fatbloke
 |
|
|
Why do Honda always release such terrible pictures? You can tell this cars going to look so much better than these pictures would suggest, so why do they always do this? Is it so when you see the car in person it looks so much better? To me this seems to be a deliberate ploy but I'm not sure why they do this!
|
DCR
|
|
|
I want to see the profile...
|
xBeastx
|
|
DCR wrote:
I want to see the profile...
|
I want to see actual f**king pictures where the car is sitting outside somewhere. The background and lighting are just terrible.
|
nj
|
|
I disagree completely. These are some of the better photos Honda has released in a long while. Anyone else remember this trainwreck? 
That is an AWFUL photo. The lighting is horrid. The angle is un-flattering. That gray backdrop is a beginner's photoshop mess!
I realize these photos(of the new accord) are heavily enhanced, but it works well. The backdrop is actually engaging with the car. I'm sorry but the car will not look better in person. This is the most dynamic they can make it look. In a studio. It's a ploy to make it look good. A profile shot would be nice, but front and rear 3/4 are the easiest way to show off the most of the car with the least # of shots. It's almost a teaser, but you can basically tell what the rest of the car with show like.
|
TurkMan71
|
|
Said it before, I'll say it again: These are not good pictures.
I still think the grille and bumper are too conservative/dated (and from the spy shots, the plug-in looks a bit...well, not conservative), but I think from what I can tell when i see the car in motion in some spy videos, that the overall car will be ok, even handsome...I just wish the details were less tired looking. I think the secret to good design is keeping details simple and clean BUT interesting and fresh...Honda got the simple part right at least.
Good, clean, simple details:
Optima - besides the c-pillar, which i find interesting despite its messiness...clean grille/headlight/hood/front bumper relationship
Passat - front and rear lights are crisp with interesting, fresh 'character' lines inside the light housings.
|
A77
|
|
|
is it just me or do both the civic above and the new accord sedan look as if the rear wheel has some serious toe in going on...
|
TurkMan71
|
|
nj wrote:
I disagree completely. These are some of the better photos Honda has released in a long while.
I realize these photos(of the new accord) are heavily enhanced, but it works well. The backdrop is actually engaging with the car. I'm sorry but the car will not look better in person. This is the most dynamic they can make it look. In a studio. It's a ploy to make it look good. A profile shot would be nice, but front and rear 3/4 are the easiest way to show off the most of the car with the least # of shots. It's almost a teaser, but you can basically tell what the rest of the car with show like.
|
Honda's almost always look better in person, especially when they are in motion, imho...
They'd get better press if they had someone take pictures of the car driving around the parking lot at the corporate headquarters in Torrance from a camera phone!
|
ClementZ
|
|
I'm not even sure this are photos anymore.
They seem to be computer generated; that or photoshopped to hell and back.
Especially that toe-in on the rear wheel of the sedan, and the lack of "dimension" shown by the wheels; both of them look flat and 2-dimensional.
|
carcrazy84
|
|
|
I thought this thread was a joke. These photos are great compared to ones of the Civic and Crosstour.
|
xBeastx
|
|
TurkMan71 wrote:
nj wrote:
I disagree completely. These are some of the better photos Honda has released in a long while.
I realize these photos(of the new accord) are heavily enhanced, but it works well. The backdrop is actually engaging with the car. I'm sorry but the car will not look better in person. This is the most dynamic they can make it look. In a studio. It's a ploy to make it look good. A profile shot would be nice, but front and rear 3/4 are the easiest way to show off the most of the car with the least # of shots. It's almost a teaser, but you can basically tell what the rest of the car with show like.
|
Honda's almost always look better in person, especially when they are in motion, imho...
|
True. I mostly look at Honda's on the internet (this forum, YouTube, etc.) I know, I know...But when I actually do visit my local dealership, the cars look much better. Even the 4 cylinder Crosstour and Civic.
|
DCR
|
|
|
TurkMan71
|
|
DCR wrote:
|
LOL
loads better...not really
|
Waldo
|
|
ClementZ wrote:
I'm not even sure this are photos anymore.
They seem to be computer generated; that or photoshopped to hell and back.
Especially that toe-in on the rear wheel of the sedan, and the lack of "dimension" shown by the wheels; both of them look flat and 2-dimensional.
|
Didn't you know? The Touring model gets four wheel steering. Notice the front wheels are turned to the left? That's why there is a slight turn to the right of the rear wheels. The Prelude chassis returns!
