Photoshop and its Ethical Implications
By Kirsten Boye on 06/19/2009
Category: AwarenessLately a piece of software has gained quite a bit of publicity, this program is called Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop is a graphics design program that can easily manipulate images. It is used in many media production venues and has become a widely used program, from amateurs to professionals. However with its constantly increasing popularity it has also been used in questionable ways.
Photoshop has become in a way a digital makeup artist. It can erase dark circles under eyes, trim away fat and give people muscles they never knew they had. It is most often used on celebrities and models. Often people assumed that the pictures displayed the actual beauty of the celebrity or model and the talents of a very good makeup artist. However lately photos have been leaked of the subjects before 'retouching,' this has opened the publics' eyes to the abilities of such programs. Many people have been outraged by this simple 'beauty enhancement' that is done to the models, but the controversy stems far beyond these enhancements
Even political figures, who are generally not judged on beauty, have been subject to this retouching. This photo of Condolezza Rice was published on the USA Today website. Many complained that the retouching made Rice appear "menacing." Many weblogs gained access to the before photo and posted it everywhere, saying that the USA Today was being bias. Eventually the USA Today acknowledged their mistake and offered this explanation-
"Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards."
Even the president is not immune to this phenomenon. The Washingtonian put a candid photo of Obama on their magazine cover. The photo was retouched from a photo that had been taken of then Senator Obama in early 2007. His swimsuit had changed color, the background was gone and Obama's skin tone appeared more tan and glistening. The Washingtonian admitted that they had changed the swimsuit and background but said that skintone was simply from the glossy finish of the paper. This retouching that has been done to Rice and President Obama is said to be unethical by news standards. Although these may seem like harmless changes in physical appearances the ability to manipulate a photo can lead to disastrous results. Photos of actual news event have been doctored and many fear that soon photos will not be able to be trusted.
So where can the line be drawn in regards to photo retouching? Sure a simple trim there or lightening here can make an image of a person more appealing, but is it breaching the trust that is held between the media and the public? Those responsible for doctoring images like the one in Beirut have been fired and in a way blacklisted, but if the scandals had never been brought to light would these individuals instead have been praised for the photo manipulation skills? The line between ethical and unethical photo manipulation can barely be seen, and the trust that the public holds in regards to news photos is wearing thin. So should image manipulation be considered illegal in all respects, or instead should the public consider each photograph they encounter false until proven true?- Permalink
- Comment
ACCESS
