A DAMASKO DC66 - A True Representation - And What A PITA!!

THIRTYFIVEMILL

THIRTYFIVEMILL

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,911
Name
Duncan
Edit My Images
No
I've recently participated in a debate on one of the watch forums in which we've been discussing true representation of subject versus artistic representation. It's been an interesting thread and it encouraged me to temporarily go back to basics and not rely so much upon the powers of Photoshop processing. This evening I thought I'd spend less time on setting the stage and more time on good lighting and photographic technique. My goal was not to produce an interesting or fun image but instead to produce an accurate representation of the watch in front of me, whilst still producing something that was pleasing to the eye. I've been amazed at just how taxing it can be when you remove artistic license and replace that with stringent parameters. However, here's the result which I intend to be the first of a series.

http://thirtyfivemill.com/2012/11/16/back-to-basics-damasko-dc66-chronograph/

DAMASKO-DC66.png
 
I like the picture and I think you've done a fine job.

I do appreciate the work and enjoyment out of working with the light to show off (meant in the best possible way) and illustrate the product.

I'm not so sure about the theory of 'true representation of subject versus artistic representation' - to me it is all representation and is all open to interpretation - but some representation can be more esoteric or ambiguous or any number of other qualities than other representations. I'm not so sure that artistic licence is removed - I feel more that that licence has had its terms re-defined. I would argue that there is some artistic process involved in the selection of the background, the placement of the curve of the seam in the canvas, the placement of the watch and strap, the composition of the frame - even if it wasn't at a consciously manipulative level.

There appears to be some blue on the watchface/glass near the number '8' that my eye keeps getting drawn to. :thinking:
 
weybourne said:
I like the picture and I think you've done a fine job.

I do appreciate the work and enjoyment out of working with the light to show off (meant in the best possible way) and illustrate the product.

I'm not so sure about the theory of 'true representation of subject versus artistic representation' - to me it is all representation and is all open to interpretation - but some representation can be more esoteric or ambiguous or any number of other qualities than other representations. I'm not so sure that artistic licence is removed - I feel more that that licence has had its terms re-defined. I would argue that there is some artistic process involved in the selection of the background, the placement of the curve of the seam in the canvas, the placement of the watch and strap, the composition of the frame - even if it wasn't at a consciously manipulative level.

There appears to be some blue on the watchface/glass near the number '8' that my eye keeps getting drawn to. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, that was food for thought. Yes, the blue is the anti-relective coating of the crystal which on this watch is employed both on the outside and the inside of the crystal.
 
What are the "stringent parameters" you've imposed on the shoot ?
 
Ain't you supposed to take such shots with the watch showing 10 past 10 ;)

Edit: Or ten to two, or twenty past eight, or twenty to four ;)
 
Last edited:
Umm, you're depicting a man-made artefact by arranging some artificial lighting against a background that is factory-made medium, recording the image using some of the most highly advanced technology mankind has devised in the whole of history, transmitting it wirelessly at the speed of light around the planet, then asking us to judge the result on a computer screen.

Can you run the 'back to basics' bit past me again? :D
 
Last edited:
jon ryan said:
Umm, you're depicting a man-made artefact by arranging some artificial lighting against a background that is factory-made medium, recording the image using some of the most highly advanced technology mankind has devised in the whole of history, transmitting it wirelessly at the speed of light around the planet, then asking us to judge the result on a computer screen.

Can you run the 'back to basics' bit past me again? :D
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA! Good point. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top