With the uses of Photoshop and editing becoming more and more realistic, there is a moral dilemma concerning "what is too much editing?" Here are some examples of how editing has changed reality/history: 1) the Postal Service removed cigarettes from artist Jackson Pollock and Blues guitarist Robert Johnson portraits to align the stamps with the Federal Government's no-smoking policy, 2) airbrushing changes the figures of women in magazines (incresing bust size, decreasing waste line, altering shape etc.) and 3) changing the colors of galactic/stellar pictures to what "scientists believe are the correct colors."
What do you think? What are the ethical problems of editing photos? Is there a line we should not cross?
I think it is ok to take a cigerette out of the picture, as long as people know that it was taken out. i dont think its ok to change the persons appearance though. alot of young girls look up to celebrities and think that what they see in the magazine is real when its not. I dont care what scientist do as long as it keeps helping us.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why too much editing is wrong is because with editing of women, other women compare their bodies with the models. When it comes down to the chemistry part with the scientists its deluting people and they are not getting the right information. Then when it comes down to editing things out of the picture it hurts the pride of the person who took the picture by changing what they wanted to be there. There is a fine line with too much editing. Those lines are crossed when the things that are being photographed are being designed how they are not supposed to be.
ReplyDeleteI think that editing photos extremely is fine. Everyone has different views of the way they think things should look. The only ethical problem is if someone or something doesn't want to be changed, no one should change it. There is no line we shouldn't cross because who are we to make a line to not cross.
ReplyDeletewhat is the reason we edit things? to make them more appealing to the eyeeeeee. I honestly dont think its that big of a deal. People know editing exists, and they are the ones that need to tell their kids that you dont need to look that skinny, that person is a liar because they do smoke, and those outerspace pictures are made to look that way but knowone really knows what it looks like.... i think we should cross as many lines as possible, screw ethics...
ReplyDeleteI think that we shouldn't make models how they are... it's never real, and it gives a lot of young people self-esteem issues. There's a line that we should draw, but we've crossed it so long ago that I don't think we'll ever go back.
ReplyDeleteThe ethical problems are that we're sending kids a bad image. They're brains are still molding and they don't understnad that you need to be your own person instead of what you see in the magazines or billboards. When kids see stars with clear skin and are really skinny with a bigger bust, that's what they want to become. Everything has become so media based that just watching the television with get the point across to them that they need a different body image. And that may have a part to play in the eating disorders and dieting done by teens. We need to have adds that get the point across that stars rarley ever look as perfect as they do in photos.
ReplyDeleteI think editing photos to your opinion and how you think the photo should look is up to you. However, changing a womens figure and getting rid of an object in the photo isnt the actual photo. But, if your the person that took the photo i think you have the right to edit it how you want.
ReplyDeletei think that there is a line that one can cross, and should not cross due to ethics. the ethical problems in editing photos are when edits are taken to the extreme. for example editing women`s figures and bodies to look like something that is "perfect" and "how women should look." or when things such as religion get involved, because every person has their own ethics and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI think editing pictures to your taste is alright. When it comes to magazines maybe people should calm down on the editing womens face because you look at most of the girls in magazines and can tell their edited that way.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that things such as altering a woman's shape entirely and perfecting skin by removing scars and acne to the point that the subject appears plastic is unethical. Women these days often times feel obligated to be tiny with orange skin, fried hair and caked on make-up to be attractive; when in reality, that sounds...not..so attractive. But why is it that women feel such pressure? It's because the magazines and television that edit, not only women, but people in general to look "beautifully" fake. Removing cigarettes from photos of fame stricken people that are smoking to promote a "tobacco free" ad is also corrupt. Not only is it immoral, it's hypocritical and sends the wrong message to those who are aware of the celebrities habit and causes fans to be uneasy toward the ones they admire. Changing colors as shown in an unedited photo of the universe to the colors that scientists believe is also an iniquitous act. There isn't exactly justification as to why the pictures appear with a certain color and the "experts" edit them to show the "correct" color. I believe in editing to an extent. However, I also believe that if the question of whether or not something ethnical arises, there's a line that shouldn't be crossed.
ReplyDeleteI believe there is an infinite amount of ways you can edit a photo and i definitely believe that there is no limit. Art is art. and who cares if women are mispercieved, we can tell when a girl can not get any skinnier.
ReplyDeleteI think most girl's self-image issues, mine included, derive from the feeling of being obligated to look like these celeberties. Even knowing that they ARE edited, and fake, we still think it looks better than our own bodies and this creates insecurities. Back before photoshop was around, I personally think the woman were more beautiful. They were curvy. They had a roll here or there. They had wrinkles. They were real. Now, we live in this plastic materialistic world. fake boobs, fake noses, fake stomaches, fake, fake fake!
ReplyDeleteIts sending our youth the wrong ideas. When Clayton Cubitt did his Porject on Hurricane Katrina, the potraits of those unfortunate souls...THAT to me was so beautiful. It was so raw, and real. This one woman Ricki, she was homeless, and she looked rather rough, im not going to lie. But part of the caption below the picture said:
"Ricki is only 32. When I asked if I could take her picture she was worried she'd look bad because she hadn't done her hair. I told her she was beautiful. And I meant it."
Why can't the media tell us we're beautiful without our hair fixed? Why do we have to be plastic? It's complete bullsh*t.
He edits his picture to magnify human flaws. He doesn't cover them. Why should he? We all have them.