Discontinued.

[Princess Verwood]

Haha! Love the video Anaiya! Glad someone made something like that. It's perfect for this topic!

[Czari Zenovka]

---

iCade wrote:

 

The seller has not responded to my curteous IM's & Notecard.

I was also automatically added to their stupid update group. I did not get the chance to opt in, I was simply added and I went ot their in game store to somehow opt out...couldn't figure out how.

---

Gah....this person is striking out all the way around!  Re: being automatically added to a group - if it's a Hippo Group you can take yourself out of it.  This is a forum answer from 2006, but I bet it still applies:

Go to the Hippo Technologies main store. At the left of the entrance is a sign, where you can get a link to the hippo website. Just follow the directions and it will show you all the hippo groups that you're a member of. Cancel any, or all, that you see. It's pretty simple.

 

This only works for Hippo groups, not any other brand.

 

Some of these things are set up, that you only have to walk within range of the sensor to be added to the group. It doesn't always ask your permission.

The Hippo website is here:  http://www.hippo-technologies.co.uk/resources/hippogroups/myhippogroups.php

It gives great instructions on how to proceed.  I used it years ago to see if I had been added to any Hippo groups without my permission and was able to remove myself by following the instructions on the website.

If it's not a Hippo group, I would contact the seller and state you do not wish to be in the group.  Although considering she has not responded to you so far, not sure if she would for this, but I'd give it a shot.

If the seller, after a "reasonable" amount of time has not responded to you (and I ask my customers to resend an IM or notecard if I have not responded within 48 hours which means I did not receive their correspondence, but sounds like you've contacted the seller several times), then, in addition to not buying anything from them again I would tell every friend you have in SL.  It is against the TOS, as far as I know, to list the name in a forum, but nothing prevents you telling others via word of mouth.

 

 

[Tiffy Vella]

Laughed myself silly at that video, Anaiya..thanks

 

iCade, I really sympathise with what happened and you bring up a great issue.

I get frustrated at seeing non SL hair photoshopped in, extreme blending used to create false shading and depth, shadowing added under prims, uncomplimentary shadowing of avatars blotted out with windlight, images from Poser which are entirely unattainable in SL. I've even seen RL morphing used in accessory vendor images. These tricks get easier to pick with time. They are fine if used in Flickr, or on a blog, or anywhere where the artistry of the image is most important, but they are not ok at point of sale where truthful information about the product is needed.

Yes, there is a thing such as marketing, and presenting a product under flattering conditions. It's a good idea to set the scene a little when styling an image, to help the customer imagine possibilities. I'll choose appropriate hairstyles to show off accessories, and clothes that hopefully support the look without distracting from the product. I won't use poses that distort the avatar mesh, as fractured and twisted limbs are a huge visual distraction. Photos taken are always as high-res as I can manage. I occasionally use the lightest touch of liquify to smooth shoulder angles in some poses, and will happily admit to photoshopping ugly nostrils to make them look nice, but since I'm not selling skins or shapes or poses I figure thats ok.

Things I won't do are use non-default settings and retouch products. Everything is photographed at noon, default. Everything (barring tidy nostrils) is attainable in SL with the items pictured and no special settings. I did have shadows on for a couple of vendors, and that's fun to do, but I'll save that for more artistic shots in future.

Just a comment on the images you showed us- it looks like the contrast is slightly different between the two sets of piccies. I think that texturing white clothes must be a bit of a tightrope for the texturer. Ie- how can you show folds and shading and find the right point between 'flat' and 'muddy'? Go a bit too far in either direction, and the clothing will look terrible.

As to what you (and we) can do...bringing up a discussion like this is good. And don't shop there again if not happy. In future, try demos if you can, and support merchants that make them available.

 

 

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

In the meantime......

for your viewing pleasure

 

---

That is GREAT!!!!  Too bad something like this doesn't exist for RL, not just photos. *Grins*

[Tiffy Vella]

yups....I'd get the "Nose Filter" add on.

[Argus Collingwood]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

 

In the meantime......

for your viewing pleasure

 

---

OMG too funny and I am betting there are a bunch of folks who actually think this is a real product!

[mtwtfss71]

As a merchant and also a shopper, I pride myself in taking my pictures in default lighting and showing my clothing as it would look inworld. Anyone who has been here for a while will know that prims may reflect light differently, etc.

Having said that, I've been thinking about offering demos in my main store but am unclear as to what would be a sufficient demo. Can anyone tell me what they'd like to see? I'm demo illiterate, it seems.

I do, however, display some outfits on mannequins and am happy to model any outfit on request.

[Zanara Zenovka]

---

iCade wrote:

Luc - apparently they can. I left the review and it took me back to the reviews page after hitting submit. My review was immediately hidden and only the 1 star rating is now a sign that there might have been an unhappy customer. Personally I am against hiding reviews at all, a lot of people do this and it always makes me think they got something to hide.

I'd rather see people complain in reviews about not getting items - because any sensible customer knows that it's LL fudging up not the merchant - than to NOT see actual problems the customer has had.

And here you go.

MY Screenshots taken at default windlight settings at midday.

Advert:

Top: Where did the texture go? Looks worse when facing away from the sun. Then it's rat grey.

Trimming...is it white? Yellow? Gold? I can't tell.

 

Front: As you can see from the exposed skin, I am FACING the sun, these pants aren't white, they're...grey.

Shoes naturally came without a resize script, didn't bother fiddling with them.

Back: You can almost guess at what the texture is supposed to be but it ends up looking like I am a dirty person sitting down on dirty benches. ALL the time.

 

I was hoping for glam, but all I got was a dirty outfit

---

What photoshopping are you claiming here? If anything there are differences in lighting and light dynamics, but I"m interested to see what you think has been done?

I'd start with looking at your own graphics settings. What's your video card? Do you have anti-aliasing turned on?

The shoes just look like you're not wearing the alpha/trans layer.

Also, the midday setting you used is the very worst for photography - no one in their right mind would use that for any product shot, even for a coffee table.

[Flea Yatsenko]

I have seen quite a few people who render their objects in Blender or Mental Ray and then post those images as the product images. I recall looking at prefab buildings and being pretty impressed with them, only to find that in world they were flat.

You can tell if something was rendered in Blender or Mental Ray by telling if there's reflectivity on it.I'm talking about the kind of shine you would see on something wet or something that has some shine to it. Think of something like a hardwood floor or vinyl flooring in real life. It has shine on it. When you render it in Blender or Mental Ray, it will have shine. When you bake the textures, it won't. That shine makes things look fantastic, but the SL graphics engine isn't capable of doing it very well yet.

That's just one example, but there's a lot of things Blender and Mental Ray will do to make renders look way, way better than something will in second life.

The only way to not get burned is to view the object in world. If it's not available in world, you should move on to someone who does have it in world. It might be more expensive, but renting land cost L$ and if someone is proud and confident enough in their products, they'll have them rezed out and they will pay to give people the luxury of being able to view it in world before purchasing.

I realize that this is really hard to do with clothing and other types of goods, but you should still be careful. That white dress posted before looks like someone bumped up the contrast to make it look better. I am guessing they couldn't get a white color in world so they hoped in a photo editor and cranked up the contrast.

[iCade]

Zanara - Have you bothered to read this thread at all? Several merchants, including myself have said that we take our product shots at midday default. So your claim is absolutely groundless.

Furthermore I explained above the pictures. The textures on the preview were glossy with a silver sheen, they were glamorous, like those pailette new years party dresses. The end product is grey with dark grey splodges. The glossy white that is giving the pants depth is nowhere to be seen.

The shoes didn't COME with an alpha layer by the way, unsure why you think I'd be foolish enough not to put it on?

Also, I have said it before that I am always in SL on Ultra Graphics.

Please do take the time to read before posting. =/

[Lasher Oh]

I've taken thousands of product photos and made tens of thousands of sales and have never had a single complaint about fidelity between the product shot and the item.

The point of my statement is....

