Photo editing used to take a long time. When a photo editor wanted to do more than just lighten up the image, they could figure on spending hours at tedious and painstaking work.
A simple task we now take for granted, like taking out a feature from the photo, meant creating a whole new picture. You would then have to replace the missing element with other bits. For example, if you had a picture of a group that included Stalin and you wanted to paint out one of his associates, you were probably looking at days of work.
Now, computer programs like Photoshop make it quick and easy to edit photographs. This is a huge difference in the world of photo editing. Now it is easy to play with lighting and exposure.
There is a major downside to this. Unfortunately, it is also quick and easy now to add elements to a photo that were not there when the image was taken, or to take out elements that were in fact there.
When we have a picture taken by a photojournalist, this is supposed to be news. That means facts, rather than fiction. This should be the guiding philosophy behind any changes made. It's one thing to correct a color problem or to darken an overexposed image. It's another to change a calm sky to make it appear stormy.
Other small changes are tantamount to telling lies to the viewer. For instance, if you add smoke to a scene, or add more people to make a crowd seem larger, this isn't making it more dramatic or enhancing its representativeness. You are fictionalizing the image and it is inappropriate.
Where is the line between simply making the photo better, and making up a photo that is not the picture that was taken? If you add or subtract elements that change the meaning of the picture, you have gone too far. Adding or removing information is a no-no. That includes cutting out any information for ostensibly reasonable causes like "it was blurry." That isn't the point. If you change the content, you have gone too far.
Remember this when you edit your own photos. It's one thing if the photo is meant to be "art." Then, the photographer can do whatever, it isn't supposed to be strictly representative. News photography, while it can be artful, is not art and a photojournalist is a journalist and not an artist.
A simple task we now take for granted, like taking out a feature from the photo, meant creating a whole new picture. You would then have to replace the missing element with other bits. For example, if you had a picture of a group that included Stalin and you wanted to paint out one of his associates, you were probably looking at days of work.
Now, computer programs like Photoshop make it quick and easy to edit photographs. This is a huge difference in the world of photo editing. Now it is easy to play with lighting and exposure.
There is a major downside to this. Unfortunately, it is also quick and easy now to add elements to a photo that were not there when the image was taken, or to take out elements that were in fact there.
When we have a picture taken by a photojournalist, this is supposed to be news. That means facts, rather than fiction. This should be the guiding philosophy behind any changes made. It's one thing to correct a color problem or to darken an overexposed image. It's another to change a calm sky to make it appear stormy.
Other small changes are tantamount to telling lies to the viewer. For instance, if you add smoke to a scene, or add more people to make a crowd seem larger, this isn't making it more dramatic or enhancing its representativeness. You are fictionalizing the image and it is inappropriate.
Where is the line between simply making the photo better, and making up a photo that is not the picture that was taken? If you add or subtract elements that change the meaning of the picture, you have gone too far. Adding or removing information is a no-no. That includes cutting out any information for ostensibly reasonable causes like "it was blurry." That isn't the point. If you change the content, you have gone too far.
Remember this when you edit your own photos. It's one thing if the photo is meant to be "art." Then, the photographer can do whatever, it isn't supposed to be strictly representative. News photography, while it can be artful, is not art and a photojournalist is a journalist and not an artist.
About the Author:
In addition to media, this writer also regularly pens articles about this one in silver and white gold charm bracelets.
No comments:
Post a Comment