Because of the ease of manipulating digital images with Photoshop, some people wonder if the images are “real” or “artistic” and wonder if they can believe everything they still see. But since the invention of photography, photos have been fake – this is nothing new. In practice, digital images can be modified in different ways. Changes can be made by adding, moving, or removing elements, changing colors, contrast, or brightness, burning and dodging (or dimming or brightening parts of the image, for example, to defuse a background), cropping a photo, flipping an image from left to right or horizontal to vertical, etc. Personally, I wouldn`t put as much emphasis on painting a photographic scene because you had to have the photo first, and getting the photo was the hardest part. I also wouldn`t put much emphasis on a photo that adds details that weren`t in the original image. A proposed solution to the problem of identifying manipulated images is proposed by the National Union of Journalists. They offer this solution: “All NUJ publications use a `no camera` icon that is discreetly but clearly placed in the image area when executing manipulated images.” They also suggest distinguishing 3 different types of photos: real photos; retouched photos; and composites. This process of using a drum scanner was taken further by the company Scitex, which removed the signal from the photomultiplier tube and stored it in a computer where the image could be manipulated before being output into the separation film. These machines were extremely expensive and terribly complex.
This technique was developed in the mid-1970s. But even if people protest against this, photo manipulation is likely to be around for a long time. This means that you need to look for images that look too good to be true. But because they are presented as reality, these processed images can affect our mental well-being. When we constantly see images of artificially perfect people, some of us may begin to believe that these images are authentic and that we can never live up to these unrealistic ideals. This type of harmful thinking can lead to all sorts of mental and emotional health problems. They were apparently cut out of other photos and pasted to a photo of the woman on the right and photographed again in a composite image. When others are not with us to see the original scene in person, we can only share our own interpretation of the original experience.
And we can only share this experience through media other than reality. It can be verbal, through an oral history that tells what we have experienced, or it can be written in words. This can be done through technology such as a simple drawing with pencil and paper or a more complex technology such as film, CCD imaging or video. Unfortunately, photo manipulation is also common in other media, such as advertising. In an effort to sell you something, TV commercials and magazine ads have often been guilty of showing people and products that look better than they actually are. But just as storytelling could represent “truth” with an accurate representation of facts, it could just as easily become fiction. False and manipulated photographs – visual fiction – began circulating shortly after the invention of photography. For an in-depth discussion on this topic among several professionals, read the article: “Little Photoshop of Horror: The Ethics of Manipulating Journalistic Images”. [(v49 n6) Home: p24(25) ISSN: 0032-8510] It can be purchased at NLSearch.com. The article does not so much try to offer solutions, but to clarify the fact that this problem has many nuances and cannot be treated as a black and white problem. Read some interesting thoughts that are in this article. Guidelines for testing whether it would be ethical to print a manipulated image without informing the public are given here.
a photo of Bill Clinton with Ronald Reagan. published before the two even met; Some people say that I go too far in digitally enhancing my astrophotos and that the colors of some of my images are exaggerated and garish. And that`s fine with me. However, it`s my job as an artist to present my interpretation of reality, and it`s their job as a spectator to accept it and do something with it or not, and reject it. Changes can be made to the untraceable images, so it is now discussed that the photos will no longer be admitted into evidence in court. On June 12, 2020, Fox Television was annoyed by this image and several other images digitally manipulated to make citizen protests look like riots in June 2020. Fox claimed it was a simple mistake, but it was clearly unethical. How can we believe everything we still see? With today`s technology, we can literally do anything we want with images. An excellent and comprehensive code of ethics for journalists can be found on the website of the Society of Professional Journalists. Regarding photographic manipulations, the SPJ says: “Although photographic enhancement for pure reproduction is a traditional and accepted practice, larger photographic manipulations, whether digital or hand-rendered, must be labelled as such and must not alter the content or meaning of the moments they represent.” The ethics of digital photo manipulation are complicated because it is not always easy to distinguish between good journalism and good reality reporting. Take, for example, the example of a plane crash site where no photographer or camera was present.
The next day, newspapers published photographic illustrations with the story of the accident. Although these photos were taken on the computer with existing image elements, they gave a good representation of the crash site as described by the survivors. In this case, was it ethical to put this photo on the front page, even if it was said to be a composite? Photo manipulation is almost as old as photography itself, but modern technology has made it common and easy. Photo editing software allows almost anyone to make big changes to an image, from adjusting colors and lighting to adding and removing content. That`s why you should always keep a critical eye on images in the media. Time Magazine and Ford didn`t want to be racist when manipulating their images, but racism is a sensitive subject, making it a dangerous area to manipulate.
