Readings 7: Reading Partner

Readings 7: The Truth or Fiction – Digital Photography

Week 7: Truth or Fiction – Digital Photography

I Was There. Just Ask Photoshop.

This article talks about the common applications of photographic manipulations. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with digitally manipulating a particular photo as long it is your photo. For instance, I love to edit the color, tones and anything else to extreme measures. I have a keen imagination and I would like to “recreate” everything I imagine. Photoshop really comes in handy when it comes to a situation like this one.
In his article I Was There. Just Ask Photoshop. Alex Williams talks about a woman who removed her ex-husband from all her photos in order to create a new reality, which is “much more pleasant.” In her own reality she knows that these things happened, but she wants to remember them in a good way. She wants to keep only the good and pleasant memories. I don’t really think that this can help in this situation, because when she takes a look at these photos in 10 years, she will remember his presence there and he will be still a part of the whole experience. It is not that easy to forget someone (especially if this person was your husband). Anyway, I don’t really see anything wrong in this situation. I mean.. the photos belong to her and she has the right to do whatever she wants with them. I, personally, wouldn’t do this. I’d rather delete the photos, but it was her choice.

Questions:
What are the limits that you feel are appropriate for editing a photograph?
Do you think that cropping her husband was the best solution to Laura’s problem? 

Week 7: Truth or Fiction – Digital Photography

No Boo-boos or Cowlicks? Only in School Pictures

This article reminded me of another one that I recently read. In short, the author of the other article was talking about a photographer who placed a brown smiley face on the top of a student’s face, because the boy failed to bring a signed permission slip for the photo. When I saw this image I was shocked.. How can you do something like this? Just because of the fact that his parents forgot to sign some document, giving their consent for their son’s picture to appear in a class photo, doesn’t give the photographer a permission to do something like this.. Is this the best thing he could come up with? I’m just speechless..

Anyway.. in her article No Boo-boos or Cowlicks? Only in School Pictures Sarah Nir talks about a company that offers to retouch the Bay Ridge Preparatory School school photos. To tell you the truth, I have mixed feelings on this topic. On one hand, when it comes to minor changes, there is nothing wrong with it. Oliver Tracy, for instance, had a scab under his eye (from a tumble while he was playing tag). Digitally removing this scab will help Oliver’s self esteem when he takes a look at the photo in the future. If I had a huge scab on my forehead, for example, I wouldn’t be very enthusiastic about it. I would definitely choose the option to remove it.
However, we have to consider the psychological impact of these potential digital manipulations on children. There is a high probability that a 10-year old kid wouldn’t be able to comprehend the reason behind the retouching. Photoshopping a particular photo will automatically tickle the kid’s fancy and, as a result, he/she is going to start asking questions such as: What’s wrong with me? Do I look bad? and so on. Kids will be left with the impression that they are not beautiful enough to be in a certain photo as they are.
Overall, I think that retouching is fine when it comes to some minor changes such as removing scabs, moles, acne and so on. The inappropriate use is when people want to change how their kids really look like.

Questions:
If you were Michael Terzuoli’s parent, would you allow some team of photographers to digitally remove your son’s birthmark?
Should retouching a memory (such as a school photograph) even be an option?  In this way, do we alter the actual memory? 

Week 7: Truth or Fiction – Digital Photography

Smile and Say “No Photoshop”

The front cover of a magazine is the tool by which the consumer classifies one magazine from another. This cover also shapes the reader’s comprehension of the material inside the magazine. Most of the women’s magazines feature famous actresses, models, athletes, or singers on their covers in order to make a bigger profit. But here comes the question – are these women real? When every single magazine ad or cover shows a full color glossy photo of a beautiful and almost perfect “object from Mars”, people start to question themselves and ask if they can measure up. Many of them are aware of the fact that the majority of these photos are chopped and cropped, touched up or digitally manipulated in some way. Some editors even go the other way and make the images worse than they originally were. There are numerous examples of fake covers that really pushed the pixels on a photo. The author of Smile and Say “No Photoshop”  provides us with a couple of examples. I especially liked the example including Reese Witherspoon.
This article reminded me of an Ugly Betty episode. In this episode Betty meets Natalie Whitman (a model who is posing for the Mode magazine). During their first meeting Betty realizes that the magazine’s editors have decided not to use Natalie’s original photos. On the contrary, they manipulated every single photo in order to make her look skinnier since she put on weight. The newer (digitally manipulated) version of the photos is way more different than the original. Betty is really shocked, having in mind that she was kind of jealous of Natalie’s appearance. Betty (as well as many other girls) admires the models on the covers, thinking that this is the way they really look like. However, not all women are slim and appealing. As a consequence, may affect their life – they can stop eating and try to loose weight. What is more, as it can be seen from the episode, Natalie is not really excited about these changes either. There is a scene in the episode, where the audience can see her sitting on a chair in from of a computer, playing with the touchup program. With every single click she becomes skinnier and gradually disappears. This retouching is a way of loosing her identity..
Cover models are posed with their eyes, low cut shirts, and skinny bodies staring the reader in the face. It is true that some of them look gorgeous, but we should have in mind that the photos that have been used on the covers are not real. The saddest thing in this situation is the fact that these images give women giudelines for how beauty should be defined. In my opinion, judging women’s magazines by their covers produces a narrow and limited notion of what it means to be a woman, what women should be concerned about, and what their lifestyles should entail.

