Should TLC stop photoshopping their pictures?

[merman]

The photoshopped pictures on the boxes and in press release can sometimes be misleading. The most prominent example are the photoshopped studs. There is never a mold-point (or whatever you call them) shown.

Also the bricks on official Lego pics look very shiny. Another shocking example is the way Lego shows (pearl) silver and (pearl) golden elements. The official pics of 10232 Palace Cinema had shiny golden elements. The real parts looked more matted. We as Lego fans know this but the naïeve consumer may not. Sorry, but that is just not what our bricks really look like...

Also some Creator cars had wheels turned, when in fact the models could not steer.

The photoshopped minifigs with wide legs is a more prominent example of photoshopping, even though it is still somewhat misleading.

There is nothing wrong with making a good product look even better, but still I think the extensive use of Photoshop is debatable.

What is your opinion and do you have any more examples? (sorry here on my iPad so cannot post any more pics to support my claim).

An example: the mold point shown on the 1x1 bricks and plates in the Cuusoo Minecraft set:

Official TLG pic:

The real thing:

Edited June 4, 2013 by merman

[GregoryBrick]

The photoshopped pictures on the boxes and in press release can sometimes be misleading. The most prominent example are the photoshopped studs. There is never a mold-point (or whatever you call them) shown.

[...] Sorry, but that is just not what our bricks really look like...

I have had no problem with LEGO product shots.

It is very hard (impossible?) to show 'what bricks really look like'. There is variation in consistency: not all mold marks are exactly alike, not all metallic pieces are exactly alike either, etc. Also, photography involves choices, it is not neutral. These choices include lighting and the angle of the shot, among others. The same applies to image reproduction and the conditions under which any image is viewed. At every stage there are choices made about how the image should be, and 'accurately reflecting reality' misunderstands the point of making images, whether photographic or otherwise.

Also, I believe they no longer show steered wheels if the specific model cannot steer.

Edited June 4, 2013 by GregoryBrick

[Combee]

The one point I will agree with you on is the chromed pieces. For example, compare the Roman helmets from the collectible minifigures:

vs.

(images used are from Brickset and BrickLink)

I was a little disappointed when I opened up my Romans.

[merman]

Of course the arms and legs can still bend...

[Darth Dino]

Hi

First of all, i hate the description "photoshopped". There are many many other programs out and used that can be used to modify images - not only Adobe Photoshop.

Second: I am a photographer and many things normal people call "photoshopping" is photography, mostly correct lightning. With correct light settings and the right angle to the objct you can avoid heavy mold-marks.

Third: Photo (image) manipulation, mostly pixel per pixel manipulation, this is what PS and other programs do. They modify things that are already present (exept dust removal). They make whits whiter, yellows more shiny, things like that. Again: many of those effect can be done to 90% with lightning, software just perfects the image.

Fourth: Rendering. This is generates something new, like bent legs or arms. This is something i personally do not like much. I agree with you Lego should not show things that are not possible or missleading.

Regarding mold marks: i am sure you can sort your bricks and find some that domnot have any of those marks. Lego could do that too, but correct lightning and mark removalnvia software is easier.

Dino

[Darkdragon]

The Minecraft set you used as an example...that's just poor lighting and a bad angle on the "real photo" that shows those dips. That is not a mold point on the outside of the tile. They have professional photographers that know how to set up a photo to make the product look it's best, I don't that that's a reason to complain. Try comparing a cheeseburger from McDonald's commercial or poster to the one they actually serve you.

[gotoAndLego]

First of all, i hate the description "photoshopped". There are many many other programs out and used that can be used to modify images - not only Adobe Photoshop.

I don't hate that word any more than I hate the term xerox for any copier. Speaking as a designer, chances are they use creative suite.

[merman]

I am not implying they use PS, but the word photoshopping has become the equivalent for digitally altering pictures.

And yes: I can also build without showing to much mould-points. Im fact thag is even what I do most of the time. Yet sometimes they still show and TLG digitally removes all of these.

I don't have that much problems with that. I do object against making chrome parts too shiny and impossible gestures in figs...

[JimBee]

It's a common marketing technique to make the product look its best in the pictures. I don't really have a problem with TLG's pictures - I enjoy the well-lit pictures that show the set elements in detail. I don't think there's any false advertisement as far as the condition of the pieces, either. They come shiny ( ) and get duller the more you touch them, and that is of course to be expected.

