Digital Photography - Knife Photos,TOO GOOD?

[Kevin Jones]

This is a subject that's I've been contemplating for some time but was hesitant to bring up considering the photographers that participate here. But looks like the door has been opened now on the "Larkmetals why Banned thread".

It seems that Lark Books, the publishers of the upcoming 500 photo coffee table book are requesting slides or "conventional" photos for lack of a better word to be submitted for publication. Perhaps, Naively I asked the question why not digital, as I assumed that most ALL photos these days were digital.

I got a seemingly knowledgeable well informed response back stating the publisher didn't want knife photos that could have been enhanced to actually look better than the actual knives as it could be considered fraud and perhaps discredit the book its author and publisher.

So back to the subject and question I have been contemplating, how do you feel about knife photos that portray, show or represent knives better that they actually are?

When considering a knife for purchase, do you want to view a beautiful and artistic photograph or an actual representation of the knife?

Do you care if photos in a Lark book, David Darom book, magazines or Knives Annuals are enhanced to increase viewing pleasure? Do you consider this a mis-representation?

Do you just assume that most all digital photography is photo shopped or enhanced?

No trying to stir up conflict here, but rather initiate opinion and discussion as I'm not sure how I stand on this topic.

 

[znode]

It would depend on how it is enhanced.

Basic lighting, exposure, and color-balance manipulation, along with changes of perspective and viewing window, and even aesthetic background changes, is pretty much standard affair, and in fact should be done to more realistically represent the objects. How can editing be more realistic? Human brains post-process images received from the eye by a staggering amount. No simple light capturing device can replicate seeing the object IN PERSON; the only way to get close is to actually have a human in the loop, adjusting the image to replicate what you might really see when you see it in person.

Of course, rendering on top of the image to create effects that aren't there is more controversial, depending on how artistic it is. But refusing digital images completely is simply irrational technophobia.

 

[Mike Carter Custom Knives]

It's a pretty silly rationale. Negatives can be touched up and have been for decades. It is true that it is easier to manipulate photos digitally but that is where trust in the integrityof the seller/owner/photographer comes in. If a person buys or sees a knife in person that is obviously not as it was represented the word will get around pretty quickly.

I photograph knives pretty regularly for myself and for customers. I will digitally change the background, do color correction if needed, and possibly remove dust specks or smudges that are not permanently a park of the knife. However, I will not touch up or remove flaws in the knife.

 

[NickWheeler]

Kevin-


I've seen very few knives that don't benefit from pro photography in regard to making them look better.

Of course you don't get the 3 dimensional view and feel, but I've seen many a big name makers' work in person that really let me down after thinking their work was so great for years due to good photos.

NOT that anyone was intentionally trying to hide flaws and the like... that stuff just didn't show up in the books/mags.

Gotta play the other side too, and point out that there are many many knives that just can never be fully appreciated even in the BEST of photos until they are handled. Coop will be one of the first to point this out to folks.

Good question.

 

[Keith Montgomery]

There is nothing wrong in enhancing the images to show the knives to their best advantage, as long as there is no manipualting of the knife. Digitally enhancing the lighting, contrast and colour to show a more accurate rendition of the knife is fine by me.

 

[ckerwin]

Good thread. The knife that John White won best fighter for in Little Rock has not had a good photo taken of the knife yet. Both Coop and Chuck Ward have taken photos of this knife. The knife in person is absolutely outstanding. I know know that both gentlemen take great pictures maybe they could enlighten me about the difficulties with a knife like this.

 

[Kevin Jones]

Kevin-


I've seen very few knives that don't benefit from pro photography in regard to making them look better.

Of course you don't get the 3 dimensional view and feel, but I've seen many a big name makers' work in person that really let me down after thinking their work was so great for years due to good photos.

NOT that anyone was intentionally trying to hide flaws and the like... that stuff just didn't show up in the books/mags.

Gotta play the other side too, and point out that there are many many knives that just can never be fully appreciated even in the BEST of photos until they are handled. Coop will be one of the first to point this out to folks.

Good question.

Good points Nick.

And don't get me wrong, as I'm not implying any photographer is doing anything sinister, just that sometimes it seems its more about making a great knife photo rather than an accurate representation of the knife.

The color may be more vivid or brighter, the high contrast may make detail stand out more etc. Sometimes the shade of color in the ivory can even be off from editing.
And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, just it can complicate purchasing a knife from a photo.

And it's not just knives, as have you ever opened up the wrapper on a Whopper and found one that looked as good as the one in the magazine ad?

