No. No fun. No fun with pictures. No fun at all. Clinical photos in static poses from all possible angles. Apart from the fun ones. So that the poor confused consumer can see EXACTLY what they'e potentially buying.






Despite there being incredibly clear pictures already.

 

Take it from someone who grew up with a darkroom in every house: there's no such thing as an accurate photo, or accurate lighting. Your eyes don't even perceive the same color the same way in the same lighting conditions if you change the surrounding colors. Yes, some images are more stylized than others, but it's far better to look for lots of pictures in lots of settings to get a sense of range than to demand people (especially people who aren't doing official promotional art or packaging) aspire to an impossible standard.

 

I was planning to leave this thread alone, as honestly I've had enough of this whole topic on previous occasions, but as people have started chiming in with sensible responses, I'll add to it - this post above is 100% on point.

I've had people say that my pics don't represent "what the figure really looks like" previously, and whilst I do understand what they mean and it's also true that my photos are somewhat stylised, the majority of that is done in camera with as minimal amount of post work as possible. Yes, it happens - of course it does - the absolute majority of DSLR photographers will be doing some kind of post production, after all. For my part, it's mostly corrective, with the aim being to adjust under or over exposure, correct shadows where necessary, sharpen touches that maybe I missed at the time or add little flourishes such as a slight vignette round the edges of the photo. My goal has always been to provide a decent looking final photo, doing as much of that as possible when actually taking it in camera, with a few final touches added to enhance what is already there.

I'm sure I haven't always got that balance right, just as anyone who puts out a relatively large body of work would be able to look back and point out to you stuff they're not happy with. However, what I have spent considerably more time doing is adjusting my practical set-up, upgrading lights, buying new equipment, testing new methods and creating new backdrops - all with the purpose of making a better end product and keeping any post production work to a minimum.

All of the above creates a vastly different looking photo than if I just sat the same toy on my coffee table and took a picture of it there, whether with my DSLR or with my camera phone. Even using those two different cameras would create a different look. Again, completely different results would be achieved with both cameras if I went and repeated the experiment in my kitchen, or in my garden, and all of these changing locations would create noticeable variations in the final picture too. There are so many variables that can be used in each photo to make them different, that implying that some are definitively "accurate" is misleading in itself. Every photo is a stylistic choice.

But sadly there will always be those such as the "metallic filter" brigade, who seem to cynically believe that any attempt to provide a spot of artistic flourish (whether in camera or in post) is a malicious attempt to deceive. And in the spirit of being upfront here, these people are harsh in their criticism and are not looking for any kind of dialogue on the subject, so I can understand if @Maz was initially a bit defensive on the subject. I've previously been accused of purposefully changing the colour on a figure with an intent to mislead (for what purpose I have no clue); this was a figure from my own collection that I had chosen to post some pictures of, not a "professional" shoot for the company to try and sell toys or anything - but evidently the variance in colour as a result of different lighting to how they were viewing the figure was enough for folk to want to attack me. Repeatedly chanting that something is "bullshit" or "fake news" is not an attempt to engage healthily on a topic, no matter how inaccurate the accusations are. Indeed, the words "metallic filter" are to my knowledge absolute nonsense - unless I'm mistaken I don't believe such a thing even exists, or if it does then I'm certainly not aware of it. Perhaps if someone is they could let me know, as it sounds a lot easier than all of the many methods I've tried to hone over the years to achieve the same result.  

In any case, I can of course understand what people mean when they say that they want an "accurate" portrayal of a figure (even if in truth such a thing doesn't really exist). However, in this case there already has been an attempt to provide that (and a concerted effort to answer all of the many questions on the topic, might I add), so perhaps let's put the pitchforks down and chill out a little bit. No-one is attempting to deceive you. And if you do have questions or concerns on the topic, perhaps try to direct them in a polite and friendly manner and I'm sure folk will be happy to answer them - we're all of us just fans in a collective community, after all.  

 

Cool, the bottom picture looks more like a anime colouring to me.  