Questions:
If you were a celebrity, would you be okay with the idea of your photo being digitally manipulated?
Would you like to see more real photos on magazine covers? Should digital manipulation be completely out of the question when it comes to magazines and newspapers? 

Week 7: Truth or Fiction – Digital Photography

Blame Photoshop, Not Diabetes, for This Amputation

This article posed a very interesting question – who should represent people with disabilities in advertising? The answer (at least for me) is a pretty simple and straightforward one. There shouldn’t be any question about a person with a particular disability representing one with the same disability in an advertisement. Let’s consider the following examples in order to compare the situations:

• Who should represent African-Americans in ads?
• Who should represent women in ads?
• Who should represent seniors in ads?

The answers are pretty obvious. So is the one to the first question.
However, in his article Blame Photoshop, Not Diabetes, for this Amputation, Patrick McGeehan talks about a similar situation with a different outcome. In 2012, the Bloomberg Administration revealed a new poster in order to raise awareness of the harmful effects of fast food and sodas. The advertisement was placed throughout the New York subway system, and its main goal was to emphasize on the severe health risks of diabetes. The posters featured an overweight man on a stool, his right leg missing below the knee. According to the article, the cause of this man having no leg is because of diabetes. However, it turns out that this person is extremely healthy and his legs were intact. Obviously, as we can see, this man was just an ordinary actor. He doesn’t have diabetes and he was just posing for the image. This image was digitally manipulated in order to convey a particular message.. and in this case I believe that the digital interference was just not right. The most interesting thing in the whole situation, though, is the fact that the city couldn’t identify him. The photographer who took the photo admitted that he didn’t know his name as well.. Having in mind that we live in a century where we basically have no private lives and the government knows every single detail about every individual, it is extremely hard for me to believe that nobody can recognize him..

Questions:
Do you think it makes a difference if you use an actor as opposed to a real amputee in an advertisement like this one?
Do you think that they should have placed a label below the image saying that the image was digitally manipulated?

Week 7: The Truth or Fiction – Digital Photography

Photoshop and Photography: When Is It Real?

The advent of Photoshop unleashed the capacity to construct and influence images in so many different ways, that people no longer unthinkably believe what they see. Every single succeeding version of Adobe Photoshop includes new highly developed methods, which allow designers to execute certain enhancements on photos/images before posting them online. Some of these designers are so good in what they are doing, which makes it is almost impossible for the viewers to detect all the corrections that have been made on a particular photo. However, the author of Photoshop and Photography: When Is It Real?  talks about a couple of photos which obviously have been manipulated to such an extent that ordinary people could find the shocking discrepancies as soon as they take a look at them.
After reading this article, I was extremely curious and decided to find these two photos that won the annual Reader’s Photos Contest.

In the first photo we can see a motorcyclist chased by a tornado. It’s a pretty awesome photo but it really can’be more obvious that this masterpiece had been manipulated.

The second photo shows a flock of seagulls wheeling around a lighthouse in “amazingly photogenic formation.” Not only the formation is amazingly photogenic, but also the colors of the photo don’t really look real.
Don’t get me wrong. In my opinion these photos look great, but it’s just not fair that they won the contest.. Photoshopped images should have been evaluated in a different category. It would be impossible for any photographer to create a single photo that can compete with the magnificent composition that can be created with a multitude of images (obviously, the first photo of the motorcyclist is a mixture of different images). Comparing digitally manipulated photos to original photos is like comparing a particular photo to a drawing. It is true that they both look real, but they are far too different.

Questions:
Do you think that bringing a particular photo into Photoshop in order to remove red-eye is something that crosses the line between Photography and Photoshop? Is there something wrong with it?
Do you think that there should be some kind of limitation to how much one photo can be manipulated?