1. Photoshop is a powerful tool that can help an artist or regular Jane create and enhance photographs. Very cool. But how does this fit into journalistic ethics? Read the following article and think about how journalists, photographers, editors, and designers might be tempted with the powers of Photoshop. Where do you draw the line between ethical doctoring and outright distortion of the truth? Share your thoughts, insights, brilliance.
Read it!
2. A solid feature piece on post-Katrina education. How does this author effectively maintain the audience through the length of the piece? What elements of good writing can be taken from this article? Were there any parts that lagged? If so, why? How does the author maintain objectivity and a balance viewpoint? Share your thoughts, insights, brilliance.
Read it!
9 comments:
In photo we actually discussed this issue quite a bit. I think the ethical implications of doctoring supposedly "informative" photos are huge so the most important thing is to make a distinction between photojournalism and photography as an art form. News media sources need to make the public aware of the intention of the image so as not to misinform or present a bias. For me photojournalism is like a news article and photoshopped pictures are more like op-eds.
In fashion magazines, editors and photographers work to present a point of view to guide the public into certain mindsets. I am personally against photoshopping people to make them look artificially "perfect" because of the ridiculous standards such media creates (check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U). I would not necessarily say, however, that altering photographs of movie stars or models is as irresponsible as photoshopping "journalistic" photos.
The Voice has used photoshop many times in the past as a design tool to convey ideas. I think drastic changes to photographs are appropriate only when the photograph is not meant to show something that genuinely occurred. We just need to use caution to making sure that changing journalistic photos with photoshop does not change the implications of what the original image captured (i.e. it's okay to make a photo lighter for clarity, but not okay to photoshop out clouds to make it look like better weather).
Love,
Anjuli
p.s. Was that too long, Mary?
I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve been begged to remove pimples, shave off pounds, or even change the color of someone’s shirt after photographing them. I completely understand; these are people at birthday parties, participating in weddings, and on vacation – they want to look good and remember themselves that way.
But, there is an important distinction to make when looking at the ethical questions of ‘Photoshopping’. Some tools of the Photoshop arsenal should be completely forbidden to journalists. The clone stamp, vanishing point, and healing patch etc. are tools that change the photo, essentially creating a photo that lies to the viewer. But simply stretching the histogram a bit to improve dynamic range (to make a clearer photo), or saturating colors (provided the story isn’t about environment) is fine. In journalism, the goal of Photoshop, or any other image editing programs out for that matter, should be to enhance the photograph, not to make it different.
Here’s a recent example related to the world of videography - the 2008 Beijing Olympics opening ceremony. Remember oohing and aahing at all of the stunts and visual effects as you were watching it live on TV? Well most viewers know by now that there was a fifty-five second sequence of fireworks digitally added to the show. This section took nearly a year for the visual effects team to create, and was streamed live to the media without notifying viewers that what they were watching was not actually happening. The videographers decided that it would have been impossible to capture some of the fireworks on film, so they simply ‘clone stamped’ them in.
When I saw this story in the news I felt tricked. As a photographer myself, I understand artistic license, and Zhang Yi Mo and the brilliant computer graphics designers definitely implemented a lot of that, but was it really necessary to lie?
Looking at a photograph in the newspaper, and knowing that a part of it is fake, does the opposite of what is intended; it makes me question the validity of the story itself.
Yay, my first post,
Tiras
I have never personally gotten the chance to really use photoshop. But, I still have an opinion about the altering of photographs. As Anjuli and Tiras were saying I feel that the "photoshopping" effect is appropriate in certain situations.
When a photo is changed I feel that if it is done in a harmless manner or as a way to emphasize a message it is acceptable. In the ny times article, I remember reading about the photos where realtives were placed in to complete a memory more effectively. As humans, we always strive to create the best memories and that is fine.
However, what is really difficult about this issue is the media influence. Almost everybody is obssesed with thier appearance or exemplifying something impressive that may not necessarily be true. As in Tiras' example with Zhang Yi Mo, the fireworks were intended to show off something impressive that wasn't actually a reality. Each photo has it own sense of impressiveness, but there is a certain standard that everybody wants to maintain even if it means changing the reality.
Obviously, there are many more factors and different situations involving photoshop, but in general I believe that altering a photo for superficial reasons and to give the viewer a false idea for the wrong reasons is incorrect.
In response to Adam’s thoughts, I agree that humans “always strive to create the best memories”. But is Photoshopping a vacation photo really enhancing someone’s memories? I have always believed that what is stored in your mind is always stronger any amount of JPEG files (or even RAW files!).
For example, Person X had been dating Person Y for five years, and they had suddenly broken up. So, Person X decides to cut Person Y out of every photograph that they had ever taken together in an attempt to try to forget about him/her. Is Person X really going to forget about his/her ex-boy/girlfriend just because they are not present in his/her photographs any more?
Like the family in the NY Times article, Person X is looking for an artificial happiness that just never happened. And while I respect Adam’s opinion that Photoshopping in a “harmless manner” is acceptable, there is always going to be a group of people, however small, that don’t agree with what “harmless” actually means.
-Tiras Lin
This article really intrigued me because, although I have had the opportunity to discuss the issue of photoshop ethics many times, it has never come up in a psychological sense. As much as it touches me that the woman was finally able to have a portrait with her dead father to hang on her wall, I am disconcerted by it. To document something that has never happened seems as though it would lose some of the realistic memories that a photograph brings. Most of the time when I look at or take photos I do it for the purpose of being able to recreate the particular moment that the photograph was taken. If the photo was not actually taken, what memories would I be conjuring?
Furthermore, I feel like creating a photo or removing someone from one is just lying to oneself. Making a photograph fit your personal ideals will not erase what actually happened at the time. I think that fact that people feel the need to do this speaks a lot to our society if we have now developed technology to create the illusion of a perfect life.
Olivia
I always viewed photoshop as a tool for humor. For example, I remember a family friend of mine photoshopped a picture of herself surfing a 60 foot wave in Hawaii. I find it interesting that people use photoshop to alter weddings and family vacations too. While to me, this seems morally wrong, I do respect Adam's point that if it doesn't harm someone, that there is no real damage.
The example used in the article of how people would cut out old partners from family vacation photos was a little odd, but if it helps them get over it, I don't see any harm. The inauthenticity of cutting someone out from a photo, or adding them to a wedding photo is disturbing, and if it is used in a serious context, I don't think it is acceptable. Not only could it be embarrassing, but at times it could be dangerous. Imagine a situation where someone is photoshopped doing something illegal. The realism that one can achieve from simple photoshopping could not only ruin someone's job, but also their relationships with friends and family. It seems to me that making serious statements with photoshop like cutting someone out of a vacation photograph could easily escalate to more serious and slanderous work.
-Matt
Post a Comment