Ethical Photography
The short story
By James Breedlove
Many would like to say that they work is great, and that it's okay to make the moon as large as half the room in the shot. Or add in characters, people where they may, to distort the photos so that something that originally was in the photo is changed. Even remove objects that were in the photo originally and replace with pixels from another portion of the photo.
Fact is some changes are made to photos all the time, while professional photographers almost always post edit their photos. Even if to raise contrast or add a little pop in the color, it still alters the photo to some degree wither it's the original or a copy that will be posted, or sold. So where does it end? A ethical perspective to photography stims from what is seemingly right to the photography community. Sometimes rules are unspoken just widely understood. Or they are verbalized on chat groups between friends or others and spread word of mouth primarily. Such as in the instance of "Composite" photos. The introduction of objects into a photo which did not appear when the photo was taken. Even if for example the moon appeared in a original photo, a composite would likely replace the original moon with a widely exacerbated version, maybe even twice the size. Do we state that the photo has been manipulated or simply state it is a composite photo. Some say nay, they will not say anything and the person who views the photo should know that it is a manipulated photo.
When I have viewed a number of composited photos I have noted that hardly ever are those photos stated to be altered in anyway. But they are heavily photoshopped or otherwise manipulated using digital software. It isn't a new concept, rather disingenuous to say the least to try and pass off a photoshopped version as a unaltered original. However, I can see reason for doing so as well at times. Sometimes, the whole intent of the photo is to provide a effect for illustration or sometimes out of creativity, but the implication is the photo couldn't be real. Other photo may be placed with a real attempt to fool people, such as with ghost or monsters in a photo or photos, perhaps flying disc/UFO's etc. It is this type of photo that really is subjective, and though the author of the photo might know that this shouldn't be taken for real they still imply that the photo bears some validity. All in all, the photos should state something to give the viewer the idea of the true nature of the photo. Often time if something is being used as an antagonist, they don't want it out that it has been doctored, at least until the full effect or number of people has been reached.
Fair is fair; in the scheme of things one should not take anything sees on the internet for granted. Often enough, the photo no matter how small or great has been doctored to some degree. If I see a photo in a magazine of a model or product, I can rest assured that it does not appear that way in real life. So what aspects are trying to be achieved by photo manipulations? Often times the photo where it be of a human model is highly enhanced to highlight the positive attributes of the subject. Flash is used to provide light to darklite areas of the body whether from shadows or just poor lighting. Make-up is always applied and then the photos are edited to remove any unwanted blemishes in the photo. Likewise, other photos are done similarly with landscape, architecture, wildlife and a host of other photos. In particularly if those photos are subject to being sold.
So where did it all change? Just like everything else with time, things change. What schools teach, what we ware each day, etc. Now-a-days, the children or young adults are used to the idea that photos can and will be manipulated, it starts with the smart phone apps; then includes into any other photography concept they have. Where does this leave the photographer who is struggling to get by in his or her business? It leaves them having to stay up to date, playing the game of the trends. However, some photographers stick to tradition and do not change there style of photography, which almost always includes studio photography. This is fine, but we all know that photographers are losing out to the rapid explosion of camera interest, which has been hyped by new phone cameras. The selfie, once a tagline, now just understood as common place. Someone wants a photo at a park of any kind, just whip out the cell phone, forget the dude or dudette that once stood in the park charging a small fee for a photo next to Mickey or Donald Duck. Or even the people at Six Flags or Silver Dollar City, not anymore, we got cell phones. With all this going on you would think that at least one crazy object in our photos might turn out to be true. Unfortunately, as we see with our own eyes, they moon has not grown the size of a tree top in relation to our visible skies, and it so funny how not a single UFO is clear enough to distinguish what it is...with out all the grain and blur...So rest assured if something looks suspicious in a photo now days, it is likely fake.
Kudos to all those photographers today that do their own trick photography, and who develop a following due to their neet stuff. Their audience understands what it is they do, and there is little room for being disingenuous with their audience. Perhaps, the only thing that is unethical about photography is using photos that isn't yours and implying your a photographer when your not.
The top photo is composited with 3D graphic illustration of an UFO as it darts through the sky. Graphics rendered in Cinema 4D and added to background original photo taken by myself. So yes, I did all the work in that photo composite, except in this case I did not create the original 3D object that is in the photo, some other graphic artist did....It saves time.
END
Comments
Post a Comment