Should TLC stop photoshopping their pictures?

[Bobskink]

ooh, that is right, I forgot about Bionicle and Hero Factory.

I must say that there they go to far with the photoshoping. The sets always look very cool on the box or catalog, but in reall life, half of them is really disapointing. Especially when the quallity of the plastic went backawards a few years ago.

[8BrickMario]

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

It says right in the Character Encyclopedia that the renders are produced as 3D models and then the Minifigures are made. Before that I had wondered what the explanation was for the face prints being ever so slightly different from the pamphlet pictures.

[Aanchir]

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.

Actually, not quite. To my knowledge Silver Flip/Flop has not been seen in sets since 2002, when it was used for the silver BIONICLE Kanohi masks that came in the Krana packs. A lot of sites seem to conflate Silver Flip/Flop with the color Bricklink calls Flat Silver, but that's a misconception. You can recognize Silver Flip/Flop because it has a somewhat sparkly appearance compared to other "pearl" colors, and if you hold it up to a light it is VERY translucent (and this is deliberate — otherwise you could not see through the visor of the silver or gold Kanohi Kaukau).

The Roman Soldier's helmet was officially just 194 Medium Stone Grey with silver paint: this is an odd trait of the Collectible Minifigures, in that the parts with metallic surface treatments usually do not get separate Material IDs (they are basically treated as decorations, like any part with painted or printed details). However, the color it comes closest to in regular sets is 298 Cool Silver, Drum Lacquered, which Bricklink calls Metallic Silver.

The Roman Centurion's helmet is officially 315 Silver Metallic, which Bricklink calls Flat Silver. Not all Flat Silver parts are this color: 315 Silver Metallic replaced the earlier color 131 Silver between 2010 and 2011, so any pre-2010 flat silver parts are generally the earlier color, and they simply look darker than the parts Bricklink calls Pearl Light Gray due to differences in the type of plastic or random variability.

Confusing, I know! It doesn't help that TLG replaced 131 Silver with a new color, 296 Cool Silver, in 2006, then brought 131 Silver back the very next year. Or that prior to 2006, parts with metallic paint (like some Technic parts) were typically just identified by their base color, much like the ones in the Collectible Minifigures. But once you commit these things to memory, you can usually hazard a fairly accurate guess regarding what color a silver part is. To sum up:

• 315 Silver Metallic: pearl silver color from around 2010 onward. Bricklink calls it Flat Silver.
  
• 296 Cool Silver: pearl silver color from 2006. Bricklink calls it Pearl Light Gray. LEGO Customer Service inventories list this color for a lot of sets from 2002-2006, but I think this is just for replacement purposes, just like how sometimes newer variants of parts appear as replacement parts for older sets.
  
• 179 Silver Flip/Flop: Silver color with unique properties used for silver Kanohi masks in 2002 BIONICLE Krana packs.
  
• 131 Silver: Pearl silver color from all other years. Bricklink calls it Pearl Light Gray or Flat Silver, depending on its appearance.
  
• 298 Cool Silver, Drum Lacquered: "matte" silver surface-treated color from 2006 onward. Bricklink calls it Metallic Silver.
  
• 309 Metallized Silver: "chrome" silver surface-treated color from all years. Didn't have a name or number for a long time. Bricklink calls it Chrome Silver.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Aanchir

[fred67]

Everything looks a lot better in advertising than it does in real life, but I have to scoff at what I see on the boxes and the catalogs they send; they do a LOT more retouching than a lot of people defending the practice are admitting to; all the highlights and glows and reflections, street lights and head lights that are actually lit (or have some kind of star burst on them to make them appear that way).

Look at this one, for example:

Now, I laugh when I see things like the nice glowing moon in the background, but let's look at the actual LEGO; both the spotlights and the building lights are glowing... I know they don't actually light up, but if you don't think that could be misleading, then I think you're really being blinded by brand loyalty.

How about this one:

Do I really have to point it out? The glowing eye of Suaron; the "electric" looking magic coming from the staves? The glows on the lights?

We look at it and, being adults, we're accustomed to it being misleading, but the target audience generally is not.

I don't mind them getting the best shots of their products as possible and then doing a little clean up, that's not the problem - the problem is they DO alter the images in ways that can be highly misleading. I guess I'm accustomed to it and just blow it off, but when someone complains about it, I'm going to have to agree and defend their point.

