Hey Guys! :)
Yesterday we talked about photojournalism, and we briefly touched on the ethics behind it. So when does photojournalism become become photo illustration?
After looking online most definitions of photo illustration came to the same consensus; it is when a digital photograph becomes a work of art. But wouldn't you think all photography is considered a work of art? Yes, but no. In photojournalism the job is pretty straightforward, to use pictures to convey a news story to the public. But, with the amazing technology we have today, it's so much easier to edit and manipulate the photographs into something they weren't before.
I think it is so interesting that with a flew clicks of a mouse you can add a single tear to someone's face, or even make two images into one creating a different scene, as Brian Walski, a photojournalist for the Los Angeles Times, did.
So if a photojournalist crops a picture, recolors it, and slightly blur out everything that is not the subject of the picture, is that too much manipulation? Some may see it as just drawing the attention of those looking at the photo, but others may see it as manipulation over-kill.
What do you guys think?
--Sequoia Ragland
3 comments:
I think this is a really interesting point. It's hard to say when photo editing crosses the line from simply enhancing the photo to something unethical. I think a good rule of thumb is if the editing changes the meaning of the photo, it is definitely unethical and is a photo illustration--for example, darkening O.J. Simpson's photo to make him look more suspicious. That being said, it could still be difficult to agree whether or not a photo's meaning has been changed.
After reading the points you've made it definitely raised a few points. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with slight manipulation such as darkening, blurring, or cropping because they simply enhance the picture. As long as the picture isn't being changed so much that it turns into a completely different picture. Manipulations should only be applied in order to make the story better.
I think that it depends on the intent of the person editing the picture, and how much it is being edited. If the picture is being manipulated to a point where it is not natural, and things are being added to it, then I do not think it is ok because the picture is being falsified. That could hurt people and their reputations which is not ok. But if the picture is only being slightly enhanced, and not completely altered, then I do not think there is any problem with that.
Post a Comment