Agree. Point well made.
TomNie

"Owen Lowe" wrote in message
news
In article .com,
"Jonathon" wrote:

Accepting that you can hide a multitude of sins via the power of
Photoshop / Photopaint - we would generally use it as a starting point.
It helps exclusion moreso than inclusion although gives little clue as
to what the piece will actually look like irl. I would strongly lean
towards something photographed well - believing that I had more
information go go on.

The Tony Boase Tribute selection was an intersting case in point. Our
selection based on web imagery was only 50% accurate - that down more
to colours and how they appeared on a screen.

Does a well photographed piece imply a higher cost? I would say no -
as it will take little extra time to photograph something well once you
have mastered this particular area - although hot spots are always
going to be a problem and require particular care. It would be too
sweeping to draw the comparison between piece and photo quality - but
there is some correlation.

I think that if something is photographed well, it shows an inner desire
of the maker to present his work in the best possible light. If the
turner takes the extra steps (minimal though they are) to present his
work as best he can, then that drive for high quality would likely be
present in his turned work. In other words, a sloppy turner likely won't
expend the extra effort to have photographs of his work exceed the
quality of his turnings. By the same token a turner who puts all his
skills and attention to detail in his turnings would likely strive for
photographs that generate the same sense of pride when the same turnings
are illustrated through a 2-D medium.

--
Owen Lowe

Northwest Woodturners,
Cascade Woodturners,
Pacific Northwest Woodturning Guild
___
Safety Tip'o'th'week: Never grind aluminum and steel or iron on the same
machine or workstation - Thermite.
http://www.hanford.gov/lessons/sitell/ll01/2001-36.htm