Beg pardon, Dan, not that you "deserve" it, but you toss up the softballs, I just smack 'em into the field:
("the camera doesn't lie")
If you really believe that, tell me why there are so many UFO photographs? Why are there so many photographs of Ghosts, Gods, Saviors & their Mothers and other "invisible friends"?? If you want, I'd be glad to give you an "unretouched photo" of your own bedroom window, with a properly-exhibited ghost of your own. It's not obvious, or it'd be "debunked" by now, but it's not hard to do either. A film camera can be made to "lie", especially if one takes the time to build their own bellows camera!
One thing the camera really does not do is to eliminate the texture(s) and color(s) of the cordage being photographed. It also does not peer into the depths of a bulky knot to show some important aspect "inside". It also does not add nifty little annotations to help discuss the aspects & attributes that might be important.
Show me a photograph of a Short Splice fully opened. CWA drew it, over a half century ago. On that note...
Do you see many artists' work in knot books?
I admire your nerve, making a bold splash like that in front of the "Clifford Ashley Appreciation Society"!!!
So, at the risk of overstating the obvious, "no, not 'many', just one".
Which one(s) should we follow?
The one which can be proven correct, by pragmatic, peer-reviewed, unambiguous, apolitical, rigorous examination in The Real World. Duh.
Point is, the knot in its in-use/set form is going to often be ambiguous; it can be difficult to discern even with images from different sides.
That's the "standard" argument
against pixtures, dude! As DaveRoot's "Granny Myrtle's Loopknot" -- one of the simplest forms I can find -- proves concisely. Look how well DaveRoot photo-documented it, and yet how difficult it was for the rest of us to "learn", and we're (supposed to be) the "experts"!!
I think that Des Pawson's Handbook of Knots[/u] did a great service by giving photos (blown up) of anglers knots, which have typically been shown as mere squiggles (possibly because few knew what they actually looked like, tied properly--hard to see, etc.!).
I condur, but only because there are already a zillion & six different "typically" drawn renditions of them all, leaving photos as the only remaining "undiscovered country" for DP to explore. And I still believe his artistic skill plus his knotting skill are the only contributing factors to the success of his photography.
Sometimes when I make a knot drawing, I try to capture the final look and yet have the knot unambiguous, and either cheat a little in showing some parts that actually aren't visible when set (but which help clarify ...), or numbering the segments in sequence (SPart = 1, ...) so the viewer can follow the flow of the rope through the knot.
And how, pray tell, do you propose we accomplish all that with photographs?? Or are you, like our late Nautile, merely "playing devil's advocate" to make us all realize the folly of either the "photo only" camp or their "drawings only" counterparts?
It helps in photos ... geesh
All that was quite correct and quite irrelevant to a knot-drawer.
Nautile presented some couple of sets of photographed knots from explorations on a beach & by the Seine; I'd hate to have had to sketch all of those
As would anyone!! And why would a sketch be required of a field discovery, unless the discoverer lacked a camera??
We're "blurring the lines" here between "input" "output" and the "reverence" in between. When you discover an odd kink in a cord, you should capture it for the rest of us using whatever means you have at your disposal. And you should share it with the rest of us (speech-police aboral pores notwithstanding) in like fashion -- any way you can!!
But when the "Reference Standard" for all knots is composed, I can guarantee you its value will be severely diminished by every single effort made to suppress any form of expression (verbal, artistic, photographic, etc.) at all, likewise any contribution made by even "non-members". The IGKT is dancing on the edge of nothingness, IRL, unless all the "wet blankets" are loaded up with smallpox & given to the Indians as God intended.
Jimbo still says that the only hope for success is to incorporate
all input from
all sources, even the one(s) you find "offensive" or "outcast" in any way. Drawings are not enough, pictures are not enough, text is not enough, and the undercurrent, in this forum, of "exclusivity" will wash the whole rig over the taffrail, and the World will soon forget what the acronym "IGKT" stood for.
[/bark]