Photo manipulation is the process of editing techniques to photographs for the purpose of enhancing or modifying. This could be a mere correction or to the point of even deceiving the viewer. Digital manipulation is becoming increasingly common. It has been impacted by cultural influence, and ethical concerns beyond the technical process and skills involved (Michels). Photo manipulation can be anything from subtle alterations such as color balance or contrast or it may involve overlaying a head onto a different body, size alteration and changing the features on a person.
Today, photo manipulation is widely accepted as an art form. With digital processing, there is almost no limit to what can be done to an image, and many things are done to images with the best intentions. It may be necessary to do slight retouches such as color balance and lighting alterations. Some changes merely improve a photo’s quality or fit the photo into the space available. However, some changes go beyond mere technical requirements and reflect editorial positions. When it works its way into photojournalism and the media, the issue of ethics comes to the forefront. How far can we take digital image manipulation and still maintain photographic integrity? Where is the line crossed between improving and altering?
The growing popularity of image manipulation has raised concern. In Susan Sontag’s book "On Photography,” she discusses the objectivity, or lack thereof, in photography, concluding that "photographs, which fiddle with the scale of the world, themselves get reduced, blown up, cropped, retouched, doctored and tricked out" (Sontag 4). A practice widely used in the magazine industry is the use of Photoshop for photographic manipulation. This process creates a reality that is constructed from an already subjective photograph and it can become difficult to differentiate fact from fiction (Scanlon 7).
As photo manipulation develops this means changes to photographic truth and reality. The question now becomes can we believe what we see? The manipulation of photographs “has come to permeate our visual world” (Exposed). We no longer question the perfection of magazine cover girls who have been artificially gifted with sparkling eyes, flawless skin, shrunk waistlines, elongated legs and an enlarged bust. Newspaper pictures offer color tones that transcend anything in nature and fine detail that no conventional process can convey. Advertising has created a virtual reality world.
Some changes go beyond mere technical requirements and reflect editorial positions (Llewelyn 16). Changes to a photo raise the issue of an author’s moral rights. The author in this paper’s case refers to that of a magazine, editorial, advertising company etc… Manipulating a photo may affect an author’s right to the integrity of the work but those moral rights have important limitations. The author’s right to the “integrity of a work is infringed only if the work is, to the prejudice of the reputation” of the author, distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified photos (Llewelyn 17). Not all changes to a photo are bad because the changes do not prejudice the author’s honor or reputation. Any step taken in good faith to restore a photo by filling in scratches, fixing brightness and contrast or compensating for fading would likely not attract any liability. The changes that alter or distort a photo put an “infringement on the liability qualifying as a potential breach of moral rights” (Llewelyn 17).
The overall question that we come to is what is considered altered and what is improved? I found that in general improving allows for brightness and contrast control, burning and dodging to control tonal range, color correction, cropping a frame to fit the layout as well as retouching of dust and scratches (Llewelyn 15). On the other hand corrections such as adding, moving, or removing objects within the frame, color change other than to restore what the subject looked like, size modification of subjects, cropping a frame in order to alter its meaning crosses the line into alterations (Llewelyn 15).
With the potential to alter body image, debate continues as to whether manipulated images, particularly those in magazines, contribute to self-esteem issues in both men and women. In 2006 Dove promoted a video for its Campaign for Real Beauty, the video title Evolution was to promote Dove’s Self-Esteem Fund. The film opens with a woman entering and sitting down in a studio. Two harsh lights are switched on, and the music starts. The camera then switches to a time-lapse sequence, showing a team of people adding make-up and adjusting the hair of the woman. When the final physical adjustments have been made, the team members all move off-camera and the photographer takes shots of the woman in various poses. One shot is selected from the batch and a series of "Photoshopping" adjustments are made to alter the appearance of the model further, including lengthening the neck, adjusting the curve of the shoulder, altering the hair and skin, and enlarging the eyes and mouth. The final image is transferred to a billboard advertisement. The piece fades to the statement, "No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted." The film ends with an invitation to take part in the "Dove Real Beauty Workshops", the logo for the Dove Self-Esteem Fund (Dove’s Real Beauty). The promotion, launched in 2006, was on the forefront of a current trend in Western culture to abandon the overly idealized images the media portrays of women.
Dove’s objective was to tell the truth about the advertising media, and how they distort our perception of natural beauty (Dove’s Real Beauty). Showing the before and after image of the woman and the amount of photo manipulation that was done reaffirms my statement that photo manipulation may go to far, crossing the line from improving into altering. To alter the content of a photograph “in any way that deceives the public" is wrong, says the digital manipulation code of ethics of the National Press Photographers Association (Llewelyn 15). Ideally, a photograph is the untouched, un-manipulated image. However, in photography, there is a real conflict between an ideology of unedited truth and the reality of editing (Llewelyn 15). In today’s photographic world there is a great emphasis on scrutinizing photographic images for evidence of manipulation.
As computer technology develops, elements in photographs can more easily be rearranged with undetectable changes. With these alterations comes moral complications in determining standards for manipulation that center on a concept of deception and credibility. Recent developments in computer technology make it possible to easily manipulate a photograph. One can change anything from brightness and contrast control, color correction, adding, moving, or removing objects within the frame as well as many other manipulating techniques. Such uses of photo manipulation have created controversy and discussion about their appropriateness in various settings.
- Dove’s ‘Real Beauty’ Is Not The Image Of Transparency.” PR Week. May 19, 2008: 8. Lexis Nexis. Libcat. Ferris State University. 14 April 2009 <www.lexisnexis.com>.
- “Exposed: The Cameras’ White Lies.” Sunday Times (London). June 27, 1999. Lexis Nexis. Libcat. Ferris State University. 14 April 2009
. - Llewelyn, Susan. “Seeing Is No Longer Believing.” Features; Compass. Feb. 01, 2005: 15-18. Lexis Nexis. Libcat. Ferris State University. 14 April 2009 <www.lexisnexis.com>.
- Michels, Christina. “When The Camera Does Lie.” The Times (London). July 20, 2009. Lexis Nexis. Libcat. Ferris State University. 14 April 2009
. - Scanlon, Christopher. “At The Alter Of The Digital Age.” Insight. Sept. 27, 2008: 7. Lexis Nexis. Libcat. Ferris State University. 14 April 2009
. - Sontag, Susan. On Photography. New York: Picador, 1997. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment