Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone’s “portrait mode”

December 3, 2018 by Dunja Djudjic 97 Comments

Earlier this year, Samsung was busted for using stock photos to show off capabilities of Galaxy A8’s camera. And now they did it again – they used a stock image taken with a DSLR to fake the camera’s portrait mode. How do I know this, you may wonder? Well, it’s because Samsung used MY photo to do it.

How I found out

A while ago, while I was trying to find a suitable alternative for Flickr, I ended up creating a profile on EyeEm. Since they’re partnered with Getty, some of my images were selected to be sold through Getty’s collection. I totally forgot about it, until a few weeks ago when I got an email from EyeEm: Congratulations, you sold a photo! Awwww, I made my first sale on EyeEm! For some reason, someone bought this portrait of me goofing around:

Curious as I am, I performed a reverse image search a few days later, just for fun. I thought that, even if I get to see the image online, it could be included in a blog post about outdoor activities, nature, autumn… Maybe even makeup. But to my surprise, there was only a bunch of search results related with Galaxy A8 Star. I clicked on the first link, scrolled down, and saw this:

My first reaction was to burst out into laughter. Just look at the Photoshop job they did on my face and hair! I’ve always liked my natural hair color (even though it’s turning gray black and white), but I guess the creator of this franken-image prefers reddish tones. Except in the eyes though, where they removed all of the blood vessels.

Whoever created this image, they also cut me out of the original background and pasted me onto a random photo of a park. I mean, the original photo was taken at f/2.0 if I remember well, and they needed the “before” and “after” – a photo with a sharp background, and another one where the almighty “portrait mode” blurred it out. So Samsung’s Photoshop master resolved it by using a different background.

What I did

Since I’d made my first sale on EyeEm and saw the image on Samsung Malaysia’s website right after that, I didn’t even assume that they’d stolen the image. I mean, why would they? It’s not expensive for a huge company like that to buy one stock photo. Although, to be honest, I think that they should have paid more for a better retoucher. But just to make sure, I got in touch with EyeEm, asking whether Samsung bought the image from them.

A wonderful lady from customer support told me that the sale wasn’t registered on EyeEm yet. However, she explained that sometimes buyers have subscriptions with Getty Images, meaning that they will be billed later for their photos. “Photos can be used months before we get sales data for the photo,” she added, and promised to keep me updated.

After this, I contacted Getty to check whether the sale was made through their website. I never got a reply.

I tried getting in touch with Samsung too, but it’s impossible to do it via its website unless you have a problem with some of the company’s devices. I sent a message to Samsung Global via Facebook, explaining my problem. All I got was a bunch of generic messages teaching me how to use Samsung smartphones. Thanks, Samsung, but I use Huawei. At least they do a better job faking smartphone images with photos shot on a DSLR.

Conclusion

Sadly, it’s nothing new that smartphone companies use DSLR photos to fake phone camera’s capabilities. Samsung did it before, so did Huawei. And I believe many more brands do it, we just haven’t found out about it yet. I’m pretty sure that Samsung at least bought my photo legally, even though I haven’t received the confirmation of it. But regardless, this is false advertising.

It’s undeniable that smartphone cameras are getting better (and there are more and more lenses with every new phone). But, we definitely shouldn’t trust the ads showing off their capabilities, or at least take them with a grain of salt. Although, to be honest – I doubt anyone would believe an ad with a Photoshop job this terrible anyway.

Edit: I took the photo with my good old Nikon D7000 and an even older Helios 44M-4 58mm f/2 lens.

[Update 6 December 2018, 12:30 p.m.]: Samsung has added a disclaimer under the photo stating: “Image simulated for demo purpose.”

« How to color backgrounds with light – The Lighting Series #2

8K video is now a real thing and it’s being broadcast in Japan »

Tj Ó Seamállaigh

meh … well .. at least they bought it …. though for such “campaign” i bet the price was way too little. I do reverse search from time to time but I don’t always get a result. I would be happy to sell them my face though … shot in infrared… in case they have a campaign for horror movies on ur phone hmmm!
- Dunja0712
  
  Haha I wonder if I could ever sell this photo of my face for horror movies:
  https://www.flickr.com/photos/dunja0712/33951590953/in/dateposted/
  Or better yet, the b/w version from this article:
  https://www.diyphotography.net/use-photoshop-trick-leave-no-blemish-unhealed/
  
