At Bosch Car Service we see what others do not.
Duh, it's supposed to be flipped because it's in the southern hemisphere, where everything is backwards. I can tell you haven't worked in the Argentinian car repair industry. Duh.
Thanks to Tomi!
Photoshopaholics
Subscribe
Posts
Comments
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Bosch: Make Way For The Ecnalubma!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
61 comments:
Haha I'm #1
Man, they really Boshed that, huh? Huh? Ah, never mind. Stupid pun.
Nevermind that the entire image reflected has no distortion due to the curvature of the lenses.
Or that there are clouds in the reflection, but the sky is apparently cloudless for as far as the eye can see.
You're missing the point... the ad says (in Spanish) "We see what others do not see"...
ok. that's a good one.
The image isn't flipped. I've been to the street where that service centre is and the signs on the outside of the building are all reversed. I wondered why at the time, but now I realize.
"Duh, it's supposed to be flipped because it's in the southern hemisphere, where everything is backwards. I can tell you haven't worked in the Argentinian car repair industry. Duh."
So I guess this is you maintaining that the last post was a disaster?
I can overlook mistakes, but not when you're so adamant to deny that they're mistakes at all. You're like a creationist or something.
I'm unsubscribing.
Maybe if she's looking at a reflection that'd be right
Again, seriously... They obviously did it on purpose.
In case you haven't noticed, most people can't read backwards... To flip it the 'right way' would be to destroy the ad.
Stop the nitpicking and find some real disasters.
This is a stylistic choice, and it makes total sense. It certainly doesn't qualify as a disaster or anything close to one.
Talk is cheap, roto13...
mac :]
Ummm,artistic license,maybe?Or I know!Magic sunglasses!Yeah,that's it!!:)
In theatre, the defining mark of the good use of lighting is that you don't notice the lighting. If something shifts your attention to the fact that there's a fade, or change of colour filter, they've messed up.
Similarly, any use of Photoshop which fails to divert attention from the fact that Photoshop was used to construct an image, has also messed up. People can make excuses for that essentially rely on us accepting the version of the world seen by advertisers rather than our own eyes - "people don't see things in reverse", etc - but that could be extended to, "that extra leg would have just looked awkward"; "models with faces that look like wax are more attractive than real human faces"; "people don't really notice that reflections don't line up in advertisements, so it doesn't matter".
But the world as seen by advertisers is almost entirely cynical bullshit. What kind of patsy am I supposed to be to accept it on their terms? This picture insults the people it is aimed at.
Yup. Here's an unaltered photo of the actual store.
@David - But that just comes down to aesthetics, not whether something is a mistake or not. This ad was intended. You may not like it and think it's stupid, but that applies to a lot of ads. I think Sarah Jessica Parker is ugly but I'm not going to post a picture of her on this blog saying, "LOL it's a disaster, she ugly!!!" I come to this blog to see ads that have unintended errors, not ads that just look ugly but still look like they were intended to look, but more and more these photoshop jobs that are perfectly fine - i.e. intended by the ad agency, and it's really not that entertaining.
I'm not a very critical person and I still enjoy many of the entries on this site, but come on. Post some mistakes! They don't even have to be disasters!
It was a stylistic choice. You can argue that it was a bad choice, but it sure wasn't a PSD. This site is just stupid now. I'm unsubscribing as well.
It's not that hard to understand.
She's looking at a mirror, and the actual shop is behind her. The mirror image is reflected, and you see the normal picture again.
At least, in a world where optics works slightly differently.
Not really a Photoshop disaster as much as your disagreement with the author's creative licensing.
My biggest gripe is that everything except for the name of the place is in Spanish. Why bother making an ad in Spanish if there's nothing in Spanish explaining what the company does?
Hehe, anon gots some new names. Quite a fete. Please don't let the door hit youse on your ways outs.
Ehh. Wrong. Stuff isn't backwards down here, it's upside-down. Duh.
