Classic Mike: Only an Illustration

So are you of the opinion that advertisements should be honest? So was the Federal Government, once upon a time, when it innocently passed its truth in advertising laws. But truth is fugitive, confusion contagious; tiny prevarications become small fibs, small fibs become big lies, and, gradually, "misleading" becomes normal.

A nagging problem I had as a photo magazine editor was one particular kind of truth in advertising. Advertisers pay for space, and the publisher and the ad sales department want them to pay for space—in fact work very hard to get them to pay for space—and they do not want the raggedy ol' editorial department stepping in and interfering in any way. According to "the business side," as my publisher used to call it, the contents of ads are not any of the editorial side's business. I was encouraged to mind my p's and q's, as well as the other twenty-four letters of the alphabet, and to remain hands-off as far as the contents of ads were concerned. One time, this led to a potentially embarrassing problem.

You would think that advertisers wouldn't lie when it's not even to their advantage. Yet what I found was that it wasn't uncommon for the photographs used in camera or lens ads to have been taken with some other kind of camera or lens than the one being advertised.

A long time ago, an employee of Canon who shall remain unnamed (forever, because I can't remember his name), told me a story about how the young André Agassi was originally recruited to star in Canon Rebel ads. According to him, it seems that Canon execs were getting sick and tired of the fact that the photographers hired by their ad agencies to shoot Canon ads were using Nikon cameras to shoot them with. A prominent Canon-using photographer was proposed for the new Rebel campaign, and that shooter happened to have a great working relationship with Agassi, and a large stock of pictures of Agassi taken with Canon equipment.

Apocryphal? Perhaps. Other sources at Canon have since then categorically denied this story in all its particulars. Despite which, it still seems kinda plausible to me. But then, what do I know?

Robert Monaghan, somewhere on his immense medium format site, reports an example of a Bronica ad that was actually shot with a Hasselblad. Seems the photographer—or more accurately the advertising agency's art director, probably—forgot to hide the telltale frame-edge marks that betrayed the truth, probably because he or she had no idea what the little marks on the frame-edge meant. Oops.

I don't think this is uncommon by any means. According to the ad agencies I talked to and a certain company marketing director who shall also remain unnamed (see above), pictures in ads are "illustrations," and are not meant to be "literal." (Cough.) Besides, if an advertisement is touting a particular lens and has one photograph prominently placed in the ad, it's only implied that the picture was taken with that lens, right? Usually, it’s not explicitly stated. So if you, the viewer/consumer, want to draw the wrong conclusion, well, that’s up to you. (Cough, cough.)

The problem this caused for me happened shortly after the launch of the ill-fated APS film format. An ad for an APS camera began appearing in other magazines that touted the quality of APS pictures. The ads featured a nice, dramatic picture of a swimmer at sunset. Clearly implied (but not explicitly stated!) was that the picture was an example of the kind of quality consumers could expect from the then-new APS format.

The problem was, the picture had been taken with a 35mm Nikon F4s on 35mm film.

How did I know? Because I had run the very same picture on the cover of a magazine two years earlier!

I originally found the picture in a Communication Arts photography special that had been published substantially earlier than our cover had been. So the picture had obviously been made long before APS existed. Our common practice in those days was to contact the cover photographer and ask for the details of how our cover pictures were shot, which we then dutifully recorded in a blurb on the table of contents page.

Fortunately, that particular ad showing our former cover photo had not been submitted to our magazine yet, which helped me when I tried to put my foot down. I merely explained the siuation to the publisher and made it clear that I couldn't publish that ad if it came in. So, did the ad sales person ever have to gently suggest to his contact that that particular ad wouldn't be the best one to submit? I have no idea, and I'm glad I didn’t have to find out. What would have happened if that advertisement had already been submitted, its space bought and paid for? That might not have been so easy. I'm not sure I would have won that battle.

