[clackers]

Hiring a photographer that works with Pentax isn't on their menu.

I don't begrudge companies doing that, Ron. Doesn't bother me if the chairman of GM drove a Maserati at weekends.

The modern way is to outsource to professionals, and you let them use the tools they like to get the job done.

The problem here is that they apparently outsourced to a 14 year old.

[rawr]

Here's the link to the photo I was trying to post:

That's an OK photo. It shows that if the Ricoh office in Hong Kong can hire a model to pose with the K-S1, it shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of Ricoh in America.

The whole thing is a storm in a tea-cup, but this sort of photoshop fail in a widely distributed marketing package opens up scope for distracting commentary and weakens the message.

[monochrome]

The problem here is that they apparently outsourced to a 14 year old.

A 14 year old can P'Shop. They must have outsourced to a 64 year old.

[monochrome]

Sorry, it was showing up for me, but not now.
Here's the link to the photo I was trying to post:
LED ???????Pentax K-S1 ?? $5,490 - ???? - Pentax ??? - ePrice.HK

She holds a camera like a photographer, too (other than curling her right fingers so the grip shows).

[NicoleC]

A 14 year old can P'Shop. They must have outsourced to a 64 year old.

Them's fightin' words.

[clackers]

Them's fightin' words.

Monochrome, you've angered the powerful over-60s Post processing faction of the forum.

Best to make your escape when they fall asleep watching McGyver.

[ogl]

When a camera department has to buy a stock photo and then poorly photoshop one of their new products into that photo for a worldwide ad campaign, something is wrong.
If it's not a shortage of funds, then it is poor management.

Tom Lusk ® (from dpreview discussion)

---------- Post added 10-23-2014 at 11:41 PM ----------

This is not just a marketing flop. This is far worse than that:

It is unethical advertising and giving wrong buying impressions: the real camera is not that small. It may start even a law suit action against the company.
It skews the values of the brand: if they allowed this now, what they did before and what is to be expected next time?
It shows problems in quality control.
It shows problems in communication protocols.
It devalues user as a sensible person, who expects truth, fair treatment and respect; what conclusion user may draw from such an ad? What kind of employees within company thought this is good treatment of users?
It confirms fears and suspicions of some older users that Pentax never really bothered with marketing, and Ricoh only continued same tune, and minimally invested in any effort to uplift communication and image of the brand.
If an image making oriented company seeks a stock photograph to advertise a photography making product, is same as a dairy company using plain water painted with white chalk to promote their milk. Not only product tastes bad — the whole product range suddenly looks suspicious.

Zvonimir Tosic ® (from dpreview discussion)

[kh1234567890]

Pentax is doomed ....

[RonHendriks1966]

When a camera department has to buy a stock photo and then poorly photoshop one of their new products into that photo for a worldwide ad campaign, something is wrong.
If it's not a shortage of funds, then it is poor management.

Tom Lusk ® (from dpreview discussion)

---------- Post added 10-23-2014 at 11:41 PM ----------

This is not just a marketing flop. This is far worse than that:

It is unethical advertising and giving wrong buying impressions: the real camera is not that small. It may start even a law suit action against the company.
It skews the values of the brand: if they allowed this now, what they did before and what is to be expected next time?
It shows problems in quality control.
It shows problems in communication protocols.
It devalues user as a sensible person, who expects truth, fair treatment and respect; what conclusion user may draw from such an ad? What kind of employees within company thought this is good treatment of users?
It confirms fears and suspicions of some older users that Pentax never really bothered with marketing, and Ricoh only continued same tune, and minimally invested in any effort to uplift communication and image of the brand.
If an image making oriented company seeks a stock photograph to advertise a photography making product, is same as a dairy company using plain water painted with white chalk to promote their milk. Not only product tastes bad — the whole product range suddenly looks suspicious.

Zvonimir Tosic ® (from dpreview discussion)

This is absolutely true and not a single first incident. I think this not so much a Ricoh problem, but there are still the same people working doing marketing that where there 5 years ago. They don't have a clue. They hire Nikon photographers to do their promotional images! They don't know marketing and don't appriciate the Pentax photographers.

[JPT]

Is there any chance of judging this camera on its photographic potential rather than awarding and docking Ricoh points for their business practices?

[gazonk]

Despite living in Europe, I get mails from Ricoh Imaging in the US, but my mail system ate this mail, it never arrived. I don't think it was able to digest that silly picture.

I wonder what Ricoh Imaging managers in Japan think of this, I bet they are at least as outraged as we are!

[ogl]

As for me, this camera has no Pentax's spirit at all. Maybe, it's fun to use such colors. But it's not my direction of thinking.

[clackers]

As for me, this camera has no Pentax's spirit at all. Maybe, it's fun to use such colors. But it's not my direction of thinking.

The 'S' line of products isn't aimed at you, Ogl.

A pink 645Z, though ...

[severalsnakes]

Is there any chance of judging this camera on its photographic potential rather than awarding and docking Ricoh points for their business practices?

Absolutely not, JPT! ... Apparently... I don't know...

I think the virtues of the K-S1 are discussed on other K-S1 threads and this one is really just focused on Ricoh's announcement of the new colors, which is why this thread seems focused on the advertising... But there is a lot of cynicism that hangs around, in general.

I wish I needed/could afford a new camera so I could buy the K-S1 in the most outrageous color they have! Then I could cradle it delicately in my giant woman-hands.

[rawr]

Is there any chance of judging this camera on its photographic potential

Not until DxoMark look at it, I think.
If it does well in the Lab, everyone will soon forget about a small marketing blunder.