I agree to that some knives beauty just can't be captured in a photo. I have a Friend that has had two top photographers shoot a particular knife and neither photos has done it justice.

 

[SharpByCoop]

How can editing be more realistic? Human brains post-process images received from the eye by a staggering amount. No simple light capturing device can replicate seeing the object IN PERSON; the only way to get close is to actually have a human in the loop, adjusting the image to replicate what you might really see when you see it in person.

Impressive interpretation. I have been saying for years that the human eye is notably better at seeing distinctions in color, contrast and such. Thank you. :thumbup:

I own one of the most advanced cameras in the industry, and it still needs help to replicate the images to appear AS THE HUMAN EYE will see them.

Pearl is a splendid example of how a camera will corrupt the image. In the case of pearls, yes, I take pains to reduce the reflective glare and highlights down to a plausible level. Just one example.

Does anyone think that the publisher won't impart their own recipe for enhanced visual quality, if it hasn't been done? Of course they will, and they are exacting pros, so they want it right. I submit that any image I send without digital help will look somwhat bland.

I am in the advertising business, and no different than any magazine you will pick up, you will see product imagery processed to look as good or better than they possibly can. It's no surprise or secret.

I know of not one instance of a dealer or a maker refunding a sale because the knife is mis-represented. If this has happened, then the dealers or makers have not mentioned anything to me. Thousands of images....

You bet some of my images are enhanced. Usually the ones that gain the most oohs and ahhs. I am not apologizing. And, it's OK to disagree.

Coop

 

[Kevin Jones]

oohs and ahhs[/I]. I am not apologizing. And, it's OK to disagree.
Coop

You won't get any disagreement from me. There's only been one photo taken of my collection that I've been displeased with, and that was because it was not enhanced to show the knives true beauty.

 

[flava]

From my own limited and amateurish experience I know I have to alter the original picture (the levels, the curves, sometimes even the color balance) in order to bring it close to how the knife really looks.
I find that professional knife pictures are not only beautiful (setup, focus, perspective) but also very close to the actual appearence of the knife. Everybody can make a bad picture, making a good and accurate one demands skill and effort.

 

[Joss]

I agree with Znode.

Taking the shot is but the first of many steps for producing a picture. Technically, a camera cannot reproduce the image that we see. Our brain + eye combination has a much broader range in terms of its sensitivity to different light levels, colors, depth of field, etc.

My understanding is that fine art pictures taken on film are always developped using a variety of methods that can modify the initial exposure. The initial exposure itself will be affected by the type of film (some films have a different treatment of colors than others - see the famous Velvia film), the settings on the camera, etc. There are photoshop tools (e.g., dodge, burn) which are nothing but the adaptation of old time film developping techniques.

 

[Les Robertson]

Great, next you guys will tell me they are airbrushing the women in Playboy!

Is nothing sacred??

WWG

 

[RogerP]

Great, next you guys will tell me they are airbrushing the women in Playboy!

Is nothing sacred??

WWG

Nonsense! And they're all natural blondes, too.

I have to day I found those restrictions on photo submissions ridiculous. Slides? Holy time-warp, Batman!

Roger

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

I believe you can get slides made from digital files, so it is a silly restriction.

 

[SharpByCoop]

I believe you can get slides made from digital files, so it is a silly restriction.

You're right, I've done it. And the purpose of a slide is to ultimately make a digital scan. But... It can't be better than the original file. Fortunately they DO accept digital files.

There are a couple of makers going to ask more questions directly this week. News when we know.

Coop

 

[Gollnick]

I'm an amateur knife photographer. I have a Sony DSC F707 5MPixel digital camera.

Long ago, I decided to edit minimally. I decided to concentrate on taking the picture right in the first place. I edit the picture with the knife in my hand. If I have any question about whether or not something is in the knife or just a photographic abberation, I can look at the knife and know.

One knife maker actually scolded me because I wouldn't make his knife look better than it is.

I, for one, looking forward to dusting off my old Pentax and shooting some Kodachrome for Lark... without the Photoshop crutch. One shot, one kill... no need for editting. The old-fashioned way. That's the time-honored test of a photographer.

 

[Kevin Jones]

Without accepting photo-shopped digital imagines for submission Lark Book's "500 Knives" is going to have a very hard time replacing David Darom's books on the coffee tables of world's knife enthusiast.

In answering my questions from above:

So back to the subject and question I have been contemplating, how do you feel about knife photos that portray, show or represent knives better that they actually are?

