U.K. regulatory board backs Apple iPhone X claim of 'studio quality' portraits
The British Advertising Standards Authority has overruled objections to an iPhone X television commercial. The spots, which began airing in March, focused on "radically new cameras with Portrait Lighting" and highlighted "Studio-quality portraits. Without the studio."
The ASA spent unspecified resources to review two complaints filed by TV watchers who "believed that the phone could not achieve studio quality photography." The complaints alleged violation of BCAP rules forbidding "Misleading advertising" or "Exaggeration" and the factual "Substantiation" of claims made in advertising.
The group stated in a decision this week that "we considered consumers would understand the term 'Studio-quality portraits' to mean that the lighting effects on the phone allowed the user to imitate a portrait photograph taken in a studio.
"We acknowledged that the camera on the iPhone X featured a focal lens commonly found in studio photography and understood that the images shown in the ad were photographs taken with the phone. We considered that the lighting effects that could be used when capturing and after having captured an image allowed the user to mimic a photograph similar to those taken in a studio.
"We recognised that there were many effects, techniques and tools used in studio photography which played a vital role in capturing high standard images, many of which were not available to someone solely using the iPhone X. However, we recognised the emphasis was placed on the significance of the lighting effects on achieving the quality of image the ad demonstrated, and we understood that those images shown were a true reflection of the capabilities of the iPhone X's camera. For those reasons, we concluded that the ad was not misleading."
Those finding required a response from Apple, which noted that there was no industry standard definition of "Studio-quality portraits" and that the term was subjective due to "wide variances between techniques, equipment, lighting and talent, among many others" used by photographers in a studio.
Portrait Lighting on iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X can enhance a casual photo into a dramatic photograph
Apple also pointed out that iPhone X used a 50 mm focal lens, one of the most popular professional studio portrait lenses, and that lighting options available on the phone mimicked what could be done in a studio. Further, the decision noted that "images in the ad were a fair reflection of the camera's capabilities."
The ASA previously handled complaints from Android users in 2008 who were upset about Apple's ad claims that "all parts of the internet are on the iPhone," insisting that Java and Flash content made that misleading; and a separate spot that "exaggerated the speed of the iPhone 3G." Both ads ended up being banned on UK television.
In 2009 the ASA shot down complaints for advertising that stated the iOS App Store had software for "just about everything," and in 2011 it upheld an Apple commercial that called iPhone 4 the "world's thinnest smartphone," a claim Samsung took issue with because it sold a product that had a thinner portion, despite being thicker elsewhere.
The ASA spent unspecified resources to review two complaints filed by TV watchers who "believed that the phone could not achieve studio quality photography." The complaints alleged violation of BCAP rules forbidding "Misleading advertising" or "Exaggeration" and the factual "Substantiation" of claims made in advertising.
The group stated in a decision this week that "we considered consumers would understand the term 'Studio-quality portraits' to mean that the lighting effects on the phone allowed the user to imitate a portrait photograph taken in a studio.
"We acknowledged that the camera on the iPhone X featured a focal lens commonly found in studio photography and understood that the images shown in the ad were photographs taken with the phone. We considered that the lighting effects that could be used when capturing and after having captured an image allowed the user to mimic a photograph similar to those taken in a studio.
"We recognised that there were many effects, techniques and tools used in studio photography which played a vital role in capturing high standard images, many of which were not available to someone solely using the iPhone X. However, we recognised the emphasis was placed on the significance of the lighting effects on achieving the quality of image the ad demonstrated, and we understood that those images shown were a true reflection of the capabilities of the iPhone X's camera. For those reasons, we concluded that the ad was not misleading."
Those finding required a response from Apple, which noted that there was no industry standard definition of "Studio-quality portraits" and that the term was subjective due to "wide variances between techniques, equipment, lighting and talent, among many others" used by photographers in a studio.
Portrait Lighting on iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X can enhance a casual photo into a dramatic photograph
Apple also pointed out that iPhone X used a 50 mm focal lens, one of the most popular professional studio portrait lenses, and that lighting options available on the phone mimicked what could be done in a studio. Further, the decision noted that "images in the ad were a fair reflection of the camera's capabilities."
The ASA previously handled complaints from Android users in 2008 who were upset about Apple's ad claims that "all parts of the internet are on the iPhone," insisting that Java and Flash content made that misleading; and a separate spot that "exaggerated the speed of the iPhone 3G." Both ads ended up being banned on UK television.
In 2009 the ASA shot down complaints for advertising that stated the iOS App Store had software for "just about everything," and in 2011 it upheld an Apple commercial that called iPhone 4 the "world's thinnest smartphone," a claim Samsung took issue with because it sold a product that had a thinner portion, despite being thicker elsewhere.
Comments
Who then went on the internets and continued their trolling in various forums high and wide, decrying and denouncing all things Apple supported by its ignorant, sheeple fanbase.
Yeah, we're (sadly) all familiar with the type that would file such a complaint. Sigh.
It's the whole package that goes with Apple and Android fanboys. God forbid someone should criticize their beloved platform or the behavior of the company making devices using it. And wow, the absolute nerve of someone to question the veracity of advertising claims.
One has to wonder how you would feel about that if the claims were made about Samsung and the camera performance on one of its Galaxy devices. I imagine you would be leading the cheering squad clamoring for conviction and hanging in the town square.
Fanboys - might as well replace it with a term like faggots or kykes, you mean it the same way: denigrate, belittle and disparage people different from yourself while closing any chance of discussion. Nice.
Love discourse myself, hate trolls - they simply aren't compatible, and I'm sensing none of the former in you and a big defence for the latter, hmmmm.
Bullshit. That’s just an excuse made by trolls to justify their pathetic behavior. And comparing Apple fans to Android fans? Please. The Android side has far more trolls that behave far worse than Apple fans.
But are any of them professional studio cameras? Well, no.
But a professional photographer can use even the worst camera to produce amazing results.
Well, it's certainly good publicity for Apple. "We claimed studio quality, someone disputed that, and now the ASA have proven it's true."
Although I wouldn't want them to harp on it too much. Move on to the next campaign quickly. Maybe someone will complain about that, and an independent body will prove Apple to be right again. Besides, the new phones are out in the next couple of months.
I've never used Apple's lighting effects but I can't imagine it has the flexibility of having unlimited light sources like I have. I can't even achieve the same results in Photoshop that I can create in the studio and I am an expert Photoshop power user with many years of experience, but I'm sure for the novice, the iPhone lighting effects are fun to use.
iPhone cameras are actually useful in a professional environment though - for example, in movie making where you wouldn't want to use a $100K camera that might get damaged in an explosion scene or crash while mounted on a drone. iPhone's camera is truly amazing but does not replace a studio.
if so, I would like to say I am greatly what the British did in Hong Kong.
The point is that the feature that are available are comparable in quality to what can be achieved in a professional environment. (Also, what lighting/recording/room/sound effects are available in a "real" studio vary greatly with the available equipment and the actual room, so flexibility and results may vary there, obviously.)
BTW, I am not a Brit, neither am I a nationalist.