Forum Index > Business & Finance > Marketing & Advertising | >> Fast Food: Ads vs. Reality | | |
 Apr 02, 2008 @ 15:46:35 | #7 | jonnythan
Abominable Snowman
88699 points
27/M/NY, New York
Join Date: Aug 2005 | The "ads" pics are well-prepared with excellent studio quality lighting and color.
The "reality" pics are mostly smushed, with harsh, direct lighting (looks mostly flash light).
It's a bogus comparison. The items you see on the left are actually the same items you see on the right. Same pieces, same ingredients. But if you take the item you see on the left, then smear and smush it, and take a picture with a low-quality camera with a mixture of terrible, direct lighting, you will get the image on the right.
It's like "before" and "after" pictures of weight loss drugs. The "before" pictures feature people with no or terrible makeup, messed up hair, and awful direct lighting that accentuates cellulite and gives the skin unnatural bluish hues. They also have miserable looks on their faces. The "after" pictures are all brightly smiling faces, with excellent makeup and a new hairdo, with quality studio lighting, true-to-life colors, and significant photoshopping.
Often they're more similar than different.
The color is the *real* kicker here. ALL of the pictures on the left have poor definition with very cold colors [high color temperature]. ALL of of the pics on the left have excellent definition with warm colors [low color definition].
It's like looking at your face in a bathroom mirror where the only light is a single cheap blue fluorescent light versus looking at your face in a vanity mirror surrounded by warm yellowish white globes.
My Flickr
 |  | | Edited: April 02, 2008 @ 15:49 |   |
|
| Apr 02, 2008 @ 15:51:46 | #9 | raditz8526
Monk
33552 points
30/M/,
Join Date: Mar 2006 | jonnythan said:
The "ads" pics are well-prepared with excellent studio quality lighting and color.
The "reality" pics are mostly smushed, with harsh, direct lighting (looks mostly flash light).
It's a bogus comparison. The items you see on the left are actually the same items you see on the right. Same pieces, same ingredients. But if you take the item you see on the left, then smear and smush it, and take a picture with a low-quality camera with a mixture of terrible, direct lighting, you will get the image on the right.
It's like "before" and "after" pictures of weight loss drugs. The "before" pictures feature people with no or terrible makeup, messed up hair, and awful direct lighting that accentuates cellulite and gives the skin unnatural bluish hues. They also have miserable looks on their faces. The "after" pictures are all brightly smiling faces, with excellent makeup and a new hairdo, with quality studio lighting, true-to-life colors, and significant photoshopping.
Often they're more similar than different.
The color is the *real* kicker here. ALL of the pictures on the left have poor definition with very cold colors [high color temperature]. ALL of of the pics on the left have excellent definition with warm colors [low color definition].
It's like looking at your face in a bathroom mirror where the only light is a single cheap blue fluorescent light versus looking at your face in a vanity mirror surrounded by warm yellowish white globes.
Other than in an ad, I've never seen a Whopper that looks like this -
 |  | |
| Apr 02, 2008 @ 15:54:02 | #10 | markfox01
Über-Monkey
55157 points
29/M/Bristol, But im welsh!!, Unite
Join Date: Dec 2005 | jonnythan said:
The "ads" pics are well-prepared with excellent studio quality lighting and color.
The "reality" pics are mostly smushed, with harsh, direct lighting (looks mostly flash light).
It's a bogus comparison. The items you see on the left are actually the same items you see on the right. Same pieces, same ingredients. But if you take the item you see on the left, then smear and smush it, and take a picture with a low-quality camera with a mixture of terrible, direct lighting, you will get the image on the right.
It's like "before" and "after" pictures of weight loss drugs. The "before" pictures feature people with no or terrible makeup, messed up hair, and awful direct lighting that accentuates cellulite and gives the skin unnatural bluish hues. They also have miserable looks on their faces. The "after" pictures are all brightly smiling faces, with excellent makeup and a new hairdo, with quality studio lighting, true-to-life colors, and significant photoshopping.
Often they're more similar than different.
The color is the *real* kicker here. ALL of the pictures on the left have poor definition with very cold colors [high color temperature]. ALL of of the pics on the left have excellent definition with warm colors [low color definition].
It's like looking at your face in a bathroom mirror where the only light is a single cheap blue fluorescent light versus looking at your face in a vanity mirror surrounded by warm yellowish white globes.
Jon you only have to pop down the local fast food place order a burger and compare it to the picture to see its not the same...
But if you pay min. wage to people that havent really got food prep. experience or propper catering quafication in presentation then you will end up with what looks like undercooked crap in box.
Perception is in the eye of the stupid. | | | |
| Apr 02, 2008 @ 15:54:28 | #11 | pete
Über-Monkey
59728 points
21/M/Falkirk, United Kingdom
Join Date: Jan 2005 | jonnythan said:
The "ads" pics are well-prepared with excellent studio quality lighting and color.
The "reality" pics are mostly smushed, with harsh, direct lighting (looks mostly flash light).
It's a bogus comparison. The items you see on the left are actually the same items you see on the right. Same pieces, same ingredients. But if you take the item you see on the left, then smear and smush it, and take a picture with a low-quality camera with a mixture of terrible, direct lighting, you will get the image on the right.
It's like "before" and "after" pictures of weight loss drugs. The "before" pictures feature people with no or terrible makeup, messed up hair, and awful direct lighting that accentuates cellulite and gives the skin unnatural bluish hues. They also have miserable looks on their faces. The "after" pictures are all brightly smiling faces, with excellent makeup and a new hairdo, with quality studio lighting, true-to-life colors, and significant photoshopping.
Often they're more similar than different.
The color is the *real* kicker here. ALL of the pictures on the left have poor definition with very cold colors [high color temperature]. ALL of of the pics on the left have excellent definition with warm colors [low color definition].
It's like looking at your face in a bathroom mirror where the only light is a single cheap blue fluorescent light versus looking at your face in a vanity mirror surrounded by warm yellowish white globes.
Yea plus when you serve hundreds of customers per day, you don't really have much time to make everything great looking, you just wanna place everything in the buns, and make the next one.
 My Site | | | |
| Apr 02, 2008 @ 15:56:53 | #13 | jonnythan
Abominable Snowman
88699 points
27/M/NY, New York
Join Date: Aug 2005 | vizzy said:
Yes, but isn't that how most fast food arrives?
Does it really matter?
If a great chef makes you a fantastic hamburger out of the best ingredients possible, but you mash it down into a box or foil wrapper so that the bun slides off a little and some mayo leaks out, then take a picture of it with a cold, harsh, direct flash on a s**tty, cheap digital camera....
Does it make the burger taste worse?
Would a Big Mac taste better if it were carefully prepared and served so that nothing was mashed, everything was perfectly aligned, and the bread perfectly fluffy?
The ingredients you see in the ads are generally pretty much the same ingredients you get in store (except for lettuce, which is generally low quality s**t in store).
My Flickr
| | | | Edited: April 02, 2008 @ 15:58 | |
|
| Apr 02, 2008 @ 15:59:47 | #14 | vizzy
Über-Minister
17366 points
38/F/, Florida
Join Date: Aug 2007 | jonnythan said:
Does it really matter?
If a great chef makes you a fantastic hamburger out of the best ingredients possible, but you mash it down into a box or foil wrapper so that the bun slides off a little and some mayo leaks out, then take a picture of it with a cold, harsh, direct flash on a s**tty, cheap digital camera....
Does it make the burger taste worse?
Would a Big Mac taste better if it were carefully prepared and served so that nothing was mashed, everything was perfectly aligned, and the bread perfectly fluffy?
The ingredients you see in the ads are generally pretty much the same ingredients you get in store (except for lettuce, which is generally low quality s**t in store).
It might! Great chef's know a lot rests on the presentation. Nah, I know what you're saying and sure, it'll taste the same, but the experience will be different. And I'm soooooo biased against fast food. I just think it's gross...high fat, low nutrition value... so I'll pick on it when I get the chance.
 | | | |
Top
|
