Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >
Apr 20, 2007 06:27 AM

Website showing Ads Vs. Real Fast Food

I don't really know where this would fall in the topic areas. A buddy sent me this web site with pictures of the advertising shot of the specific food versus the real product as you would buy the stuff.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. The absurdity lies in the statement, "This is an ongoing Pulitzer-caliber project."

    Puleeeeeeze. It all looks bad and validates why I never eat fast food.

    1. I have worked as an assistant food stylist on national food ads. By law you must use the real company product, with nothing else to enhance it. So we would get boxes of frozen "Burger King" french fries, buns, burgers, pickles etc. In the case of the fries we would then fry them in small batches and hand select the most perfect ones. Then use medical tweezers placing them to create the most perfect bag of fries, that had to be the same amount of ounces as in the serving size at the restaurant. Same with each item.
      One ad could take a group of ten people 12 hours to shoot.

      If it was a cookbook or editorial photo then you get to play with the food more. Add things, use non food items to gloss them up etc. It was interesing to say the least.

      1 Reply
      1. re: Got Cake

        Wow, really fascinating. You should write an article about it.

      2. The McMuffin bottom is bigger than its top.

        4 Replies
        1. re: julesrules

          Yeah, the real McMuffin may look better. The ad one just looks odd.

          1. re: kindofabigdeal

            Not surprising but still funny seeing them juxtaposed. Appears that the filet-o-fish wins the prize for looking most like its ad counterpart.

            1. re: RC51Mike

              true. the filet-o-fish is one food I have never even thought of putting in my mouth. I would love to try a good durian someday, but don't put a filet-o-fish anywhere near me. actually... i don't think i've ever seen one in real life.

              1. re: kindofabigdeal

                Filet-o-fish is one of the few things at McD's that I like.

        2. I don't know about this website. Granted, the Arby product did not stand up well, however, most of the other stuff seems to me is a photography issue. Professional pics against bad cell phone pics. Who would take any of this as a serious quality issue. If you grill a good cut of Angus strip loin to medium rare, take a picture, then wrap it in tin foil, wait 15 minutes, unwrap it, take another picture, you will see 2 different things. Besides looks, you will have a steak that is not medium rare any more but will be closer to medium. Food keeps cooking and changes in presentation once wrapped up. It doesn't matter whether it's fast food or if it's a take out meal from the French Laundry. (If they would do take out :) JMO.

          2 Replies
          1. re: fatboy44

            You're definitely right, but I don't think the continuation of the cooking was an issue in these... and it's probably safe to assume that they never looked qutie like the picture.

            1. re: kindofabigdeal

              Sure, food stylists using a blow torch to brown the meat and varnish to give the bun a glossy appearance, studios, etc. etc. etc. The point I tried to make was that, you can't judge a product by a picture, good or bad. Anyways, we shouldn't be eating most of that junk regardless how good it looks:(

          2. Well, the items I liked to begin with look fine in the real world pictures. I wouldn't want a bun that stayed all puffed up all the time anyhow.