Introduction:
Recently, one of the most famous photographer get involved into the “Photoshop scandal”. The scandal begins at a show in Italy. One Italian photographer find out an obvious manipulation on Steve’s print. The sign on the road was moved, otherwise it may block the man’s leg. Even though Steve McCurry deleted the origin photo on his blog, people and publications across the Web quickly began digging to see what other McCurry images they could find that had been seriously altered. (1) The result turns out several other photos also have such manipulations. Hence, a hot topic has been discussed a lot lately: Whether should we use Photoshop for photos. After tons of research, I believe that allow to use Photoshop for photos will definitely
…show more content…
For example, I read a news about Britain’s photographic competition, David Byrne was the winner of the Landscape Photographer of the Year award a $16000 prize. However, his title recently been stripped because of using Photoshop. (3) The organizers found out that the image had been manipulated by Photoshop including clouds not in the original image and the impossibility of the sun casting shadows in different directions. (3) After I read the news, there is a situation comes into my mind. While every photographers traveling all over the world try to find out the best landscape, David simply went outside and took a photo of the mountain behind his house. Then, he went back home, opened Photoshop and won the prize. Is that ironically for photography? There is nothing wrong with painting new images with …show more content…
McCurry claims that “I would define my work as visual storytelling instead of photojournalism. Much of my recent work has been shot for my own enjoyment in places I want to visit” (1) However his claims are not acceptable for me either. I found a video which is a TEDx interview of Mr. McCurry from 2015. the interviewer asks him his stance on Photoshop, to which he replies: “I believe that the picture should reflect exactly what you saw and experienced when you took the picture. I don 't think you should have any adjustments in terms of Photoshop — kind of garish colors. I want to just capture life as it is without really interfering, and I want it to reflect reality, actually.” (2) That is what he said a year before, so I believe this is his true opinion to Photoshop. “Visual Storyteller” is only an excuse that he is using in order to avoiding the scandal everywhere. Hence, I believe that those manipulated photos definitely pass the ethical line. However, I feel that he is regretful and guilty for those photos because in his claim, he said that “I try to be as involved as much as I can in reviewing and supervising the printing of my work, but many times the prints are printed and shipped when I am away. I have taken steps to change procedures at my studio which will prevent something like this from happening again.”
An artist has the right to recover damages for any intentional modification of their work of visual art which would be prejudicial to their reputation. 17 U.S.C.A. § 106A (2012). The Visual Artists Rights Act was created to protect an artist’s right to integrity with regard to works of visual art. Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 861 F. Supp. 303, 324-27 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff'd in part, vacated in part, rev'd in part, 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995). When someone intentionally modifies an artist’s work, they infringe on the artist’s right to integrity. See Flack v. Friends of Queen Catherine Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 526, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The defendant does not contest the fact that Striving for the Stars is a work of visual art. (Def’s Answer to Pl.’s
...her and the more modern case of Brian Walski demonstrates the importance of ethics in the mass media. With the public dependent on photographers for images that will give an accurate and true representation of the facts, in some cases even leading to such important decisions as giving relief aid, waging war, or determining votes in an election, it is vitally important that journalistic images be true and unaltered likenesses of real persons and events. Even apparently innocent misrepresentations, designed to create a better image or better prove a point, can have serious consequences for the photographer, the subjects of the image, and the public. It is a reminder of the importance of honesty in all professions.
...e current acceptance of Photoshop. Photo editing only projects influences of bodies that are almost impossibly unattainable. The only way to help those affected by this epidemic is to change how body image is valued at such a high standard, due to the picture retouching that transforms what that actual body being photograph appears to be. Better restrictions must be put on this technique to help save those suffering from eating disorders, along with those who might obtain them in the future if nothing changes. In short, the only way to revolutionize this issue is to make sure that Photoshop is abolished or at least severely minimized in usage. For those that are currently enduring eating disorders, counseling must continue to be offered in order to keep them healthy. A change needs to happen, and it's up to those being directly influenced to refuse the status quo.
She further explained her opinion on the subject in her work what’s Photoshop Got to do with it? Another woman Elizabeth Perle believes that it's too late to consider taking a stand against Photoshop for fear of ruining the careers of actors, actresses, and models. That statement alone proves that society values physical perfection than the health and emotional well-being of people, specifically impressionable teenagers. There are girls everyday who are impacted by the media in one form or
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.
When the car industry comes to mind, you think of Detroit. When oranges come to mind, you think of Florida. When pornography comes to mind, you think of the Internet. Almost everything in today’s society has its place, and the place for the pornography industry is the Internet. Being almost inevitable, pornography has become part of everyone’s Internet experience. Whether its junk e-mail or a nasty pop-up for $3.99 a month subscriptions, its hard to say that there isn’t anyone out there who hasn’t been exposed to Internet pornography in one way or another. One reason for this is the overwhelming size the pornography industry has grown to become. For some, the easy access to the industry has allowed for millions of dollars to be made. For others, this has caused serious problems. Parents who have children know what troubles Internet pornography can bring. Not only do actual pictures and services provide a venue for profits to be made, but software preventing the easy access has became more popular as well.
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 ...
Photoshop can be used to depict opponents in undesirable situations or to depict events which haven’t actually happened. There have been numerous political scandals where one candidate doctors a photograph of their opponent. In 2012 Wil Cardon, a Republican candidate for the senate, launched a campaign against U.S. Representative Jeff Flake by using doctored photos of Flake to imply that he opposed SB 1070. The pictures had been doctored to feature Flake standing with Obama (McCombs, "Flake: Doctored Photos 'Dishonest '."). Here the doctored photograph was meant to deceive voters into believing an opponent had a certain viewpoint. The pictures depicted a scenario which never happened and may not display the full truth. In this case the doctored photograph crossed the fine moral line. The article Is it Real, Or Is It Photoshoped? discusses the increasing concern of doctored before and after pictures presented to clients by physicians (Anthem Media Group). In this case the photograph is purposely trying to deceive a perspective client into believe that the procedure will be more effective than it actually is. The picture does not present the truth in a scenario where it is unethical not to present the truth. Doctored photographs are not only unethical when they are used deceptively for one’s gain, but also when they are used to destroy another’s
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.
In order to win the race, brands sometimes exaggerate the result of their product to win more customers by using external tools or software. In the digital world everything can be done to a photo, and sometimes it changes the meaning of the image. In many areas of advertising (such as the fashion beauty world, health, fitness, diet pills, cos...
In today 's society, people have a very skewed perception of beauty. People are exposed to so many advertisements and pictures that are photo-shopped each day that many do not even realize what they are looking at. They are seeing an image of something that is not real; something that is not even possible to obtain. Photoshop has an outrageously negative effect on men and women in society, creating an unattainable image of perfection.
Now, a more recent threat to traditional painting has arisen. Digital painting with Photoshop and other digital image editors are blurring the lines between computer imaging and traditional painting and illustration.
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.