I found this topic of interest because I've seen applications that state that if images have been modified, they will automatically be thrown out of consideration. So how can we tell if images have been modified? Digital files actually will say that if they have been modified, and on what date. So were my images modified? Yes they were. Unfortunately, images will say they have been modified even if the modifications were simple things such as cropping, and changing image sizes/resolutions, some of which (size specs) are in fact often required. I also adjusted the levels a bit, to get whiter whites. On a side note, just about everything you can do in photoshop you can do with film in the dark room.
I bring this up because I am wondering if sometimes putting your best foot forward isn't the best thing to do. I thought I was simply putting forth the best images of my work as I could get, never dreaming that someone might think I had done anything wrong. As you can see the changes are minimal, and by and large the image was created the way it is "in camera."
I would like to relate that the Professor who taught me to take product photography worked for a well-known online store. His job was to take items for sale, and make them look good. He was good at this, so good in fact that after a while he was told to tone it down due to a higher rate of returns. People had bought things based on his images, and were then disappointed when the actual item arrived. So is it wrong to use good photography? Should I "tone it down" in the future? I would appreciate honest opinions.
Garret, what I notice most differently about the bottom photo is that I see more colors in your sculpture. I feel that it's more honest a representation because of that.
ReplyDeleteI guess I've always believed that a good photographer would be able to capture good images. Granted Garret that you're a better photographer than myself, I think once you start manipulating the image your creating something different. A piece of art in its own right. arrangements, collages, event tweaking color can be considered art, but it can't be looked at as a "record" of what is, or what once was. Putting your best foot forward to me is making and showing your best work, capturing the images for what they are. We set up back drops now because somebody realized their work looks better there then on carpet. We use different light bulbs, and adjust our cameras to bring our work up to it's greatest potential. In one seminar class I took there was an artist who had to send an image to a gallery for a show card they were producing, he didn't want to show previously made work, so in photoshop he constructed an image of a piece that he was planning on making and shipping to the gallery. The piece he made was similar to the photo he sent, but the coloring, size, overall form was different, that, I thought was shady. I think when you start creating an illusion of something better than what is, then it's shady, and no matter how you justify it, you're lying. If a person is OK with lying, then I don't see a problem.
ReplyDeleteJust so you guys know, the bottom image is the "altered" one. Heath, I am in no way suggesting that it is ok to do things like send in an image that doesn't accurately portray the work. I am calling into question the notion that if an image is altered, it must be "fake." The camera lens does not see like your eye does, variations in color, distortion, etc occur on a regular basis. So if you alter an image to get it to look more like the actual piece, are you still creating something other than a true record of the piece? You've seen this piece, which image is the more accurate portrayal? Could it be that instead of "manipulating" a piece, you are "correcting it?" And if what is done in camera is enough to get people to question, should I go to the trouble?
ReplyDeletehey garrett- you take a really nice photograph-could you go over your process/set-up when you do your class on photoshop? that would be great!
ReplyDeleteI don't remember any discussion about altered images when we looked at your work in the past-I think it's impossible to not alter digital images unless you're going to take specific images for each thing you apply for. The goal, of course, is to make the work look as good as possible without misleading the viewer. I think Heath is trying to push some buttons.
Garrett, I also think you take nice photos. Good job! I believe what you say about "correcting it" is more accurate to describe what you are doing when you "change" your image in Photoshop. The image you submit of your work, should look like your work. If you have to change the colors and levels in Photoshop to make an accurate image, that is more honest than taking the picture straight from the camera. A good artist should be a good photographer of their work. In theory, you would be able to just take a picture and it would be correct. However, a good artist also understands the "material and tools," in this case the camera. If you have a good understanding of this, as you do (contrary to what Heath may be suggesting), you know that a digital camera will not always produce a completely accurate image. Just keep doing what you are doing and don't worry about it!
ReplyDeleteJust for the record (Michelle) I think it all comes down to intent. . are you trying to make the image look better than the actual work, or are you trying to make it look more acurate. I agree that a camera is a filter, and as the images are shot there is the possibility that they will look different in comparison to what our eyes actually see. I think intent is the key.
ReplyDeleteA piece of work is the same whether it is in a dark closet, badly lite, or professional displayed - it is our reaction that changes.
ReplyDeleteIntent is obviously key.
I've seen photos of work that is more compelling than the piece in the flesh. Interestingly, the piece was a painting.
What Heath is describing (the artist who created a piece in photoshop) is not really a question of digital alteration, but of digital execution/production. A far cry from changing the saturation points of red.
I think as long as the artist aims for the best representation of the work and not the best image all is well and virtuous. If not, well, get ready for a lot of gallery returns.