The digital age brought along with it the advancement of photography, more specifically the practice of photo manipulation. Photo editing software allows for a photographer to take an untouched, raw picture and turn it into anything they want by manipulating the original. The possibilities are endless. Even though image manipulation has been around as long as photography itself, the difference is due to the advancements made in the technology that has made manipulating a photo easy, that has sparked a debate. On the one side there are the supporters, those who see editing as a way to further express themselves through their photos. On the opposing side there are those who claim image editing is an equivalent to trickery, and do not support editing due to the false illusions it creates. Those for and against bring forth convincing arguments to influence their way of thinking. In this essay I will explore the beliefs and arguments both sides pose on the matter of photo editing and whether or not it is moral or immoral.
Photography is one of many ways people choose to express themselves. It is not only a career path but a hobby for many. Photos can be used to express any type of emotion, thing or event, realistic or not. Therefore, those who are pro-editing believe that the invention of photo editing software has simply made easy a new way to create artistic and unique masterpieces that truly allow them the freedom they desire. Photo editing gives a photographer the option to produce something that has no boundaries, such as realism. The supporters see photo manipulation as an enhancement more so than an illusion. Photo editing is not only used to creatively express something that otherwise would be impossible, but also as a way ...
... middle of paper ...
...ents as to why photo editing should and should not be used. Something that stood out the most to me was the idea of the value of beauty and creativity. Both sides accept that photography is meant to be an outlet for creativity that captures beauty. The difference to me was in the definitions they had for beauty and creativity. The supporters of editing seem to think of beauty and creativity concurrently, as in the creativity put into the photo is what makes it beautiful. Those against editing would probably agree with that statement, however they seem to find that beauty lies in the natural representation and one can capture that creatively without altering it. To explore whether or not you agree with the moral or immoral aspect of photo editing, you have to explore the value you place on aesthetics and ethics in terms of photography and what it means in of itself.
In this text readers will become aware of certain things regarding technology available for altering photos and of the ethical and epistemological issues those possibilities raise. Stated above, the young boy’s father Juan Miguel Gonzalez and his attorney presented photos to the U.S. Government that depict Elian smiling and laughing and loving life in Cuba. In this text Patterson and Wilkins discuss scenarios related to media personal changing pictures with technology advancements that make those changes possible. With these advancements was it possible that the father and his attorney had someone change photos of events to help their side of the legal issue? Was it possible that pictures posted by American Media personnel’s were altered to help support the U.S. from receiving any negative attention? The exact opposite of that approach is called eyewash. Eyewash is the use of stock photos of file footage to illustrate news stories, photos used regardless of the context of the original photograph and sometimes without consent of the subject. The day the INS invaded the Miami resident’s house, all twenty local newspapers used that day showed the image taken by a photographer of the agent pointing his automatic rifle at the terrified boy while he hid in the closet of the family’s home. Many other popular photos taken and used from that day
Susan Sontag’s essay on how photography has limited people’s understanding of the world contains many interesting points that can be agreeable while at the same time having few that I tend to disagree with. Photography can be good and bad; it can open our minds up to new cultures and experiences through its imagery. However, at the same time it can limit our understanding of the world around us and of the world around the image it is portraying.
Photography has been around for nearly 200 years and has advanced dramatically with the new technology. In 1826, when the first photograph was taken photography was a very basic art form, but soon after photographers figured out how to manipulate their photos. In today’s society, it is almost unheard of to look at photographs that are raw and unedited, but has it always been this way? Dating back to the first photograph in 1826 by Joseph Nicephore Niepce, photography seemed to be raw, but only a few decades after those photographers discovered they could alter their photos to make them more appealing (“Harry Ransom Center”). Over the past 200 years photos of all different subjects have been manipulated through history and technology seems to be the culprit.
Photography, among many things, is a medium used to further the connection between a reader and the story. It does this by drawing the reader into the world of the photograph, and allowing them to experience the realism of the scenario. This connection has amplified the level of communication between humans, namely, in the field of journalism. In the article “To Tell the Truth: Codes of Objectivity in Photojournalism” written by Donna Schwartz, she discusses the methods employed by photojournalists to manipulate photos in order to give the desired effect, or connection. These methods, along with others from “Critical Media Studies” written by Brian Ott and Robert Mack, will be used to analyze the following photo to show how they create the
To continue, the development of new technologies, such as computers and image editing software, has increased and redefined the nature of false advertising. Programs such as Adobe Photoshop have made the digital manipulation of images possible. One of the functions of this software is “airbrushing”, which in this context refers to the technique used to conceal, eliminate, or alter the appearance of flaws. Image editing software has facilitated the “re-touching of photographs related to any characteristics directly relevant to the apparent ...
