Here's the formula I use to determine how disastrous a piece of work is:
Badness equals quality expected divided by quality delivered.
I mention this because this is one of those infinity-divided-by-zero moments. Thanks to Jethro!
Photoshopaholics
Subscribe
Posts
Comments
Monday, June 1, 2009
Adobe: Wet Floors Are Dangerous
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
77 comments:
And somewhere, an employee of Adobe is going, "D'oh!"
Priceless!
I hope it has a plug-in for reflections and shadows@!
Looks awful. I'll be glad when the reflection trend runs out of steam and we stop seeing bad photoshop work like this.
This is SOOO bad that it must be a viral add - no?
How exactly is that a disaster?
Ok ok.. Well this isnt that bad. We´ve seen a lot worse! =)
Look at the box on the right.
Look at the reflection.
well, we've seen worse, yes. but hey these guys try to sell photoshop. PHOTOSHOP!
Oh wow. So they didn't reflect it correctly...
Ya I guess it's a disaster.
Not rly.
Its not about how bad the reflections really are. The thing is that they are selling photoshop. So...they don't know how to use the product they are selling. Thats not good publicity, isnt it
Considering this is ADOBE, it's a disaster so enormous, its full extent cannot be seen with the naked eye.
@internalgrip i guess you didn't read the summary at the top.
If this was any old company ad, it wouldn't be that bad, just a goofup really.
But its Adobe. THE MAKERS OF PHOTOSHOP. They are supposed to be the masters of their trade, and they can't even get a reflection right.
So yes, this definitely qualifies as a disaster.
If you still don't get it, it's no ones fault but your own.
Oh the irony
lol
Look at the shape of the middle box as well. Ugh.
Miss Psychosexy-- TECHNICALLY, they're not selling photoshop, they're selling indesign, which I've used and which couldn't possibly have been used to create this disaster. But the point stands-- this company created photoshop, and so maybe they should know how to use it a little bit better.
Thats it! I'm returning my copy of CS!
If it weren't an Adbode ad...but at least the boxes don't have any extra hands!
I'd say an upside-down reflection is disastrous any day of the week but when it's by Adobe: priceless.
They've also managed to cock-up the reflected 'A' logo in the middle box and possibly the left box too (my eyes aint what they used to be).
Don't miss the janky angle on the logo reflected on the spine of the center box.
OMG... this can't be real. I think someone probably got fired because of this.
You *do* realize that Adobe doesn't do their own work. They use ad agencies. Perhaps some sleuthing to see who actually did it is in order. ;) Admittedly though, they should have proofed better.
it's pretty bad for people selling photo-manipulation software...
meh, borderline disasterous
And that is now, well, the SUCK! :-D
Yeah, ok, the reflection on the right is wrong. However, the perspective of the middle box is totally wrong.
I love they mention about "tough economic times" and then put the price up 10% in the UK :-P
The fact that it's an ADOBE PSD just makes it more special =)
And the question arises: how hard is to take an actual picture?
Place three boxes on a reflective'n shinny surface, frame the picture and then click.
Could be done at home, really.
for fuck's sake, how blind you got to be not to see how bad this is?
i guess at least as much as the people who put this crap together.
it's like a definition of PSD. that's how bad it is.
PLUS the irony.
If even Adobe bollocks up reflections it's probably a good time to draw a line under this stupid trend.
first "braking the cycle" and now this? ironic psd's are the best.
the image caption is excellent. Well done, PsD
The pink box in the middle looks like it was created in paint and cut n pasted onto the image...
so bad.
If you want my opinion this is a little wink and a nod to this site if you ask me.
My husband can do that.
@dee dee - i'm sure your husband can. because for once, i can say with no irony that someone i know actually CAN do that. namely, my 7 yr old nephew, probably better than is illustrated here.
excuse me, but this is just too bad to be true. i'd really like to see the original somewhere.
Not only the reflection is bad. The perspective is making me seasick. Look at the box in the front.
lol, this brings me back to memories. Where you have piles of work to finish, and you still have to tweek each reflection and perspective. bet this designer only have 15 minutes to create this page. Anyway, if Adobe's selling Photoshop, they've gotta do a better job than this.
See, this is what happens when you take the "short cut to brilliant".
Isn't this all in order? They are saying "Just look what surreal effects you can achieve with our products!"
Any chance of getting a link to the original? PhD usually has them, but this post doesn't. Sorry, but it's so bad that I'm having doubts it's really from Adobe...
not that they don't have some screw ups.
whoops, someone forgot to flip vertical. hahahaha
wv: ludgra
not only the reflection of the box at the right side is wrong.
not only the perspective of the box in the middle is wrong.
the surface in wich the three boxes are standing is supposed to be continuous.
look at the box in the middle, it seems as it were standing in a different plane.
this on is excellent..
i have tried my site: www.Prashsoft23.blogspot.com
lmao at the right one, it's not even upside down...
i see how to create reflections now. You can copy and flip or just copy and move. Lower the opacity and you are done.
this photoshop stuff is so easy...
AND BTW folks. designers are NOT retouchers. And they also don't have final approval on a project. they just design/layout. Art directors are responsible for these disasters.
I imagine now that so many companies have laid off workers that these disasters are going to get more interesting and more frequent than before.
wv: salogan
Actually this is a great euphemism. They are not selling Photoshop they are selling InDesign. Whenever I deal with Art Directors, this is the kind of thing I get from them. Lofty Ideas and bad conceptualization.