[ Are we having fun yet? :-) ]
|
DCR
|
|
|
Haha...the pics are so rendered and so "video game" like, it wouldn't be possible to blend it into much reality.
|
fatbloke
|
|
carcrazy84 wrote:
I thought this thread was a joke. These photos are great compared to ones of the Civic and Crosstour.
|
No carcrazy84, I'm afraid you're the joke if you think these pictures look great!
|
Paynim Dawn
|
|
|
http://automobiles.honda.com/future-cars/
|
nj
|
|
fatbloke wrote:
carcrazy84 wrote:
I thought this thread was a joke. These photos are great compared to ones of the Civic and Crosstour.
|
No carcrazy84, I'm afraid you're the joke if you think these pictures look great!
|
No. You're the joke. I honestly have no clue what your problem with these pictures is. My only complaint is for more angles (a head on, profile). I think you're trying to rationalize the blandness of the Accord by expecting it to look much better in person. It won't. These images highlight all the curves and lines in the body. Natrual light won't.
These are photgraphs. Not renderings. They're just heavily processed to showcase the lines. I can't believe people are complaining about the images rather than the car itself. There's only so much you can do to make a car show well. This is the limit.
|
fatbloke
|
|
nj wrote:
fatbloke wrote:
carcrazy84 wrote:
I thought this thread was a joke. These photos are great compared to ones of the Civic and Crosstour.
|
No carcrazy84, I'm afraid you're the joke if you think these pictures look great!
|
No. You're the joke. I honestly have no clue what your problem with these pictures is. My only complaint is for more angles (a head on, profile). I think you're trying to rationalize the blandness of the Accord by expecting it to look much better in person. It won't. These images highlight all the curves and lines in the body. Natrual light won't.
These are photgraphs. Not renderings. They're just heavily processed to showcase the lines. I can't believe people are complaining about the images rather than the car itself. There's only so much you can do to make a car show well. This is the limit.
|
I've changed my mind you're the joke! you don't think the car will look better in person, what planet are you from they always do. My problems not with the pictures themselves but with the angles that make the cars look terrible. The picture of the coupe taken from the rear looks awful compared to the concept and yet it's basically the same car. They've done bloody well to make it look that much worse. As for the pictures being taken to show off the lines, whats the point if it makes the cars look so bad. And as for me trying to defend the Accords blandness, at the end of the day i don't give a monkeys arse because we won't be getting the car in the UK. What i do know as many others on here have already said, as a photographer i know what flatters and what does not, and these pictures make the car look much worse than they should have. Maybe if you get to see the car you'll realise how bad they are. Then hopefully you'll have the guts to come back on here and admit it!
|
DCR
|
|
|
These have to be renderings...I don't know how you could process these to look this way from a studio shot under real lighting. How did they process this if so?
|
nj
|
|
fatbloke wrote:
nj wrote:
fatbloke wrote:
carcrazy84 wrote:
I thought this thread was a joke. These photos are great compared to ones of the Civic and Crosstour.
|
No carcrazy84, I'm afraid you're the joke if you think these pictures look great!
|
No. You're the joke. I honestly have no clue what your problem with these pictures is. My only complaint is for more angles (a head on, profile). I think you're trying to rationalize the blandness of the Accord by expecting it to look much better in person. It won't. These images highlight all the curves and lines in the body. Natrual light won't.
These are photgraphs. Not renderings. They're just heavily processed to showcase the lines. I can't believe people are complaining about the images rather than the car itself. There's only so much you can do to make a car show well. This is the limit.
|
I've changed my mind you're the joke! you don't think the car will look better in person, what planet are you from they always do. My problems not with the pictures themselves but with the angles that make the cars look terrible. The picture of the coupe taken from the rear looks awful compared to the concept and yet it's basically the same car. They've done bloody well to make it look that much worse. As for the pictures being taken to show off the lines, whats the point if it makes the cars look so bad. And as for me trying to defend the Accords blandness, at the end of the day i don't give a monkeys arse because we won't be getting the car in the UK. What i do know as many others on here have already said, as a photographer i know what flatters and what does not, and these pictures make the car look much worse than they should have. Maybe if you get to see the car you'll realise how bad they are. Then hopefully you'll have the guts to come back on here and admit it!
|
The car will look marginally better when we see it in motion and the full profile is revealed because we can visualize the proportions better. I realize that nearly all cars look better in person. I said it wouldn't look "much" better. These are frickin standard 3/4 angles. Maybe they're not perfect, but they're decent enough compared to the garbage photography Honda has been producing as of late. My compaint is the lack of a profile as I said. The quality of the photos is perfectly fine. Oh, but you're a professional. Yep, your opinion is superior. Done.
The car does not look bad in the photograph IMO. I like the lines in the car. It's vanilla-Whatever. But Honda needed to do something to spice it up. Que the stylized lighting.
