Artistic Conundrum :: To Make a Stink or Not to Make a Stink?

So I routinely contract with the college I work at for photography services. The photography gig is totally outside the normal job duties I perform for another department. The Performing Arts Department pays me for me for shots, hence the contract. My dance photos have been used numerous times in the past for promotional materials, both in print and online, and recently I was pretty happy to have nailed a cover-shot. (Yea!)

Now the downside...

My photo was pretty drastically altered for publication and my conundrum is this... I really don't like what they did to my photo. I don't like it a lot:
.....

.....
.....
.....
.....
.....

.....
.....
.....
I'm working on getting past the color-scheme and overall layout, which is bad enough, but... That background! ARE THOSE CLOUDS??!! And seriously... Selective Color?!

.. *vomits quietly*

Unfortunately there is nothing in the contract about manipulation prior to publication. Part of me wants to have a (polite) conversation about this, while another part of me says, "Don't be an idiot, Paul! They pay, and they pay rather well, so shut up and keep shooting." I just don't know if it's even worth getting worked up about. Legit complaint? Am I being precious? I don't mean to imply I'm losing sleep over this but I see this shot all over campus, Monday through Friday and it's kinda wedged itself under my skin.

Opinions appreciated as I work through this... I see my therapist at three o'clock.

Paul, what is the checkerboard pattern on the back wall? Was that from textured wall paper? I'm not crazy about it (just my humble opinion). To me the background comes across as somewhat pixelated which is why I'm asking.

If this is the first time they've edited one of your photos, my suggestion is to speak with whoever is on the other end of the contract. Keep your cool and be polite. Obviously you've got to swallow this incident and keep it down if nothing was ironed out ahead of time. I'm not familiar with photography contracts. It will be interesting to hear if people include the possibility for photo manipulation in theirs.

Paul,

Frankly, I am reminded of the old saying, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I actually like the cloud and blue coloration effect (sorry). The main subject, the dancer (from what I can see) is true to your image. Now if they had given the dancer pink shoes and a green dress for example, I would vomit loudly!

hark said:

Paul, what is the checkerboard pattern on the back wall? Was that from textured wall paper? I'm not crazy about it (just my humble opinion). To me the background comes across as somewhat pixelated which is why I'm asking.

Click to expand...

I think what you're asking about is the scrim. It's a semi-transparent screen that drops down from the ceiling. I agree it doesn't look good in my original but that's pretty much how it looked out of camera. The shot has also also been compressed a number of times by now because I'm posting from my office computer (cyber-slacking!) and the original raw file is on the home-pc. The .tiff submitted for publication was fully processed and the background was much "cleaner" than what you're seeing here. .

hark said:

If this is the first time they've edited one of your photos, my suggestion is to speak with whoever is on the other end of the contract. Keep your cool and be polite. Obviously you've got to swallow this incident and keep it down if nothing was ironed out ahead of time. I'm not familiar with photography contracts. It will be interesting to hear if people include the possibility for photo manipulation in theirs.

Click to expand...

This is the first time they've done anything more than a minor crop. Well, that and lettering... But I'm willing to let that go.


.....

Bikerbrent said:

Paul,

Frankly, I am reminded of the old saying, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I actually like the cloud and blue coloration effect (sorry). The main subject, the dancer (from what I can see) is true to your image. Now if they had given the dancer pink shoes and a green dress for example, I would vomit loudly!

Click to expand...

You're certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm glad you like it! The shot has gotten a lot of rave reviews so you're far from alone.

Paul,

I recently watched a video from Daniel Norton who discusses this very topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b3qmkIg58Q

If I were in your shoes ( I'm not) I would first have a polite conversation and voice my dissatisfaction about the matter and ask that maybe the next time they do a drastic alteration that I would be consulted...

I would also ask if that were not possible that at least they would remove my name from the photo.

If they are unwilling to make such accommodations, then I would ask myself if it's worth the extra income to me. If I was just staring out in life , getting married, thinking about raising a family, then personally I would not care. Lots of people have to do things that they don't enjoy to make a living . On the other hand if I didn't need the money, I would probably quit doing this gig if they were not accommodating.

Good luck.

Horoscope Fish said:

I think what you're asking about is the scrim. It's a semi-transparent screen that drops down from the ceiling. I agree it doesn't look good in my original but that's pretty much how it looked out of camera. The shot has also also been compressed a number of times by now because I'm posting from my office computer (cyber-slacking!) and the original raw file is on the home-pc. The .tiff submitted for publication was fully processed and the background was much "cleaner" than what you're seeing here. .

Click to expand...

I understand. The reason I asked is because I had a previous issue with pixelation on a full size image and wasn't sure if that's what happened here. It must be the scrim then. Hope you get it all sorted out to your satisfaction.

Prefrosh01 said:

Paul,

I recently watched a video from Daniel Norton who discusses this very topic.

Click to expand...

Thank you posting that link. That's some seriously good stuff.

"Yeah, it sucks they didn't have enough artistic notion to know your image was perfect just as it was..." HA!! Dude!

Taken out of context it makes me laugh but he really nailed how I've been feeling about this. Taken in context, with rest of his whole thought train starting at 3m 40s, he's spot-on.

Horoscope Fish said:

Thank you posting that link. That's some seriously good stuff.

"Yeah, it sucks they didn't have enough artistic notion to know your image was perfect just as it was..." HA!! Dude!

Taken out of context it makes me laugh but he really nailed how I've been feeling about this. Taken in context, with rest of his whole thought train starting at 3m 40s, he's spot-on.

Click to expand...

Paul,

I'm glad you found it helpful/insightful.

I have learned so much here from everyone, I like to help out when I can!

Good luck with however you decide to move forward with this!

I had a response, but I think it was covered by that video. When you sell an image for adverts, you can't really tell them how to use it. They know what they want artistcally on their ads.

It looks good for what it is, a colorful spring ad featuring a ballerina that looks like she is dancing on water, which might be why they added the clouds, so it will look like the horizon (or it could be like a painted stage backdrop.)

I looked up their website, your image looks good on there. What they did with the spring advert kind of goes with their style when you compare it to their Legally Blonde advert. Very pink with the subject placed in front of a pink bokeh background.

Your photography is good, and I don't think it got lost in the final product. I say, keep putting the checks in the bank and let them do whatever it is they are going to do.
Maybe you could pitch a gallery wall in their lobby featuring their dancers to help promote the theater. Your vision. Hey, I didn't nickname you the Digital Degas for nothing.

I don't blame you for not liking the final product. It's pretty far from your original, and they took a nice black and white shot and turned it into a strange pastel nightmare.

In the end, if they pay for the picture, I guess they can do as they like after you deliver it. I am reminded of a blown grass picture of mine that was used on the cover of a poetry publication. They turned it sideways "because the grass should be pointing up." At least they apologized when I pointed it out.

Yours is art, theirs advertising. From an advertising stand point theirs will probably work better. When the contract comes up for renewal make some changes.

I don't think I would get too worked up over this. What makes a good photo is very subjective. If they felt it would better serve their needs this way, so be it.

Great point Needa.