Bosch Car Service... Botched Photoshop Job!
I have to say, there are some really strange people posting comments here. It's a blog, it's fun, it's free, quit complaining!
It is a disaster because the lazy artist made no attempt to make it look like a reflection in sunglasses, other than fuzzing out the edges a little bit. It looks like ass and it's a little insulting because it's so lazly done.
As for those of you who are unsubscribing -- hurry up! I'm tired of listening to people who think they've been somehow robbed by looking at a photo that doesn't fit their criteria.
I agree that the lack of reversed image in the glasses was probably intentional, considering the spanish text. What gets my attention is the banner across the bottom that covers up the model's chin and makes it look like he/she has no neck. Even in my very basic introductory courses to photography and image editing, they taught us that when cropping a photo, chin is more important than crown.
I wish Cosmo had the balls to stand up for himself once in a while. A little character goes a long way.
Heath: You rock.
It's advertising, therefore you have to suspend your disbelief in the logical parts (like the reflection facts) and pay only attention to the bullshit they're trying to feed you. You're a horrible consumer if you question any point of this.
Arguing people: On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog. (New Yorker magazine cartoon)
hahaha! Ecnalumba! genial :D
Hey Cosmo bring back anonymous comments. It was the best thing about this blog!
The text reversal thing is stupid, the clouds are sloppy, and the english/spanish thing is weird.
But what's really poorly done is the weird perspective on the glasses. Apparently the right lens is considerably larger and a different shape than the left.
What about this?
http://www.farandulista.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/beyonce-marie-claire-cover.jpg
Enjoy this disaster.
Chuckles from an Argentinian here... XD
If it was a stylistical choice indeed, it's a very poor one, since many of us note the wrong reflection before the advertiser's message. And as other more knowledgeable people pointed out, the reflection is sloppily done.
I'd call it a amateurishly photoshopped creative blunder.
The stupidity of some people astounds me. Something does not have to be an unintentional error to be a PSD. It just has to look bad.
Take the X-Files 2 poster, for example, where David Duchovny's head is blatantly 'shopped onto his body. If that had been posted, morons like roto13 and the guy who calls himself "me" (3/9 4:43) would be saying "That's not a PSD, idiot, it's meant to look like David Duchovny".
In this instance, I could go with the reflection being the right way round on grounds of style - just. What makes it an utter disaster is that the lazy 'shopper made no attempt to make it look real; he just put a 100% transparency layer over the lenses then superimposed the photo of the girl on a photo of a Bosch garage.
More to the point - and I'm shocked that nobody has mentioned this yet - separate mirrors aligned at the same object that is more than a few feet away will each show a full reflection of the object reflected. The reflection will not be split between them.
She's actually looking at a mirror at the store behind her. It's being reflected twice.
Hey!!
I like your post... they are great. I regularly visit to your page. Keep on posting buddy.
http://innovideas.blogspot.com
Thanks
Abhishek
http://innovideas.blogspot.com
It's bad and they used Photoshop - that is a photoshop disaster.
I hereby emptily threaten/loudly announce that I am going to unsubscribe from this blog! Take *that*! Go and cry yourself to sleep tonight!
(I don't even subscribe; I just come here a lot.)
@ Lindsay
Aesthetics is not about our subjective perception of beauty, it's about our subjective perception of fidelity, and one's aesthetic sense is always in development. In 1935 audiences gasped at the special effects of Buck Rogers; one day we'll laugh at the naivity of Battlestar Galactica. We learn to perceive the world through our consumption of images (never wondered why art didn't deploy geometrical perspective until the Renaissance? Does this mean that today's hobby watercolourists are better artists than Giotto?) and our aesthetic sense responds to the degree to which images satisfy our perception of the world (which is why, I would argue, as would most people, Picasso is aesthetically superior to Jack Vettriano).
