Blog #6

#6 In your opinion, when is it beneficial, ethical, or appropriate to digitally alter photographic portraits? When do you think it is inappropriate or ethically wrong? 


My opinion on this is a bit tricky. As a graphic designer I rely on being able to digitally alter photographs. And I think that it can be a very beneficial process.... at least to the artist...in a way. In one hand it is a gift, in the other a curse. We learn to appreciate the ability to digitally alter images, because it is easier,and faster, and perhaps far less aggravating and wasteful than a dark room. But perhaps the dark room is part of the art. Who is to say that the only art in photography is composing the image, setting the aperature and shutter speed, and pressing the release? I mean, isn't the dark room an art in itself? And if taking the picture was the only art of photography, then would photography really be a form of art? 


Digitally altering an image for commercial or fashion purposes can distort our expectations. Flip through any womens magazine and the women portrayed in the ads are almost always digitally altered. And thus, smaller waist, longer necklines, bigger eyes, and smoother skin all become a part of our expectations. Yet, this is where many people make a lot of money, and maybe where I will one day make my money. 


I think that digital alterations are most deceiving and unethical when the image is purposely altered to deceive, in oppose to being altered to make a stronger image, or a more "beautiful" image. For example, Tabloids and their use of altered images, to create a story vs. Tabloids using images to report a story.