Earlier today, I blogged ("Sony: When timing is everything...") over on my Pervasive Datacenter blog on the CNET Blog Network about a Sony ad for their A700 DSLR headlined "In Photography: Timing is Everything." One problem: the photo that they chose to highlight their camera's motion-capturing virtuosity was from 1965. It was probably captured on Nikon gear and, in any case, predated Sony's entry into cameras by decades.
There's actually a secondary layer to this latest Sony mis-step that's more subtle but just as amusing. Unlike the origin of the photo, it's conjecture, but I'm pretty confident is something close to reality.
Sony didn't use the John Dominis photograph that appeared in Life Magazine in 1965. Rather, it used a very similar image that was perhaps one or two frames separated in a motor drive sequence. (This being 1965, we're talking film of course.)
Now, while acknowledging that photographic choice is subjective, I think the frame published in Life (as can be seen on Getty Images) is the slightly better photo than the one Sony chose to use in its ad. The differences are subtle, yes, but in the Life/Getty version you can see the baboon's lower body better and it appears to be shouting defiantly. In the Sony ad, its mouth appears to be closed and its body is largely obscured by dust. (The differences are probably more obvious in the original ad and a large blowup of the Life photo I have in The Best of Life, but trust me on this.)
Why did Sony use this alternate image? Well, perhaps it liked the picture more. I'm skeptical. I don't. And neither did a couple of other photographers I quizzed. I suppose it's possible that whoever chose the photograph just had a more highly-tuned sense of what made a great photograph than did Life's photo editors in 1965. Wouldn't bet on that one. The more likely hypothesis for me is that the alternate image was cheaper to use. (Or perhaps there were restrictions on using the original photograph.)
Whichever the case, the net result is that not only did Sony pick a competitor's camera to illustrate "Timing is Everything." They (it would appear) implicitly chose to go with a tagline that might be better described as "Pretty close timing is fairly important."
6 comments:
I don't have a copy of life, nor your "Best of Life" for comparison, but I have to say that the image at gettyimages appears to be retouched to me. Perhaps the Sony copy is the original, raw image?
Brian,
It is hard to see without higher resolution copies. The differences are somewhat subtle and, in fact, I initially attributed them to photographic retouching/processing. Perhaps I'll post the closeups on the baboon's head which, to my mind, makes it clear that they are two different shots.
What can I tell you, Gordon. The Life picture looks retouched to me. I don't believe anything below the dust line in the Sony picture. Looking at the leopard, it looks identical to me. It is hard to see how in an action shot like this, the leopard could be identical and the baboon would have moved. The baboon's mouth looks constructed to me and there is a sort of halo around him. Of course, this is all just speculation and pretty much irrelevant to your original point. Wouldn't it be funny to expose a Life retouching after all these years though?
You raise an interesting point--although, as you say, I'm not sure what to make of it. Earlier tonight, I was going over the two photos--one in the ad and one in The Best of Life--with a friend of mine and she made essentially the same comment. The leopard itself looks really identical between the two photos down to the patterns in the dust. The baboon is clearly different. I'm not sure how to reconcile those two observations.
BTW, wrt halo. This is an old book and the printing technology is not the best. A lot of stuff appears surrounded by halos so I wouldn't read too much into that.However, as you note, The leopard in the two photographs is identical. We’re talking most subtle patterns in the dust identical. But you move to the front of the leopard’s paws and the baboon and there are clear differences.
This leads me, however reluctantly, towards the theory that one or the other of the photographs has been manipulated. However, I'm still hesitant to make that claim with any degree of certainty.
Brian,
One last observation. I overlaid the two photos using Photoshop. Although, as we've discussed the back half of the leopard and its surrounding environment look remarkably similar, you can see forward movement of the leopard's head and right front foot consistent with dust being kicked up and causing the baboon to leap backwards. I do agree that it's surprising this would all occur with so little change on the left side of the photo but the overall mechanics seem logically consistent with these being simply two different shots in a sequence rather than something else.
Post a Comment