decay # 19 ~ this is a test
Friday, April 18, 2008 at 10:58AM 
<Green water and sunflowers • click to embiggenEveryone here knows of my 'thing' for the real / truth in photography. Unless, of course, you're a relative newbie and haven't spent the last 50 hours of your life reading the archives.
If you have been following my postulations, opinions, theories, and assorted folderol, you probably also know that I believe that the current rage of 'fake'/staged pictures can also contain truth(s) and an accurate representation of the real.
Furthermore, the medium of photography has a decided advantage in all the visual arts at conveying / suggesting truth and real simply because the referents in photographs look so damn 'real'.
So, that said, talk to me about decay # 19 ...
gravitas et nugalis
ADDENDUM: Ok, let's make this a bit more interesting.
Anyone who passes the test gets an 8×8 (inches) decay print of their choice - there is no limit on the number of winners. Enter as many times as you like.
Hint: every single detail in the picture is both true and real. However, there is one not-so-small element of the photograph that is 'fake', although, some might say that, taken out of context, it really is a big thing.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Tom Frost wrote: "What do you mean, "faked"? Does that mean added in later and/or heavily manipulated in pshop, or does that mean an element that is not decaying, or what? The definition determines the response."
my response: Tom, answering your question pretty much gives the game away. On the other hand, there are several almost-winners who have figured it out but none have mentioned the exact answer so far. By "exact answer", I mean naming the "fake" element and the thing that truly identifies the "fake" element.
Indeed, there have been some very good notions about what identifies the "fake" - one of which caused me to fine tune the image. I will address a couple of the other notions when I repost the picture tomorrow.
FYI, the almost-winners are, in fact, winners. They will receive an 8×8 (inches) decay print of their choice. But, just to sweeten the pot, grand prize winners with the exact answer will receive a 12×12 (inches) decay print of their choice.
decay
Reader Comments (15)
It says that Spring's a-coming, decay will give way to new life, and your next image will have a sprout growing from a rotten potato. Or maybe that's all me.
Maybe you're referring to the reflection of your hand with ring? I'm not sure it can be consider more "arranged" than anything else, though it probably wasn't part of the original intention.
There is something hinky with the focus going on there. The whole bucket & contenst nice & sharp - decent DoF. Ring finger sharp but front counter not - suggests slightly back-focussed, shallow DoF.
It's almost as if you were photographing something flat placed where the bucket is, then PS'ed the bucket in its place.
And what's with those chopsticks?
the wife took the picture.
or that you are actually wearing your ring.
Two different lightdirections? It seems to me that the light on the bucket is from another direction as on rest of the photo. So, I think you psed the bucket in. Clever work though, that is to say technically spoken.
I wondered how you got the surface tension of the water restored after you carried the bucket indoors, and why the sides of the bucket and the items in the bucket showed little signs of being recently moved recent. They are mostly dry, yet the sink shows recent use. One would have to be quite careful not to bump the bucket while working at the sink. Yes, I think the bucket has been photoshopped in. Or perhaps the sink and counter are the additions to the bucket scene.
Interesting. What is more "faked/staged": bringing the bucket into the kitchen, setting up a kitchen around a bucket in the garden or merging two pictures taken at different locations and times into one?
It seems the bucket was photographed under an open sky. The objects inside the bucket do not cast shadows like the chop sticks do. Also the light from the kitchen window leads to a light fall-off across the counter which should be visible for the bucket.
What do you mean, "faked"? Does that mean added in later and/or heavily manipulated in pshop, or does that mean an element that is not decaying, or what? The definition determines the response.
The setting is staged. A bucket filled with rainwater, rusty tools, and decaying nature wouldn't be next to my sink, it would be outside next to the shed where I would take the shot.
The Joy is fake because anybody who chooses to impose creative limitations on an artistic medium doesn't really know how to experience Joy.
I concur: bucket & contents PSed onto countertop. It looks like the perfect solution to the dilemma of your conflicting desires. It permits you to maintain a compositional continuity w/ what you've already done inside, and at the same time not offend the sensibilities of "the wife" by bringing rotting "disgusting" material into her kitchen. Very nicely done.
There's something really "off" about the hand reflecting on the sink edge. It looks as if your hand (with shutter release cable?) is resting on a table or the floor....or something that you wouldn't expect to see above (?) the sink...wouldn't that be were the reflection would have to originate? The whole bucket of stuff looks added too, as people have mentioned already, but I'm not so sure. Anyway, it'll be interesting to know what's going on here.
You'd think the pick axe rusted end would be submerged.
It is not a "bucket" placed on the kitchen counter. it is a large galvanized wash tub Photoshoped onto to it. I think the contents give it away. (Dried up sunflowers, a fireplace grate and pick axe would be conciderably larger than shown here.)