British Ad Industry Regulator Upholds Apple's iPhone X Claim of 'Studio-Quality' Portraits

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jul 2, 2018.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    A British advertising regulatory body has overruled objections to an Apple television ad in which the company claims iPhone X is capable of "studio quality" portraits (via AppleInsider).

    The TV ad in question, which began airing in March, showcases the smartphone's "radically new cameras with Portrait Lighting" and uses the phrasing, "Studio-quality portraits. Without the studio."

    [​IMG]

    The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) was compelled to review two complaints filed by viewers "who believed that the phone could not achieve studio quality photography, and challenged whether the claim 'Studio-quality portraits' was misleading and could be substantiated."

    In overruling the objections, the ASA said it had "considered consumers would understand the term 'studio-quality portraits' to mean that the lighting effects on the phone allowed the user to imitate a portrait photograph when taken in a studio".
    In Apple's response to the finding, the company pointed out that there was no industry standard definition of "studio-quality portraits" and that there "were wide variances between techniques, equipment, lighting and talent," which led it to understand the term as a subjective one.

    This isn't the first time the British watchdog has looked at viewer complaints regarding Apple ads. In 2008, Android users took umbrage at an Apple ad that claimed "all parts of the internet are on the iPhone".

    The reasoning behind the complaints was that Java and Flash content aren't supported on iPhone, therefore the claim was misleading. The complaint was upheld and the ad was banned in the U.K., as was another Apple ad that was adjudged to have exaggerated the speed of the iPhone 3G.

    Article Link: British Ad Industry Regulator Upholds Apple's iPhone X Claim of 'Studio-Quality' Portraits
     
  2. kevmclane macrumors regular

    kevmclane

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2017
    #2
    Haha I bet these two viewers are real fun at parties.

    *Calls up ASA*
    ...
    “I’d like to file a complaint on Apple.”
    ...
    “Illegally selling water without a permit.”
     
  3. keysofanxiety macrumors G3

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #3
    I'd bet the complaints came from two salty Android users with nothing better to do.

    "Studio-quality?"

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Kabeyun macrumors 68000

    Kabeyun

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Location:
    Eastern USA
    #4
    I’m relaxing with my home-made professional-quality coffee, thinking that all this complaint and class action crap really has gone down the rabbit hole.
     
  5. kevmclane macrumors regular

    kevmclane

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2017
    #5
    Hmm, I don’t believe you could possibly make professional quality coffee in a home. I’m filing a complaint :cool:
     
  6. UKinEK macrumors 6502

    UKinEK

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2015
    Location:
    Brooks, AB
    #6
    And I will join you. You know that it takes two (according to ASA)
    Home made professional Quality brew my a@se :)
     
  7. TimmeyCook Suspended

    TimmeyCook

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2018
    #7
    Some bitter Android people complain that no matter which phone they use to photograph his girlfriend, she’s always ugly and doesn’t like the models.
     
  8. UKinEK macrumors 6502

    UKinEK

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2015
    Location:
    Brooks, AB
    #8
    This party is not a “real - like” party!
    This punch doesn’t have enough of fruit in it.
    Let’s sue them. I will join you, two of us have a greater chance
     
  9. GoodWheaties macrumors 6502a

    GoodWheaties

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2015
    #9
    I would hazard a guess that a very good photographer with an iPhone X could surpass some of the studio work I’ve seen. As always, being a professional simply means you are getting paid to do something. It does not always mean that you are good at what you do. That being said, I would never pay someone to take pictures with a phone. I have actually heard of “photographers” showing up to take family pictures with a phone. Unacceptable IMO.
     
  10. Scooz macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    #10
    It’s said to be „Single room apartment quality photos“ in Apple‘s backup ad for the UK...
     
  11. expiredyogurt macrumors regular

    expiredyogurt

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2016
    Location:
    not america
    #11
    2 amateur photographer that suck at taking studio picture is filing the complaint like a little whiny baby.
     
  12. Kaibelf Suspended

    Kaibelf

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Location:
    Silicon Valley, CA
    #12
    Exactly. What should we call this duo? Camera Cathy and Studio Stacy?
     
  13. Bacillus Suspended

    Bacillus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #13
    Inflating "Studio" and "Professional" is a core marketing tactic Apple uses to appeal to the masses. No serious multi-million budgeted company would settle for an iPhone as its main recording device or an iPad to subsitute any of its editing platforms. But obviously many will take some fast bucks for claiming so. It's just paid marketing aka Cookette reality distortion nonsense.
    Bon appetite, herds...
     
  14. ApfelKuchen, Jul 2, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2018

    ApfelKuchen macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Location:
    Between the coasts
    #14
    The customer gets what he/she pays for. In the end, they're paying for great photos, not equipment rentals.