  Yeah, I don’t do the reverse search often either. But when I do, I sometimes end up with really interesting results. This was by far the most interesting one. 🙂
  - Tj Ó Seamállaigh
    
    haha… well .. editing aside.. you look perfect 🙂
    lol i didn’t realize it’s your own photo which was purchased till you mentioned it just now lol.
    And just for fun here is, as I said, my face in infrared (which was an experiment in fact, of covering my speedlite with an infrared filter designed for lenses) – with a bit of retouch. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/660e6067426566e109312747feca211fd13f2e19e24e29e73d31e07163caca95.jpg
    - Dunja0712
      
      This is awesome, I like the effect IR gives to the eyes! We could join forces and create a horror series, it would be a success! 😀
      - Tj Ó Seamállaigh
        
        lol maybe – as a starter maybe my pic without a beard would be horrific enough lol
        The eyes here are the edited part in fact just to brighten them a bit. The general color of the image was a result of mixing infrared and some escaping “daylight” light from the speedlite (because the filter is circular and does not block the head properly) but well, I did like the look!
        
        –
        with my work in infrared, I’m assuming that brown-ish eyes do appear bright under infrared (which means they reflect IR) while blue eyes, as I’ve seen from some samples online, tend to appear darker and black like aliens’ eyes because they absorb IR. I did read some info long time ago which I’m not sure of, which states that people of all different eyes colors do in fact see differently, so I think the case of infrared here is a clue to that, because different eyes colors react differently to IR – and it is a well-known fact that blue eyes are more sensitive to light than brown eyes as well.
      - Dunja0712
        
        That’s really interesting! So, bright eyes appear darker, and the other way around. I also read a while ago that people with bright eyes are more sensitive to light, and it makes sense to me. But I do wonder how that affects the way we perceive colors. 🙂
      - Tj Ó Seamállaigh
        
        Yes, I was wondering too. Does that mean people with blue eyes are able to glimpse infrared of some range (infrared is a wide spectrum of wavelengths)? Not sure!
        BTW, there had been a problem with me here on DIYP, as every time I check a page or an article, I must login to Disqus (it used to be logged in already all the time) – any ideas how to keep it logged in?
      - Dunja0712
        
        Hm, no idea, but I’ll try to find out. I haven’t experienced the problem, I’ve been logged in ever since I started working here. 🙂
      - Richard Giadrosich
        
        I have blue eyes and I have very good night vison. Not sure if its quite infrared, but I see monochrome pretty good even in almost pitch black. All the color goes away but details are still visible. Now you have me curious if I can get a light only I (and other blue eyes) can see.
      - Tj Ó Seamállaigh
        
        Yeah this is what I read before about blue eyes; That they are generally more sensitive to light (but they didn’t specify if it is IR). But did you take a selfie before with some infrared filter? I’m curious if the eyes would turn black like I usually see in pics online!
    - Khürt L. Williams
      
      There is limited evidence that eye color can have a slight effect on vision.
      
      https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/health/20real.html
Jeffrey Friedl

Did the original image that they bought (assuming that they did indeed buy the rights) come with a model release?
- Dunja0712
  
  Yup. 🙂 That’s me in the photo so I signed it. 🙂
  - Carlos
    
    I agree that all images should be taken with the smartphone itself. I don’t know why they’re so lazy, however they do state right on that page you linked that the images are “simulated” for “illustration purposes only”. 🤷
    - nametaken
      
      *BTW our fingers were crossed.
Germ

And that is why I never really trust marketing claims and would look for written reviews instead before making a solid decision on purchasing a phone.

Also, this article was shared on the r/Android subreddit. Hopefully that’ll get this situation some exposure.
MJK

Why do they go through the trouble?
Can’t the phone/ camera do what they claim?
- Joseph Micallef
  
  An easy NO
  - MJK
    
    do you have one?
    - Willi Kampmann
      
      The problem is probably image quality. Sure the portrait mode works, but there are often artifacts, and phone photos are often noisier, which becomes a bigger issue when magnified. If you claim DSLR quality you really have to show it. That’s why I like Apple’s ad campaign: they just show (edited) iPhone photos. No comparison to DSLRs, just the text “shot on iPhone”.
      - Daniel
        
