How much fibbery is too much?

[heni30]

Here's something I finished today as per very specific instructions by the client. Afterwards, going back to the google pic I thought Whoa! He kept saying make it bigger! bigger! (the Empire State building which you can see is teeny tiny but is now 3000 feet high).

.

It was quick and economy class so some of the finer points of quality architectural viz have been by-passed.

 

Is there a limit to how much we can stretch the truth with a clear conscience?

 

 

Edited May 8, 2015 by heni30

[Bruce Hart]

The more fibbing required - the more I'm inclined to put "Artist Impression Only" on the image somewhere.

[notamondayfan]

It's an illustration at the end of the day, not a visually verified image. In my contract is always says "images are for illustration purposes only".

 

And so long as you've got a paper trail from your client with these requests then you're covered.

 

Personally I'd just talk to the client about your concerns, and maybe try to guide them to what you think would be acceptable.

 

Dean

[Stephen Thomas]

I'm sure I remember seeing a project on here where the client had insisted on seeing the Eiffel Tower out of every window, regardless of the orientation in reality. It's just about giving the scheme context, which I think is fine. Even if you wouldn't see it through a camera taking that shot, you would probably still be aware of the relationship to the city if you were there in person.

[heni30]

I was thinking more if people start buying up condos across the street based on the ambiance portrayed in the rendering and then they end up with a Quiznos, a Subway and the Golden Dragon Buffet.

[Ernest Burden III]

I wouldn't worry about it. You can see the Empire State Building from the site, so you showed it. We play with lighting, lie about how clean the place is, remove overhead wires, straighten up leaning poles, put in happy, safe people... all fibbing. It's not photo-journalism. Sure, sometimes a picture has to visually perfect, so then you don't exaggerate the view.

 

In this picture you see a similar vista to the Empire State. I don't remember if I made it taller or even moved it a little to show better, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Francisco Penaloza]

It is all smoke and mirrows George smoke and mirrows

[artmaknev]

Its okay for that particular image, just shows that this building that looks like any other building at the intersection in most of the states is actually in NYC

Edited May 11, 2015 by artmaknev

[Nic H]

i really wouldn't worry about it, its just a picture

[Peter M. Gruhn]

Photojournalism is all fibbing too. ;-)

[Scott Schroeder]

I've only ever had to change an image to reflect reality once in the 11 years I've been doing this. Apparently the people that bought homes that had a view of the railroad tracks got all huffy because the tracks were not reflected in the virtual tour. Since they paid an arm and a leg for their overpriced Orange County McMansions, they decided to light the torches and go after the developer for false advertising. The developer came to us and we had to re-do all homes for sale that had a view of the railroad tracks and stick those into the sales program. We also added in the line, "Artist Conception Only, actual home may differ."