Video is one of the most compelling forms of communication of this time. Over the course of the past few years, the gradual but sure drift from analog to digital in video technology has not only improved the abilities of visual communication media to distribute data, but has also improved their abilities to manipulate the data that they distribute. Digital video technology has advanced to the extent that still image manipulation has been usurped by more powerful technological developments that allow elements of a video image to be manipulated in real-time. That is, objects or persons in a video image can be edited out or edited in while the image is in broadcast without the slightest glitch to suggest that some change has occurred; everything would look “real.” The advantages that this technology opens for visual media are extensive. Similar to some technologies, however, it opens up an exploitive edge. Pixels are plastic (can be changed) and using them to distort or manipulate reality is an opportunity open to all users of video manipulation tools. The ethics of such uses and the social considerations of how copyright laws would deal with a technology which manipulates digital works of authorship, works to which copyright automatically attaches, are issues worth considering. This paper explores the possible and actual, reputable and less reputable uses of this technology in an attempt to stimulate discussions about how “well-intended” technologies can be utilized by users in unethical and harmful ways. The paper also attempts to see where possible infringements of copyright’s fair use doctrine has occurred or could possibly occur through use of this technology.
In Photography and Representation, Scruton advances the view that photography cannot be described as a representational art form in the same sense as painting, and that the photograph is unworthy of aesthetic appreciation in and of itself. Indeed, Scruton suggests that it is not even possible to have an aesthetic interest in the photograph, as such interest is necessarily directed towards its subject. In this sense, photography is merely a facilitator of seeing. It is no more a representational art form than viewing a scene through a pair of spectacles, or observing an object through a magnifying glass. It is a simply a tool for seeing-through, and what one perceives in a photograph is quite literally the object
Photography is defined at the art or practice of taking and processing photographs. To understand photography is having insight or good judgment to know how to take the picture, but also edit it if need be. Does photography limit our understanding of the world? What some people haven’t realized is that photography is all around us, whether it is in the person’s mind to see it or not. While we see photography throughout our daily routine, people dismiss the small types of photography and focus on the bigger sceneries like other countries beautiful cities and landscapes. It’s true that in this day and age, most photographs we see have been altered in some way. When photographers use Photoshop to edit our photos, we use many different ways to make that image appealing to the eye. Although, photographers unless told to do so will not change an image into something totally absurd that takes away from being astatically pleasing. Images are a gateway to the insight of the rest of the world’s cultures landscapes, and architecture, and photography is the key aspect to it. Photography is a one way to see the world, but it is better if you go and travel around the world to see it. In order to see if photography actually limits our understanding, we have to first look at the positive side of photography.
A picture is more than just a piece of time captured within a light-sensitive emulsion, it is an experience one has whose story is told through an enchanting image. I photograph the world in the ways I see it. Every curious angle, vibrant color, and abnormal subject makes me think, and want to spark someone else’s thought process. The photographs in this work were not chosen by me, but by the reactions each image received when looked at. If a photo was merely glanced at or given a casual compliment, then I didn’t feel it was strong enough a work, but if one was to stop somebody, and be studied in curiosity, or question, then the picture was right to be chosen.
Introduction: Steve McCurry is a very talented artist who travels world wide to capture the beauty of different cultures. After Steve McCurry’s recent sandal, he is receiving negative feedback from his audience and fellow photographers over his use of Photoshop in his images. McCurry altars his photos using technology more than some industry professionals agree with. Photographer Paolo Viglione discovered the obvious Photoshop mistake in McCurry’s photo at a show in Italy. Viglione blogged about his spotting of a photo glitch in a photograph McCurry took in Cuba.
There is an old saying “A picture is worth a thousand words” which is very true. In the article, "Against Neutrality", by Teju Cole mainly focuses on how a photograph can change a person perspective in an entire different way. Coles states, “The camera is an instrument of transformation”. A photographer has the power to create multiple different perspectives, which can be good and bad. It depends on the person who takes the picture and with the intent of the photo. A photographer is like a writer because they want to send some time of message to their audience.
Photography is a position that has had modifications since the progression of camera development. Photographs are taken for numerous requirements and in the ever adapting group the need for photographs to offer an appeal has been augmented. In this situation, taking the assistance of our professional and proficient photo retouching services can be a worthwhile decision. Used meritoriously, these services brings our photos nearer to the quality we perceive with our eyes and gives us the mystic ability to outdo what we see and transform our dreams into realisms within the canvas of our
Photography is a mindful medium of expression, perspective, interpretation and can sometimes be truth. The changes throughout the history of photography have changed how people see the image they're looking at. In the 19th century, they were no editing options or software of any kind. You just go through the process and take the photo and people could easily tell it was real. Of course it would a shock to see what was once a real life event in that time period, but then transferred on paper "capturing" the moment itself. The truth could easily been seen, now in the 21st century, most of that has changed. There are
The ability to alter images can open creative outlets for photographers and In turn, produce better quality work. Any photog...
Taking photographs and photography itself is a great tool of power in many different aspects of life that one might not realize day to day. Photography has the power to reveal things that if expressed in words, would cease to be as powerful a truth. It serves as evidence of something larger. Yes, photos can be manipulated- yet because they can it makes the viewer even more cautious and observant on the details of these photos. Taking pictures is so much more than what it is painted to be on the surface. It is not always superficial and inconsequential. If you look deeper into the photo meaning and the details about the photos’ source, you observe things you would have never seen otherwise, like the slight hint of sorrow on her face, the contradiction in human ability, and the subtle external truths about the reason we do things, such as take pictures.