My reaction to the examples was "it seems like they don't actually want me to be able to see what the results look like." The pictures are very badly-taken: weird angles, bizarrely limited depth-of-field so most of it is out of focus, too close to see much of the picture, etc.
Looking through the testimonials, they all look like stock photos. Probably a lot easier and nicer looking than actual photos of the people, but it doesn't do anything for my "this is a marketing scam" feeling...
Well they're terrible photos. Black and white with sharp contrast and bad angles. Whoever is displaying these likely does not want to you like what you see.
Am I the only one who thinks the advertised pictures on the site look awful? Low focal length, high aperture, no artistic look and feel at all. Why would I want such low quality looking pictures?
With such images it seems to be more a device for scientific purposes than for capturing valuable moments of my life I want to frame and hang in my kitchen.
I get what you mean. Some of the photos are indeed very uninspired; the worst in my opinion is the SEGA photo, what does it have going for it except heavily retouched colors?
I like some of the others though. The saturation make them feel cartoony. Plus neon and umbrellas will always remind me of Blade Runner, one of my favorite movies ever.
Usually when showing off a project it makes sense to show it working correctly. The first photo shows that the software doesn't work consistently which could give someone a bad first impression. It's not like the photo is in a section that is about its limitation, but in a section introducing the project.
on a sample of 9 random images from the repository:
all nine looked like random point and click photos - soft focus, poor lighting, no composition - as if, in fact, you'd faced a landscape feature and taken a photo with no thought to how to present it.
I'm not going to click through all the images, but based on the sample I took it doesn't deserve the 'beautiful' adjective.
It's not so much the content of the images but more the lack of variety. So rather than looking like the placeholder images you often find in empty photo frames, it starts to look more like an Emma Watson fan page. Which might make some people feel unfortable if their workplace has stricter guidelines about internet usage.
Imagine this design with poorly filtered instagram pictures and fishy facebook application ads all over the place, instead of brilliantly lighted professional photographs of beautiful women.
It's a great work of art from a design perspective, but quite unfeasible to turn into the real thing.
Pretty much. If these are good photos, they're too good. It looks like stock photography. And this makes the company nondescript without a lot of personality, which seems like the opposite of their aim.
To be expected, but you're right, it is going to look totally different and spammy in someone's hands.
reply