I do not and under normal conditions Would Not use Mid-day setting ever. It flattens everything out and reduces an image to bland mush which ultimately misrepresents the  product. It's a designers duty to represent their products in the best possible light.

A product photo is not just about  showing the the seams are fitting it's about 'Brand' and market positioning and 'Feel' Indeed I have bought  several  outfits for myself from merchants who deliberately shot their products in Black & White because I believed in the quality of the brand.

If I was ever dissapointed as a result of said purchases - that was between me and ego NOT between me and  the designer. I made a  bad purchase - buyer beware!

Personally speaking I really can't see any real difference between the shots that you have provided and the original 'brand' pack shot which may possibly and legitmately have  had the contrast boosted to bring out the white.

White is a notoriously difficult colour to represent  in world and even in out world. By it's very nature it will reflect and take on the hues of the environment around it.

Try  this for yourself with good quality studio that has a cove.

Place a white object in the middle of the set with a white background all round and midday setting if you must (with object full bright turned off), - take the shot . save then shoot again with a black background all around, repeat exercise again with all round coloured background. Note that when compared the colour shade of the object changes each time - it's simple basic  physics. And thats before we even start to take into account the infinite variations and subtleties within each viewer and computer setting.

If you don't like the purchase then  best I can advise is to let the Designer know that you are disappointed and ask for your money back rather than  running a vendetta and throwing a hissy fit over a spurious claim of misrepresentation of product in a perfectly acceptable 'Brand' shot.

^L^

[iCade]

What you think is acceptable, and what others think is acceptable is two different things, neither side is wrong in the argument, good points have been raised but personally, I think you too should take a step back and look at it from the costumers view.

 

Also if you had bothered to read, I sent the creator multiple curteous IM's AND a notecard. I left them DAYS of time to respond. They did not, so I left the review to their product and made this thread.

 

To me, and many other's who have voiced their opinion here tinkering with the product itself (backgrounds and branding excluded) is a no go. The product should be shown as is, not have a higher contrast, softening and the likes.
I would go so far as to say the initial picture CAN be tinkered with but then there should be EXTRA pictures supplied that show the product as is. Let the merchant draw people in but have the merchant give us a choice between a photoshoped picture and the real deal.

In short, what you think is perfectly acceptable, isn't to me, are you going to forbid me my opinion? Your post sounds like it.

[Lasher Oh]

 "In short, what you think is perfectly acceptable, isn't to me, are you going to forbid me my opinion? Your post sounds like it."

We'll agree to differ however please refer me to the line or statement that even hints that I would forbid your opinion! I

What I do suggest is that you stay away from 'white' a notorious shade/colour to get right and will always disappoint someone - (just like using stripes in SL rarely work. And as you discovered on your backside the world is not black and white but various shades of grey - dirty or otherwise.

^L^

[iCade]

Actually I went for the white outfit because I have MANY white outfits that are beautifully shaded and going by the advertised screenshot it looked like one more creator who can pull that off.

Telling me to stay away from a color so I have a better chance at "Get what you see?" Really?

And to answer your question:

"If you don't like the purchase then  best I can advise is to let the Designer know that you are disappointed and ask for your money back rather than  running a vendetta and throwing a hissy fit over a spurious claim of misrepresentation of product in a perfectly acceptable 'Brand' shot."

I find the bolded part of your statement massively rude not to mention obsolete if you had read my responses here you would no why.. No one is throwing a hissy fit here, I'm an adult like you are and have voiced my opinion here, wishing to discuss the topic at hand. You were the first, and so far only person to directly attack my action to voice my opinion on these forums. Also, having brought this issue to the forums - and once you actually take the time to read the thread - it has nothing to do with a vendetta, but keep throwing out the spiffy words if it makes you feel better.

Either way, I am not discussing this any further with you. I prefer to to be able to voice my opinion to those who are at least constructive and don't feel the need to get insulting.

[Toysoldier Thor]

Sooooo iCade,

Now you see exactly my point I was trying to make about you recommendation that in short LL should add a new TOS that bans the use of HEAVILY PHOTOSHOPPED product listings.

I am going to say something that is really quite rare on these merchant forums but it crystalizes why your idea of a new TOS that you suggested is a bad idea......

After looking at your posted photos of the product literature of this merchant vs how it looks like on you when you you wore it, I have to agree with Zanara and Lasher both.  I do not see the product listing photos from this merchant to be the magnitude of FALSE ADVERTISING and massive abuse of photoshopping a product that you are making it out to be on this thread.

In fact, other than some minor inconsistencies which could be explained because of the difference in your viewer or graphic settings or time of day between her photoshoot session and yours.... I dont see false advertising here at all.

Further, I can see why if you filed a negative review on this product that related to this product possibly false advertising by means of a doctored product photo, I can understand why LL had removed your review upong the Merchant's AR request for removal.

Finally, the person that has actually violated TOS is you.  You have use this Merchant's product photos (a copyright product) without her permission and you have violated a community forums rule by openly attacking / discrediting the product of a merchant with enough evidence that the merchant's reputation you are discrediting can be identified.  You didnt name names but you show one of her products that obviously can be tracked back to the person you are attacking.

So you have actually proven my point in SPADES about why your tos idea is a very very bad idea.

Just because it is your personal opinion that the merchant's product photos are false advertising, there are several that would disagree with you - including aparently LL themselves.

I would suggest you remove those photos from this thread and also be more careful when posting that when you want to attack another SL resident on the community threads that you do so without providing ANY evidence of who it is you are discrediting.

[Ariel Vuissent]

Images removed. The short version of this post: iCade posted images of her example outfit for her case that merchants were using highly photoshopped images in their advertisements. I posted images of the same outfit in a bright windlight setting, showing that using such windlight settings, the outfit was almost exactly the same as in the advertised image. (And probably would have been even closer if I'd used higher graphics and basic shaders, which I don't.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[iCade]

ToySoldier - My review was not removed. And any tinkering with the actual product should be forbidden. Instead of a galmorous white outfit with a silver raptile pattern I got GREY pants with a dark grey splodgy pattern. I can live with minor things being off but the entire colors are off. And as I said in my first post, which was obviously conveniently overread. 3 of my friends checked both the advert and the product in game, they all agreed that it is not as advertised. One used Viewer3, one Phoenix, one Singularity, I use Firestorm.

 

I am not attacking, I am showing my dislike as being deceived, and enough people have agreed on this with me. If you feel I have broken the TOS please do report me. I have simply posted a screenshot I made using Prnt Scrn and made sure the creator was not named in any way.

I respect on your opinion about my demand for a TOS change, however you have not in any way shape 'o form given me a valid argument that will make me reconsider the demand. I wanted a white outfit as advertised, I got grey. To me that is not acceptable, and using the contrast tool in photoshop to make the outfit white, when it is indeed not white is not acceptable either.

Again, I am not attacking anyone, I am voicing my concern of the topic at hand, and what I posted was an example of a personal situation I have had concerning the subject at hand.

 

Ariel - Thank you kindly. However I hardly meddle with windlight settings, and neither do any of the people I know, I have had this discussion with them since this happened.
I may disagree with anybody else here, but I am still going to say it. I should not be forced to use a windlight setting to have the item as advertised...and quite frankly when I do only -I- will see the outfit white, the rest of the people will see it as a subpar product just like I have seen it in game.

This is the only outfit I have that forces me to wear it under a certain windlight to prevent it from looking bad. And even then everyone else who happens to NOT use the same windlight will see it as I posted it on the forum. Grey, splodgy.

[Ry0ta Exonar]

Yeah, sequin fabric or any other glittering fabric for that matter just doesn't look right with default windlight setting.

 

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Tiffy Vella wrote:

yups....I'd get the "Nose Filter" add on.

---

I'd have a few inches nipped off here and there. *grins*  Errr, not my nose...other places.

[Czari Zenovka]

---

mtwtfss71 wrote:

 

Having said that, I've been thinking about offering demos in my main store but am unclear as to what would be a sufficient demo. Can anyone tell me what they'd like to see? I'm demo illiterate, it seems.

