Catalepsy Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I don't know who takes pictures for Ford, but does anyone else feel that Ford has some of the worst photographers in the industry? Looking at marketing photos of other makes, they look for the most pleasant angle and lighting even for ugly vehicles. Ford photographers, on the other hand, seems to always captures the ugliest angle possible. Other makes have bad marketing photos, but Ford seems to come up with them consistently. Granted that Taurus & Focus are not the most attractive vehicles, but when I saw them in person, I was surprised how normal they looked. Ford's photographers seem to have a way to make a car look down right awkward. Not just ugly, but awkward. This is how I feel about the new F150 photos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I agree. The Taurus and Focus look perfectly pedestrian in person - yet, in photos, they looked oddly proportioned and ugly. The F-150 I feel the same way about to a lesser degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I agree, Ford does have some bad marketing pictures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 (edited) At least they're getting better. This is what got crapped out for the launch of the Zephyr back in ought-five. Now they suffer from 'short focal length' syndrome. You use a really short focal length to make the vehicle look 'dynamic', and you get, well, gigantic grilles. There's also the "Car that ate Manhattan" angle, which is where the photographer basically lays on the ground and takes a picture of the last view of your car that some poor unfortunate squirrel has before shuffling off this mortal coil.. See examples below... This is 'short focal length' syndrome. Your brain assumes this photo mimics what you would see in real life. In fact, what you would see in real life is something that looks like a squarer and more chromed up 2004 F150, with more 'detailing'. This is the "Car that ate Manhattan" angle. Notice how it too distorts the vehicle's appearance. Why do I say distorts? Look at how the truck looks from a conventional angle, as compared to the '04. Edited January 14, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Look at how the truck looks from a conventional angle, as compared to the '04. To be honest with you, from that angle/those pictures, they don't look all that similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 couldn't agree more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 I saw a 08 Focus billboard yesterday and it looked quite decent...its all about the angles..it was High shot that showed off the topside of the car and it didnt look ugly at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 The photos are digitaly remastered to such an extent that they revealing nothing truthful about the real life design and texture of the car. I'll alway sprefer real-world photos for an honest view of new product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 The photos are digitaly remastered to such an extent that they revealing nothing truthful about the real life design and texture of the car. I'll alway sprefer real-world photos for an honest view of new product. While I'm sure the photo's have been Photo Paint manipulated to some extent they are "truthful" certainly no worse than airbrushing back in 50s/60s. But as Richard points out the attempt to show dynamic views are questionable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 To be honest with you, from that angle/those pictures, they don't look all that similar. But they look more similar than they do from other angles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 You want to talk about bad media pictures, look at the Taurus X. They employ "Look at how bad we DON'T want our product to sell" syndrome. The background is nothing. They should have shot it out in the wilderness...much like they did the Volvo XC70. Now, granted they do nat have the same capabilities, but they could have at least tried with the Taurus X. Look at how capable the Volvo is portrayed compared with the X. You cannot blame the photographs...blame the shitty PR dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Look at how capable the Volvo is portrayed compared with the X. You cannot blame the photographs...blame the shitty PR dept. The X isn't about the same thing as the XC70. I hope you already knew that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 The X isn't about the same thing as the XC70. I hope you already knew that. Slow down. Read the words.... Now, granted they do nat have the same capabilities, but they could have at least tried with the Taurus X. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Slow down. Read the words.... Yeah, but why? They aren't about the same thing. Why would they should them in an off road setting. They are supposed to be appliance cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 (edited) Here's a good example, one X is shown to it's best advantage at a nice angle, with natural appearing lighting in a friendly setting. The other is static, flat in depth, color and location. Which one is the a better ad? It's hardly a great ad, but I prefer to see that one. Edited January 21, 2008 by timmm55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 It seems the new crease/indent/whatever you'd like to call it above the fender flares makes them look more pronounced, at least to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Yeah, but why? They aren't about the same thing. Why would they should them in an off road setting. They are supposed to be appliance cars. Because the Taurus X can handle a gravel road...and be able to have some moutains in the background Here's a good example, one X is shown to it's best advantage at a nice angle, with natural appearing lighting in a friendly setting. The other is static, flat in depth, color and location. Which one is the a better ad? It's hardly a great ad, but I prever to see that one. Perfect. You should be running Ford PR, rather than the knuckle dragging, banana eating buffoons they have now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 You should be running Ford PR, rather than the knuckle dragging, banana eating buffoons they have now. Uh. Photography would go under the heading of SALES AND MARKETING, not PUBLIC RELATIONS. You knuckle dragging banana eating etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Uh. Photography would go under the heading of SALES AND MARKETING, not PUBLIC RELATIONS.You knuckle dragging banana eating etc. Meh...whatever. It is Ford NA...they have the collective IQ of a goldfish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Meh...whatever. It is Ford NA...they have the collective IQ of a goldfish. And, as I've said before, you wonder why people call you a troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Here's a good example, one X is shown to it's best advantage at a nice angle, with natural appearing lighting in a friendly setting. The other is static, flat in depth, color and location. Which one is the a better ad? It's hardly a great ad, but I prever to see that one. timmm, the photography is only half of it...its like the Playboy centerfold/ 6 pack abdomens on the Spartons from 300 syndrome...airbrushed BIG time ( good trivis fact ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 (edited) And, as I've said before, you wonder why people call you a troll. Do I? I know that is their opinion...doesn't bother me. I'm not going to let a little gossip coming from a loose lip ruin my perfect day. Edited January 21, 2008 by P71_CrownVic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Do I? I know that is their opinion...doesn't bother me. I'm not going to let a little gossip coming from a loose lip ruin my perfect day. Yeah. No one's going to stop -you- from being an ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Yeah. No one's going to stop -you- from being an ass. If you don't like the truth...don't read it. The truth hurts sometimes...but it needs to be said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 If you don't like the truth...don't read it. The truth hurts sometimes...but it needs to be said. It is Ford NA...they have the collective IQ of a goldfish. If you think that is the 'truth', you have a horrendously bad grasp of what 'truth' means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.