Real shit, why even bother with product photography when 3D designers

3d modeling costs less?

>>3109021
>when 3D designers can do it at a fraction of the time and cost
Except for the millions of times they can't do it for even a penny less than someone with a camera.

>>3109021

>implying the 3d designer is going to model a car 1:1 for their project
>implying they aren't going to use a stock image or an image someone took for them

Why can't I do both? Or do photoshop composite to get the same result in pic related?

>>3110319
>Or do photoshop composite to get the same result in pic related?

the lighting will be off. you will have to work long and hard to recreate perfect reflections

>>3110799
Not everyone who looks at an advertisement is autistic. Even if they do notice it, they probably won't give a fuck.

>>3110853
>Not everyone who looks at an advertisement is autistic

we're talking about ads by billion dollar companies here

>>3110896
Ye, billion dollar companies looking to save a buck. They don't want to hire you pajeet. Pick up a camera.

>>3111067
did you even fucking read what you wrote?

they want to save a buck so they DON'T want to hire some indian dude? how old are you?

File: 1217711670014.jpg (76KB, 519x600px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 519x600px

>>3111100
>he takes shitposting this seriously in a non photo thread

>>3111150
this is a thread about things related to photography

also, recent photo threads are worse

>>3111169
3D modelling is related to photography now? Shit.
If anything, seems like it belongs on >>>/biz/

Because humans have a really good sense of what's real and what isn't.

>>3111303
there's >>>/3/

>>3111303
creating textures for 3d models is related, but yeah, when half of the board thinks postprocessing is "not cool" I can understand why you would think that way