At the same time, I guess the thing I learned as a youngster, is the backgrounds they (all toy marketers) make the experience you see impossible in real life; this set shows them in some dingy, eerie, castle-like room; the palace cinema has that city background with the moon... the RC cars I used to covet were being run on really cool dirt tracks built for the commercial - few kids were able to have anything like that unless you lived out in the country and had land you could mess up for it. It's always been that way, but then the background is not the product - here, TLG alters the product. I accept they do it, but it's really not cool.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

To be honest, if you think little plastic sticks actually shoot lightning, there's something really, really, wrong.

But I do agree that the Palace Cinema lights could be misleading.

[fred67]

To be honest, if you think little plastic sticks actually shoot lightning, there's something really, really, wrong.

But I do agree that the Palace Cinema lights could be misleading.

Really? I'm 46 years old. I don't believe anything I see on the box. But I'm not the target audience, am I? The staves are more than just emitting electic arcs, they're lit up, and the yellow lights behind them are brilliantly lit.

Edited June 14, 2013 by fred67

[Capt.JohnPaul]

Really? I'm 46 years old. I don't believe anything I see on the box. But I'm not the target audience, am I? The staves are more than just emitting electic arcs, they're lit up, and the yellow lights behind them are brilliantly lit.

Oops, my bad. I meant "If someone...." I didn't really mean you. I don't think the LOTR is as misleading as the Palace Cinema. In the PC, the lights glow, and that's something you'd expect from a movie premiere or something. But in the LOTR set, not as much. Are they bright? Yes. But I'd never think they actually glow. (Not because I buy LEGO anyways.) But because they'd need batteries or something most likely. Or they'd put "this piece glows!" on the box, like the Mars Mission aliens.

If LEGO shouldn't do this, how far will it go? Should they not Photoshop/manipulate the blaster shots in Star Wars sets? Would people think the plastic guns would shoots lasers?

Edited June 14, 2013 by Capt.JohnPaul

[merman]

True. But the unknowing layman customer buying the PC may think there are little led lights in the set... The glowing parts are big enough to host such lights...

[Canticleer blues]

@fred67: I think you're overlooking a few things. First, you underestimate the intelligence of children. Maybe a child who's 5 or under would think s/he'd be getting 'wizard magic' with their box of Lego, but kids over the age of 7 can tell the difference between physical bricks/3D models and 2-D effects. Moreover, I'm not sure they'd be all that concerned, as the kids full well have the ability to imagine lights, explosions and all such things while playing anyway. It's not that concerning to the average parent either- most of them expect to just be buying a box of plastic parts. Anything else would be details to them, and the only detail they'd really be paying attention to would be price.

Really, what it comes down to is: people of the modern decade understand that the picture on the box is meant to sell the product just as much as it is to depict what's inside. This isn't the 60's where you only had a simple photograph on the package to judge a product by; it becomes easily understood through early exposure to media and experience that what's on the front is a design and not the product itself. For a toy like a Lego set to be actually misleading, there would have to be significant differences in the makeup of the product as compared to what's depicted on the box.

As a side note, thinking that the average consumer would believe there are tiny LEDs in the searchlights of the cinema set is ridiculous; as stated above, most only expect to get plastic bricks. As AFOLs, we're the ones who are constantly aware that LED Lego pieces exist, and so would be the ones who could jump to the conclusion that photoshopped light cones automatically means that those bricks would come in the set. The expectations of the average parent buyer are much more simple than the expectations of a dedicated fan.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Canticleer blues

[Aanchir]

Yeah, I definitely agree that kids are smart enough to know the difference between an effect on a product's box art and the actual functionality of the toy. At least from my experience, if a toy has special functions like electric light and sound or glow-in-the-dark elements, the product will actually advertise these features in a callout that is clear and legible. It'd be a much different issue if TLG were the ONLY company adding digital effects to their product images, but as it is kids today are raised in a consumer climate where they learn not to expect more from a product than what a company has explicitly promised them.

And this is hardly something TLG has started doing in the past few years. Look at any M:Tron package. All the fluorescent elements in the sets have been retouched to show a glowy effect. Even if the parts are fluorescent and glow under a blacklight, there is no lighting effect that will create the glowing "aura" that surrounds the parts as seen in these product images. This effect was more subdued but still present in subsequent space themes.

[8BrickMario]

I beg to differ. Trans-neon green parts will glow nicely in the sunlight. Just put one on the windowsill, and the part will look radioactive.

