Discussion:
The ethics around what should or should not be acceptable in digital imaging processing is an area which is debatable. A purist would say that a photograph should be an exact representation of what was seen at the time of capture. In photojournalism, this may well be the case, but even that would bring into question any alteration to white balance, exposure, cropping etc. This area hasn’t had any significant change since the dawn of photography, as the final prints would be down to the adjustments made in the dark room.
Making alterations to an image so that it has significantly changed brings a completely different debate – is it a hoax or has it been maliciously altered? Generally I would say that if an image has obviously been altered then that’s OK – it should also be acknowledged in any supporting text – but if a significantly altered image is designed to mislead or misguide, then it should not be acceptable. Use of corrections to exposure, gamma and white balance, cropping, conversion to Black and White etc I would consider legitimate photographic techniques to enhance an image.
Douglas W. Cromer addresses some of these issues w.r.t scientific images in his essay:
http://cbe.ivic.ve/ftp/clasebioest/pdf/Digital_Imaging_Ethics.pdf
‘Catching the light’ by Jerry Lodriguss also discusses the ethics in:
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/ETHICS.HTM
He says: ‘When we correct, manipulate and enhance images in Photoshop, we must deal with questions of both ethics and aesthetics. This discussion is not only limited to digital manipulation, but also includes conventional darkroom methods.
Ethics are a set of rules that we invent that define what we think is good and bad. The dictionary says ethics are "a set of moral principles or values" and that ethical means "conforming to accepted professional standards of conduct".
Aesthetics, on the other hand, deal with the nature of beauty, art and taste, and things that are pleasing in appearance.
With digital processing, there is almost no limit to what can be done to an image, and many things are done to images with the best intentions. The question is, when does the pursuit of aesthetics violate our ethics?’
So if we consider our photography manipulation to be for ‘aesthetics’ then provided that the manipulation is acknowledged it should be acceptable. And let’s face it – people want entertainment – if a manipulated image appeals to them or elicits some emotion then that’s acceptable to me.
Studied Photographers:
Lee Frost
His use of imaging software brings out the best in his images, whether it be portraiture, landscape or themed. He creates excellent works of art which although obviously enhanced / altered produce images which capture the imagination.
http://www.leefrost.co.uk/default.asp
Paolo Pellegrin
Here’s a photographer whose images are verging on the unacceptable w.r.t photojournalism, but with the right treatment their impact on the viewer justifies the editing. He uses minimal adjustments – mainly for basic conversion (curves, contrast etc) in Lightroom – he was an old-school film photographer and was reluctant to move into digital – source: Digital Camera magazine, Dec 2011.
Books referenced during this section:
The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Book – Martin Evening
ISBN-13: 978-0-321-68070-9
Adobe Photoshop CS5 for Photographers – Martin Evening, Jeff Schewe
ISBN 978-0-240-81483-4
The A-Z of Creative Digital Photography – Lee Frost
ISBN-13: 978-0-7153-2299-4
Surreal Digital Photography – Barry Huggins and Ian Probert
ISBN 1-904705-41-3
Surreal Digital Photography 2 – Ben Renow-Clarke
ISBN-13 978-1-905814-07-7
The Complete Guide to Digital Photography – Michael Freeman
ISBN-13 978-0-500-54325-2
Digital Photography Special Effects – Michael Freeman
ISBN 0-500-54266-X
Evaluation
I don’t feel that I’ve gained much knowledge from this section. It’s nothing that I haven’t done before. But it’s been fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment