Product shots. Real or computer generated?

[mr.lemons]

Image of Alyco pliers from the Alyco website. Typical product shot.

Not sure if it's a mistake, but Amazon have used a photo of what you actually get if you buy the pliers.

Got me wondering if most product shots on tool websites and Amazon etc are 100% computer generated or edited photographs? For some like Wera it's obviously computer generated, but it's not so obvious for others, to me anyway.

Can anyone say (educated guess) if the Alyco pic is an edited photo or a computer render?

 

[measuredtwice]

There are definitely product photos that are 100% computer generated but I think all of the above photos are real photos that have been manipulated... the first photo is heavily manipulated.

Amazon doesn't take photos so they either got them from the manufacturer, distributor or a 3rd party seller. Sometimes the photo is completely off. For example, here's an Amazon page for a Knipex tool roll and the photo is completely wrong.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01KARU0T8/?tag=atomicindus08-20

 

[laser3kw]

I would say it is real and not CG. My thought is there are a lot of irregularity's that are visible. If it were CG'd I would guess it would be more perfect.

 

[jonshonda]

I feel like the first of the three pictures is rendered (that is the term for pictures that are generated from a cad file), but the second two pics appear to be pics of the actual pliers.

 

[Astro_Pneumatic_Tools]

For us it's about 95%/5% with 5% being rendered and the rendered image still being the image for the tools after launch.

But I've seen for some brands it's closer to swapped the other way around. I think the closer you get to the "tech" end of things, things that push technology, you dont have a final product until the very end but have to provide these sort of images to warehouses/customers/private labels by a certain date.

But for a pair of pliers, it would be silly. But I've seen worse, it definitely looks good sometimes compared to our actual product photos.

 

[bwringer]

Yep, the first photo is real, just nicely lit, color corrected, and the background is removed. Pretty standard product photo. They might have chosen a better example, and probably took 0.5 second to wipe it off first. Sometimes there's a spray photographers use to cut down the glare when shooting shiny metal objects.

The other two shots have also had the background removed, but the lighting and the outlining are really sloppy. The pliers might have some surface dirt or rust no one bothered to wipe off.

Tekton.com for example has fantastic product photos, and they appear to use all or mostly real photos. The photos are VERY VERY nicely shot and thoroughly edited to remove things like reflections smudges and fingerprints. Note how shiny stuff never shows a reflection of the camera or studio.

The shots with someone's hand are real; they all show a slightly different grip. But there are no smudges or distracting reflections.

Good product images are essential, and that ain't cheap!

 

[engineer2]

A 100% CAD generated image will look "fakey" and too perfect.
With good lighting and a clean product, it will be 95% good and 5% touch-up in Photoshop. I have also taken images from different products and pieced them together in Photoshop to make new products.

 

[bushmechanic]

I've seen CAD shots that were post-processed to mitigate the "perfect" look, but you can still spot them most of the time. I've been scratching my head over those swivel tool cabinets in another thread.

That seems to be a mix; which is the best way to do it. It's possible to make something that perfect, but not likely.

There are quite a few such images; some because they've already got the model and it's easier than photography, some just to give a fuller impression of the product, and some because they're jerks.

There's a time and place for everything, in the end. I don't mind it when it's a better way to show every detail than they could provide otherwise, or if the product quality is high enough that you feel it's that perfect when it arrives.

 

[2oolhound]

I've shot product shots before. You shoot a whole bunch of these tools one after the other so it's cheap. We used to use a view camera for this. You can tilt and swing a view camera lens board to control where the depth of field is. You tilt and swing the back to control the shape so it's not distorted from your perspective. Now a days it's all done with a regular camera and distortion is corrected in the computer but they couldn't fix the depth of field. The back of the handles are going out of focus. You can also look down between the cutter edge and the serrated edge and still see the background below the pliers there. When they selected the pliers in photoshop the quick select tool missed those little areas and they remained a darker grey colour while the selected area (the rest of the white background) was lightened up to pure white. If you blow the image up you can see it better.

I would have darkened the handles too like in the next photos below the original of this.

 

[mr.lemons]

Thanks. Often, I can see that there's something off or wrong with an edited image, but don't have the knowledge to know what specifically doesn't look right. A bit 'uncanny valley,' but for tools. Once pointed out, it's quite obvious.

The images on the Tekton website do look crisp and clean. The painted out reflections have an illustrative style. I think all the external chrome has been hand drawn.

 

[engineer2]

Chrome products are really hard to photograph. You have to play with the lighting using strip lights, baffles, reflectors, soft boxes, etc. to get some definition. If the come out all silver, it'll look flat.

 

[username2]

A 100% CAD generated image will look "fakey" and too perfect.
.

No need for that. There's scads of procedural noise notions a person could introduce. Making things look used has been around for decades.

I'm guessing that the main push for synthetic images is simply to get the product marketing stuff into a pipeline early.

 

[engineer2]

I'm guessing that the main push for synthetic images is simply to get the product marketing stuff into a pipeline early.

Yes, in a production environment no one has time to spend much time retouching in Photoshop, although the latest versions have advanced effects filters. Get the product out the door because in 6 months it'll be replaced with the newest version.

 

[bushmechanic]

Chrome products are really hard to photograph. You have to play with the lighting using strip lights, baffles, reflectors, soft boxes, etc. to get some definition. If the come out all silver, it'll look flat.

True. If a 3D model is available, it's best just to use it when dealing with reflective surfaces. I hate dealing with those, and won't judge a company based on that.

Indeed, it's better than seeing a company photograph it anyway and get all manner of nonsense in the reflection. I'd prefer to buy from someone bright enough to figure out the easy way in that scenario.

 

[measuredtwice]

I can't think of any situation in which a consumer benefits from a manufacturer editing the reflections out of the chrome in their product photos or using 3d models. It's done to make things look better than they look in real life.

I'd much rather see what I'm buying rather than see a cartoon of what I'm buying.

 

[measuredtwice]

Here's my amateur attempt.

A Vessel screwdriver with the anti-slip wood composite handle (Megadora handle shape though), bolster, striking cap, and knurled shaft. I want one!

 

[pizza]

haha MT

while we're dreaming, might as well get rid of them wimp marks:

 

[measuredtwice]

 

[honcho]

On a related note: The vast majority of photographs in Ikea furniture catalogs aren't photographs at all. Including the furnished room scenes. It won't be too long before the human figures in advertising will be synthetically generated too.

 

[ZRX61]

I bought some cheapass pliers at TS that had a finish like the actual photo, a couple of minutes with the fiber deburring wheel in the bench grinder had them looking like the doctored version

 

[M6erfan]

Here's my amateur attempt.

A Vessel screwdriver with the anti-slip wood composite handle (Megadora handle shape though), bolster, striking cap, and knurled shaft. I want one!

Hot damn, I want one too!

 

[measuredtwice]

Hot damn, I want one too!

Here's a funny one.

CTA Tools A164 Thin-Wall Impact Flip Socket - 19mm X 21mm
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002INRD2K/?tag=atomicindus08-20

VISION WHEEL INC Thinwall Flip Socket 1/2 In. Drive 19Mm X 21Mm
https://www.zoro.com/vision-wheel-i...12-in-drive-19mm-x-21mm-fs-1921tw/i/G5122233/