These ads are made months before the product is released, and often the team making the ad does not have physical access to the product. Even if they could get access it is standard to use stock photography to keep cost down and get the ads turned around quickly. For the same reason restaurants use stock photography instead of taking their food to a studio or any other type of marketing

This. Why send your device out with a photographer and hope they can get a compelling image when they can browse thousands from a stock photo outlet and get something perfect in an afternoon? The stock photo will be much cheaper as well.

Well, for one thing: because then you don't get a bunch of viral news stories floating around saying stuff like "Samsung couldn't even use their own cameras to do their marketing." For another, because it sends a strong message that your phone cameras aren't up to professional quality standards, despite the fact that they might well be.

And for a final reason: because their leading competitor has made a huge deal about using their cameras to do advertising-quality shoots, which somewhat ups the bar for Samsung. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/10/shot-on-iphone-xs-use...

I wasn't aware of Apple's example; that's Apple being smart, not Samsung being stupid. Stock photos being used for simulated product images has been common nearly forever.

I'll agree that maybe the time has come for that common practice to be changed. Camera companies put prototypes into selected professional's hands to get early feedback and images, maybe the phone companies should do the same.

This is just plain dishonest. I hope public shaming works.

I like the idea that it takes longer to make the ad than to make the actual device, so they need to fake it.

Marketing teams working on different timelines than the production/manufacturing divisions doesn't necessarily mean one takes longer than the other...

The same reason anybody uses a stock photo for anything. You can spend $10,000 and a bunch of time to rent a set, actors, techs and a photographer or you can spend $200 to buy a stock photo in a few minutes.

Samsung must have a nice view from somewhere within walking distance of one of their buildings. How hard could it be to have the intern go snap some pictures. Perhaps hundreds of pictures and then choose the best.

You'd be surprised, very very surprised, when asking someone to take a "good photo" they return with utter crap. One of the "thought crimes" in our society is people thinking they can take a good photo - most can't, even if their life depended upon it. It is actually shocking, because most people, seeing professional photography all the time, just assume they can shoot professional quality - until they try.

This works better if the interns are professional photographers.

So hire interns with a photography background? If they can build a rechargeable device which is capable of taking high-resolution photos without outside assistance they are more than capable, as a business, of figuring out the challenge of hiring the right people to support their engineering efforts.

Edit: Or better yet, hire a professional photographer when you want to showcase the output of your high-end digital cameras.

The whole point of a smartphone camera is that you don't have to carry a separate device. Easy to use cameras existed long before them. And even with a smartphonesmartphonecamera, I don't think skill is useless.

The partial counter argument to that is $10000 is nothing compared to a promotion campaign for a product which usually costs millions.

The time and delay argument is a bit more valid. But if it is at the risk of such bad press, not sure it's a good idea.

>> The partial counter argument to that is $10000 is nothing compared to a promotion campaign for a product which usually costs millions.

From the looks of it, it's not a promotion campaign that cost millions.

It's just a bunch of microsites for a rehash of a previous Samsung product for a handful of countries (Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Indonesia? India's microsite for the product doesn't appear to use the image)

I would guess that it's the work from the marketing department of one of Samsung's regional offices, not HQ or US.

Because they’re actually nowhere near as good as a DSLR and they want you to think they are.

They all fake it. Even those few that are taken with a phone are so far removed from what a phone owner has, I think it would be more honest to label them with a huge "FAKED photo" banner.

Here's an example for iPhone where they're using some complex mounting frame to connect a 35mm prime lens to the front of an iPhone. The phone becomes more like a smart camera back. https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads...

I call it fraudulent, and should be in breach of advertising regulations.

> Here's an example for iPhone where they're using some complex mounting frame to connect a 35mm prime lens to the front of an iPhone. The phone becomes more like a smart camera back.

That’s... not an iPhone, though the video may have been created for a smartphone ad (I don’t know and I don’t think the video said)

In fact I didn’t see anything in that which specifically says Apple does it, and I’m pretty sure that Apple has said several times that they use an iPhone without any special lenses or attachments.

a) your article shows that there is a disclaimer on the ads about external equipment and shows a picture that it is possible to mount crazy lenses on a phone, but you are left to connect the dots yourself.

b) there is a categorical difference between using a different camera and presenting it as if it came from the phone and using external equipment to supplement the phone.

a) According to another comment there's a disclaimer there too: "The contents within the screen and images are simulated for illustrative purposes only". Most will never see it as those disclaimers are always buried as far as they think able to get away with. usually small point font, grey on grey, and on screen for too little time to read if it's a video.

b) Not really. Whether "Shot with iPhone", or DSLR pics cropped to the phone screen, they both imply to Ms Average that they could take their phone out of their purse and achieve the same results. Otherwise why bother with campaigns like that? Unless Ms Average has a bunch of slave flashes and lenses in there too it cynically misrepresents. A simple tripod or monopod mount would be OK, as that still fairly represents "what's in the box".

Like the GP noted, phone cameras are surprisingly good within their well known limitations. They could achieve perfectly good, but honest, advertising photos just by staying within those limits. They would just never achieve the results an SLR with large, fast prime lens, and large sensor, or even arrays of additional equipment plus phone could.

A vague disclaimer does not, and should not, replace honesty and presenting what's "in the box".

OnePlus doesn't, at least https://photos.oneplus.com/gallery

For years Apple was the only smartphone company that didn't have the disclaimer text "Screen images simulated" at the bottom of its TV commercials.

Then it started using the disclaimer "Screen sequences shortened."

Now I think it's like every other phone manufacturer with "Screen images simulated."

Sad.

Hah. Apple had to be sued, or threatened with a suit, in order to add the disclaimer in the first place, because they were talking about how amazing the iPhone's performance was... with shortened screen sequences.

This appears to be speculation that Apple is doing this, without any evidence.

1. Not enough time to use the actual phones to take photos and then create final print materials.

2. Maybe some tops don't trust enough that the phone cameras are good and want to make a less risky bet.

When you say "their phones" do mean the Galaxy S and Note flagships? Because there's a huge gap in camera performance between those and the mid-tier A-series.

A phone camera lens just cannot take a photo as good as a DSLR without having a proper sized sensor and a matching lens size... you can do all sorts of software tricks to make a photo look "better" but it's not physically possible, despite what their marketing teams want you to believe.

I can sell anything, you know? You know how many times I fake on the streets? You know? You have to fake. The guys that don't fake, they're the ones that get it the worst.