Recently, we researched altered photos on the Net. Most images were broadcasted by television, some by magazines, and some just in competition. Ethically, is it wrong to alter an image? My opinion is yes, only if you do not label the image as being altered. Changing how something is seen, is changing what it represents. An example is this first photo. This photo is made to look as if Haiti is in horrible condition, with the ground being a muddy brown, the sky looking dim, shadows looking darker than usual. Colors are bright and dirty, and things seeming pretty slummish. But, this sparked the interests of the Danish Photo Contest judges, and they asked the author, Klavs Bo Christenen, to submit the RAW-version of the picture. The second photo, the RAW-version, is way different from the published photo. He had added shadows, darkened the picture altogether, brightened colors, changed some, even. The picture was sharpened, and slightly cropped as well. Largely, the ground was made to seem twice as dirty, and the sky twice as dim and intense. Christenen had taken the retouching too far on this image, and it was wrong to do so without stating the fact so. Ethically, this was wrong.
Ragga. -_-
1 comment:
My opinion is the same as yours it is wrong to alter and image. Because maybe the picture that was taken was taken for a reason. They way it was meaning to feel was not to be messed with and it is supposed to be this way.
Post a Comment