the proximity to the beach. But the site makes this seem deceptive, I think they are reaching for content on that one.
Related to the ones that have been staged, I don't have an issue with it but I can see where the deception can be found.
They call out some of the shots that are not filled with tourist as being deceptive too, I guess that depends. I went on a cruise a while back and the pool was wall to wall people, unlike the vacant one in the advertisement, however, I also woke up for the sun rise every morning and shared it with only 3 or 4 other people, so maybe if you get out on the beach early enough you can get that private experience you were looking for.
Ultimately I think a lot of what that site contains is a bit of reaching for content to justify it's purpose. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
| | | Posted: 7:08 PM on 01.20.11 |
->> Its advertising. Using a Canon 17f4 TS-E and 24f3.5 TS-E with lighting, HDR views (or completely laid in views) is fair game.
I can think of countless hotels I have stayed in where the promo photo looked nothing like the room and only four (off the top of my head) where the room met (and in one case exceeded) the promo photos. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 7:30 PM on 01.20.11 |
| ->> I ran into this while on vacation in Hawaii over ten years ago. Stayed at this b&b on the Big Island. had a fab time...but....since we ate dinner and consumed huge amount of wine with the owners....I asked him about the great photos he had of the place on their website....he then went on to explain he had photoshopped the sky, some trees....yada yada yada into the online photos to make them look "prettier". in my head I was yelling "wtf? that is SO unethical" he thought photoshop was great and was a happy camper. BUT I was having a great time there....the place did look pretty much as pictured....I just couldn't replicate some of the photos for my own "pleasure". was it wrong? I don't think so as far as the place lived up to far more than expected. can I do that? no. but this is an interesting topic for sure......now I did avoid disaster by a place in the florida keys who had these amazing photos of their hotel.....I did some checking online and reviewers said "BEWARE!!!!" these photos DO NOT show the place as it really is.....and I have to say I was really glad I checked a little farther down the line. when I PASSED this hotel on the way to Key West I saw how badly they had manipulated their "position" as a "beachfront" hotel. of course if you consider asphalt and concrete as your beach....not to mention they had removed all power lines, put in some really nice palm trees......you get the "picture". |
|
Erik Markov, Photographer
|
anywhere | IN | | Posted: 9:00 PM on 01.20.11 |
->> The way I look at it is like Dave said, buyer beware. Looking at the original photos for this post, the hotels are trying to better their position, does it suck? Maybe, but it's not strictly unethical. Everyone knows McDonalds make their burgers look better. If a hotel goes too far, well someone will be disappointed and they'll tell their friends and their business will slump, so it's in their best interest if they realize it, to not stretch the truth too far.
As long as we're talking about hotels and marketing tho... this kinda ties in as far as restaurants, hotels etc. I guess I've been guilty of this w/o thinking about, many PJ's prob are. You have an assn for a new restaurant opening, maybe to shoot a pic of a plate of food, when is the assn made for? Whenever the restaurant ISN'T busy, and they have time to prep a plate that looks great. I do my best to light the food well and make it look appetizing, but maybe I do too good of a job, who knows? Hopefully the plates coming out of the kitchen always look good, but who's to say? Yet trying to get a shot when the kitchen is busy to shoot the food, usually that's not going to happen. |
|
Joshua Brown, Photographer
|
Raeford | NC | USA | Posted: 9:42 PM on 01.20.11 |
| ->> To me, most of the shots are like a PJ finding the best background. If I shoot from an elevated position to get just grass/floor/ice in my sports pictures, am I being unethical? No, I get commended on finding a clean background. The same can be true for photographing a pool without the department store in the background. The photog just found a cleaner angle. Of course, some of the shots were staged/manilpulated, but (as has been said here before), advertising has different ethical guidelines. |
|
Mike Ullery, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Piqua | OH | USA | Posted: 10:57 PM on 01.20.11 |
| ->> How is it any different than the Canon ads that show a GWC using his trusty Canon Rebel, complete with a $129 lens shooting football at 9 fps and getting extraordinary series of photos? It is advertising, ie: 90% fantasy. |
|
Angus Mordant, Student/Intern
|
Sydney | NSW Australia | Australia | Posted: 12:23 AM on 01.21.11 |
| ->> Sure some are staged, but thats the nature of the beast, alot of advertising imagery works that way. I don't see anything unethical about images of the Hyatt, all of us have used a long lens to compress details infact here is an example with the same building http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/the_inauguration_of_president.html... If that was shot at 16mm the Capitol would have been a spec. I dont think it is necessarily unethical, if the image was physically manipulated (in the hotel case) and it was no where near the Capitol that would be a different matter. |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 12:28 AM on 01.21.11 |
->> [shrugs shoulders]
I think I began to understand advertising and ad photography 30 years ago (before I was a photographer) and have not relied on them for any semblance of reality since. I find it surprising that people do. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 8:45 AM on 01.21.11 |
->> Sure most advertising is falsified, but in the case of a brochure promoting a hotel some rules "should" apply.
