Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
As nasty as the relationship between Apple and Adobe is, I'm sure Apple makes copious use of Adobe's products in their advertising department. ;)

That, and actual professional photographers.

The screen contents are obviously added later, along with the perfect reflections.
 
What are you basing that on?

I'd have assumed everything in that gallery is CG. Is there an article somewhere that they talk about it or something? I'd never heard one way or the other, it just seems like CG is much more likely.

I believe there was an editorial piece on the realism of their images, and then there's also this:

http://images.apple.com/storeaffiliates/docs/OLS_Affiliate_Photo_Guide_102708.pdf

It's fun to read. Quite controlling, though with some sense. :D
 
I believe there was an editorial piece on the realism of their images, and then there's also this:

http://images.apple.com/storeaffiliates/docs/OLS_Affiliate_Photo_Guide_102708.pdf

It's fun to read. Quite controlling, though with some sense. :D

Thanks for the link, that was interesting! But it doesn't really tell us if the photographs are made with a camera or with a computer.

After all, we still call the Pixar movies "films" even though they're computer generated. The fact that Apple calls them photographs tells us nothing about where they came from.

My basic thought is that doing the things they do would be cheaper with CG than with cameras, so I'm having a hard time figuring out why they'd do it with cameras. I mean, they COULD be using cameras, but if they are then I'm not able to explain why.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.