PDA

View Full Version : What is a picture worth?



Phil Thien
03-11-2011, 10:57 AM
This is sort of woodworking related.

I had a woodworking friend visit me at work. He saw a copy of a woodworking magazine laying on my bench and commented on it. I mentioned the cabinet on the front was pretty outstanding.

"Perhaps the picture of the cabinet makes it look outstanding," he said, and then went on to relate a story.

He has a SIL that was bitten by the bug and removed an old built-in in the dining room of a house he and the wife owned. He then proceeded to make a new one.

This was one of his first large projects, and he made quite a few mistakes. Nonetheless he was very happy with it and proudly showed it to everyone.

So my friend was over there one day and was looking at the completed project and patting his SIL on the back. As he had helped on the project when asked, he was familiar with the project already, and knew there were some poor joints, some of the grain tore when planing, etc. Don't get me wrong, he was a very proud FIL, and he said the project was a vast improvement over what was there, but he mentioned his SIL is a much better woodworker already from the experience.

A couple days later he received an E-Mail cc'd to a bunch of relatives/family friends from his daughter, which had pictures of the new built-in (she was very proud, too, and wanted to share pictures with everyone on her E-Mail list).

My friend started looking at the pictures and was amazed. Had he not seen the unit in person, he'd have thought Krenov himself had made it. The camera just didn't catch any of the problems. The close-ups only showed the hits, none of the misses.

His point was, don't trust those photographs to tell the entire story.

So I wondered how many times I've looked at a picture in a magazine, or a book by one of the greats like Krenov, and assumed that the details were all perfect. What the camera can't show, I assume is 100%.

I do remember seeing a close-up of the back of a genuine Krenov cabinet that was being sold on eBay, and quitekly, the back seemed pretty rough. This surprised me given what Krenov has written on the subject. And even then, I'm not sure the photograph was a good approximation of the actual back.

A lot of rambling. Any thoughts?

Travis Porter
03-11-2011, 11:19 AM
I would suggest the camera works both ways. I have had some gorgeous projects look totally horrible after I finished photographing them. I guess the quality of the photographer has more to do with the perceived quality of the woodworker or the project than the actual project itself.

W Craig Wilson
03-11-2011, 6:30 PM
My WW skill goal: to create pieces in which no one else can see my errors.

Years of a photo hobby tell me that the 'truth' of a picture is visible only from behind the lens, not through it.

Mike Archambeau
03-12-2011, 8:48 AM
I think most phtographers are trying really hard to present their subject in the very best way. Even the best picture is often enhanced or photoshoped. Even galmorous pictures of supermodels are often enhanced so that they look even "more beautiful". There is only one way to know for sure....see the real thing....or course I am talking about furniture...not super models..............

Phil Thien
03-12-2011, 9:09 AM
I think most phtographers are trying really hard to present their subject in the very best way. Even the best picture is often enhanced or photoshoped. Even galmorous pictures of supermodels are often enhanced so that they look even "more beautiful". There is only one way to know for sure....see the real thing....or course I am talking about furniture...not super models..............

I'd rather investigate the supermodel angle.

Harry Hagan
03-12-2011, 11:12 AM
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" pretty much sums it up.

A multitude of factors affect how a subject might be presented in a photograph and how that photograph might be perceived makes the possibilities limitless.

Greg Peterson
03-12-2011, 11:37 AM
At the very least, any photo that is to be published in a magazine, regardless the circulation numbers, will be the best of the best from the collection of photos. I would assume a cover shot gets even greater consideration than one that will be printed inside the magazine.

I would also assume any picture (to be more accurate, image) I see these days has been modified/enhanced. It really isn't unlike listening to a sound recording. In either case, a job well done will generally not draw attention to the technical feat accomplished.

As for the Krenov item on Ebay, assume it is a Krenov at ones own risk. I did not see the listed item so I can not speak to the means by which they authenticated the item. I respect your opinion enough to take the legitimacy of the item at face value. It is likely the photographer was unskilled and unintentionally accentuated attributes that otherwise have not been seen in previous images of his works.

Ron Conlon
03-12-2011, 12:30 PM
I'm sure with the pressure to get a project built in time for magazine publication that the editors might choose the best side to photograph.:)