And now for the kicker. (This makes me look bad, but that's never stopped me before.) That cover on which we used the Nikon F4 shot featured the picture right above a blurb that read, "The Leica Mystique."*

Cover photo taken by Lonnie Duka with a 35mm Nikon F4s. The same picture was later used in print advertisements for the APS film format. Cover design by Lynne Anderson (then called Lynne Surma).

False advertising?!? Well, no, I didn't think so, because we clearly stated on the table of contents page that the photographer had used a Nikon to make the picture. A few readers didn't agree with me, however. (And a few of the guys at the Nikon booth at the New York show were tickled pink, which seemed to confirm that I'd made a mistake.) But it looked good. And, if memory serves, it sold well. And hey, it was only an illustration!

Mike
(Thanks to Oren Grad and William Schneider)

*The cover article was written by Carl Weese.

This post is a rerun. It was originally published in "The 37th Frame" in September 2004.

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Mike Stone: "I remember a fabulous week spent scouting locations in the Mojave desert and then assisting on the shoot for a Canon ad back in the early 'nineties. Dramatic B&W shots. All shot on a Hasselblad SWC."

Damien: "Target rich, and depressing, environment, really. Hair product companies use models with hair extensions to infer this is what their product does. Virtually all magazine covers are Photoshopped. All this and so much more is fair game, and legal, where any sort of nonsense can be shouted from the heavens, as long as a disclaimer for all the blatant falsehoods is whispered somewhere also.

"Often no disclaimers are required, the Photoshopped magazine covers being a prime example, which should all be regulated, and carry warnings if excessively Photoshopped. There is a middle ground between false and truthful advertising however, and I would label it 'misleading advertising.' Your magazine cover is a prime example of that. Of course, I see nothing changing, aside from all of us mistrusting advertising even more as time goes on. If the advertising industry had any sense, they would regulate this sort of stuff themselves, as they are letting their product be eroded and destroyed slowly from within."

Mark Hobson: "I remember well the day I walked—though some would say 'paraded'—through the Kodak corporate lobby on my way to deliver the finished results of an ad shoot.

"This was something I did on a regular basis. The ad assignment was, uncharacteristically, for B&W pictures—color was the usual norm. No big deal. I was very proficient in B&W and chosen for the assignment based on that expertise.

"However...the prints in my sample portfolio were made using my B&W standard operating procedure of Kodak B&W film printed on an Ifford B&W fiber-based paper. Consequently, that's the manner in which the assignment was completed. On hindsight, doing so was a brain cramp of major proportions. I should have found and used a suitable B&W Kodak paper for the work.

"But not doing so was the least of my sins. Walking (parading?) through the Kodak lobby and hallways with a 16x20 Iford paper box—it's amazing how a white box with black typography stands out in a sea of yellow boxes with red typography—was indeed the Mother of All Brain Cramps.

"Fortunately, after reprinting the pictures on Kodak paper, I remained in good standing with Kodak and its agency."

Comments

[John Robison]

Sometimes, just sometimes, camera companies do the right thing.

Ages ago, at the camera store where I worked there was a large (about 3X4 ft., not an original, a half tone reproduction I'm sure) print of a kabuki actor applying his makeup. In the corner was the contact print for the original negative, 18X24mm from an Olympus Pen F. Looked quite good from several feet away and was done to show the capabilities of the 35mm half frame format.

Of course this was poster art advertizing, not a magazine ad.

[MJ]

Government enforcement of truth in advertising? Ha ha ha.

[Dan]

If you think photo ads are bad, go to most any fast food restaurant and try to get a meal that looks like what you see on the menu photos.

[Roger Bradbury]

A nice restrained cover design. I'm not a fan of the modern style of cover on which the cover photo is behind loads of blurb. Especially when you can't find what the blurb refers to anywhere on the contents page. I also don't buy magazines that are plastic wrapped. Usually the contents do not live up to the hype.

