True enough, Peng. That's why I did say that I can see the value in having a disclaimer at the bottom of an image indicating the renderer used. Let me make that clear. :)

Just the same, I also know from the toy and game industry just how ubiquetous the phrase "product may differ slightly from image" is. A number of my friends have worked in advertising, so I may just be used to all of the modification that goes into a promotion, whether it be a trade booth or a print image.

For example, my wife and I have been working for some time to photograph my sculptures. This isn't an easy thing.

Shooting them isn't hard, but shooting them WELL is. As it turns out, part of the problem has to do with lighting. We have found that often the work is overexposed or underexposed.

Recently we spoke to a friend who is a gallery director. She indicated that the issue was all about the lighting. It now looks like we will need to get some better quality lights than what we have been using. These won't be cheap, it seems, but they have the potential to make my work look a lot better than the setup we are presently using.

I guess part of what I find myself wondering is whether one set of photos is more "honest" than the other. I am not modifying the sculptures themselves- but rather the presentation. If one is selling an item on Ebay, it makes sense to lay down a good backdrop and light the item well after taking the time to arrange it carefully, then use a tripod to steady the camera rather than simply plop it down on the kitchen table under a 75 Watt bulb and snap the piece freehand.

Just a few thoughts.

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 06:46