>>3883019I will admit, I was surprised that all those super clean, almost render-like photos weren't provided by the manufacturer. I was also very surprised when 99.9% of the shots were done in camera, the only time editing was done was if there was a mark on the white background, or something similarly innocuous not on the product. All of our gear (lens & bodies) were colour calibrated, we shot in jpeg, tethered with capture one, tripods were huge machines weighing several tons, that could be moved around on integrated hydraulic trolley jack's.
So I don't hold your opinion against you, but you are 100% wrong.
>>3883507>I've worked in publishing longer than you've been alivePresuming you started work at 16, that puts you well above 50 years old... Lol. Timestamp some proof old man.
>I know what future publishing isSo do most of the world
>I don't care how many studios it hasJust the one
>How big it's willy isIt's a company, not your favourite male model.
>I have no doubt they took their own photosCorrect
>They never shot beauty products like opWe did products like that every week, they are quick, easy and predictable. 360 degree photo shoots of glossy screen electronics, where every angle just showed a clean white line reflection on the screen (and not our studio) was the challenging shit.
>Marie claire or woman's weeklyLiterally 2 future publishing titles that we shot all the photos for.
>Successful companies just use photos from the original companyMaybe in your podunk publishing company, future is still pulling in more than half a billion dollars a year in revenue despite magazines being dead. At £50k per employee and there being a dozen of us, that means the talent responsible for all those beautiful glossy pictures that fill & sell the magazine's cost 1-2% of revenue. We also resold a lot of our images back to the companies, guitar companies were particularly fond of this arrangement.
>Wahhwahhhwah you always have to have the last word wahhOk Hun.