        Which can be a lie too…
      - Pedro Miguel Sousa
        
        So far nobody has accused Apple of doing such a thing and knowing how apple is I don’t think they would do it.
        But Samsung and Huawey and more have already done it some more then once.
      - Dian Atamyanov
        
        Apple lies about everything, so the null hypothesis should be that they’re faking their photos, too, until demonstrated otherwise.
      - Pedro Miguel Sousa
        
        Well I don’t think they do at least with the pictures I bet you you will never see anything like that from apple and that’s the reason nothing has come up yet. Samsung and Huawey on the other hand that’s another story even the celebrities that publicate stuff on Twitter and Facebook post stuff about how great their phones in this case Samsung and Huawey phones and they post from an iPhone. I’m sure you read about this. When apple does something like that let me know. .
      - Dian Atamyanov
        
        A lot of folks also bet that Apple wasn’t throttling its phones. Funny how that turned out.
      - darwiniandude
        
        Sarcasm I’m assuming?
      - Dian Atamyanov
        
        No. Just stating facts.
      - darwiniandude
        
        😂 🤣 😂 🤣 😂 🤣
      - Dian Atamyanov
        
        Another iSheep, I’m assuming?
      - darwiniandude
        
        Samsung has on multiple occasions over many years lied and been caught out on issues such as:
        – Changing firmware dates to say security patches are installed, rather than installing them.
        – Using DSLR images in marketing materials pretending to be cellphone images.
        – Detecting benchmark execution and overclocking to fake higher performance results than possible with standard software.
        – Paying people to promote Samsung products and leave fake positive reviews.
        
        Apple, slowed phones down IF the battery in those phones had deteriorated to the point where full speed execution would cause a total shutoff and powerdown, leaving the user without a phone toll power was reconnected. Yes, Apple should’ve communicated this better, rather they wait to be called out on it.
        
        But ethicaly in terms of deceptive practices, Samsung is in a whole different league to Apple.
      - Dian Atamyanov
        
        Apple not only lies about everything, they also blame their consumers for everything. Remember back when Steve Jobs told people that the issue with iPhone 4’s reception was that users were holding it wrong? The level of arrogance and absolute disdain one must have for their consumers has to be astronomical for them to make a statement like that.
        
        Year after year, they would either hide issues and then reluctantly offer extended warranties once found out or would just flat out deny any at all, even when discovered. I still remember when everyone balked at the idea that Apple may be throttling their phones. Then, when Apple got busted, they claimed it was a feature and the iSheep feel for that hook, line and sinker, just like you have.
        
        And if we’re talking about false advertisement, Apple, in court following the iPhone 3G release, have admitted that the claims in their ads were not to be taken at face value.
        
        Genius employees have routinely been caught lying through their teeth (CBC had a recent report on it) about faults in consumers’ products, giving them blatantly false quotes. For decades, Apple has been fighting against consumers’ right to repair their phones and computers and have been making it more and more difficult for their consumers to escape the iOS ecosystem, which is the hallmark of a company hellbent on controlling their consumer base. A bit ironic, given their famous 1984 ad.
        
        Think different? More like don’t think at all. Just sit there, accept less and less freedom and gobble more and more bullshit.
      - Dian Atamyanov
        
        Well, well, well. What do we have here:
        
        Apple lied about iPhone X, XS and Max screen sizes and pixel counts, lawsuit alleges
        
        https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-lied-about-iphone-x-xs-max-screen-sizes-and-pixel-counts-lawsuit-alleges/
        
        Nothing but Apple’s finest display of integrity.
      - Khürt L. Williams
        
        It could be a lie. And you could be sexual predator. I don’t know of any evidence of either.
      - BW
        
        Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see where they compared it to a DSLR… they showed faked Depth of Field, which is simulating a short F stop lens (doesn’t need to be a DSLR to do that, just the lens.) Smartphones can simulate DoF pretty well these days. They aren’t perfect, like with complex designs, or refractive glasses, but something like this I shot on a Pixel 3 and can adjust the simulated depth https://www.flickr.com/photos/8625833@N04/32323372088/in/dateposted/ It’s not perfect, but the quality is good enough for a magazine size print without visible imperfections. 100% crop will show it’s soft, but so are my ASPC sensor DSLR’s… the only thing I own tack sharp at 100% is full frame sensor camera bodies like the Canon 5D, or my stacked sensor Sigma Dp3. But considering a phone can do this (and I assume samsung is similar in quality), I think they could easily produce this in house, without much issue. They were just lazy and used their getty images account to produce a quick marketing page.
  - BW
    
