Bruce Girrell on wed 2 feb 00
Carolynn Palmer wrote:
>This was in response to a Clayarter explaining how they had changed their
>slides using Adobe Photo Shop.
>
>As someone who has sat on juries for shows and also sends in slides to jury
>into shows - I find this very scarey and in my opinion quite dishonorable.
>
>As a jurist, when I am looking at someone else's slides, I assume they are
>the work as it will appear in their booth. If this trend continues, it
won't
>be the best pots in the shows or in the competitions, it will be the potter
>who can best alter his slides and make the best use of Adobe Photo Shop!!
I'm sorry I missed the original post on this. The same issue is raising
concerns in the photography world. The consensus there so far seems to be
this: Film is not a perfect medium. Correction through digital means of
color irregularities, defects, and other effects that are not representative
of what was before the camera's lens is totally acceptable and does not
warrant notation. Dodging and burning fall into this category, as well.
Artistic interpretations of photographs, including, but not limited to,
changing colors for better effect, adding or removing picture elements,
compositing, etc. achieved through digital means should be clearly noted.
There is a gray area that shouldn't apply to photos of pots. Some photos
contain elements that normally wouldn't have been there but happened to be
there at the instant that the shutter was released. Had the photographer
waited, the light or composition may have changed. For example a visually
distracting contrail may appear in the sky above a beautifully composed
picture of a mother and baby bird. The photographer's intention is to
represent the mother and baby faithfully and jet contrails have nothing to
do with the photo's story. Most would not object to removal of the contrail,
as such techniques have been long-standing darkroom practice, yet many claim
that this is a substantial alteration of the photo. I'm going to ignore this
category because it shouldn't apply to formal photos of pots.
So the upshot of all this is: If the altered photo better represents the pot
than the original photo, the alteration can ethically be made without
notation.
>
>Also, as a potter who is attempting to get into shows with my untouched
>slides, how can I hope to compete against someone who has altered and
touched
>up their work using a computer and software?
>
Assuming that the potter using software enhancement has followed normal
ethical rules as I tried to illustrate above, then your answer is to play by
the same rules. If you don't agree with that, consider this rephrasing of
your question:
"Also, as a potter who is attempting to get into shows with photos I took
myself, how can I hope to compete against someone who has used a
professional photographer?"
I think we know the answer to that one - your slides won't cut it. Sorry,
try again next year (or should I say "Due to the large number of artists and
the high quality of...").
As I said, I did not see the original post. I also could not find it in my
deleted posts, so I don't really know how the original poster was altering
their slides. When I make duplicates for submissions to juries, I always
scan the slide, crop if necessary, correct film blemishes and color tints,
then have a service agency scan out the duplicates from the digital form.
This not only cleans up speckles and other distracting blemishes, but also
ensures no degradation of the image as duplicates are made. I feel that it
is my job to put the very best representation of my pots before the juries.
As long as the image properly represents the work, I have no problem with
digital processes.
Bruce "could you make that pot a little taller and a little narrower at the
base, please?" Girrell
Kent / Pat on thu 3 feb 00
Thanks for the observations,Girrell. I am just beginning to get a portfolio
/ web site together, and I was having an internal struggle with the same
issue.
The photographer that is doing my initial set won't release negatives of any
work that he deems beneath his professional level. At first, since he is
doing this as a favor, I just accepted that and marked the piece to be
reshot later. Then I talked to him about printing to a floppy and letting
me play with it. Since his problems are with the background color and
lighting, I cannot help but to think that those adjustments would be
acceptable, especially when the art magazines routinely change colors and
alter backgrounds without to much regard for what the original piece looks
like. John has agreed and we will try this approach.
As far as altering something on the photo to actually change the piece,
That IMHO, is ethically wrong and when found to have occurred, there should
be some sort of bulletin published of fraudulent submissions. just a
thought, but a strongly felt one.
Pat Porter
pporter@4dv.net
Aurora CO USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Girrell"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Altered Slides
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Carolynn Palmer wrote:
>
> >This was in response to a Clayarter explaining how they had changed their
> >slides using Adobe Photo Shop.
> >
> >As someone who has sat on juries for shows and also sends in slides to
jury
> >into shows - I find this very scarey and in my opinion quite
dishonorable.
> >
> >As a jurist, when I am looking at someone else's slides, I assume they
are
> >the work as it will appear in their booth. If this trend continues, it
> won't
> >be the best pots in the shows or in the competitions, it will be the
potter
> >who can best alter his slides and make the best use of Adobe Photo Shop!!
>
> I'm sorry I missed the original post on this. The same issue is raising
> concerns in the photography world. The consensus there so far seems to be
> this: Film is not a perfect medium. Correction through digital means of
> color irregularities, defects, and other effects that are not
representative
> of what was before the camera's lens is totally acceptable and does not
> warrant notation. Dodging and burning fall into this category, as well.
>
> Artistic interpretations of photographs, including, but not limited to,
> changing colors for better effect, adding or removing picture elements,
> compositing, etc. achieved through digital means should be clearly noted.
>
> There is a gray area that shouldn't apply to photos of pots. Some photos
> contain elements that normally wouldn't have been there but happened to be
> there at the instant that the shutter was released. Had the photographer
> waited, the light or composition may have changed. For example a visually
> distracting contrail may appear in the sky above a beautifully composed
> picture of a mother and baby bird. The photographer's intention is to
> represent the mother and baby faithfully and jet contrails have nothing to
> do with the photo's story. Most would not object to removal of the
contrail,
> as such techniques have been long-standing darkroom practice, yet many
claim
> that this is a substantial alteration of the photo. I'm going to ignore
this
> category because it shouldn't apply to formal photos of pots.
>
> So the upshot of all this is: If the altered photo better represents the
pot
> than the original photo, the alteration can ethically be made without
> notation.
>
>
> >
> >Also, as a potter who is attempting to get into shows with my untouched
> >slides, how can I hope to compete against someone who has altered and
> touched
> >up their work using a computer and software?
> >
>
> Assuming that the potter using software enhancement has followed normal
> ethical rules as I tried to illustrate above, then your answer is to play
by
> the same rules. If you don't agree with that, consider this rephrasing of
> your question:
>
> "Also, as a potter who is attempting to get into shows with photos I took
> myself, how can I hope to compete against someone who has used a
> professional photographer?"
>
> I think we know the answer to that one - your slides won't cut it. Sorry,
> try again next year (or should I say "Due to the large number of artists
and
> the high quality of...").
>
> As I said, I did not see the original post. I also could not find it in my
> deleted posts, so I don't really know how the original poster was altering
> their slides. When I make duplicates for submissions to juries, I always
> scan the slide, crop if necessary, correct film blemishes and color tints,
> then have a service agency scan out the duplicates from the digital form.
> This not only cleans up speckles and other distracting blemishes, but also
> ensures no degradation of the image as duplicates are made. I feel that it
> is my job to put the very best representation of my pots before the
juries.
> As long as the image properly represents the work, I have no problem with
> digital processes.
>
> Bruce "could you make that pot a little taller and a little narrower at
the
> base, please?" Girrell
| |
|
