Image Manipulation - Ethics and Aesthetics
The Loch Ness monster picture also known as The Surgeon’s Photo (featured above) was probably one of the most famous doctored photograph of our time. Photoshop did not exist then but whenever we correct, manipulate and enhance images whether on conventional darkroom or digital photography, questions of ethics and aesthetics arise. When is too much?
The dictionary describes ethics as ‘a set of moral principles or values’ while ‘ethical refers to conforming to accepted professional standards of conduct’. These are rules humans invented that define what we think is good and bad, right and wrong. However, as with all human behaviour, everyone has their own unique view on ethics.
With digital technology and processing, there is almost no limit to how we can manipulate an image. While some images are manipulated to enhance aesthetics, some changes are done for less-honorable reasons, including misrepresentation and intended deceit. Changes can be made to images that are undetectable, so much so that there are discussions that photographs may no longer be allowed as evidence in courts of law.
Society decides the rules for what is considered ethical behavior and these rules can and will change over time. Today's viewers are very sophisticated visually and know full well that anything, literally, can be done to an image. Lifelike dinosaurs and aliens are portrayed in the movies, while Photoshop enhancements are seen in publications and multimedia entertainment any day.
Ethics is compromised when allegedly factual mediums such as the news business, academia and research publications risk their credibility with manipulated images. Through the years, the media has regularly seen use of manipulated images to make news, including Reuters’ admission of altering Beirut photo, raising questions of journalistic integrity and credibility. The Office of Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services (ORI) found that, in 2007–08, 68% of all of its opened cases of research misconduct involved falsified images (see graph below).
Back in 1964, Ken Garland’s First Things First: A Manifesto acknowledged the “high pressure consumer advertising” world that designers have to contend with but that they should endeavour to “a reversal of priorities in favour of the more useful and more lasting forms of communication” to serve more “worthwhile purposes”. Well said, for humans are visual creatures and the communication adage ‘a picture says a thousand words’ still holds true today. The problem is, can we trust what we see anymore?
Related readings
Reference
Gilbert, N 2009, ‘Science journals crack down on image manipulation’, Nature News, viewed 22 October 2010, http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091009/full/news.2009.991.html
Garland, K 1964, ‘First Things First: A Manifesto’, Ken Garland: Published Writing, viewed 22 October 2010, http://www.kengarland.co.uk/KG%20published%20writing/first%20things%20first/index.html
1 comment:
Thank you for broaching this subject. I believe it is more important than is generally believed. Very interesting read !
Post a Comment