My point is that people seem to be blaming the photos for not show casing the car right. As if that's why it looks bland. And they're expecting a huge improvement when they see it in person. It sounds like the typical defensive take the forums take when anything critical of Honda comes around.
|
TurkMan71
|
|
nj wrote:
fatbloke wrote:
nj wrote:
fatbloke wrote:
carcrazy84 wrote:
I thought this thread was a joke. These photos are great compared to ones of the Civic and Crosstour.
|
No carcrazy84, I'm afraid you're the joke if you think these pictures look great!
|
No. You're the joke. I honestly have no clue what your problem with these pictures is. My only complaint is for more angles (a head on, profile). I think you're trying to rationalize the blandness of the Accord by expecting it to look much better in person. It won't. These images highlight all the curves and lines in the body. Natrual light won't.
These are photgraphs. Not renderings. They're just heavily processed to showcase the lines. I can't believe people are complaining about the images rather than the car itself. There's only so much you can do to make a car show well. This is the limit.
|
I've changed my mind you're the joke! you don't think the car will look better in person, what planet are you from they always do. My problems not with the pictures themselves but with the angles that make the cars look terrible. The picture of the coupe taken from the rear looks awful compared to the concept and yet it's basically the same car. They've done bloody well to make it look that much worse. As for the pictures being taken to show off the lines, whats the point if it makes the cars look so bad. And as for me trying to defend the Accords blandness, at the end of the day i don't give a monkeys arse because we won't be getting the car in the UK. What i do know as many others on here have already said, as a photographer i know what flatters and what does not, and these pictures make the car look much worse than they should have. Maybe if you get to see the car you'll realise how bad they are. Then hopefully you'll have the guts to come back on here and admit it!
|
The car will look marginally better when we see it in motion and the full profile is revealed because we can visualize the proportions better. I realize that nearly all cars look better in person. I said it wouldn't look "much" better. These are frickin standard 3/4 angles. Maybe they're not perfect, but they're decent enough compared to the garbage photography Honda has been producing as of late. My compaint is the lack of a profile as I said. The quality of the photos is perfectly fine. Oh, but you're a professional. Yep, your opinion is superior. Done.
The car does not look bad in the photograph IMO. I like the lines in the car. It's vanilla-Whatever. But Honda needed to do something to spice it up. Que the stylized lighting.
My point is that people seem to be blaming the photos for not show casing the car right. As if that's why it looks bland. And they're expecting a huge improvement when they see it in person. It sounds like the typical defensive take the forums take when anything critical of Honda comes around.
|
I understand what you are saying, and yes these pictures are better than the CT and Civic press pictures...
However, in an effort to emphasis how sculpted the new sheet metal is, Honda pushed/exaggerated the lighting (dodged/burned?) in areas that will not show up as much in person under natural lighting. I think this makes the car more ungainly than it otherwise would be...done 'correctly' these photo effects should enhance the car not make it look...well, ungainly. After the abysmal Civic launch, I think Honda is desperate to make sure that everyone knows this is a NEW Accord not just a minor make over, hence the exaggerated photo work...
It's so sad to see them second guessing themselves these days...remember when Honda thru the image of their cars out there, as if to say: 'take it or leave it, I am what am, which is simple, clean, conservative, handsome.'
|
fatbloke
|
|
nj wrote:
fatbloke wrote:
nj wrote:
fatbloke wrote:
carcrazy84 wrote:
I thought this thread was a joke. These photos are great compared to ones of the Civic and Crosstour.
|
No carcrazy84, I'm afraid you're the joke if you think these pictures look great!
|
No. You're the joke. I honestly have no clue what your problem with these pictures is. My only complaint is for more angles (a head on, profile). I think you're trying to rationalize the blandness of the Accord by expecting it to look much better in person. It won't. These images highlight all the curves and lines in the body. Natrual light won't.
These are photgraphs. Not renderings. They're just heavily processed to showcase the lines. I can't believe people are complaining about the images rather than the car itself. There's only so much you can do to make a car show well. This is the limit.
|
I've changed my mind you're the joke! you don't think the car will look better in person, what planet are you from they always do. My problems not with the pictures themselves but with the angles that make the cars look terrible. The picture of the coupe taken from the rear looks awful compared to the concept and yet it's basically the same car. They've done bloody well to make it look that much worse. As for the pictures being taken to show off the lines, whats the point if it makes the cars look so bad. And as for me trying to defend the Accords blandness, at the end of the day i don't give a monkeys arse because we won't be getting the car in the UK. What i do know as many others on here have already said, as a photographer i know what flatters and what does not, and these pictures make the car look much worse than they should have. Maybe if you get to see the car you'll realise how bad they are. Then hopefully you'll have the guts to come back on here and admit it!
|
The car will look marginally better when we see it in motion and the full profile is revealed because we can visualize the proportions better. I realize that nearly all cars look better in person. I said it wouldn't look "much" better. These are frickin standard 3/4 angles. Maybe they're not perfect, but they're decent enough compared to the garbage photography Honda has been producing as of late. My compaint is the lack of a profile as I said. The quality of the photos is perfectly fine. Oh, but you're a professional. Yep, your opinion is superior. Done.
The car does not look bad in the photograph IMO. I like the lines in the car. It's vanilla-Whatever. But Honda needed to do something to spice it up. Que the stylized lighting.
My point is that people seem to be blaming the photos for not show casing the car right. As if that's why it looks bland. And they're expecting a huge improvement when they see it in person. It sounds like the typical defensive take the forums take when anything critical of Honda comes around.
|
My opinion is certainly not superior but they could have made the cars in the pictures look a lot better and much closer to how the car will actually look to you and me, and this i find very strange. Why would they make the car appear worse than it actually is, but they've done it. You say the car doesn't look bad in the picture, but it could have looked so much better, why did they not do this.
|
according2kev
|
|
@ Turk and Fatbloke, I agree. I discussed this in another thread but one of the biggest changes I noticed with the "official" picture is that the greenhouse looks raised and has more of an arc. It (the greenhouse) almost resembles the current Legacy's. See the photos I posted comparing "official touched up photos" to "real life spy pic" here: http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1083558&news_item_id=1083381
The best way to prove this point, as someone else said, is seeing the car in motion. Even with the camo, you can tell the car has pretty nice lines IMO. Notice the roof looks lower and sleeker.
http://www.insideline.com/honda/accord/2013/videos/2013_honda_accord_ss_711121.html
|
A77
|
|
TurkMan71 wrote:
nj wrote:
fatbloke wrote:
nj wrote:
fatbloke wrote:
carcrazy84 wrote:
I thought this thread was a joke. These photos are great compared to ones of the Civic and Crosstour.
|
No carcrazy84, I'm afraid you're the joke if you think these pictures look great!
|
No. You're the joke. I honestly have no clue what your problem with these pictures is. My only complaint is for more angles (a head on, profile). I think you're trying to rationalize the blandness of the Accord by expecting it to look much better in person. It won't. These images highlight all the curves and lines in the body. Natrual light won't.
These are photgraphs. Not renderings. They're just heavily processed to showcase the lines. I can't believe people are complaining about the images rather than the car itself. There's only so much you can do to make a car show well. This is the limit.
|
I've changed my mind you're the joke! you don't think the car will look better in person, what planet are you from they always do. My problems not with the pictures themselves but with the angles that make the cars look terrible. The picture of the coupe taken from the rear looks awful compared to the concept and yet it's basically the same car. They've done bloody well to make it look that much worse. As for the pictures being taken to show off the lines, whats the point if it makes the cars look so bad. And as for me trying to defend the Accords blandness, at the end of the day i don't give a monkeys arse because we won't be getting the car in the UK. What i do know as many others on here have already said, as a photographer i know what flatters and what does not, and these pictures make the car look much worse than they should have. Maybe if you get to see the car you'll realise how bad they are. Then hopefully you'll have the guts to come back on here and admit it!
|
The car will look marginally better when we see it in motion and the full profile is revealed because we can visualize the proportions better. I realize that nearly all cars look better in person. I said it wouldn't look "much" better. These are frickin standard 3/4 angles. Maybe they're not perfect, but they're decent enough compared to the garbage photography Honda has been producing as of late. My compaint is the lack of a profile as I said. The quality of the photos is perfectly fine. Oh, but you're a professional. Yep, your opinion is superior. Done.
The car does not look bad in the photograph IMO. I like the lines in the car. It's vanilla-Whatever. But Honda needed to do something to spice it up. Que the stylized lighting.
My point is that people seem to be blaming the photos for not show casing the car right. As if that's why it looks bland. And they're expecting a huge improvement when they see it in person. It sounds like the typical defensive take the forums take when anything critical of Honda comes around.
|
I understand what you are saying, and yes these pictures are better than the CT and Civic press pictures...
However, in an effort to emphasis how sculpted the new sheet metal is, Honda pushed/exaggerated the lighting (dodged/burned?) in areas that will not show up as much in person under natural lighting. I think this makes the car more ungainly than it otherwise would be...done 'correctly' these photo effects should enhance the car not make it look...well, ungainly. After the abysmal Civic launch, I think Honda is desperate to make sure that everyone knows this is a NEW Accord not just a minor make over, hence the exaggerated photo work...
