This first picture was yet another let's not bother to set up anything, but just shoot the beads outside on a cloudy day.

This is (unless I screwed up and saved an adjustment to the original file) the original shot of these beads. Note particularly the triad of greyish beads that dominates the center of the photo. Ugh. Why bother?

Here is a second photo for which I used tungsten lighting and a studio setup. It still has some problems: I'm using a piece of fluorescent lighting plastic, which unfortunately has the diamond pattern turned towards the bead side; also, my fingers show in the reflection. But, on the whole (or hole, as I originally typed...sheesh) the shot is more professional. The beads are grouped more attractively, and I took a couple of minutes to put the prettiest ones (more or less) in front.

And the delicate violets, which come out of the admixture of neolavender (presumeably because it's colored with neodymium, a lanthanide series transition metal) show up a little better. Note particularly the difference in the striped bead propped up on the left in the second picture, (it's on the left in the top shot). Nevertpheless, the beads are still more browney-greyish in the second picture than they are to the eye—I'm guessing because of some sort of fluorescence, which is notoriously difficult to photograph.

All of my efforts gimping the first image to get the beads to match the color I was actually seeing failed. I finally took the second photo, and though there is grey in the beads, it's a pretty, soft blue-grey, totally without this unattractive greenish cast. (Hm...)

So then, it is fraud if you manipulate the image to match reality that is better? What if the manipulation makes some bits look better and others worse?

Ah, ethics. So many shades of grey.

file started 04sep06;

Unless otherwise noted, text, image and objects depicted therein copyright 1996--present sylvus tarn.

Sylvus Tarn