ag192305@ohio.edu
Examples of image manipulation
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b759d/b759df96d73616d0b5d721a2834b36270c677f05" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/33bb8/33bb8011393ea55792f184b73ca75ee04d1d3360" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2dcc2/2dcc25987f36dd0fac6dd47653e152b6fa192587" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7a11b/7a11b07e55e7cec3c7ab530a79c8bce3aabe9751" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/018af/018afcdf4fa201d92b50cb96e59ac54f3cf2bc3f" alt=""
(photo source: CNET News,'Pictures that Lie')
From the Toledo Blade and the L.A. Times, to the University of Wisconsin and National Geographic, institutions across the board have doctored photos to communicate often-poignant messages. Whether it’s a school, a political campaign or a respected news source, manipulations such as those occurring in the examples above keep popping up, despite public disapproval.
Is there a difference between what Brian Walski at the L.A. Times did to his Iraq War photograph and what National Geographic did to its cover? Initial reaction would probably be, "Of course!" ... but how different are they really?
Even simple manipulations can be viewed on either side of the always-muddied ethical line. Is using Photoshop to adjust color and/or contrast levels of a photo going too far? I would argue "no" in most cases.
Line in the sand
Although Time's O.J. Simpson cover is an example of simple brightness/contrast manipulation, the magazine starts to cross an ethical line. With the doctoring of the photo, the message of the image is altered. Its meaning begins to shift from fact to dramatization.
That's my line in the sand. If the manipulation causes the image to change meaning, it crosses my ethical line.
No comments:
Post a Comment