Why is it with brightly lit or flash photography some take as ?truth?
But when good photos come out it?s all cause of the lighting being darker or photos were manipulated.
You'd be looking at different things in each scenario because each have their strengths and weaknesses.
Flash photography has several weaknesses. The colors and the relationships between them are totally jacked. It's also not how 99.9% of people will see the piece in their day-to-day, so some may argue it's irrelevant. However, it allows you to evaluate the neatness of the application. Is there slop? Overlap? Misalignment? A brightly lit photo will make this inescapably clear.
With a darker photo (or one with more shadows cast) you can't detect paint issues as easily, so in that regard it can be a dishonest way to advertise a piece. But it may also look closer to how you'll perceive it on your shelf, so in that regard it's more honest.
IMHO, the most problematic photo set thus far is actually Leo's, because while it looks the best of any we've seen, it has the weaknesses of both scenarios above. It conceals the piece's faults and it's not accurate to how it will appear on your shelf. Lighting can go either way in presenting a subject, but filters only betray the subject in order to make a pretty picture.
Last edited: