Photoshop Ethics

Upon doing some research online regarding photoshop and ethics, one question seemed to be reoccurring: when is it okay to digitally alter an image, and how much is okay? These days, photographers seem to have a set of rules and guidelines to follow as far as digitally altering images goes. But how much altering is too much? I continually came across the story of a man named Brian Walski who lost his job in 2003 after combining two photos of the war in Iraq and passing it off as one. There were several other similar stories of photojournalists who had been fired or suspended for altering their images too much. But just how much is too much? We live in a world based around our computers and now that photoshop is here it isn't going anywhere. Asking a photographer to take a photo and leave it 'as is' without any editing at all isn't going to happen. But the problem is figuring out where to draw the line.
It's not just in photojournalism, either. Ad campaigns all over the globe are getting into trouble for digitally altering either their products or models to the point that what is being advertised isn't what really existed at the time the photo was taken. Is it okay to edit out the blemish on a model's face but not okay to shrink her waistline? Everyone knows that the models you see in any advertisement for any product have been altered in some way, but we still continue to do it and companies continue to get in trouble for not only over-editing their ads, but setting a bad example for the young boys and girls seeing these ads.
Personally, I think we too often go too far with photoshop. It's gotten to the point that when we take pictures instead of focusing on the composition or trying to get the best shot possible at that time, we instead go "Oh, if it doesn't turn out right I'll just edit it later." It's one thing to fix a blemish on a model's face or alter the color of a tree to make it brighter, but it's another thing entirely to change the photo to the extent that it represents something that was never even there. If you're going to use photoshop to that extent, then at least make it completely known that that was the case. But passing off a heavily edited picture as something that was completely natural and untouched by computer software is dishonest.

The Brian Walski photo:

Five articles I found on photoshop ethics:
1. http://sundial.csun.edu/2010/03/the-ethics-of-photoshop-and-photojournalism/
2. http://www.all-things-photography.com/photography-ethics.html
3. http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/post.php?id=425
4. http://digitalnewsjournalist.com/2010/04/21/photo-ethics-in-the-age-of-adobe-photoshop-cs5/
5. http://lauri-the-artist.com/ethics-of-photoshop/

Homework Collage #2

In-class Collage

My First Collage Attempt via Photoshop

Final Collage


Original Photos used in collage...

The Suppression of Creativity: A Response

When I first glanced at the video of Larry Lessig I immediately thought that I would be bored. Pretty much anytime a professor gives me a video to watch it consists of some professional lecturing about a subject using terms I don't understand. I wasn't really expecting much different of this one. But I am happy to say that I was wrong, and made that judgement a bit to quickly. Not only does Lessig bring up great points about the relationship between creativity and today's technology, but he does it in such a way that is easy to understand and humorous.
The main point behind the presentation was to discuss how today's laws regarding copyright are inhibiting creativity among people, mainly today's youth. He brings up the point that today, instead of encouraging kids to use amazing sites like Flickr, Youtube and other creative outlets, we're taking the things they do create and using our laws to turn them into internet pirates. If a 10 second clip of a cartoon is used or a 30 second snippet of a song is played as background to a video, the law is jumping on these people and calling them thieves for using a piece of media protected by a copyright.
I am an avid Youtube watcher. I enjoy perusing videos in my spare time (and when I should be doing schoolwork) and I know many people my own age who use the site to upload their own videos. Personally, I think the entire idea of Youtube is amazing. The fact that you can take your webcam or camera and use it to create whatever you want and share it with the rest of the world in just a simple click is astounding. But there have been many times when I've watched a video that someone my age has put up, bookmarked it and gone back to watch it again later, only to find it was taken down due to copyright infringement.
I understand that the artists who create these pieces of media want to protect their work and they have a right to that, but at the same time I find it very hard to believe that a 14 year old kid using a song in a homemade video is really out to rid that band of their earnings. In order to create anything anymore you have to jump through countless hoops and hurtles to make sure you're not breaking the law. I think Larry Lessig made a great point when he stated that we're taking today's youth, who just want to use this amazing technology to create something of their own, and turning them into pirates.
Now, more than ever, we have so many tools and outlets at our fingertips that we can use to create whatever we want. This freedom of creativity should be encouraged, not stifled. We should be telling kids to use the cameras, microphones and computers available in almost every home in this country and get to work creating whatever they want. We shouldn't be telling them to let it go to waste in fear of breaking the law.

Larry Lessig

A Walk Through Philly

This past Sunday I went a walk through the Rittenhouse Square area of Philadelphia. One of the great things about going to a school like Temple is you're only a short subway ride away from the heart of the city, with all of it's best features at your fingertips. After a bit of uncomfortable walking through the rain (next time my roommates and I will remember to check the weather forecast before we leave the apartment) we meandered our way down Walnut, wandered over to Chestnut and stopped for a quick bite to eat in the park.
The walk itself was fairly typical of any stroll throughout the city, but the fact that I knew I needed to photograph it definitely changed the way I looked at things. Feeling a bit touristy, I had my camera clutched in my right hand for the duration of the trip and I found myself searching for things I deemed interesting enough to photograph. I found myself looking up a lot more, trying to find good shots of the buildings above and looking at the scenic park below. The objects I collected are things that I acquired throughout the day from shops I visited and places I stopped by.
This is my second year at Temple and I've lived less than an hour's drive from the city my whole life but I realized while going on this walk that I kind of take it for granted. This was probably the first time out of the hundred times I've visited the city that I actually bothered to stop and take a picture of something. Typically I'm too busy chatting or moving about or planning my next step that I never really think to document the experiences I have in the city.
The pictures themselves are nothing crazy. I don't have an amazing eye for photography so most of what I came up with were scenic views of the park or views of the buildings and sidewalk that I found interesting. But looking back on them it's definitely cool to see a picture I took and think, "I remember exactly when I took that, why I took that, and what I was doing when it happened." To me that's the best part of photographs. The images themselves are nice, but more often the memories associated with them are even better.