Sure, any visual trick in the book can be used to show the resort in the best light: get up on a ladder to cut out that annoying garbage dump next door, wait for the only rain storm of the year to wash out the pollution to get a clear sky etc.
But using photoshop to drastically alter details should not be the case. Like using it to digitally remove said garbage dump or to make dirty, brown ocean water look crystal clear. Then you are not just showing the "best side" of the resort but going into false advertising. |
|
Pat Lovell, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IN | US | Posted: 10:21 AM on 01.21.11 |
->> I agree with George, altering details to make a vacation destination, home for sale or things like that is unethical. Using angles and photographing at certain times of the year, etc.. that's almost expected. But.. specifically being deceptive is bad business.
My wife and I went to Maui in 2008, we looked at places online, checked reviews and found a place that was right on the water and had great reviews. it was literally 10 paces from the lanai to the ocean. The photos online showed a beautiful, private beach, we were excited.
When we arrived, we realized that the private beach was only available at very low tide, about 75% of our stay there, the beach was under water. We had a great time but felt a bit 'duped' by the photos online. |
|
Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
 |
Murfreesboro | TN | U.S. | Posted: 10:28 AM on 01.21.11 |
| ->> Am I the only one who still uses a travel agent for "major" trips? |
|
Bryan Hulse, Photographer
|
Nashville | Tn | USA | Posted: 10:49 AM on 01.21.11 |
->> So, using the examples from the original link on this thread:
Do some people actually think the brochure should show the crowded beach at mid day, instead of a quiet morning at sunrise when the beach is empty, just to show the reality of the situation?
Maybe they should take the shot during a rain storm since many tropical destinations get a lot of rain? Perhaps a local stealing something out of a tourists unattended purse as they swim in the crowded waters?
(that was meant to be funny, not a dig)
I guess I figure it is my job as a photographer to make the most of a situation: Best angle, best lighting, best time to shoot.
But I do agree that if they are going to use Photoshop to manufacture an entire empty beach into the photo, the line has clearly been crossed.
I was just looking at a brochure a few weeks ago from a neighborhood in Denver (my old stomping grounds). The photographer had used Photoshop to make an entire neighborhood appear to have green grass! In the middle of winter! And Nuclear green! |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 10:49 AM on 01.21.11 |
->> Wesley,
You are not. For vacations like beach resorts, etc. I go with a travel agent who has been to the places, or knows other agents who have, and can give a true report. |
|
Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
|
Murfreesboro | TN | U.S. | Posted: 11:10 AM on 01.21.11 |
->> George:
Thank goodness. I was starting to think I was crazy. Seriously though. A few years ago, I flew to Europe having never left the states before. With my travel agent's help, I had all the tickets and directions worked out before I left (subway maps, chunnel tickets, lists of things to do based on my interests AND saved money going to lesser-known yet comparable places to stay).
The money you spend with an agent pales in comparison to the savings in time it takes you to figure out the nuances of a new place.
If I were still in college and piling up in a room with friends for Spring Break, I'd rely on a hotel's photo. But I'm not. I'm dropping a couple grand taking my family somewhere different, which isn't often. I can't afford to not use a travel agent.
*I feel like I just did a commercial. |
|
Brian Hollingsworth, Photographer
|
Austin | TX | USA | Posted: 1:53 PM on 01.21.11 |
->> This just further emphasizes the need for photoj ethics. If the average viewer is still frequently misled by advertising photos and commercials. Imagine how easy it would be to mislead people if the photo comes from a news source that purports to provide factual information.
Most people don't see photos or analyze photos the way we do, and they don't understand the impact of framing, lighting, or lens compression etc.