    I think most phones can now simulate basic Depth of Field without much hassle. They aren’t perfect, but the image in this article could easily have been done. But if the scene is simple and without refractive objects (like glasses at an angle) they work pretty well. Granted a true Bokeh nerd will prefer a solid dof lens on a camera body… but most people won’t know the difference. This shot here is fake DoF, and i took on a pixel 3 phone: https://www.flickr.com/photos/8625833@N04/32323372088
    
    I too could adjust the amount of faked bokeh/dof. At 100% crop it’s slightly soft, but so too are my aspc dslr’s. Only my good lens’ on a full frame sensor body will be tack sharp at 100%… or my stacked sensor camera – sigma dp3.
    
    So while faked depth is not perfect, the image in the article could easily work out with a modern camera phone.
    
    The question is really, ‘why didn’t they do it on the phone?’ and the answer is, because it wasn’t a technology team making the site, it was a marketing team. Marketing teams probably have little interest in truth about Samsung’s products. they have stock accounts, pull up images and make pages. It’s a shame, but that’s how sales and marketing works. It’s easier for them to do that then actually use the product.
- Atlas
  
  Because Samsung is a company that lies all the time, lined up with Google and Amazon.
Carlos

I get it .However, the page clearly states the following:

“*The contents within the screen are simulated images and are for demonstration purposes only.”

🤷
- Majulala
  
  Found the Samsung shill. Don’t eat their bald faced lie.
  - Carlos
    
    🤣 It’s a lie that they use “simulated images”? So this article is a lie? It’s a real Image from the phone then .haha
- Matt Maber
  
  It’s not rage you dimwit. And they can state in small print it’s a simulation all they like. It’s clearly Misrepresentation. I mean simply why would they bother to do this rather than do it properly. Ask yourself that.
- Willi Kampmann
  
  No, they are not clearly saying this is just an illustration. It’s hilarious how you’re bending over backwards downplaying this.
  
  There are indeed things they are clearly saying. Like in the section “Enjoy the bigger picture”, without scrolling you can see the footnote “*Screen measured diagonally as a full rectangle without accounting for the rounded corners”. They make a claim and right below they clarify. Even this is somewhat sketchy in my opinion because the asterisk is absent in the claim, but whatever.
  
  Then in the section “Your personal mobile manager”, they again make a claim (without askerisking it) and then immediately clarify, “*Some Bixby features may not be available depending on country, region, or language.” Again, no scrolling needed to see that footnote. This pattern repeats for most of the succeeding sections. You are right, there is a footnote for the photo in question as well. But instead of putting it right under the photo—like they did literally everywhere else!—it’s a gazillion scroll-meters down at the very bottom, hidden away in this flood of text:
  
  * Key feature may different from Key Spec
  * The bandwidths supported by the device may vary depending on the region or service provider.
  * Usable memory size is less than the total memory size due to storage of the operating system and software required to operate the phones’ features. Actual usable memory size will also vary depending on the mobile phone operator and may change after software upgrades are performed.
  * All specifications and descriptions provided herein may be different from the actual specifications and descriptions for the product. Samsung reserves the right to make changes to this web page and the product described herein, at anytime, without obligation on Samsung to provide notification of such change. All functionality, features, specifications, GUI and other product information provided in this web page including, but not limited to, the benefits, design, pricing, components, performance, availability, and capabilities of the product are subject to change without notice or obligation. The contents within the screen are simulated images and are for demonstration purposes only.
  * Display Size : Measured diagonally, the screen size is 6.3″ in the full rectangle and 6.2“ with accounting for the rounded corners
  
  They aren’t even explaining that the photo is complete fiction, a montage largely based on DSLR imagery. It’s just a generic “simulated images” phrase that could mean anything. In fact, typically this is in reference to UI screens, not photos! This is certainly not a proper disclaimer, and they clearly advertised the phone’s capabilities with undocumented DSLR photos.
- Steven Noyes
  
  It is interesting they have updated the page to:
  
  “*The contents within the screen [and images] are simulated images and are for demonstration purposes only.”
  