[Aanchir]

I beg to differ. Trans-neon green parts will glow nicely in the sunlight. Just put one on the windowsill, and the part will look radioactive.

Yes, but even when it lights up there won't be the same glowing "haze" around it as you see in some of these photos. It'll just light up the piece itself and anything that's within reach of its light.

Just look at some of the antennas that stick forward against the backdrop and you'll see what I mean. There's some definite retouching to emphasize that effect. And that's not something I personally have a problem with.

[Bobskink]

...We look at it and, being adults, we're accustomed to it being misleading, but the target audience generally is not....

Good point. I remember when I was a kid I was always very disapointed when toys weren't that cool as they appeared to be. Especially with Transformers, they look so cool in the cartoons and on the drawing on the box. I soon learned why they are always sold tranformed in the vehicle, never the robot.

But still, I think lego has no real choise, this is how toys are sold these days.

As a regular Lego customer we more or less know what we can expect. Compared to other toycomapnies I believe Lego is really fair.

To be honest, I would like the boxes without photoshop, most of the boxes themself are really cool, nice design etc... I almost never trow away them away.

[antp]

And this is hardly something TLG has started doing in the past few years. Look at any M:Tron package. All the fluorescent elements in the sets have been retouched to show a glowy effect. Even if the parts are fluorescent and glow under a blacklight, there is no lighting effect that will create the glowing "aura" that surrounds the parts as seen in these product images. This effect was more subdued but still present in subsequent space themes.

When I was kid I was wondering if they would be glow-in-the-dark. I discovered it was not the case when I got the first one, but as it was not mentioned on the box (as you said - such features are usually mentioned) I was not hoping too much anyway (and found the sets nice anyway).

But I also think that many of the effects added to the images are too much.

[Bobskink]

I forgot this photoshopping, which really bugs me, can't belive I forgot this one.

What the box says

what you really get.

For those who don't see it, it's the helmet for the clone and the vest for the pilot.

Lego seems to be having isseus printing white on orange and they skillfully hide it

[8BrickMario]

And white on red, too:

(The torso, LEGO made the hat white with red paint to avoid it there.

Edited June 17, 2013 by 8BrickMario

[Haltiamieli]

Then again, I really wish that Lego would up their print quality and not just lower the quality of their promo pics to match the reality. Thus the computer-generated imagery and/or photoshopping is only a secondary problem in those cases. Personally I haven't had much to complain with white-on-red, but skintones (yellow or flesh) printed on dark material are usually quite disappointing indeed. Sometimes this is depicted realistically even in official pics, sometimes not. Compare the green lady in these two pics (of the same set!):

[8BrickMario]

I'm sorry, but I see nothing, since the princess in the first picture is so small.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

Anyways, the title says "Should TLC stop photoshopping their pictures." They should. (because they are.) If the shouldn't, they'd be losing sales and they would change plans. So I think most people think it is okay.

[LiamM32]

315 Silver Metallic: pearl silver color from around 2010 onward. Bricklink calls it Flat Silver.

• 296 Cool Silver: pearl silver color from 2006. Bricklink calls it Pearl Light Gray. LEGO Customer Service inventories list this color for a lot of sets from 2002-2006, but I think this is just for replacement purposes, just like how sometimes newer variants of parts appear as replacement parts for older sets.
  
• 179 Silver Flip/Flop: Silver color with unique properties used for silver Kanohi masks in 2002 BIONICLE Krana packs.
  
• 131 Silver: Pearl silver color from all other years. Bricklink calls it Pearl Light Gray or Flat Silver, depending on its appearance.
  
• 298 Cool Silver, Drum Lacquered: "matte" silver surface-treated color from 2006 onward. Bricklink calls it Metallic Silver.
  
• 309 Metallized Silver: "chrome" silver surface-treated color from all years. Didn't have a name or number for a long time. Bricklink calls it Chrome Silver.
  

Thank you Aanchir. Very helpful.

Then again, I really wish that Lego would up their print quality and not just lower the quality of their promo pics to match the reality. Thus the computer-generated imagery and/or photoshopping is only a secondary problem in those cases. Personally I haven't had much to complain with white-on-red, but skintones (yellow or flesh) printed on dark material are usually quite disappointing indeed. Sometimes this is depicted realistically even in official pics, sometimes not. Compare the green lady in these two pics (of the same set!):

I have noticed that too. The Lifeguard minifigure had yellow printed on red, so I noticed that it looked a bit greenish. I would like them to improve their printing quality slighty.

