Hi everyone,
For the blog post this week, please respond to the two questions below. (And include a mention of which essays from the class readings this semester are informing your answers to the questions).
1) Do photographers of persons who are victims have a special (perhaps ethical) obligation to get out from behind the camera and become directly involved in promoting the comfort or safety of a victimized person whom they photograph?
2) Do photographers or their editors have an ethical responsibility to publicly inform viewers that a photo has been modified digitally or altered with Photoshop?
In response to question number two, i would say that a photographer, if he digitally alters the picture, then he definately has the responsibility to inform the public of his altercations! It is unethical for photographers to alter photos in which they lie to the public and post a picture that is false. The first essay we read in class on this topic, the author said that the photographer has the responsibility to right under the picture what he has altered. i agree with this a hundred percent and say that it definately tries to solve the ethical problem posed with photographers altering photos.
ReplyDeletesara ostrow
In the essay on page 679, Virginia Postrel talks about how the photograph of Sarah Palin in Newsweek was not retouched and should have been. Pastrel continues to say that it is embarrassing to her and this magazine should have done something to her photo. This seems ridiculous to me that nowadays every photo of someone has to be retouched and fixed up in order to be accepted as beautiful. Nothing in magazines seems real anymore. In my opinion, Palin looks great and realistic in the photo and retouching pictures makes it seem so unnatural. Therefore, I do not believe that photographers have any sort of obligation to retouch photos, besides the fact that it may be insulting to the person whose photo is being taken. Furthermore, I believe that any photographers or editors who do retouch photos do have the ethical responsibility to write down or somehow publically inform people that the picture has been altered with Photoshop, etc. It just seems morally correct to do so and especially the person whose picture it is has every right to know that their picture was altered or retouched. In another essay on page 673, it mentions that in the magazine, Texas Monthly, the editors played around with the photo a little and they wrote on the credit page what they did. I think that this is the right thing to do. In addition, the author continues to say that digitally altered photos make things look so real but really are fake. He says that this is unfair to people in the future because our pictures are supposed to be saved for them as a remembrance of the past. But if our pictures aren’t real then what will they have? I really agree with John Long’s point. -Rebecca Aranoff
ReplyDeleteI feel that photographers do have an ethical obligation to inform their readers that an image has been digitally altered. in the case of the picture on page 679 of Sarah Palin, girls can look at the photo and feel ashamed of themselves because the women in the photos look so beautiful, but really they are the result of digital alterations. It is not fair to society that we have to believe that we have to measure up to the models in magazines when they are just a product of touching up to make them look more perfect. I feel if readers were informed that people in these magazine photos were told that this is not how the person really looks they are just drastically touched up to LOOK perfect, it would promote a feeling of self assurance.
ReplyDeleteI feel that photographers should enhance the picture if either a: the person being photographed wishes to remove a blemish, or fix something minor up or b:if its to promote a beauty product in which case it would improve their business. On the larger school I do not think that pictures should be digitally enhanced or changed in any way because it's lying to the people who see it. As a result, it causes many people to become depressed because they view themselves as ugly and fat when everybody in the magazines are perfect and in reality the people in the magazines are far from it. I think the picture of Sarah Palin was beautiful. It showed what she really is like and did not try to change her. The fact that it was up close really showed who she is and let us get closer to her. Photographers should inform the public if the picture was changed unless the change was minor. It is considered lying and its not right
ReplyDeletebased on the interview on page 594, I would think photographers of persons who are victims do hold an ethical obligation to help the victimized person in being more comfortable or safe. the fact that the photographer may be disconnected from which is being photographed, does not exclude the photographer from his ethical responsibilities in helping a fellow man who is being victimized. the photographer should not just stand there snapping away photos as a human being is in distress right before his lens.
ReplyDeletebased on the writings beginning on page 679, I would have to say that photographers and editors do have an ethical obligation to inform the public of any changes done to the original.by not telling the viewer of the changes, the viewer is being misguided in what reality is. true, majority of magazines are known automatically to retouch photos, but the public seems to oversee that and maintain a distorted view of reality.so, if there would be some type of way to inform the public of the change made to the photograph then maybe the public would be more confident in their own skin knowing that they do not need to look like these magazine photos since they are not in fact reality.
After reading the interview on page 594, I realized that photographers have a responsibility to the victim being photographed. It is their moral obligation to make sure the people they are photographing feel comfortable or even, protected. If the person is suffering then I do not feel it is right for the photographer to make use of their situation but they should fell accountable in assisting them in any way they can. In regards to the essay written by Virginia Postrel, I feel as if photographs should not be digitally retouched unless the public is informed. If there is no limit to the amount a photograph can be retouched, then the entire photograph can be looked at as inaccurate. I understand the idea of using the best photograph because everyone wants to look their best. However, changing every detail takes it to a whole new level. It makes every other untouched photograph seem false and causes the outside world to perceive the photograph in a way which is far from factual.
ReplyDeletePhotographers have a moral obligation to get out from behind the camera to become directly involved in helping the individual being photographed. If the safety of the subject being photographed is compromised it is unethical to take a photograph of the individual suffering. In the interview conducted on page 594-596 I find it disturbing that a photograph was taken of Omayra even though it brought about social change. In regards to the second question I feel that editors have an ethical responsibility to inform public that a photo has been modified. It would be ideal for editors to inform the public of these alterations but in most cases the consumer is not made aware. According to the essay written by Virginia Postrel it is at times necessary for small alteration. For example unrealistic images of women are portrayed in dozens of magazines. It would be fair for editors to also incorporate images of real women.
ReplyDeleteValini Persaud
Virginia Postrel mentioned how anchor Megyn Kelly called Sarah Palin's headshot "ridiculously unfair." The world "ridiculously" is a bit exaggerated, but after seeing the photo with my own eyes, I could see why it would bring controversy for many reasons. Although Palin is wanting to become the next Vice President, not America's next top model, her headshot is still a head shot, and head shots are meant to make the person being photographed look beautiful. Natural beauty is key, but fixing a few blemishes or hiding a pimple on one's face wouldn't hurt. Enhancing a photograph to make the person look like a total different person is fraud, but Palin's head shot was unfairly treated. The way one presents him or herself outwardly is significant in some sense as well. Lastly, photograph editors should be credited if they choose to be, but it is not necessarily important to do so. As long as they're getting paid for what they do, it's fine.
ReplyDelete