  It would have been simple to actually provide both from an actual A8 Star. As it is, the Dunja has (in the “unprocessed image”) a sharp face, sharp nose, blurry ears and a sharp background? WTF?
Sean C

You know you can use existing images to show photo processing. That’s what they’re demoing. Not Photography or a camera, but image processing on stock photos.
- Carlos
  
  It’s the rage generation Sean .They don’t read now. 🤷 It’s more fun to rage on the internet .
  - Uskglass
    
    No one’s raging here, man, despite your four comments. But Samsung’s actions were misleading. You’re fine with that, but who cares–why get so bent out of shape about it and accuse everyone of “rage”?
    
    It’s good to know that Samsung’s “demonstration” of background blur is not an actual demonstration.
- Matt Maber
  
  It’s not showing what the camera does. How it processes the foreground from the back. How it processes the out of focus area. Notthing. It’s pointless.
- Willi Kampmann
  
  This is incorrect. The portrait mode can only be applied to photos taken with the phone since it requires a depth map.
Michael

This is why no one should buy from Getty. They could have terrible relationships with their photogs and you don’t know what you are getting into with your derivative use of the photo.
Ravi Kharat

They have done this previously in their ads about super SLO MO, and that “The Slo Mo guys” shot the videos on Phantom.
I commented the same on Instagram, Samsung blocked my account since then.
ecafsub

I know a company that doesn’t do this: Apple.
- PygmySurfer
  
  *Additional equipment and software used
  
  https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/52f81ad69eed1ecc920ff5edbbdddd02f3a26e7daee6c6a55ddfa79bd01d41d5.png
  - mdelvecchio
    
    Apple does NOT use edited images when showing what the camera can do. Only actual pictures out of the camera. Phil Schiller explains this every time at the iPhone launch event, using actual pictures straight out of the camera and not with special equipment. Contrast that with the nameless, faceless people at Samsung and the other Asian knockoff brands.
    - PygmySurfer
      
      Schiller can say what he wants, that tagline appears at the end of the commercials.
      - Steve__S
        
        Right, and what he says is accepted as the truth until proven otherwise. For that matter the tagline can mean something as simple as using a tripod. Either way, when Apple says the photos were taken on an iPhone, they were.
  - Atlas
    
    Source needed.
    
    Pictures in Apple’s ‘shot on iPhone’ ads come from users.
    - PygmySurfer
      
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3794cfcd584ad557ff8356f7ed56d71ad173ece16a25948c5db3e114d8c6282b.jpg
      
      And the commercials include this disclaimer
      - Atlas
        
        That doesn’t mean they are using the equipement that you have shown which, again, doesn’t even show an iPhone. Why manipulate truth?
      - PygmySurfer
        
        You keep harping on the picture, which is merely an example. Look at the disclaimer on the ad.
      - Eugene
        
        So what equipment and software did they use? Any proof that it’s actually lenses like you claim in your “example” picture? Or are you just bullshitting to stir up your own crap? For all you know, additional equipment could simply mean tripods, gimbals, and different camera apps on the phone.
      - Atlas
        
        The picture is terribly misleading.
        The disclaimer doesn’t mean that Apple is using said equipment.
        
        And certainly you can’t compare that with Samsung NOT EVEN USING THEIR PHONE to take the picture.
- Tom Elam
  
  Yes they do. Apple uses extra external lenses in some of their ad photos.
  - Gradly
    
    Can you point out to some article to read more?
  - XianZhuXuande
    
    Which is not the same thing as passing a DSLR photo off as having come from your smartphone. Not even remotely close. Using an external lens still passes the image though the iPhone lens, sensor, and software.
    
    That said, I’d be curious to see where this was noted. I know they’ve hired professionals before who have used the likes of such equipment on photo tours, but not exclusively, and the framing and depth of field of promoted images typically seems consistent with iPhone focal ranges.
    - Atle Atlesen
      
      Not the same, still misleading.
  - mdelvecchio
    
    Links, please.
    - PygmySurfer
      
      https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads/
      - Atlas
        
        The phone shown in the picture is not an iPhone…
      - PygmySurfer
        
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3794cfcd584ad557ff8356f7ed56d71ad173ece16a25948c5db3e114d8c6282b.jpg
      - Khürt L. Williams
        
        If I take a photo using an iPhone with a moment lens, using a gimbal and external lighting, it is stil “Shot on an iPhone”.
      - PygmySurfer
        
        Absolutely. However, I think it sets unrealistic expectations for typical users.
      - BW
        
        Correct. While it’s still shot on an iphone, it’s deceptive, as much as this is. All companies are tricking the customers in some way or another. It’s no slam on apple anymore than samsung, this is how marketing teams work. It’s not so much a reflection of the tech side of the company, as it is the marketing teams involved. Apple is well noted for marketing in grey areas since inception. As have most tech companies.
      - XianZhuXuande
        
        Would you consider it to be misleading if a DSLR promotional photo was shot with strobes? There’s some fair justification with using devices to capture a professional image.
        
