1. most of the things i read about in the article regarding manipulation in photos was to either take someone out of a photo/put someone in the photo and to change the appearance of someone.
2. the philosophy for newspapers like the new york times and the washington post are that they only change small physical appearances to enhance/disenhance a person and they don't rearrange people's bodies and heads like other magazines do. other than that, both companies use minimal photoshop.
3. i think photoshopping becomes unethical when big physical changes are made, like changing someones body type or when people are taken out of pictures. i think small things like removing a blemish or changing the lighting of a photo is okay but should be used very cautiously.
most unethical:
i think this picture is the most unethical because when time magazine published this magazine, it changed the way people viewed oj simpson. and i am not saying he is innocent, but by changing the lighting of the picture, many people became bias towards him, and could have infulenced the jury to vote one way or the other.
least unethical:
i think this picture is the least unethical because the different teeth had no impact on the story. the story was about the couple having septuplets, and not about her teeth so the stories in both of the magazines should be identical and not centered around the different teeth.
2. the philosophy for newspapers like the new york times and the washington post are that they only change small physical appearances to enhance/disenhance a person and they don't rearrange people's bodies and heads like other magazines do. other than that, both companies use minimal photoshop.
3. i think photoshopping becomes unethical when big physical changes are made, like changing someones body type or when people are taken out of pictures. i think small things like removing a blemish or changing the lighting of a photo is okay but should be used very cautiously.
most unethical:
i think this picture is the most unethical because when time magazine published this magazine, it changed the way people viewed oj simpson. and i am not saying he is innocent, but by changing the lighting of the picture, many people became bias towards him, and could have infulenced the jury to vote one way or the other.
least unethical:
i think this picture is the least unethical because the different teeth had no impact on the story. the story was about the couple having septuplets, and not about her teeth so the stories in both of the magazines should be identical and not centered around the different teeth.
Comments
Post a Comment