Once upon a time, photo editing was a real chore. It took a lot of time and was tedious. You could figure on spending hours if you wanted to do anything beyond simple darkening or lightening of the picture.
A simple task we now take for granted, like taking out a feature from the photo, meant creating a whole new picture. You would then have to replace the missing element with other bits. For example, if you had a picture of a group that included Stalin and you wanted to paint out one of his associates, you were probably looking at days of work.
Now, it could take minutes. There are computer programs like Photoshop that have made it much easier to change the features of the photo. Little things like lighting and exposure are now very simple to adjust.
Sadly, this means that it is also much easier to change the content of the photo itself. You can easily now present an image that is not accurate.
This brings up a sticky point, where photojournalism is concerned. Journalists, including photojournalists, are supposed to accurately present what happened. There is a difference between correcting the color cast of a picture, and changing a dull sky to a dark and stunning sunset.
When a journalist changes the content of the photo, to make it "dramatic" or "more representative," this is inappropriate. It is in fact a form of lying. The photographer is lying about what was there at the time the picture was taken. You would not expect to see a celebrity's head put on a different body. That's the same idea.
Where is the line between simply making the photo better, and making up a photo that is not the picture that was taken? If you add or subtract elements that change the meaning of the picture, you have gone too far. Adding or removing information is a no-no. That includes cutting out any information for ostensibly reasonable causes like "it was blurry." That isn't the point. If you change the content, you have gone too far.
When you are editing photos, you should keep these standards in mind. How closely you need to adhere to them depends on your role. A picture that is "art" can be stylized, because the photographer is an artist. The artist has full artistic license. But a journalist is a journalist, and has journalistic standards, even when their medium is photography.
A simple task we now take for granted, like taking out a feature from the photo, meant creating a whole new picture. You would then have to replace the missing element with other bits. For example, if you had a picture of a group that included Stalin and you wanted to paint out one of his associates, you were probably looking at days of work.
Now, it could take minutes. There are computer programs like Photoshop that have made it much easier to change the features of the photo. Little things like lighting and exposure are now very simple to adjust.
Sadly, this means that it is also much easier to change the content of the photo itself. You can easily now present an image that is not accurate.
This brings up a sticky point, where photojournalism is concerned. Journalists, including photojournalists, are supposed to accurately present what happened. There is a difference between correcting the color cast of a picture, and changing a dull sky to a dark and stunning sunset.
When a journalist changes the content of the photo, to make it "dramatic" or "more representative," this is inappropriate. It is in fact a form of lying. The photographer is lying about what was there at the time the picture was taken. You would not expect to see a celebrity's head put on a different body. That's the same idea.
Where is the line between simply making the photo better, and making up a photo that is not the picture that was taken? If you add or subtract elements that change the meaning of the picture, you have gone too far. Adding or removing information is a no-no. That includes cutting out any information for ostensibly reasonable causes like "it was blurry." That isn't the point. If you change the content, you have gone too far.
When you are editing photos, you should keep these standards in mind. How closely you need to adhere to them depends on your role. A picture that is "art" can be stylized, because the photographer is an artist. The artist has full artistic license. But a journalist is a journalist, and has journalistic standards, even when their medium is photography.
About the Author:
Besides media, the author also frequently writes on silver charm bracelets and pearl bracelets.
Post a Comment