    Apple certainly has paid professional photographers to shoot with iPhones, and a number of major publications have engaged pros to use iPhones for cover shoots and major pictorials (no doubt with Apple's encouragement). There's a fair amount of professional video out there shot with iPhones and iPads - assuming the only definition of "professional" involves payment, those YouTubers are certainly making money

    The thing is, professionals use "non-professional" tools all the time. They use the tool that works. Sometimes the only significant difference between pro gear and consumer gear is durability. Other times, pro tools may deliver a broader range of capabilities and controls - if you don't need those extra capabilities, maybe you're wasting your money (or lugging too much weight) by carrying pro hardware. There are also times when pro tools deliver greater degrees of precision ("technical quality"). Again, it's not always necessary. An "adequate" consumer tool in the hands of a skilled pro can deliver far better results than many consumers can deliver with the shiniest pro equipment.

    When it comes down to it, when the customer is hiring a pro, the customer feels better when that pro uses recognizably professional tools. On the customer's end, it reinforces their decision to use that professional (say, when an ad agency brings their client to a shoot/recording session). They're paying for the best, after all. On the pro's end, it helps justify the paycheck. "My stuff costs a lot more, so I naturally have to charge a lot more."

    I can legitimately call myself a professional photographer, though I'm not a full-time working pro (I was a full-time audio pro for decades). Some of the most personally satisfying, creative shooting I've done over the past few years has been with my iPhones. They've been the right tools for the job (either by capabilities or by simply being the camera I have on hand at all times). I don't make excuses when I show iPhone images. More likely, I'll boast that I was able to take such a good shot with "just" an iPhone. I think it says more about my skills than if I had been shooting with a $5,000-$20,000 bit of pro gear. Still, when I'm on official shoots, the iPhone usually stays in my pocket. People still expect a professional photographer to use a "professional" camera.

    As for that last little bit,
    Gotta tell ya, a huge part of taking good candids is that the subjects be relaxed around the camera/photographer. When people spy big, pro gear, they tend to become self-conscious. On the other hand, nobody thinks twice about being captured by an iPhone - it's such a constant of life, people don't make conscious note of it. (Nikon with huge telephoto = paparazzo. iPhone = fan.) So, when a stranger shows up for the party, an iPhone can turn out to be the perfect disguise. Understanding this is as much a part of being a pro as knowing how to compose a shot, how to anticipate action, how to get a competent exposure, or what shots you need in order to properly document the event.
     
  15. macduke macrumors G3

    macduke

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Central U.S.
    #15
    Technically you could call a janitor's closet a studio and take a photo of a person with a disposable camera inside of said studio and it would be a "studio quality" portrait.
     
  16. alFR macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    #16
    Definitely. I mean, a big director like Steven Soderbergh would never shoot a film entirely on an iPhone. And a film shot on an iPhone wouldn't ever be received really well at Sundance. Nor would one win an Oscar (although to be fair that one was only partly shot on an iPhone). No, definitely not.

    And it's "bon appetit".
     
  17. halfbakedjake macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    #17
    That is two very sad people to complain but unfortunately the ASA have to look into all cases with advertisement.

    Still...I am happy the ASA exists otherwise companies in the uk would be selling 12 different types of unlimited like in the US
     
  18. LiveM macrumors 65816

    LiveM

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2015
    #18
    It’s not going going to give you any all-important catchlights or plenty of other other studio lighting effects, but there are enough useless studio photographers out there to make Apple’s claims believeable.
     
  19. T Coma macrumors 6502

    T Coma

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2015
    Location:
    People's Republic of Chicago
    #19
    Aye
    IMG_2384.PNG
     
  20. Bacillus, Jul 2, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2018

    Bacillus Suspended

    Bacillus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #20
    Ah - a believer of this campaign looking at one side of the coin:
    Didn't read about this "shot on ..." fraud?
    https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads/
    Comment: "Looks awful. Blown highlights, low dynamic range. And this wide angle lens that makes the heads look blown up the whole time... even years ago movies were better looking - with analog stuff."

    Then the other truth about your Oscar-winning reference:
    "When you shoot with an iPhone, are you loosng some control over your instrument? Yes. Are you losing image quality? Of course. Does it matter? Maybe not as much as you think, considering the fact that The Hollywood Reporter described the look of Tangerine as “crisp and vigorously cinematic”, with “an aesthetic purity that stands out in a field where so much indie filmmaking has gotten glossier and less technically adventurous.”"

    So won merely on artistic merits despite being shot on an iPhone 5
    And if not so, there will soon be an Oscar category "shot on iPhone" to serve the purpose.
    Never mind though
    Believing in rewards that were actually bought or arranged is so common these days...
     
  21. Marshall73 macrumors 65816

    Marshall73

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    #21
    Ok, so you were one of the folk who complained, who was the other?
    :D
     
  22. Bacillus, Jul 3, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2018

    Bacillus Suspended

    Bacillus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #22
    The (proclaimed) "Pro" who crushed his head into a lamp post trying to film Brad Pitt
     

Share This Page