Don’t you want more information about a place you are going to stay then a very well done photo that only shows the best? Sure Oyster’s photos are on the other extreme of the spectrum than the hotel’s photos but from the consumer standpoint, which is better? I’ll tell you- having both is better (well, maybe something in the middle is better). I have stayed in more places that look nothing like the photo and I don’t think “wow, those photos were well executed by a skilled photographer”, I think “this is the room I have to sleep in tonight? this is thier dingy hot tub in the basement?”.

I appreciate defending ones livelihood, but lets not decieve ourselves about the use of advertising photography just because we are the ones that make it. A little self-awareness and then maybe sites like this will encourage companies to ask for the middle ground – well made professional pictures (good for us as photogs) that better represent the place (good for us as consumers).

I don’t have it out for anyone I’m just expressing my opinion. I prefer live music over studio albums as well.

But I do think you’re confusing “user generated content” with an expose business model website. These guys are in it for the bucks, not the honesty. If they really wanted to go after the lack of truth in travel advertising they’d go after TripAdvisor, where an increasing number of positive reviews about certain hotels are from the staff of the hotels themselves. Now that’s devious and dishonest.

Other than that, I just think you’ve got it in for Photoshop users these days, considering what you said about Messrs Freeman and Wolfe in your Outside piece.

The way that I look at it is, The Beatles could have stopped when they did Please Please Me, and the world would have been happy. But then they went into the studio with a master technician/Producer and used all of the electronic wizardry they could muster and came up with the heavily manipulated White Album. Personally, liked both approaches.

Same for using Photoshop versus not, either way is fine, they’re just different that’s all. You should lighten up, Rob. Cheers.

I don’t know Dan, so I don’t have any problem with him. Just saying, when presented as a thumbnail headshot his portrait of you looks a lot like the treatment Scott Hargis was suggesting.

I don’t think artsy portraits work well when sized as a passport photo.

That’s what I was told anyway.

I regularly book hotel rooms in Manhattan thru http://www.quikbook.com, and when you consider a hotel, they usually show you three small JPGs: a guest room, the lobby, and maybe the dining room. There is nothing worse, after a long day of travel, than to arrive at the hotel and check into a tiny room that’s nothing like the JPG pictured on their site.

Maybe I’m a cheap-ass; maybe not. Maybe I ought to shell out for the W and not be surprised. But the point is: when a hotel shows something like that, they do seem to be bound to some degree of truthiness. Are they not? We’re not talking about national advertising here, where you’re just showing a mood — we’re talking informational photography here.

I know that, on more than one occasion, when I’ve shot resort or hotel jobs, I might have crossed the line and gotten too creative, but thankfully, the client usually reels me in. They simply remind me that they don’t want to deal with Letters after the fact, or complaints at check in, if it’s not WYSIWYG.

I guess this illustrates how good photography and post processing can make things look better than reality. And it underscores how bad photography can make things look worse than reality. I think we knew that. But I suppose there are people who believe everything they see so I guess this site provides a useful service.

“C’mon, Rob! If I took a crappy cell-phone photo of you at 5:30 in the morning, when you were unshaven and all hung over, would I be justified in claiming that your “official” headshot”

Um, I think that IS the official headshot he’s using on this site. Sorry Rob, couldn’t resist. ;^)

Good Grief! The workout room example you showcased is ridiculous – the Oyster people shot the exact opposite angle, away from the window, and then say, “Gee, that’s not what it looks like, THIS is what it looks like.” Well, DUH. They also claim that the yellow room is where the cardio equipment is. Except that there’s no cardio equipment in their shot, only weights.

Same thing for the beach shot they feature. “Pro photo” shows a nicely framed shot of a beach, with the hotel in the distance, on a nice (typical) day. “Oyster photo” shows an ultra-wide angle, on a cloudy day, and then has the nerve to say that theirs is the “real” beach — “with clouds”.

I am paid good money to use my knowledge and skills to my client’s best advantage. That is my sole and only responsibility. I do not fake a scenic view that isn’t real by cloning out a building that obstructs the view. But neither do I shoot it with an iPhone on a rainy day and call it realism.

Do fashion shooters iron out the wrinkles in the merchandise and pin it to fit, from the rear? – you betcha. Does a food photographer brush a little bit of fat on the steak to make it look juicier?- right again. Photography is rarely about realism. Ansel Adams used every darkroom trick in the book to enhance the image in his prints, but does anyone get pissed off when they visit Yosemite and it doesn’t look as good as Adam’s prints? Doubt it.

I make no apologies for knowing where the sun will set and when, for casting terrific people to work with, for respecting the architect’s vision, for having a sense of design that tells me when to add or subtract something from the frame and for knowing how to use my gear.

It’s one thing when a hotel uses shots that are total BS, or Stock shots from another location, but professional work, using all of the tools at our disposal is what we’re paid to do. I make no apologies.

The average non-photographer now often thinks that when they see a photo that they cannot figure out how to do on their own, then it must be Photoshopped. Maybe these Oyster people and those who follow them should sue the camera companies for not making cameras that allow them to repeat what a professional is capable of accomplishing.

I guess every photographer who shoots headshots is a dishonest hack, because they used an umbrella and put the subject in front of a pleasing backdrop.

Eugene Smith, Joe McNally, Julius Shulman — all fakers. And dishonest, too.

Sheesh. I guess I’ll dust off my point-n-shoot, and make sure to tilt the camera more often.

Oyster Hotel Reviews are the jerks, here. I see nothing wrong with the marketing photos, and everything wrong with the amateur versions.

Do they seriously think that a picture of a single pretty woman at a pool implies that there won’t be anyone else at the pool?

I can understand about shots where buildings are photoshopped out, but complaining because a lightpole was removed? Or taking a shot during the day, when the ad picture was taken at night? Or taking a snapshot from a different angle at a different distance?

Most of their snapshots just illustrate how good the advertising pictures are. I wouldn’t stay at a hotel that used their snapshots to promote the hotel.

C’mon this is outright fakery and deception.

I am all for making things look appealing and finding the right angle etc…but really can’t you see in Rob’s example how this is not even close? Making the lighting right, getting overweight people out of the photo and hiring models, using wide angle lenses, filters etc…fine, but creating something that’s not there is just wrong.