When digital images are enhanced, like in the case of NASA scientists using “image-processing techniques to remove imperfections from images of the lunar surface” (Mitchell 11)do the changes in the imperfections out way the possible negative outcomes? Of course there are negative social consequences, such as the public losing faith and reliability in NASA, but do the changes of the image make it more or less meaningful? Do changes in images create a new perception of the subject or does it speak more about the photographer?
The New York Times stated that photographers, editors and publishers would have to stay away from creating false images to make a story because of the loss of creditability. Which I believe is at stake when images are digitally altered. Digital images have created two sides: one is the artistic and the other is journalistic. Images that are used for artistic purposes seem okay to be altered in order for the artist to express themselves, but when images are used in the media there is backlash to when images are changed. People state that they want the truth, yet often images that are altered can create a larger buzz and reaction. Altered images can be much more interesting than the truth, but I do not know if it makes it more or less meaningful. By talking about certain images make them more important? The photographer has a large role in the choices in an image, but photographers are creating an image that the public wants to see or will want to see. I think that when we focus on certain images that it does tell more about the public and its fascination.
Digital photography is not always a form of producing art, but can be used to inform. Images can have a powerful effect on the public; the photographer is now questioned. Is it reasonable to question the ethics of photographers? Does the photographer carry some sort of ethical obligation? Or is it the photographer’s right to just make an image and call it art?
No comments:
Post a Comment