However, I do think that it's an issue if entire colors are changed between the box art and official pictures and the actual set. I remember there being a huge problem with people getting dull gold coins in the first wave of Pirates of the Caribbean sets instead of the chrome ones shown on the box. After all, though, that issue was fixed with free chrome coins upon email or phone call to customer service, so so far I don't see a huge issue with any of TLG's representations of the sets.

[BrickG]

Photoshop? Most of the pictures these days aren't even real and are 3d models. Rendering the product is cheating beyond Photoshoping something. I'm not talking about the minifigures with bendability. They basically render almost all box art completely as well as many "demo" pictures. The few pictures that are left as the actual product are the ones that are photoshoped :P.

[merman]

I think the Minecraft pic above is a real (yet enhanced) photo. Look at the light gray 1x1 plate near the lower right corner of the top layer. It is placed slightly off...

[dandexter]

To me it looks like little care was taken assembly the 'real thing'. Would look a lot neater overall if the tiles were lined up better.

[Aanchir]

It's a common marketing technique to make the product look its best in the pictures. I don't really have a problem with TLG's pictures - I enjoy the well-lit pictures that show the set elements in detail. I don't think there's any false advertisement as far as the condition of the pieces, either. They come shiny ( ) and get duller the more you touch them, and that is of course to be expected.

However, I do think that it's an issue if entire colors are changed between the box art and official pictures and the actual set. I remember there being a huge problem with people getting dull gold coins in the first wave of Pirates of the Caribbean sets instead of the chrome ones shown on the box. After all, though, that issue was fixed with free chrome coins upon email or phone call to customer service, so so far I don't see a huge issue with any of TLG's representations of the sets.

The PotC issue had nothing to do with Photoshop, though. The products were photographed with the Metallized Gold elements, but the first production run of sets ended up shipping with Warm Gold coins and ingots instead because TLG discovered after-the-fact that they did not have enough of the chrome material to satisfy initial demand.

Anyway, I personally have no problem with the decision to use photo editing software or digital rendering techniques for box art. Frankly, I think kids are generally intelligent enough to tell the difference. The issue of some Creator cars having their wheels turned when the actual set does not allow this is something I agree is misleading, but frankly this is the first I've heard of it and from what some other people have said it seems like a practice that has been discontinued.

Renders are something I tend to like in a lot of contexts because they result in extremely attractive images. Issues with metallic materials not looking correct in rendered images are rarely deliberate attempts to mislead the consumer... it's just extremely difficult to render some metallic elements, particularly "pearl" elements, realistically. As far as the Palace Cinema is concerned, I have the set and see no discrepancy between the official pictures and the actual model. As far as I can tell none of the official pics are renders, just photos taken with well-controlled lighting.

As for things like the bent legs and arms on some minifigure images, I think kids know the LEGO minifigure well enough to recognize when it is being presented in a modified pose that a physical minifigure could not replicate. BIONICLE sets used to do the same thing, back when a lot of the models used one-piece limbs that lacked knee and elbow articulation, but like the collectible minifigures, the official images of these sets are meant to showcase the character rather than the toy alone.

Regarding the Minecraft set, it looks like the people building it for the official photos simply took care to conceal parts with molding marks inside the model and keep all the exterior studs as clean as possible. Even the photograph you show has a couple studs that lack any obvious molding marks (such as one Medium Stone Grey plate on the left side, one Dark Stone Grey plate towards the center, and one green tile on the bottom edge); TLG simply had the time and parts at their disposal to ensure that every exposed part matched that quality. No photoshop necessary.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

Try comparing a cheeseburger from McDonald's commercial or poster to the one they actually serve you.

Well what do I expect for 89 cents. I agree, the posters and the hamburgers are waaay different.

Anyways regarding LEGO, I don't care. They make it look better with lighting and professionals. You should expect that, and if you don't like what you get, simply stop buying the product.

[TheLegoDr]

I like the official images. I like how crisp and clean they are. Whether that is good photography/lighting or computer software, the end result looks great either way.

And what is the technical term for photoshopping then? Someone mentioned photo manipulation, which sounds like a mouthful, but probably as good of term as any.

It has become the band-aid or kleenex of the digital age. Some things you don't even think about. Oh hey, let's pick up some of those World of Warcraft legos.... see what I mean? Everything ends up getting grouped together based on similar properties. But I digress...

[Alternator]

I do agree - I will say this first though - I have that minecrafty set, I can only see those mold points on the top of the minecraft set (and not as bad as in your pic), if I look at it from the same angle the photo was taken I don't see the mold points (not that I doubt they photoshopped that aspect).