Some photos IMO do not represent the knife accurately. Not that the knife and the knife photo are not both beautiful. I have one piece where the ivory in the photo is not the same color as the actual ivory on the knife. Not even close. I don't have a real problem with this, just that in some cases it makes buying from a photo difficult. On the flip side, some knives just don't photo well and will look better than photos represent.

Do you care if photos in a Lark book, David Darom book, magazines or Knives Annuals are enhanced to increase viewing pleasure? Do you consider this a mis-representation?

No, IMO a photographer should utilize all his talent in both taking and editing the photo and take full advantage of all tools available for providing the best photo possible for publishing. I do not believe enhancing a photo is mis-representation.

Do you just assume that most all digital photography is photo shopped or enhanced?

Yes, especially in today's print and photo media. The object is to make everything look more appealing than it is. New cars, food, clothes, jewelry are most always represented better in ads that actual.

 

[Gollnick]

I have a friend who is a professional commercial photographer. His specialty is product photography mostly for advertising. We talked once about the "enhancement" of product pictures, how your your burger and fries never really look quite like the one in the menu picture. He laughed and explained that food is specifically exempt, but for most products, there are laws that limit "enhancing" the product with photo editting. For example, if photographing jewelry, you can not legally add a sparkle to a diamond; it has to sparkle on its own. You can do whatever you want to to get it to sparkle, multiple light sources etc., but you can't alter the actual item (substitute a higher-grade diamond, for example) and you can't doctor the picture. Keep in mind that this is for advertising; for a coffee table book, you can do whatever you want.

My friend specializes in photographing large objects. He did a spread for Learjet some years ago. They wanted the plane flying into the sunset. The problem is that you're photographing into the light source. In a studio, you'd add some lights behind the camera to light the front of the object. It's not really practical to do this in-flight. So, the plane was photographed in his studio (he obviously has a very large studio) and photoshopped into the sunset. But the plane in the picture, the product being sold, is a true photographic representation of the actual item. They could have used a scale model, if it was a scrupulously-accurate model.

As for digitally-enhancing the lady holding the product? Unless she comes in the box with the product, she's fair game.


It's like watching the fight scenes in, say, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. You know that people can't fly and can't walk on walls as shown. It's all computer-generated. But, compare that with any of the fights in any of the Bourne movies; while choreographed and carefully done, those are real. As a result, I, myself, find them much more interesting and much more compelling.

I had a bit of a falling out with a knifemaker some time ago when I sent him proofs of my pictures of his knife and he asked me to essentially fix his mistakes in photoshop. I refused. After some discussion, we called the whole thing off and I sent him his knife back. He sent it to one of the "big-name" knife photographers. The pictures appeared in one of the "big-name" knife magazines and I can tell you that those pictures are a lie. That knife is not anywhere near as nice as it looks in those pictures. If I bought that knife based on those pictures, I would be very disappointed when I received my treasure.

 

[RogerP]

I think there is a whole world of difference between "fixing flaws in a knife" by means of digital editing and simply making the photo look its best. It's their book and their rules and they can do as they please, but exclusing ALL photoshopped pictures will amount to excluding some of the BEST knife pictures out there. Oh well, Darom has what - 4 books out now?

Roger

 

[Gollnick]

In some respects, this is analogous to what's going on in much of the sports world right now as Berry Bonds has now tied Hank Aaron's long-standing record. But can you really compare the two when Bonds is clearly more the product of medical technology than athletic skill? The Body Building world has divided into two groups: the "natural" group and the "other" group. The first considers their approach more legitimate. The other wants results at any cost.

Please do keep in mind when you compare this proposed book with Dr. Darom's books are targetted at knife collectors. Lark's new book is targetted at a much broader art community. Dr. Darom's books are wonderful. I have signed copies of all of them. But, I'm more excited about this Lark book because of the market its going to reach. It's going to introduce the knife as art to people who have never heard of such a thing. This is part of what I call "mainstreaming the knife." It's about getting a broader class of people to think about knives as something other than evil tools of violence and to think of them as possibly objects of art and beauty, as object of art that have a place in life. This used to be true. Gentlemen used to carry elegant pocket knives with beautiful decorative materials and so forth. Today, a guy that wants to add a little flair to his kit gets his ears pierced and dangles earings. Women also often had an elegant knife in their purse. Somewhere along the way, we lost that concept and allowed knives to be demonized. I want to go back and re-establish in society in general -- not just within the knife community -- the concept of a knife as something that's appropriate to carry and display. A book like this, marketed to a broader audience, can help accomplish that. So, I hope that people will be very supportive of this effort.