        About the only more unusual element would be use of an external lens, but even that doesn’t seem like too big a deal since the resulting image still goes through the lens, sensor, and processing of the camera.
      - Atlas
        
        That doesnt change the fact that the device in the picture isn’t an iPhone.
      - XianZhuXuande
        
        Pointing to a subtext in one commercial for the iPhone is not the same thing as equivalence to what is discussed in the PetaPixel article. No one has shared any indication that the Apple advertisements used any such approaches.
        
        Shot on an x-phone style movies are another matter. Would the use of a gimbal mean a movie wasn’t shot on a Canon or that it became dishonest to say it had been? Or more generally, use of lighting?
        
        There’s a line to be drawn somewhere in truth of advertising, but no equivalence between this and what companies like Samsung and Huawei have done in terms of passing DSLR photographs off as having been taken with smartphones.
shm224

For a company with $10+B in marketing budget, they could probably do a bit better.
madmaxmedia

The worst part is that the DOF of your original photo doesn’t encompass your entire head, yet the ‘before’ photo somehow has a sharp background. They must have thought using the leaf as a prop was really cute (and it is!)
Fabrício De Araújo Fernandes

maybe it’s just a way to illustrate what the phone does, but why not to use a real photo taken with the f*n’ phone
Rad

Really, you’re complaining that they photoshop the stock photo? If I buy a stock photo, alter it, and use it, then find out the original photographer publicly complain about my usage of it, I would be pretty pissed.

If you want control over how your work is used, DO NOT SELL IT FOR STOCK PHOTO!
- Scott Lewis
  
  I think you completely missed the point of this article.
- mdelvecchio
  
  are you effing serious? the point is that theyre scamming people by presenting pro SLR photos as if they came out of the crappy phone camera.
KingShoter007

Big oof. Hopefully this news becomes viral and they get ridiculed. This isn’t the first time Samsung has done something like this.
Ed Hansberry

Well, now the site says “*Images simulated for demo purposes” below your pic, so I guess they covered their bases. Still, why not use their own camera?
Sara Rebeka

I think all the other mobile brands use DSLR photo for their ad campaign. Apple and Google are the companies actually use their own smartphone photos in their campaign. They hire top photographers and high quality clipping lens for their smartphones for shooting those images.
Bruno Brant

I keep wondering what kinds of legal trouble you may get for this post if they actually brought the image.
- grat
  
  Probably about “none”. By buying the photo, they’re acknowledging the original copyright.
- darwiniandude
  
  They bought it to claim it was taken with one of their phones, which is wasn’t.
- Moog42
  
  They don’t buy it, they license it for use, you still own the copyright.
متجر أبس عربى – تطبيقات مجانية

that is pretty sad … i thought these practises only usually by chinese phones makers .. now i know all of them do it
- Atlas
  
  Not Apple.
Red Alert

Samsung is and always has been a big wannabe. Their phones are just simple copies.
snabbott

It’s a great photo! I agree – no retouching is necessary. Your other photos are pretty great, too!
Ilya the Great

It’s a very nice and whimsical image BTW. I understand why they used it.
save the animals

In the early 70s Canon used my photo that had been shot on a Nikon to advertise a Canon camera. I tried to get a job with them… they said they didn’t hire women. I tried to get a job with Sony when they used one of my Nikon images in a Sony ad… they also said they didn’t hire women. Now I’m at the top of my field…. small but at the top.
rychastings

looooooool
Tasha Wills

Damn, are there any honest smartphone manufacturers anymore?
Slav Dok

This is like TV ads for new TVs, showing you on your old “crappy” TV how good the picture could look on their new ones.
Jordi Bercial Ramirez

Ahh, the good old 44M-4, i should use it more, but the adapter i use even need tools so it’s boring to use it