Returning this to the far more mundane level of this advertisement, the "artist" asks us to accept a lie that he has no better skill to conceal. If we do accept that lie, we're saying, "That's cool, you want me to hand my money over to you for your product, not on the basis of its merits, value or an appeal to my intelligence (which is why a commercial of horses leaping through surf is still brilliant), but because I, like you, accept a lazily and unimaginatively-sketched version of reality." They don't attend to even the most basic qualities of reflections yet they must know that their audience knows at least that reflections are reversed, and follow the curve of the reflective surface. Instead, this advertisement says "An attractive woman with good teeth in a cool pair of aviators will give a little smile of satisfaction as she approaches a Bosch Car Service garage, and that should be good enough for you". And I think advertisers need to try harder if they want my cash.
As for the "intentional" thing, I don't see why intention has any relevance, as jedit said. I strongly suspect that the 'shopper's intentions were fully realized here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and, er, here. They're still lousy examples of Photoshop work.
This is not a PS disaster. They actually sell sunglasses with a Bosch Car Service photos printed on the lenses.
Seriously, the people saying that this is not a disaster, that it is creative license from the advertising agency, etc., are quite wrong. I used to work in advertizing, and although I took my creative licenses (and made some PS disasters myself) neither me or my bosses could have let something like this happen.
And, btw, the whole ad, even with a correct photo and so, sucks. Is unimaginative, boring, a cliché from head to toe.
My guess? It was done in a hurry by a junior account executive who knows how to use PS and write a gramatically correct sentence (yes, a rare species, but one or two of them exists.
So, not only a PS disaster. An advertising disaster as well.
I'm so angry that I unsubscribed, and then re-subscribed so that I could unsubscribe again. then I called all my friend and got them to subscribe and unsubscribe.
For it to be a true disaster someone has to at least be injured.
I hope all the whiners do unsubscribe so people appreciating this can get on with crap puns and having a giggle at stupidness.
As for each and every image to be a "disaster" jesus H christ, does the blog need a disclaimer so you idiots can get over yourselves? SHUTUP and unsubscribe!
Oh for f*ck's sake, OBVIOUSLY ON PURPOSE!!
I give up, unsubscribing......
@David - I guess you're right. No, I'm not one of those anon "OMG I'M UNSUBSCRIBING" trolls, I truly like this site. I just wish that we could see more funny and interesting mistakes rather than what we've been seeing lately. I understand that to some people anyone who expresses the slightest negative opinion is an evil malicious troll, but I'm not. I'm enjoying the blog, really. You people need to calm down, it's just a site on the internet. So I didn't like a couple of entries, don't get all uptight about it.
I do agree with you that the advertisement is bad and lazy. I just don't think it's bad enough or interesting enough to be on this blog, that's all.
If everyone wants to start seeing better/worse disasters then go out and find them!
As far as I'm concerned this blog is free entertainment. I'm not out there looking for screwed up PSD's, so I can't honestly complain when something is posted that isn't a complete tragedy. It's not like I'm putting forth any effort.
I'm also a marketing major, and I've learned that ANYTIME an ad makes you think about something other than what it's trying to get you to do/buy, there is a problem. You shouldn't stop and even consider that something is wrong with it. If you do it's poor advertising.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go subscribe to this blog.
Haha, gee I wonder who that snarky comment about working in the car industry is directed to?
And I know you're sobbing into your bowl of bitter soup over all the people threatening to unsubscribe. Not since Usenet have I heard so many people threaten to unsubscribe because of minor butthurtedness.
Doesn't that say, "We see what others don't see"?
So even if it is backwards, they are seeing it like no one else on in Argentina sees it, which is counterclockwise down the drain in the Southern hemisphere but then turned around, so it's...ah, screw it...
How many of you have looked the bigger picture? Yes. The ad is quite big (as you can see from the scaffold and lamps) and it's situated at least few meters (few more feet) from the ground.