I do have a problem with photoshopping, it is a little concerning how much stuff is fake out there - as for your creator car with turning wheels photo shopped example, that would affect my purchasing decision - I actually wonder if I bought that set you mentioned as I bought it for the turning wheels aspect (I have yet to open it...). EDIT: I just checked and it does have working steering

Basically I think that photoshop has been taken too far in advertising, it's one thing to cleanup a photo with it, it is another to change the reality of the thing that got photographed (body image is the place where it seems to offend the worst!)

It has actually gone far enough now that I would like to see regulation clamp down on it, the industry isn't dealing with this. Perhaps not banning it - but I do think a disclaimer that lists the changes made... that might seem onerous but if they're going to the trouble of manipulating the reality of the image, a little list of the changes shouldn't be too much trouble.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Alternator

[8BrickMario]

I also like the clean, enhanced images. The CMFs provide examples where I draw the line. Various parts (Aztec headdress+shield, Pharaoh staff, American Football Player's trophy, Diver's helmet, Pirate Captain's sword) appear to be the same metallic gold as the Pharaoh's headdress, the Conquistador's helmet and chestplate, and the Spartan Warrior's helmet, when viewed in the renders. When I found out that these pieces first mentioned were pearl gold instead, I was annoyed. Not because they were pearl, but because the renders make it look like there's no difference between pearl and metallic gold.

When minifigures are digitally rendered in impossible poses due to limb bendability, that also bugs me, because some (like the aforementioned Roman Commander) minifigures are rendered in cool pages that you cannot recreate with the ABS figure. In the May-June LEGO magazine, Arwen is shown in it in the Summer LotR feature, pulling the arrow in her bow, forwards. You can only do this sideways with a real minifigure. Plus, due to Arwen's hairpiece, she can't turn her head to look in that direction, either. I don't see these as "misleading", just digital enhancements that take it too far, because it isn't what's in the package.

Edited June 10, 2013 by 8BrickMario

[Aanchir]

I also like the clean, enhanced images. The CMFs provide examples where I draw the line. Various parts (Aztec headdress+shield, Pharaoh staff, American Football Player's trophy, Diver's helmet, Pirate Captain's sword) appear to be the same metallic gold as the Pharaoh's headdress, the Conquistador's helmet and chestplate, and the Spartan Warrior's helmet, when viewed in the renders. When I found out that these pieces first mentioned were pearl gold instead, I was annoyed. Not because they were pearl, but because the renders make it look like there's no difference between pearl and metallic gold.

When minifigures are digitally rendered in impossible poses due to limb bendability, that also bugs me, because some (like the aforementioned Roman Commander) minifigures are rendered in cool pages that you cannot recreate with the ABS figure. In the May-June LEGO magazine, Arwen is shown in it in the Summer LotR feature, pulling the arrow in her bow, forwards. You can only do this sideways with a real minifigure. Plus, due to Arwen's hairpiece, she can't turn her head to look in that direction, either. I don't see these as "misleading", just digital enhancements that take it too far, because it isn't what's in the package.

I don't think in magazines this kind of thing should be a problem. Frankly, they could cut and glue the parts together or warp them into the positions they want in magazine pictures and it wouldn't make a difference to me. Generally magazine features like this are meant to show the product in fantasy situations.

If it came down to it as a matter of honesty, I'd be fine if TLG continued using digitally-altered renders for some promotional images and simply included a disclaimer that the physical minifigures could not do that same thing. But I don't believe there's any legal need for TLG to do this, and as far as I'm concerned there's no ethical need either.

[Bobskink]

Interesting discussion.

So far, I don't mind the phothsopping, what botters me more is when they do it bad. I see photoshop errors in almost every catalog, some are really huge.

Or this one for example:

The picture itself is lazy and the photoshopping even lazier. Admiral Ackbar his torso isn't attached properly and Leia her face and hear are not in a straight line. Could be very easely fixed with photoshop.

The only time I found phoshopping misleaing so far is the Extra Luke Skywalker they use in this image of the Battle of Hoth.

Otherwise I really don't mind, it may be a little missleading, but certainly not more than other companies.

[MikroMan]

I don't really have any problems with TLC using CGIs and slightly altered images - as long as there are only corrections in color tones and such. If they'd start using more ''misleading'' graphics (such as that steering system), then I imagine more people would be unsatisfied with TLC.