Yeah, I definitely agree that kids are smart enough to know the difference between an effect on a product's box art and the actual functionality of the toy. At least from my experience, if a toy has special functions like electric light and sound or glow-in-the-dark elements, the product will actually advertise these features in a callout that is clear and legible. It'd be a much different issue if TLG were the ONLY company adding digital effects to their product images, but as it is kids today are raised in a consumer climate where they learn not to expect more from a product than what a company has explicitly promised them.

I agree. Do not underestimate the intelligence of children. As you said, we often learn to only expect from a product what we are explicitly told. But what if it is a combination of true and false?:

Only the opaque parts shown are phosphorescent in the actual set. It is made to like like some translucent parts like the flame are in the old 294 Phosphorescent Green colour, while they are really just trans-fluorescent coloured.

http://i-store.walmart.ca/images/WMTCNPE/002/361/1002361_Enlarged_1.jpeg

Edited June 19, 2013 by Rick
Please keep embedded images to a maximum of 1024 x 768 px. Thanks.

[Aanchir]

Only the opaque parts shown are phosphorescent in the actual set. It is made to like like some translucent parts like the flame are in the old 294 Phosphorescent Green colour, while they are really just trans-fluorescent coloured.

Actually, that flame part is a two-color blend (really, it always has been, regardless of color), and one of those two colors is the same color (329 White Glow) used for the ghosts and other glow-in-the-dark elements. Since light can get through the transparent-colored plastic, this means the opaque glow-in-the-dark color can still glow, if not as brightly in places where the light has to shine through a layer of non-phosphorescent plastic.

TLG has used this technique before several times in the BIONICLE theme, particularly in 2007, blending their then-current glow-in-the-dark color 294 Phosphorescent Green (which actually WAS transparent, at least in certain types of plastic) with 42 Transparent Light Blue to create blue parts that glowed green. The octopus in set 8636 was a non-BIONICLE example.

The term for parts like this that have more than one color of plastic is "co-injected". I spoke about co-injected parts in this post. It's kind of impressive that they have been with us for over a decade now!

Edited June 19, 2013 by Aanchir

[dvsntt]

The thing that bothers me the most is the stylized renderings of the CMF's that show them with their legs are bendy and stuff. I initially thought they were prodcuing legs like that, similair to the legs in the McDonalds\Batman minfigs. Being that it mislead me, I am annoyed by that.

[fred67]

I forgot this photoshopping, which really bugs me, can't belive I forgot this one.

What the box says

... [pictures deleted for brevity] ...

For those who don't see it, it's the helmet for the clone and the vest for the pilot.

Lego seems to be having isseus printing white on orange and they skillfully hide it

I really don't notice stuff like that; I guess it's just knowing that colors will be more vibrant in the art work... what got me in that one is the pilot on the box apparently had emblems on the helmet.

[Bobskink]

The emblems on the helmet are just there because it's an other pilot, most of them have differnet helmets, I couldn't find a regular and photooshopped picture of the same pilot.

But get back to the first part of you comment, I don't know if you ever had one of these figures actually in your hands? When I got them for the first time I imediatly noticed and quite frankly, it's the only thime I've been really disapointed with Lego quality. Especially the troppers, I bought one package and after opening it it went straight on eBay.

[Aanchir]

The emblems on the helmet are just there because it's an other pilot, most of them have differnet helmets, I couldn't find a regular and photooshopped picture of the same pilot.

But get back to the first part of you comment, I don't know if you ever had one of these figures actually in your hands? When I got them for the first time I imediatly noticed and quite frankly, it's the only thime I've been really disapointed with Lego quality. Especially the troppers, I bought one package and after opening it it went straight on eBay.

I think his point was more that the white printing on the orange parts was cleaner on the official photos than on the final set (or at least, most copies of the final set). In the final set, the background color is likely to show through unless white decorations are printed in multiple layers. This isn't necessarily a case of photo manipulation, of course. It could be that these are pre-production versions of the parts and aren't subject to the same variability as the mass-produced versions. Or it's also possible that TLG just had an entire batch of parts to select from and used the ones that were most attractive for their official product shots. Either technique could be argued to be deceptive, but it's not necessarily a case of photomanipulation being the culprit.