Good, it isn't just me that sees this. Noticed that the Filet-o-fish is the only one even close.

I thikn they need to retake the beef and cheddar image. I mean, I know it looks nothing like the picture, but it looks like someone smashed that one.

Also, while the Nachos Bell Grande looks better in the "professional" picture, the real one had more sour cream (and that's definately a plus).

Truth. Why I don't eat that crap.(I do eat Jack's breakfast burritos)

I quitted fast food some time ago. It's not cheap, it doesn't taste good and it's nutritionally questionable. It's only redeeming quality is that it's fast and convinient, but I figured that I'm never in a big enough horry to have to lower myself to eat some.

There are two choices here...

1. Have the marketing photographers actually prepare the food "we" buy from these places.

2. Have the 16 year old kids who make this crap, take the marketing photos (truth in advertising).

I don't think we'll see either of these happen.

Once I attended a photo session of food.

It was a really simple photo of some cherries and strawberries for the artwork of a new product's packaging.

You wouldn't believe the amount of work that goes behind those photos!

For starters, all the cherries were made of plastic, as we couldn't find cherries that looked "perfect". Then, everything was sprayed with tiny drops of water to give it a "fresh" look. And finally, it was all touched up in photoshop.

It was cool, but now I look at professional photos of food with different eyes...

From what I understand, in the US, the rule is as follows:

If the item in the photo is of the food being advertised, the advertised item(s) must be real food.
If the photo is of food, but not the food you are actually selling, it can be fake.

For example, if you are selling corn flakes, the corn flakes must be real, but the milk, berries, OJ, etc. can be items that look better than the real thing.

Keep in mind that the BIG MAC or WHOPPER being advertised must be a real hamburger, with the same items as the real thing. It does not have to be a *REAL* BIG MAC or WHOPPER (aka prepared by an illiterate teenager that is saving up for that big pimple cream purchase.)

Don't know the rules about post-production, but I assume there are some.

Two words: KY Jelly. I'm old school photography. A turkey looks juicy when slathered in KY. Nuff said.

....and now I'll just never be able to look at a turkey dinner the same. Thanks Bornbad.

What about ice cream, from what I hear they use something similar to mashed potatoes when photographing it. Which makes sense to me since the ice cream would start to melt after not too long under those lights, and you would probably be able to tell in the picture that it is melting.

Oh, and by the way I can read and write just fine.

You are just putting that on the "outside" of the turkey, aren't you??

They can use something that looks like ice cream, provided they aren't selling the ice cream. If they say a photo is of their product, it has to be. (Ever notice that a lot of ads for frozen things show photos of the package?)

Congratulations! There is an exception to every rule. Hope you have as much success with the pimple cream issue. ;)

Oh, I see. I was thinking about the packaging of ice cream. So it's the actual advertisement that you have to have the real product on.

I think it applies to photos on packages, as well. Not sure. I will do a search of the FDA/FCC websites and see if I can put a link here.

Edit: Checked both sites. Can't get the search to give me anything but transcipts. Not knowing when they talked about what, this isn't helpful. Bottom line is I cannot find the rule I was talking about above.

Depends if it's still alive or not.

I read somewhere that photographers like to use glue instead of milk-keeps the cereal unsoggy, and in the right place.