Photo Manipulation and Ethics
What are some of the main points you read about in the website above regarding manipulating images?
Manipulating photos can be a very controversial, tricky thing for a photographer or journalist to do. When used inappropriately, it can cost people their jobs or reputation. Though photo manipulation has become so common and easy to do throughout the years, judgement plays a big roll in what alterations are ethical. Almost all popular photos have been manipulated, even if they don't appear as if they were. Photo manipulation brings up the issue of people being able to trust the pictures they see. Photographers should be able to manipulate a photo to enhance it and add quality, but not to change the reality of the photo. Changing the story for feeling f a photo through editing is unethical at all times.
What is the philosophy of newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York times regarding image manipulation?
Washington Post and New York Times have very strict requirements that their photographers must follow in order to keep their jobs and avoid unethical photo manipulation. There are conventional "rules" for photographers when it comes to manipulating an image, and these particular magazines take the rules to heart to make sure avoid manipulation exposure situations avoided.
What do you think are acceptable things you could do to an image and not cross the line unto an unethical manipulation?
The line between ethics and unethical photo manipulation can be very thin and unapparent if photographers are not careful. I think it is somewhat okay to modify someone's appearance, as in weight and skin, to improve their overall look, as long as photographers do not take it over board and the people still look similar to how they do realistically. I think things like simply cleaning up a picture are okay, but when a photographer changes the photo to represent something that didn't happen, it is not okay. If a photographer manipulates a photo to represent false events or portray a different emotion, they have crossed the line.
Most Unethical
This photo is unethical because it is depicting something that didn't really happen and is creating controversy over the topic of race. Though they wanted to show the diversity at their school, there was absolutely no need to photoshop a black man into the picture to prove their point. Finding a black student in a real school environment and taking a photo would've been much better. Viewers could find this very offensive, especially if one of them happened to be the black student who was photoshopped into the photo.
Least Unethical
This photo is not too unethical because the photographer did not manipulate the image in a way that changed the emotions of the viewer or changed what actually happened. He had the horse trainer removed to make himself look better, which isn't any worse than modifying someone's appearance so they look better. This manipulation is similar to a lot of the ones I've seen today, and I do not think the photographer crossed a line in making it unethical.
Manipulating photos can be a very controversial, tricky thing for a photographer or journalist to do. When used inappropriately, it can cost people their jobs or reputation. Though photo manipulation has become so common and easy to do throughout the years, judgement plays a big roll in what alterations are ethical. Almost all popular photos have been manipulated, even if they don't appear as if they were. Photo manipulation brings up the issue of people being able to trust the pictures they see. Photographers should be able to manipulate a photo to enhance it and add quality, but not to change the reality of the photo. Changing the story for feeling f a photo through editing is unethical at all times.
What is the philosophy of newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York times regarding image manipulation?
Washington Post and New York Times have very strict requirements that their photographers must follow in order to keep their jobs and avoid unethical photo manipulation. There are conventional "rules" for photographers when it comes to manipulating an image, and these particular magazines take the rules to heart to make sure avoid manipulation exposure situations avoided.
What do you think are acceptable things you could do to an image and not cross the line unto an unethical manipulation?
The line between ethics and unethical photo manipulation can be very thin and unapparent if photographers are not careful. I think it is somewhat okay to modify someone's appearance, as in weight and skin, to improve their overall look, as long as photographers do not take it over board and the people still look similar to how they do realistically. I think things like simply cleaning up a picture are okay, but when a photographer changes the photo to represent something that didn't happen, it is not okay. If a photographer manipulates a photo to represent false events or portray a different emotion, they have crossed the line.
Most Unethical
This photo is unethical because it is depicting something that didn't really happen and is creating controversy over the topic of race. Though they wanted to show the diversity at their school, there was absolutely no need to photoshop a black man into the picture to prove their point. Finding a black student in a real school environment and taking a photo would've been much better. Viewers could find this very offensive, especially if one of them happened to be the black student who was photoshopped into the photo.
Least Unethical
This photo is not too unethical because the photographer did not manipulate the image in a way that changed the emotions of the viewer or changed what actually happened. He had the horse trainer removed to make himself look better, which isn't any worse than modifying someone's appearance so they look better. This manipulation is similar to a lot of the ones I've seen today, and I do not think the photographer crossed a line in making it unethical.
Comments
Post a Comment