 

---

The stores that I have patronized that use demos offer the same outfit exactly as the one for sale but have DEMO stamped across it in various spots.

Many of my merchant friends who sell clothing and offer freebies offer an identical dress, shirt, slacks, whatever that they sell but use an "off color" as the freebie.  The one I've seen mosts often is a bright orange.  Just a color that wouldn't be as popular.  That way customers can see that this is a dress that the merchant does sell (in other colors) and can judge the quality that way.

[Czari Zenovka]

Note:  This is not to address the OP's situation.  The discussions herein re: Windlight got me thinking....

Once Windlight came out, the whole ballgame with everyone having a "shared experience" re: textures on anything changed.  I recall a merchant from years ago providing instructions in her store on how to make what *you* see on your viewer the same thing *everyone* sees re: particularly skins.  (This merchant did not create skins, she created clothes but had a good eye for images.)

Now with the gazillion sun/sky settings, not to mention the plethora of viewers, I'm wondering if anyone can truly see what another is seeing without using the exact same setting and even then different graphic settings for PCs come into play.  For example, the skin I wear came with a notecard that gave precise settings for it to look its best.  I made that an option in the sky settings. I use it 99% of the time because it shows my avatar skin at its best.  But how are other people viewing me?

Then we get into, let's say, two people are in a scenic setting.  One may have midnight turned on, the other sundown.  That again is going to have each person viewing the identical scene differently, not to mention, in my case with the draw distance typically set at 64m, I never see much past my nose....lol...while the other person could be seeing an entire panorama.

On the subject of white that I see has been raised:  I took a 10-week class in SL on Gimp. (I actually took it 3 times..lol.)  The final assignment was to create a white tailored shirt complete with collar, pocket, placket, buttons, cuffs with buttons, each on a different layer.  This after just one week on creating clothing in Gimp.  Trust me, the instructor and I have had *many* discussions on the complexity of this project as an "Introduction to using Gimp to make clothing."

Anyway...the instructor told us not to use regular white for the shirt but to slide the color over enough for it to be perhaps a light beige, eggshell, etc.  Anything than flat white.  I didn't fully understand at the time (and still haven't completed the shirt...lol) but from reading this thread I'm understanding why flat white isn't a good choice.

 

[Nefertiti Nefarious]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

You have use this Merchant's product photos (a copyright product) without her permission

---

Fair use!  Commentary, product review or education does not require permission.

 

[Ariel Vuissent]

Exactly. Normal white fabrics may still appear as white - or fairly close to white - under default settings, but glitter or sequin fabric really does require a bright windlight setting to show properly. It's an affect of the desired glitter/shine - the creator uses much more shading to create the look, but that shading really does turn out gray under default settings. (The same is often true for glittery or sequined fabrics in other colors, but it's more noticable with white. Also, as I'm not a creator, this is theory, not fact.) However, that's not a "bait and switch," as the thread started out saying.

iCade, I'm sorry you're dissatisfied with the product you purchased, but at least you now know the product is pretty much as is. The creator didn't promise something he or she cannot deliver; the product will look the way does in the image, if you use windlight settings. Whether or not you choose to use them is your choice. Personally, I think that creators have every right to use windlight settings; they make products look as good as they can but still give an achievable look. I would certainly use windlight settings if I were a creator. I find the default settings quite unattractive under most circumstances, and use windlight settings all the time just while wandering around. But that's also a case of personal preference and personal opinion.

 

[iCade]

Please realise that the outfit we've discussed is a mere example of the hundreds of items out there that are not as advertised. I brought it up to give an example, I should of known everyone would loose the point of this thread.

Point is, bait and switch is a very real thing in the catalog, and while I have been proven wrong, that there was no bait and switch, I still got not what I paid for and have to jump through hoops to have it look pretty while others will not see the prettieness due to using the default windlight.

Now that the example has been picked apart, please return to the topic at hand

[Charlotte Bartlett]

But the title says Bait and Switch.   Then an example was provided to underpin your theory that it was getting out of hand.

Do you have other examples, as the one presented didn't really stand up to the Bait and Switch getting out of hand question you presented.