Saw this and thought of the track day

Seen this ad in a couple of magazines and thought I'd post it up.
I like it...
Nice idea, really well executed, also its about something I'm interested in, which is a plus

1 Attachment

Because I love your eyes . . .

CLONE TOOL FAIL

Tynan, you considerate fnck.
:)

sorry, the original photo was too big to upload, and I was sitting in front of a computer like a numpty trying to work out why it wasn't uploading.
Apologies.
Thank you all for being much more computer/web literate than I am

CLONE TOOL FAIL

of course, but in retrospect, wouldn't it be hard to try and capture a perfect line like this in a photo? in track, cyclist do tend to be almost quite as close as this, but just not quite in perfect alignment like the advert suggested.

So what can they do? either spend hundred (or thousand) of pounds trying to capture the shot as much as they can until they got the perfect alignment? or simply use photoshop to make it easier to deliver the point of the ad?

It's an advert, they want to have what appear to be a perfect alignment of the two bike to make their point.

Clone Tool Fail it is, they could've simply use two photo of a different wheel and carefully align it, but the message of the advert? pass.

its such a simple image, graphic designers back before computers wouldve resorted to knocking out a gouache render before putting that out.

I mean the image is motion blurred, how easy is it to hide artifacts?

personally i think it is more likely that as they were riding in such a straight line ,they both rode over the same piece of dog shit

personally i think it is more likely that as they were riding in such a straight line ,they both rode over the same piece of dog shit

Then the mark will be on the same place on each wheel and you still wouldn't see the mark on the wheel in front ;)

Like Corny says... i like it, its a nice little ad.

Then the mark will be on the same place on each wheel and you still wouldn't see the mark on the wheel in front ;)

depends if its a 650 front and a 750 rear the mark would move round in relation to the other. chances are it will eventually fall into line. :P

or its a photoshop

funnily enough, thats the same distance I keep between myself and power/glory in the gym

of course, but in retrospect, wouldn't it be hard to try and capture a perfect line like this in a photo? in track, cyclist do tend to be almost quite as close as this, but just not quite in perfect alignment like the advert suggested.

So what can they do? either spend hundred (or thousand) of pounds trying to capture the shot as much as they can until they got the perfect alignment? or simply use photoshop to make it easier to deliver the point of the ad?

It's an advert, they want to have what appear to be a perfect alignment of the two bike to make their point.

Clone Tool Fail it is, they could've simply use two photo of a different wheel and carefully align it, but the message of the advert? pass.

Of course, the flip side is that photography was used to create a sense of verisimilitude, which has then been exploited through the blatant use of photoshop. Which to me means that they're lying to make a point.

The reason why this matters is because the emotional impact of the ad wouldn't exist unless you thought it might be real. If there was a note appended saying 'this image may have been retouched', you wouldn't have the empathic thrill of realising that the incredible proximity of the riders means that the slightest mistake could cause a problem. If you knew it was fake from the outset, you'd just think it was a picture of passing artistic merit - I mean, it's not like they tried hard to get it.

So I don't think you can just say "oh well telling the truth would have cost money, so lying is okay". They are exploiting the emotional response the image elicits when you think it's real to bolster the risk-taking, stop-at-nothing, thrill-seeking image of their brand. When in fact the only risk they've taken is that their photoshopper might balls it up.

It's on a similar par with airbrushing celebrities to inhuman proportions so that a generation of young girls and boys can grow up with fucked up ideas of what the human body should look like. It's all lying and emotional manipulation to make people want to buy stuff.

basically, a forger's work should be indistinguishable from the real thing. If you're going to use photoshop, do it properly!

So I don't think you can just say "oh well telling the truth would have cost money, so lying is okay".

That phrase probably deserves to have the word inordinate added. It's ommission itself forms a whole different kind of representational bias. Whether it is more or less acceptable than that in the picture is a matter for debate.

That phrase probably deserves to have the word inordinate added. It's ommission itself forms a whole different kind of representational bias. Whether it is more or less acceptable than that in the picture is a matter for debate.

I'm a journalist, so I'm likely never to agree that there's a point at which 'lying is okay'.

Then the mark will be on the same place on each wheel . . .

Topologist nonsense ! :) C'mon let's have a punch up.

When you say the mark will be 'on the same place' - I presume you mean in relation to the ground ? So if we roll over a dog turd, the mark will be in the same place on each wheel in relation to the ground ?? ie: both wheels will have a mark at the top of the wheel at the same time or, for example, at the 3 o'clock position at the same time ???

Not true my forum master and Lord.

The turd mark will be exactly where the tyre picked it up, the only time it will appear in the same place on both tyres on a moving bike is when the distance between the wheels (hubs) is exactly ∏(wheel diameter) - or a whole multiple of ∏(wheel diameter).

Depending on the distance between the wheels it is easily possible for the marks to appear as in the 'photo' - after they have been over the turd at least once.

Alice Fisher is a journalist, she lied.

I'm really not sure you should be trying to rely on propito ergo sum in this instance.

I'm a journalist, so I'm likely never to agree that there's a point at which 'lying is okay'.

Of course you can, we can all think up situations where lying is the 'right' thing to do with little effort.

Alice Fisher is a journalist, she lied.

But she is in prison now, doing 10 for scenestering.

If you work for The Metro, or any tabloid, it's a prerequisite of the job, I'd imagine.

If you work for The Metro, or any tabloid, it's a prerequisite of the job, I'd imagine.

Do you really want to accuse them of journalism though?

Do you really want to accuse them of journalism though?

:D Give this man a show ! :D