Photo Manipulation and Ethics

a.      Manipulation on photography is done to make the photo more appealing, without changing the image drastically. The photo is not changed too much to where it looks nothing like the photo before editing. Advanced technology enables pretty much anyone to have access to editing and manipulating photos. Many businesses, organizations, and magazines publish photoshopped images to draw in consumers and make them believe what they are seeing. Posting manipulated is very controversial because some believe it is almost lying to the costumers or readers, while others say it helps people and the economy as well.

b.       Philosophy of newspapers like Washington Post and New York Times have very strict guidelines over photo manipulation. They believe that even a simple color alter can change the perception of the image by the viewer, which is very important. When journalists turn in their work, they must have an original copy and a manipulated copy, so they can tell the difference. This allows editors to see how the image was changed, and whether it is considered unethical or ethical.

c.     I think that there is a limit to manipulating photos, because at a certain point, the photo will look completely different, which is not ethical. It is okay to take away objects if it is small, yet distracting the viewer from the main subject of the photo. If an object goes with photo well, it is not necessary to remove it. Straightening things in the image is acceptable because it can add balance to the image, which is a game changer for a lot of publishers. Tone and change in color should be very limited because it could either be a huge difference or a small difference. If there is a mood or theme to the article, and they want to make a photo darker, it is okay to change the tone of the image to give the readers a more powerful mood. When people start to change the colors of objects in a photo, that's when I think it becomes way to artificial and unethical. Photos can be edited to create a more appealing and balanced look, and I think that is acceptable because sometimes we just need to adjust a couple things that could change people's opinions on them.

d. I think that this is the most unethical photo because of many things. First,  Oprah was not even originally the face of the first photo, which totally not allowed because the body is not Oprah's body even though the magazine is trying to convince you that it is. Also the original photo is in black and white. Tone and color can be changed in a photo slightly, but not drastically. In this example, color was added to the photo. Also, people photoshopped a pile of money, which is not real according to the first photo.




e. This is the most ethical photo in my opinion because of the minor things that were manipulated. The only thing that was changed was the light exposure of the photo. In the original photo, it is very bright and natural. However, in TIME, they made the image darker and more depressing. This is a good example of photoshop because the light exposure was changed to create a darker and scarier mood for the cover of the article. I know that the picture on the left would be more appealing to my eyes than the picture on the right because it makes me more curious and want to read the tragic story it talks about on the cover.