Photo Manipulation and Ethics
A. What are some of the main points you read about in the website above regarding manipulating images?
Due to the access of Photoshop, anyone can easily manipulate a photo to make it look good, which can greatly change what the original photo was.
The power to change a photo very easily weakens the ethics of good/truthful photo taking of an event.
Photos are used by the media to show reality, distorting the photo displays a fake reality that the public will see as the actual reality.
B. What is the philosophy of newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York times regarding image manipulation?
These news medias enforce strict guidelines on editing and shooting a photo, stating that journalism isn't original works of art unless labeled as such, but when the photojournalist's is faced with issues that don't allow the accurate picture of the event, then toning for accuracy is allowable.
C. What do you think are acceptable things you could do to an image and not cross the line unto an unethical manipulation?
Crop the image so that it fits onto a page (or to get rid of distractions), color an image so it looks more normal (photos don't always convey the same colors in a photo as seen by the eye).
On your blog
D. Post the manipulation (this means get that image and post it on your blog) that you think was the most unethical, and explain why you think it was unethical. If you do not know what the word ethic or unethical means, look them up on the internet. It is very important you know what those two words mean. Please write at least 2-3 sentences explaining why you think it is so bad.
Out of all the unethical photos, this one is probably the worst. Two articles report O.J Simpson's crimes/arrest, except the Times article exaggerates the photo to make him more criminal-like. The photo's purpose in this case is to give a visual report of a criminal to the public, and shouldn't be altered to where the criminal is exaggerated to be more "evil".
E. Post the manipulation that you consider the least unethical, and explain why you think it is not as bad as others. Please write at least 2-3 sentences explaining why you think this one is not so bad.
CONTEXT: "1942: In order to create a more heroic portrait of himself, Benito Mussolini had the horse handler removed from the original photograph."
This photo is the least unethical because its purpose was to convey a heroic pose, not to record an event or battle. The image displayed was meant to be a epic portrait of the subject, so it seems reasonable to get rid of the horse handler in the photo. The photo is basically purposed for show, not for recording an important event, so its not too unethical.
Due to the access of Photoshop, anyone can easily manipulate a photo to make it look good, which can greatly change what the original photo was.
The power to change a photo very easily weakens the ethics of good/truthful photo taking of an event.
Photos are used by the media to show reality, distorting the photo displays a fake reality that the public will see as the actual reality.
B. What is the philosophy of newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York times regarding image manipulation?
These news medias enforce strict guidelines on editing and shooting a photo, stating that journalism isn't original works of art unless labeled as such, but when the photojournalist's is faced with issues that don't allow the accurate picture of the event, then toning for accuracy is allowable.
C. What do you think are acceptable things you could do to an image and not cross the line unto an unethical manipulation?
Crop the image so that it fits onto a page (or to get rid of distractions), color an image so it looks more normal (photos don't always convey the same colors in a photo as seen by the eye).
On your blog
D. Post the manipulation (this means get that image and post it on your blog) that you think was the most unethical, and explain why you think it was unethical. If you do not know what the word ethic or unethical means, look them up on the internet. It is very important you know what those two words mean. Please write at least 2-3 sentences explaining why you think it is so bad.
Out of all the unethical photos, this one is probably the worst. Two articles report O.J Simpson's crimes/arrest, except the Times article exaggerates the photo to make him more criminal-like. The photo's purpose in this case is to give a visual report of a criminal to the public, and shouldn't be altered to where the criminal is exaggerated to be more "evil".
E. Post the manipulation that you consider the least unethical, and explain why you think it is not as bad as others. Please write at least 2-3 sentences explaining why you think this one is not so bad.
CONTEXT: "1942: In order to create a more heroic portrait of himself, Benito Mussolini had the horse handler removed from the original photograph."
This photo is the least unethical because its purpose was to convey a heroic pose, not to record an event or battle. The image displayed was meant to be a epic portrait of the subject, so it seems reasonable to get rid of the horse handler in the photo. The photo is basically purposed for show, not for recording an important event, so its not too unethical.
Comments
Post a Comment