It's so sad to see them second guessing themselves these days...remember when Honda thru the image of their cars out there, as if to say: 'take it or leave it, I am what am, which is simple, clean, conservative, handsome.'
|
that ad talks about the lack of seams in the interior reducing rattles.....there's nothing new under the sun.
|
fatbloke
|
|
according2kev wrote:
@ Turk and Fatbloke, I agree. I discussed this in another thread but one of the biggest changes I noticed with the "official" picture is that the greenhouse looks raised and has more of an arc. It (the greenhouse) almost resembles the current Legacy's. See the photos I posted comparing "official touched up photos" to "real life spy pic" here: http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1083558&news_item_id=1083381
The best way to prove this point, as someone else said, is seeing the car in motion. Even with the camo, you can tell the car has pretty nice lines IMO. Notice the roof looks lower and sleeker.
http://www.insideline.com/honda/accord/2013/videos/2013_honda_accord_ss_711121.html
I see what you mean according2kev. That means the official photos distance themselves even more from the production car than i thought. This gets stranger by the minuet.
|
|
Gfn8r
|
|
A77 wrote:
TurkMan71 wrote:
nj wrote:
fatbloke wrote:
nj wrote:
fatbloke wrote:
carcrazy84 wrote:
I thought this thread was a joke. These photos are great compared to ones of the Civic and Crosstour.
|
No carcrazy84, I'm afraid you're the joke if you think these pictures look great!
|
No. You're the joke. I honestly have no clue what your problem with these pictures is. My only complaint is for more angles (a head on, profile). I think you're trying to rationalize the blandness of the Accord by expecting it to look much better in person. It won't. These images highlight all the curves and lines in the body. Natrual light won't.
These are photgraphs. Not renderings. They're just heavily processed to showcase the lines. I can't believe people are complaining about the images rather than the car itself. There's only so much you can do to make a car show well. This is the limit.
|
I've changed my mind you're the joke! you don't think the car will look better in person, what planet are you from they always do. My problems not with the pictures themselves but with the angles that make the cars look terrible. The picture of the coupe taken from the rear looks awful compared to the concept and yet it's basically the same car. They've done bloody well to make it look that much worse. As for the pictures being taken to show off the lines, whats the point if it makes the cars look so bad. And as for me trying to defend the Accords blandness, at the end of the day i don't give a monkeys arse because we won't be getting the car in the UK. What i do know as many others on here have already said, as a photographer i know what flatters and what does not, and these pictures make the car look much worse than they should have. Maybe if you get to see the car you'll realise how bad they are. Then hopefully you'll have the guts to come back on here and admit it!
|
The car will look marginally better when we see it in motion and the full profile is revealed because we can visualize the proportions better. I realize that nearly all cars look better in person. I said it wouldn't look "much" better. These are frickin standard 3/4 angles. Maybe they're not perfect, but they're decent enough compared to the garbage photography Honda has been producing as of late. My compaint is the lack of a profile as I said. The quality of the photos is perfectly fine. Oh, but you're a professional. Yep, your opinion is superior. Done.
The car does not look bad in the photograph IMO. I like the lines in the car. It's vanilla-Whatever. But Honda needed to do something to spice it up. Que the stylized lighting.
My point is that people seem to be blaming the photos for not show casing the car right. As if that's why it looks bland. And they're expecting a huge improvement when they see it in person. It sounds like the typical defensive take the forums take when anything critical of Honda comes around.
|
I understand what you are saying, and yes these pictures are better than the CT and Civic press pictures...
However, in an effort to emphasis how sculpted the new sheet metal is, Honda pushed/exaggerated the lighting (dodged/burned?) in areas that will not show up as much in person under natural lighting. I think this makes the car more ungainly than it otherwise would be...done 'correctly' these photo effects should enhance the car not make it look...well, ungainly. After the abysmal Civic launch, I think Honda is desperate to make sure that everyone knows this is a NEW Accord not just a minor make over, hence the exaggerated photo work...
It's so sad to see them second guessing themselves these days...remember when Honda thru the image of their cars out there, as if to say: 'take it or leave it, I am what am, which is simple, clean, conservative, handsome.'
|
that ad talks about the lack of seams in the interior reducing rattles.....there's nothing new under the sun.
|
IIRC, my Dad's 1991 EX Sedan was as tight and rattle-free the day he turned it in as the day he picked it up!! Built like a brick $hithouse! Made me a Honda fan for life!
(Well, that is, unless the removal of DBW is as horrific as my overreactions are making it out to be! ;-) )
|
|
|
| |
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