And, most importantly, given what some of the clone brands are like, we have no reason to complain: (Of course, this is problem with the actual set, not the photo alterations, but still)

[8BrickMario]

I just remembered something that actually was misleading. Because the CMF renders are made before the minifigures are, sometimes things are different due to a production circumstance. The Hula Dancer was a great example. Apparently, her grass skirt piece was intended to have separated strips. Something happened, and it was made into a zigzag border at the bottom.

Because the final product differs from time to time from the model render, things like this happen.

[TheLegoDr]

I don't have that figure, so I never would have guessed that. But I really like the original individual stripped version of the grass skirt. That's too bad that it happened.

I think the Battle of Hoth is the most misleading since they are only showing the other head print instead of including two figures.

[Aanchir]

I just remembered something that actually was misleading. Because the CMF renders are made before the minifigures are, sometimes things are different due to a production circumstance. The Hula Dancer was a great example. Apparently, her grass skirt piece was intended to have separated strips. Something happened, and it was made into a zigzag border at the bottom.

Because the final product differs from time to time from the model render, things like this happen.

That kind of mistake can still happen with photos, though, so it's not really the fault of using renders. The Pirates of the Caribbean sets are a good example. The official pics are photographs, but the gold bars and coins in the photos are metallized gold rather than the warm gold the first batch of sets was actually packed with.

I think the grass skirt piece was probably changed because the individual strips could be torn too easily. If they didn't tear during production or shipping, then feeling the package to find out which fig is inside or even just assembling the figure could do a real number on them.

[8BrickMario]

True, but the fact that they didn't change the render for the pamphlets (which they did for the Character Encyclopedia) makes it seem a little lazy and disappointing. The PotC gold was confusing. I got chrome in mine, because I got the Isla de la Muerta later on.

[LiamM32]

I am not too strongly against it, but they should not go too far. I think that it would be fine too edit the front boxart image more than the other photos. The front image is to attract a persons attention. The extra images on the back of the box should be more honest. It would be nice to have just one image on the back that displays the overall set without any digital modifications. For all but that one, I appreciate backgrounds; Helping recognize the setting, and giving customers a better story connection for things like Bionicle. I wouldn't mind a few little tweaks on the front boxart, like smoother surfaces, but not the rest. Catalog images should be more honest than the main boxart. I have no problem at all with any real-life work such as lighting for any image, as long as it shows the actual set.

I think that they should not make the included colour look like a different colour. It is more forgiving if the colours turn out scarce, but it would be better to just remake the image. It is good that the no longer add fake wheel turns. I am partial about displaying Minifigures and Bionicle figures with posible limbs that they don't have in set. It's somewhat justified with Bionicle, as it is representing a character in a big story made alongside the toyline. However, they could just solve that by actually including bendable limbs (which they added to later Bionicle limbs). I am often turned-off by seeing the arm-bent minifigs, but I guess that the part that matters at the end is that we aren't misled, and we all know minifigs. It would be nice though to see new minifigures with flexible legs and arms.

The one point I will agree with you on is the chromed pieces. For example, compare the Roman helmets from the collectible minifigures:

I was a little disappointed when I opened up my Romans.

I wouldn't say Chrome Silver, but it looks more like Silver Mettalic. The helmet in the earlier Roman Soldier was in Silver Mettalic, so that is the real dissapointment for me. I probably won't end up getting it though. I think that the one that you pictured is Silver flip/flop, which the TLegoG appears to use as a cost cut mettal colour, used in Bionicle tools. I noticed the bending legs more, but I guess we all know that too well for it to matter.

I just remembered something that actually was misleading. Because the CMF renders are made before the minifigures are, sometimes things are different due to a production circumstance. The Hula Dancer was a great example. Apparently, her grass skirt piece was intended to have separated strips. Something happened, and it was made into a zigzag border at the bottom.

Because the final product differs from time to time from the model render, things like this happen.

That is quite a significant difference. Interesting to know that the digital renderings are made before the Minifigure sets. That is not good.

Now I have some images to share. Here is the Mahri version of Toa Hewkii. Awesome looking toa. To bad I never got him, but I should buy him used.

Suddenly I am quite a bit less interested in the Hewk.

I wanted to put an image here from a 2006 Lego catalogue, advertising phosphorescent eyes and teeth on the Toa Inika. I was dissapointed back then when I was young. The made a last-minute decision to remove this feature, but they didn't remove it from the catalogue. Anyways though, they could have just not done it in the first place. Since when are Toa supposed to have teeth?

Edited June 18, 2013 by LiamM32