Jeffrey on Image Ethics

After reading “The Digital Media Landscope” and looking at the images on the website, I was amazed of how many images I felt would be ethically acceptable. The first one that I felt was very much ethical was when the Twin Towers where taken out of the movie Zoolander after the attacks of 9/11. Not only dose taking out the towers provide for an accurate depiction of what the city skyline now looks like, but it help make the movie something that people could enjoy and not think about the tragedy. Another image that I felt was ok to use was in the 2002 Olympic Games when flags of countries where digital placed on the pool floor. This did not do anything to alter the contest and provided an easy way for views to know what country each swimmer was from. I also did not find any problems with removing a cigarette from a photo of Hurd on a children’s book. Taking the cigarette out does not change the meaning of the photo.
One of the images that I felt did cross the ethical line was Katie Couric was made to look trimmer for the cover of Watch magazine. The main reason I felt this was unethical was because Ms. Couric is a journalist and Watch Magazine is made by CBS, both of which are held to high journalistic standers and ethics. This photo breaks those journalistic ethics. Another photo that I felt crossed the line was the photo on the cover of National Geographic, which pushed two pyramids together in order to get them both located on the cover. With National Geographic promoting itself as a trustworthy news and information source, this seemed very unethical. The photo of Julia Roberts on the cover of Redbook, also seem to be unethical as it took two different people to make one. The photo makes it seem that Ms. Roberts really looks that way, and that other maybe should also.

Photofakery

I feel that any altered images for advertisements are pretty ridiculous. I guess if that one change in how a person looks or whatever the advertisement shows brings in more profit, then more power to them. I think that the Fireman silhouette was a ethically good alteration because its more of a “dramatization” of an event and looks better with the vivid colors. The picture of O.J. Simpson on the cover of Time Magazine isn’t very ethical. Changing a person’s looks to make him seem more “evil” isn’t very good, especially to the African American community. Just off that picture, people could get the idea that it is a stereotype for African Americans for be dark and devious, which is completely untrue.

I am indifferent on the alteration of photographs to make a person look better or thinner. If it is completely horrible, like Oprah’s head on a model’s body, then it shouldn’t be done. If it is just altering pimples or anything that can just make a person look more natural, then it should be fine. Making Katie Couric look thinner was alright because when shee would see the original it would probably make her do something about her weight to better herself.

Some photography alterations are just funny and some people just need to get a sense of humor. Any pictures of Osama Bin Laden are pretty funny on the internet. I’ve seen ones where they removed his beard and put him in a suit. I was laughing at that. There are also pictures or videos that make an opponent look bad in a candidate debate. That’s just unethical. If you have to fight dirty to win an election, you don’t deserve to even be on the ballot. That’s just my opinion.

Mike on the ethics of the digital image

After reading both assigned readings, I think many questions arise in reference to the topic of what makes an image ethical or not.  Generally speaking, I believe an image is only ethical so long as it is not offensive to anyone.  I also believe that if the creator of the image does not get permission or cite where the two or more images came from then it starts to cross the border of being unethical.  For example, the image on the cover of Texas Monthly was comprised of cropping someones head and attaching it to an image of someone else’s body, the important thing is that they cited where the two photographs came from.  Conversely the photo of Opera was created without the consent of either Opera (the head) or Ann-Margret (the body).  However, there will always be that grey area, which is the case in the image of President Lincoln.  In this instance, it doesn’t really offend anyone but the main purpose of the image is to project a certain image of the president and the presidency in general.  The question of whether it is ethical or not can only be brought up in reference to the fact that the image is not real.

The power of an image is unbelievable because the mind takes in so many things from an image.  The slightest change in the picture can make the biggest difference in its affect on the emotions and the cognitive process of interpreting a particular image. A good example of this is the Time cover of OJ Simpson.  The darking of the image makes him look more evil, more guilty (as someone else said in another blog).  Though these image effects can be created without modern technology they still affect us cognitively on a different level, making us react differently to the image than we otherwise would if the image was normal.  However, just because an image is illustrated in a different way causing a different reaction does not make it unethical.  Often times, many images are altered or have some image effect (like darkening) that affect you cognitively without you neccessarily knowing it.  For example, there is a reason why McDonald’s colors are red and yellow.   The media alters images to attract attention to the story sometimes it is unethical other times it just doesnt harm anyone and is just for entertainment. 

Rashida on digital media

I have noticed many altered photos in the media for a number of years. Some of the first manipulated photos that I have seen were in magazines like cosmo when the photographer would cut out a piece of hair of the model or even place many people in the same photo. When I see photos like this I consider them ethically acceptable because there was no harm in altering the photo. One set of photos that I hate to see are altered music videos, movies, and pictures that once displayed the world trade buildings at one point in time. Some of the videos that I saw were over 8 years old but were still altered. My only problem with this is that yes many people did die that day but not recognizing the existence of the world trade buildings in existing photos is wrong. Families don’t crop out loved ones that have passed so why should the media crop out any image of the centers? The website showed at least one altered photo that I find hilarious and thats the Oprah photo.

Rachel on Digital Images

The article, “The Digital Media Landscape,” and the website we looked at gave a lot of examples of altered images used in contemporary society. As a general rule, I don’t believe that it is okay to manipulate photographs to convey something that didn’t occur when referring to the news. It gives the press a bad name because it makes the press appear unreliable and dishonest. The point of the news is to tell the public about events that occurred exactly how they occurred. By the manipulation of photographs, the editor has created an image that did not actually occur in real life. The image of the camels and the pyramids is a beautiful photograph, but doesn’t actually exist in nature like that.

I do think that some forms of altered images can be ethically acceptable. For example, I think it’s okay to edit a picture for a high school yearbook. A high school yearbook isn’t a source of news and is for a more personal use. I think it’s also okay to manipulate an image when it is clearly stated that it’s not a photograph, but is an illustration (like in the Martha Stewart example). Also, from a photographer’s standpoint, the image of OJ Simpson can be technically defined as being acceptable. All images are edited by lightening and darkening, which could also have been done in a darkroom environment. The main rule for digital media is that anything that can be done in a darkroom is acceptable. The darker image of OJ does make him look more guilty, but that image could have been produced the same way without today’s technology. For sources other than news, photographs may be altered for an artistic purpose.

Lindsey’s Digital Media Landscape

After reading the article about mainipulating digital images, I would have to say I am not the least bit surprised.  Some of the images I found ethically acceptable were the erasing of the twin towers in the movie Zoolander, and the use of replay technology.  I think that after such a tragic event in history such as the attacks of September 11, 2001 that removing the building from movies being released is completley necessary.  It was a horrible time in the United States and although we will never forget the events it is better for those who lost love ones to not be reminded of the terrible day.  I also think that using technology to develop replays for media reasons is just for enjoyment and is not causing any harm to individuals. 

However, I did find some of the altering to cross ethical lines.  On the website when the picture is shown of United States President Abraham Lincoln and the usage of a southern politician’s body I think that this crossed the line of ethical.  He was the leader of our country, therefore, I think his true self should be shown, considering his leadership position.  Another photo that I found disturbing is the one with Oprah’s head on an actress’s body.  This was done without the permission from either woman, which I think should be illegal.  If pictures are going to be altererd there should be mutal concent.  However, it was amazing to see how many images have been altered without the public having a clue is to what is going on.