That being said, I think anyone who believes that the photos in an ad or brochure are exact reproductions of the product/location is just being naive. The product may be the same, but it's guaranteed to be shot in the best light (literally and figuratively speaking), and is likely being shown in a condition that a consumer would rarely if ever get to recreate. |
|
Jeff Lewis, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 6:59 PM on 01.21.11 |
->> Don't newspapers do the same thing in their Travel sections that come out every Sunday? I have seen where a newspaper will send a photographer to a destination to report on it for the travel section and the photographer will try to catch a sunset, an empty beach, clean hotels, etc. Basically the photographer will try to catch a places good side without showing whats just outside the frame or using photoshop.
Is that ethical? Is that the right thing to do? |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 2:06 AM on 01.22.11 |
| ->> I'm currently working for a major hotel chain for their remodel and advertising. Yes I shoot the rooms in artificial lighting that does not exist and angles that certainly make the rooms look larger. My job is to make the hotel look 100 times nicer and way more sexy than it actually is. There are certain areas I can not shoot and areas I do shoot but I must employ a few tricks to shoot the area to get the maximum look for the hotel. Is it wrong for the photographer to do it... Hell no! I'm doing exactly what I have learned to do in the advertising photography industry. This is not photojournalism this is editorial/advertisement and we lie! sort of anyway. I schedule the pool shoot the day after the pool guy shocks the pool and ads a coagulant that turns the water a wicked blue and I then push that color just a bit to get very tropical looking pool water at night with the heater on for a little wisp of steam. I've even put filters on the pool lights to help. If there are any food photographers here then you know some of the things we do to food to make it appear so mouth watering and perfect. I would not eat the plates if you paid me after we finish with them but they sure look like some tasty food, It'd probably make you sick if you ate them. There are tons of photo industries that manipulate their subject in all sorts of ways. Again it's not photojournalism. When I do however shoot photojournalism all that trickery goes out the window but there are times I wish I could just tweak the slightest photo... HEY!! no worries I'm more of an honor monster about it than the King of ethics Chuck Liddy himself. Did you know that golf courses PAINT the grass before big tournaments? |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 8:41 AM on 01.22.11 |
->> Anyone who believes the advertising photography is a bit unrealistic. It's about putting the best foot forward.
I've traveled a lot more than some, a lot less than others. I am headed to the Virgin Islands next month. Just as the first time I went, I used Trip Advisor as a resource for a couple of reasons - but a big one is the posting of pictures by visitors who post actual shots from the facility as well as their reviews. The first time I went, it was actual images that sold me. My level of expectation was realistic for the most part.
The place I'm headed to this time has a website, but most of the images appear NOT to be shot by a professional, but most likely by the owner. Better than that, visitors are encouraged to post their pictures from their vacations on the website. No cleared pools, not forced perspectives... it is just what it is.... I hope :)
Hotels aren't the first client to use a good looking model to entice you. They won't be the last. Doing good research, and/or using a trusted travel agent, minimizes the chance you'll be disappointed. |
|
Dennis Montgomery, Photographer, Assistant
|
Ogden | UT | United States | Posted: 4:39 PM on 01.22.11 |
->> Probably the most egregious examples of "what you see is probably not what you get" are ski area brochures and websites. Every photo shows a clear blue sky, deep powder, just a couple of skiers or boarders, no lift lines and/or perfectly groomed, empty slopes.
The reality is you are just as likely to get whiteouts, icy conditions or horrible snow, powder that is skied out in a couple of hours, crowded runs, and long lift lines. Most skiers and boarders know this and just accept it for what it is---advertising and something if they really get lucky, they MIGHT see. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 7:21 PM on 01.22.11 |
| ->> You mean hot girls don't make my beer taste better??? |
|
Frank Niemeir, Photographer
 |
Woodstock | GA | usa | Posted: 7:24 PM on 01.22.11 |
| ->> #5 and #6 don't look like the same pool. #5 has grass in the background and tile leading to the waterline. #6 doesn't have any grass or tiles. |
|
Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
|
Murfreesboro | TN | U.S. | Posted: 11:42 AM on 01.26.11 |
->> Funny story yesterday:
My boss sent me a link and confirmation number to a hotel I'm staying at for a shoot next month. Our lodging is on reimbursement basis, and seeing the luxurious hotel, I was a bit concerned and e-mailed him.
Me: We're staying in THAT?
Him: It's not near as nice as the website.
Me: It looks like the Reynolds Plantation.
Him: Trust me. You'll see.
Anyway. I just thought it was funny in the context of this thread. |
|
Juerg Schreiter, Photographer
|
Fort Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 9:15 AM on 01.27.11 |
->> " You mean hot girls don't make my beer taste better???"
haha, I'd have a good reply for you but it would not be
appropriate for this board ;-) |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|