[Dave in NM]

The way things are going, it doesn't look like the corporations need to be too concerned with truth in advertising any more, since the burden of advertising is shifting to their customers.

Last night, I watched a Frontline documentary called "Generation Like" on PBS, that detailed the way corporations are exploiting the teenage affectation with social networking. It was a real eye-opener.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/generation-like/

[Eric Rose]

Just like those "editors choice" awards that are basically bought based on advertising buys. Of course the editors had nothing to do with it, just rammed down their throats by the "suits".

[darr]

Don't' get me started, I was educated to be an advertising photographer back in the days when it was 4x5" chromes photographing the lipstick on the tomatoes properly lit. Somethings change, but advertising dollars do not.

[Jeff]

Truth in advertising is relative - only to the company placing the ad. Current laws were created because ads stretched the truth - yes your car loan interest rate is 5.9% (no we're not going to tell you it's monthly, that's for you to read the fine print, a.k.a. buyer beware). Yes this camera and lens can take pictures LIKE this - (but this wasn't taken with them).
Photo products ads have the implication that your photography will be better with this stuff (and won't improve without it). A half truth at best, usually not though.

[Rick Reed]

I'm interested that you made mention of Robert Monaghan's excellent and comprehensive medium format "megasite". It once was one of my frequent and favourite stops on the interweb, but seems to have disappeared some time ago. (available on the wayback machine for keeners).

Does anyone have any idea why it was taken down, and at least as interestingly, who was Robert Monaghan, and where is he now, as he seems to have disappeared fro the web.... Hopefully he is still with us!

Cheers,

Rick

[Tom V]

Here is a nice photo illustration! Ashton Kutcher illustrates how compact a Nikon D3200 is.

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/04/15/update-nikon-denies-reports-of-dumping-ashton-kutcher.aspx/

Nikon would be wrong to drop Kutcher. Where else could they find a model that would make a D3200 look smaller than an Olympus OM-D?

[Herman Krieger]

Truth in Advertising

[Dan Gorman]

Keep the classic columns coming, please!

Stay warm. Spring's on the way (we trust).

Dan

[John Holland]

I once worked in partnership with a (nameless, but still in business) software company. Our company supplied a piece of software that they embedded inside theirs. The software could be run only on Microsoft Windows.

At some point, they sent a mock-up of the shipping box, put together by whichever graphic design firm they hired. It featured, among other things, a photo of a laptop computer running the software. The laptop was an Apple Powerbook, of course ;)

[Carl Weese]

Tom V, I had a funny incident in this vein. I arrived to teach a workshop years ago and the management, who'd never met me in person, were amazed at my appearance. I'd sent them a promo shot (made by Oren) showing me standing in front of a view camera, in a tight crop. They thought the camera was an 8x10, and that I was a diminutive figure. The camera was my 12x20...

[Doug C]

Reminds me of a nice flashy photo by Pete Turner that had been shot with a Zeiss 20mm f4 until the Nikon 20mm f4 was introduced and it magically and suddenly had been shot with that new lens, despite a real time problem.

[Michael Bearman]

Years ago when I was a young pup lawyer, I acted in a sales tax case for Agfa in Australia. Of course, I proposed to use photographs in evidence. When the MD and CEO of my client came in to review them, they didn't even glance at the beautiful 8 x 10 prints, rather the first thing they did was to flip them over to see what brand paper they were printed on. I kept the client and my career thanks to my secretary who was far more experienced and much smarter than me, and specified the paper when she ordered the prints.

[Crabby Umbo]

I find it hard to believe that Canon had trouble finding Canon "pros" to shoot ads, maybe back in the film era. A recent study I read on another site pegs the "sell-through" of Canon cameras to pros, running about 16 to 1, Canon to Nikon. You can't swing a cat without hitting a pro using Canon today...

[I doubt it's that lopsided today, but it was that lopsided the other way around in the '80s, as I'm sure you remember. --Mike]