Ethics in Photography?

[NickDivision]

Ok, I'm not sure how everyone feels about this, but exactly where do we draw the line in image editing? Something as simple as watching ESPN really makes you think. A baseball player gets traded and there's a picture of him in his new uniform, even though he's never put it on yet.

I guess that's okay, but what constitutes going too far?

In my mind, when they airbrush Courtney Love to make her look passable, that's just too far.

 

[Matt Crooks]

The picture of me on the pool table with chainsaw boy went too far....

 

[Dragongrrrl]

funny to see Matt replying to a photo ethics thread...

Jaime should edit the Chocolate Starfish picture and make it Patrick Starfish instead. Perhaps then her ISP wouldn't have such awful seizures.

interesting that you mentioned this today - I saw a bit on the news about the picture of Kerry and Fonda at the anti-war demonstration being faked. well, duh, it was obviously a fake - her boobs are much smaller in real life.

 

[jaimek]

There's an idea! *scuttles off to find a picture to superimpose*

Editing's fine when it's parody or just gentle airbrushing, but when it's done to deliberately mislead people, that's not cool; it's sorta like distorting the facts.

 

[scooterSST]

Ok, I'm not sure how everyone feels about this, but exactly where do we draw the line in image editing? Something as simple as watching ESPN really makes you think. A baseball player gets traded and there's a picture of him in his new uniform, even though he's never put it on yet.

I guess that's okay, but what constitutes going too far?

In my mind, when they airbrush Courtney Love to make her look passable, that's just too far.

The advent of high end photo manipulation tools has certainly damaged the photograph as the be-all, end-all proof of somthing. In the hands of a talented graphic artist a photo can be doctored to be something or someone totally different, the plethora of nude Britney Spears shots that are out there on the internet is a prime example, these shots can be career damaging.

Our current legal system is hard pressed to keep up with technology, it'll be interesting to see where this leads.

 

[Chi-towngrl]

The advent of high end photo manipulation tools has certainly damaged the photograph as the be-all, end-all proof of somthing. In the hands of a talented graphic artist a photo can be doctored to be something or someone totally different, the plethora of nude Britney Spears shots that are out there on the internet is a prime example, these shots can be career damaging.

Our current legal system is hard pressed to keep up with technology, it'll be interesting to see where this leads.

But you have to admit, looking some of these people without it would be like burning the retinas out of peoples eyes.
Plus, what would Playboy be without it?? Think about that boys? Your fantasy women would look just like the rest of us!!!

 

[NickDivision]

no, some of those crazy store-bought, fake tan chicks really do look that good. It's when they grab the wal mart chicks and airbrush them more than bombers in Long Island, that you have to worry.

 

[eaeolian]

Why? The Wal-Mart chicks are easier...

</kidding>

 

[Chi-towngrl]

Well, thankfully I shop at Target! At least I have a little class!!!

 

[eaeolian]

You meet a MUCH better class of people at Target.

When I'm not there, anyway.

Mike