Did you see that?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R8LkKSvcN4c/SiG8SB-xAmI/AAAAAAAAPlo/1MihWazqmog/s1600-h/1+a+photo+veja.jpg
@Timmy, I know it's Adobe. But I'm saying that the disaster is not a big deal.
Nitpicky is what it is.
@internalgrip So you would think it was ok if the people at Dyson didn't know how to use their own vaccuum cleaners?
Hi, this is Matt from Adobe. OK, this one surprised me too. From what I can tell, this email came from an affiliate who was trying to replicate the look of an Adobe email. I’m looking into it.
BTW, what would delight you in an email coming from Adobe?
Thank you for holding us to such high standards!
Matt
Just because you produce Photoshop doesn't mean you can use Photoshop...
I sent you one of those images like months ago and you ignored mine. How come that you post this one now?!?!
Wow, so somebody frakked up a little reflection...
Would be somewhat ironic if, and only if, it was an ad for Photoshop itself.
I think there may still be some people here who haven't noticed that the reflection is the wrong way up if they think this isn't a disaster.
@internalgrip So you would think it was ok if the people at Dyson didn't know how to use their own vaccuum cleaners?
Vacuum? And I meant it's not a big deal. I hardly noticed it.
Don't get so defensive.
I am tired of the constant insensitivity to "vampires who use photoshop" on this site. Apparently some people are unaware that vampires have problems seeing reflections in real mirrors. And you should know how hard it is to find good jobs that allow them to freelance from the crypt at night. Have a heart. It's not like they could just look in an actual mirror.
How hard would it be to print up a few product boxes, stick 'em on a shiny black table, and take a snapshot? As it is, I think the people at Adobe saved a little too much time and money with InDesign CS4.
@internalgrip - I was not remotely defensive in my previous post. Now? Yes.
Yes, vacuum. Had I said "wood you think Dison shood now there vacumes", that would have been a valid part of your argument - I've used it before myself. However, I merely double-stroked a c (when I wasn't being paid to type) - what a disaster!
Yet it's "Nitpicky" to expect the people who not only get paid to use Photoshop, but also MAKE Photoshop, to be able to use it?
Gawd, Cosmo, these used to be comments, but now you're just reaching, I'm never coming back blahdeblahdeblah
It is a big deal. I would imagine that most of us here are designers, or at least the people who know how to use photoshop. (why would we be making fun of people who used it incorrectly if we don't know how to use it correctly ourselves)
And as designers, that mean we must have gone through design school, where we were forced to pay attention to the tiniest of details and be precise in our execution.
I do motion graphic. I have to make sure every frame looks good. The same way a reporter would be embarrassed by a typo in their article. It's not nitpicking when it's your job. Carpenters, engineers, doctors, can go to jail for their mistake.
The fact that you think "it's no big deal" is probably because deep down, you have no respect for this line of work. Our work.
Try turning crap like that in to your professor in even the most basic computer graphic class and you will get no more than a C.
If this is "no big deal" then professionalism has no meaning.
The Real Disaster™ is the number of people who see InDesign and somehow read it as Photoshop.
No, people are seeing Adobe and reading it as..erm..Adobe.
Aargh! InCopy NEVER gets any respect!
Did anyone notice the WTF errant cutoff "design suite" addition at the bottom right? This just gets better and better :P
WV: tojous walk into a bar...
They're still doing it wrong - the main site still has inaccurate reflections on the sides of all the boxes. adobe.com
Adobe must be a busy place; they have fully and absolutely almost fixed this: http://www.adobe.com/products/indesign/family/
i just can't wrap my head around how adobe (makers of fine graphic products) could be so lazy in creating their brand. i would say 90% of all adobe branding i have seen lately has some kind of error whether it be design or physics related.
hold up hold up hold up...yall mean to tell me this was posted cuz of the glossy shine thingy??
shit thats better then 3 products tehre tyrin to sell!! look at it..?? very very ugly...loooks fake!!! very fake and 2...but this was posted cuz of the shine??? come on ppl..that glossy shine is not bad at all!!!
After the release of CS3 and CS4, my expectation of quality from Adobe has gone way, way down. This is just more evidence of their descent into mediocrity.
I can't Believe than this is an Adobe ad!
oh god x_x Do I get a free copy of CS4 for spotting this immediately? ... sigh...
Well, it is not just about reflection failure or something. Look at the design, the color choices and shapes. These guys don't only sell photoshop, they sell design software, illustration software.
The thing that is most distressing about this work isn't the work.. it's why would you create this a mockup in photoshop anyway? If you're mocking up a physical boxed item sitting on a reflective surface, 3D applications are practically a dime a dozen now (cheaper than CS4 or even Photoshop alone). Just buy a 3D package, create a box and map flat images onto the box. You can then simulate everything including reflections, surfaces and other realism. Why use a 2D app to simulate the 3D when you can actually use a 3D app? I just don't see the need for this type of mistake.
The link posted by Waldobaby still shows an inaccurate image. The box on the left and the box in the centre are facing the same way yes? Then why is the light coming from the front of the centre box and the left of the left box?
At http://www.trycs4.com/indesign.php you can still see also authorized affiliates have the same problem.
Flipping hell
Post a Comment