 

Thanks for the lucid response, I've learnt a lot today. Hopefully that's the end of that conversation.

Now...All I want to know is shipment dates!!

 

same, now unfiltered pics are up we all know what to expect so let's move on.

 

McDonalds shoots their pictures through a metallic filter too.

 

That does not look like the Big Mac I got last night!

 

That doesn't even look like its made of the same animal as a big mac...

 

Can I also add that even if a company were to use "altered" or stylized photographs of their product for official pictures, then isn't that REALLY on the company and NOT the photographer/reviewer?!

Just getting caught up on Metallic-Filter-gate. Maz, I love your photos and your reviews! Don't change anything! Also, as someone with a background in photographic processes, I'm offended on your behalf that people think your results are reducible to a post-capture magic filter or a piece of glass on your lens. SMH.

 

Is there a video review for these guys yet or are we waiting for official product release? I can certainly understand that if the tolerances were off on old test shots you wouldn't want them being reviewed but I'm guessing you got some better ones that are close to production level now?

just thought someone like Ben or someone could maybe show us how things look.

 

joints on the test were quite good

 

I'll make a video when I get my set, but they are shipping with all the others so hopefully someone else gets an early copy videod

 

Awesome! Good to know.

Yeah, that's what I was hoping for   I was going to suggest that Maz could mail it over to Ben, if MM wanted such a thing to happen, of course! But then I remembered that Maz isn't in the UK anymore so that would be pointless.

Ah well, I'll just go back to drooling over images  

 

Also I had to send the samples back to MM  

The test shots that I photographed had great joints. They felt like finished specimens to be honest.

All the best
Maz

 

Otomo looks good figure wise but the decals bait and switch to swear words is a bit out of nowhere and pretty much ruins the homage idea. The decals are integral to the look and personality of Kaneda's bike, technically 'optional' but why would you have a plain and bare red Akira homage bike?

Yes, they're called the Unrustable Bastards (well Batards in the KS URL, and Ba$tards in some places) but 'bastard' isn't Shit, cock, twat, fuck etc is it? Which character story says 'this guy swears like a trooper and is immature'? Where on the KS page does it say 'Otomo will come with stupid 'funny' swear word decals?'. Where in the KS does it say the fiction is aimed at the juvenile joke swearing side of comedy?

It doesn't.

If I backed development of a transformers reprolabels sticker set and the actual product came out with a cock instead of an autobot logo (because LOLS!) then I'd be slightly annoyed, and this is pretty much the same.

And I get the whole 'we can't use trademarks' thing, but neither could McFarlane toys:




We backed this:


We're getting this:




It's so close to being spot on to the concept, but a lame and frankly misguided attempt at being funny has almost de-railed it. Guess it was too difficult to change Canon to Conon or Shoei to Shoee or sTp to 5Tp or anything other than Shit and Cocktwat really.

And no guns? (the exclusive weapon - is it the sword?).

I'm sorry but the decals you've come up with are a joke, and not a funny one. I guess i'll just have to download some better ones and buy a printer and blank sticker sheet just to print them, or pay someone off the internet to do it for me.

 

sure, just crush all my dreams why dontcha  

it was just a passing thought, I'm just getting excited now the end is within sight!

 

We are not sending out copies to people who did not back the Kickstarter. All Kickstarter supporters will get theirs first and there are a few reviewers in there but unfortunately none of the big guys (Ben, Pesugh, BSF) actually purchased one through the KS. We fealt that thise who backed the KS really should be the ones who get first hand experiences.

It will be good and solid. I promise. I will be honest, this is one of the most stable figures I have ever handled and the balance and stiffness is like nothing I have experienced. Poses are a breeze and even some of the most outlandish ones can be done without a stand. If you check all the action poses for each of the exclusive versions, none of these required a stand to create.

Honest I can't wait to see what someone who actually can pose a figure does with these.

 

That makes sense, yes, the backers should be the first to get hold of them, good call.