This might be because it it's meant to be seen from some way off. Possible from a moving vehicle (Bosch CAR service) So one can assume that one sees the ad possible 5 - 20 seconds, some distance away, maybe moving 80-100km/h (50-60 mph) when hopefully keeping at least the other eye in the traffic.
"And reflection is all wrong. No distortion or curvature." Do you thing that someone from the moving vehicle, have the time to stare the ad and try to comprehend what a hell the ad (and distorted wrong way around reflection) is trying to display. Elements in a ad of this magnitude have to be big and distinctive. No one can see all those little details that you might have created in your pursuit of realism (ect. realistic cloud reflections on a models eyes and golden earrings)
And then there is the random client element. You may have been staying up all night creating just the right looking reflection and curvature and lights play on the surface of the glasses, but in the morning when client sees it they say they dont like the way the companys logo is wrong way around, make it bigger and clearer and turn the picture other way around. chop chop. And make it half an hour, you have wasted too much time already. We are not going to pay you any extra...
But at least you can say that the idea is old, crappy, and hastily executed. But the important question here is: does the main target audience think that? Do they look at the horrible lens flare filter or comic sans font and think: that's looks stupit, it's poorly executed, I can see pixelation and left side is too blurry. What the target customer sees is a big juicy hamburger in a hands of a gorgeous young woman about a 2-3 seconds till he/she walks pass the ad in evenings rush hour feeling hungry and thinking what to make for supper to the children.
The previous Caterpillar incidence proved that most of you may know your Photoshop, but many of you don't seem to know too much about the real world. In the Cat ad you didn't see anything but big tractor and small one, and then all the minor/major mistakes (from your point of microscope), wrong angles of the machines etc etc. Many didn't even "get" the ad and wanted it to have some sort of text clue... big power in small package or something like that.
But when someone with some inside knowledge from the industry saw it, he immediately recogniced both machines and got the point. There was no need for more hints. The point was clear as the sky. Do you think that normal Caterpillar customer counts the pixels from the ad and think, there is no way that that little tractor from that angle can cast a reflection angled like that to the window.
And this in the world where majority of the people/consumers (usually in more wealthy countries) goes to see same movies with slighly different plot and cast over and over again year after year. And watches same sitcoms with same jokes every week (plus reruns). And you think this is the audience that desires to see unorthodox and brilliant new ideas and intelligent and weird art'sy ads? Some of them do. But most of them just scratch their heads or crotchs.
I have had many great new ideas (at least from my point of view) that I've tried to sell clients. Some of them have gone trought but then some of the clients want to stick with old ways. "Big picture of red balloon has worked for my father, so it's works for me. There is no need for blue balloons, don't make me laugh..."
And you know what. Sometimes they might even be right if they know their own customer base well enought.
Making everything nice and shiny with real reflections and shadows and realistic looking physics ect is great and desirable thing (unless the whole point is to make it look like a something like Guernica (one of Pablo Picassos painting) ), but sometimes you don't have all the time or financing (or skillz) to pull it off. Then you have to make some compromises.
I salute everyone of you who don't have to do that and/or are dedicated enought to make even any minor works with perfect quality even if it means you have to neglect your family and settle for 1-2 hour sleep at nights.
I don't want to decrease a quality of my own work, but sometimes I have to make difficult decisions based on what resources I have available. Sometimes it means I work night/s through, sometimes I see it just doesn't pay off.
But keep up the good work PSD. Every post might not hit the (gold)mine, but they all are something to ponder on. And although all my ramblings, it's good to seek and point out these mistakes and say how it should have done. It is educational. But it's still good to remember some possibilities limitations and realities of different medias.
ps. I'm sorry for this. english is not even my second language. But let's see if you got the picture behind the pixelation...
It's not the job of the target audience to "get" ads. It's the job of the advertiser to appeal to the target audience.
Our terms. Not theirs.
Some really interesting points have been made, both pro and con. I'm not in advertising, but I LOVE seeing intelligent people discuss things intelligently. I think that's what blogs are for. Keep up the good work.
Quite true. And that is exactly why whoever requested anonymous comments be re-allowed was mistaken. Intelligent conversation was impossible with that many trolls around and all the interesting posts got buried.
I think it's a good PSD because even if the flipping was intentional (as it probably was) it was done poorly. It would have reflected in both sides, and there's no distortion for the curvature of the lenses. It's just a big fail.
David: Of course it's not. But the terms have to appreciate the target audience (and chosen media, outdoor, tv, high quality magazine, newspaper ect...) and at the same time think what it important and what is not. Sometimes it doesn't mean realistic lens reflection even if it makes picture more realistic.
Here of course we pay attention to things like that. But like it or not we propably aren't the audience the ad was aimed at and the total realism would be a waste of money.
It's also surprising how often a client don't want to pay photoshooting trip to the Alps even thought it would make pictures 100% more realistic than a cut and paste work with couple of 20$ stock photos. And that could also mean that photoshop artist might not be Da Vinci of photoshop who propably works with the Alp going bunch. But he/she might be one one day... after series of PSD mistakes ;)
C'mon people! Stop complaining. Maybe it's not exactly a Photoshop disasters in the terms of what we are used to find on this blog. Probably it's more and artistic and design disaster. But anyway, it's a disaster...
Hmmm... what a very nice topic to start the day. By the way, I was amazed by your thoughts.
Please visit my blogs if you have some time:
American Blog
American Classic
American Idols
American Traveler
Planet America
Thank you very much.
it's not a photoshop disaster if that's the effect that was intended
another way to put this is that disaster is too strong a word for this
let's face it, this ad wouldn't have made it here if the images had been reversed
the ad has sacrificed a realistic looking picture for a bolder/more vivid and better legible one which serves it's ad purposes
it's like watching someone watching tv in a movie...the average movie simply superimposes what is being shown on the tv during post, cos it's difficult to capture the actual image in real time
also it's believable that the actual signs at the service centres are flipped in real life considering that an appreciable percentage of their clients (car owners) will read it in their rear view mirrors
to the marketing major:
i don't think every ad has to get you thinking about the product it's selling...at least not right away
an ad can sell a bigger/more popular concept...like freedom, sex, or even elvis
if in the end you start to associate the brand with the bigger concept then the marketers have done their job
we've spent all this energy discussing bosch, thanks to this site
till today, i didn't know bosch was involved in car service...
so the marketers must've done something right ;)
Why are so many people who comment here such dicks? There's such a high concentration of them on this one blog! PSD is free, it isn't compulsory to read it, and maybe there would be more disasters to your liking if you sent some in to the guy who runs the site once in a while.
I love debate on blogs, but when it's just moaning or saying "Not a disaster", then that contributes nothing and just makes you look boring and negative. Besides, nothing is stopping you unsubscribing and going to start up your own PSD blog with disasters you deem worth of the great achievement and wonder of being posted on a free blogging site.
Sorry, but this has been annoying me for a while! I won't be cluttering up the comments with this sort of thing any more but I really wanted to say it in the hope it'd convince some people to be a bit more creative with their responses, and not to be mean to the guy who runs the site (who's only trying to provide some entertainment).
C
@draw!
I should rephrase what I meant by my post.
Certainly there are times when an ad is intended to make you think about sex, Elvis, etc. However, when it doesn't achieve even that, and something about it is or looks "wrong" for whatever reason, generally that is a problem. Unless, of course, it is intended to look wrong, but then it's done what it set out to do.
Not everyone is going to "get" every single ad out there, and often they're not the intended audience, but sometimes ads just aren't right. (I'm not saying this particular ad is bad, I'm referring to ads in general.)
obviously it said in the tooth, this twisted. if they take so long in the image of glasses he forgot the tooth, jackass
-Insert clever comment about surreal artist Heironymous Bosch here.-
In Argentina we do everything backwards, do not worry ;) (?) xD.
Post a Comment