Digital Manipulation has been my favorite topic thus far. Due to the advances in technology, digital manipulation creates a new area of ethics never seen before. The group that presented today showed the deceiving ways several businesses have used this practice to deceive us, the consumers. This ranged from beauty supplies (Dove) to universities (Wisconsin).
Digital manipulation allows for a completely new way for the human population to express their creativity. Here is one example how an individual's creativity provides humor and entertainment for a certain population (UNC Basketball fans). http://mrtarheel.com/hansbroughindoorwallpaper.jpg For those of you that do not understand the context, the sign for Duke's Cameron Indoor Stadium was digitally manipulated to Hansbrough Indoor Stadium since Tyler Hansbrough never lost at Duke in his four years. While we may enjoy this picture, what do Duke fans think? Is it a legal issue that 1.) someone's picture was used and then digitally manipulated, and 2.) a part of Duke's property was manipulated? Those are questions hard to answer since there have not been any clear-cut solutions to these problems.
Digital manipulation has been effective in solving social problems. The group that presented showed how cops use this information to locate suspects. I remember learning in middle school (can't find any info on the web, sorry) how digital methods are used for missing kids. After kids are still missing after several years, a digital process can "age" the kid to how he/she is expected to look after a certain amount of time. In one case, a missing kid was found one week after the digital process was developed.
Like most of the topics we have learned so far in this class, there are positives and negatives to digital manipulation. Digital manipulation allows the advancement of human creativity, solves social/legal problems, and serves for entertainment purposes. However, digital manipulation can also be used as acts of deception.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDigital manipulation has also been my favorite topic thus far. I find it amazing the drastic changes that can be made to a photo to enhance the image and disturbing that we can be deceived so much by them. While enhancing a photo slightly can help a person's career and self confidence, when a photographer/graphic artist takes it too far it is detrimental to society as a whole. You bring up an interesting point regarding missing children in the above blog which could be used as a counter argument for my above point. Overall, digital manipulation must be judged on how it is used and if it benefits or hurts society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I believe digital manipulation should be looked at on a case by case basis. While this is somewhat unrealistic and unfeasible, it would be able for each example to set prescedent in each case. If digital manipulation is being used to harm or defame someone, then it probably should not be allowed. However, if it is something that is done as more of a joke (such as the Hansbrough example) I think it should be considered similar to free expression and be allowed.
ReplyDeleteDigital manipulation is a very interesting topic because there are so many applications in the real world. I agree with Brad that judgment should be a based on case by case. For manipulation that leads to defamation, obviously that is against the law and should be dealt with accordingly. Digital manipulation such as the one in the Hansbrough example is for sheer entertainment, thus acceptable. For cases when digital manipulation is used for women on magazines, it is very hard to draw that line. Its almost as if humans are recreating what the 'perfect' person looks like. I don't know how to argue for or against because each side has its strong case.
ReplyDeleteDigital manipulation is a double edged sword. While it can provide a whole new realm of artistic opportunity, it also presents a host of inherent problems. Many of these problems have shades of grey, but its also important to remember that the First Amendment provides a unique freedom that allows this type of technology to exist. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the eye of the beholder to decide for himself/herself what is ethical or unethical. While this technology may have its enemies, it also has its advocates and the First Amendment provides this protection. If you don't like its capabilities, avoid it. If you do, use this technology with all of the artistic freedom that you have been blessed with.
ReplyDeleteI think digital manipulation should only be illegal when the intent is to deceive for commercial value and in doing so, damage a reputation. It's all about context, as there are definitely benefits to digitally manipulating a work, yet there are also unethical and illegal examples at hand. For example, if a photographer from National Geographic captures a picture that lands him/her a cover page for the magazine (but has digitally enhanced it), this is ethically corrupt and should not be tolerated. This jeopardizes the integrity of the publication, as it's purpose is to teach through dramatic visuals of people and places. I see no problem, however, with the "fark" as they're called, of "Hansbrough Indoor Stadium," because anyone that sees it will find it under a website where the intent is to entertain and humor, and there is no trace of actual deception .
ReplyDeleteI agree with C. J. Gerding's opinion on this topic. Digital manipulation should only e illegal when the intent is to deceive for commercial value. Many times companies trying to sell products to women will digitally enhance the image to try to get more women to buy their products. For example, products to reduce wrinkles are advertised with women whose skin has been digitally enhanced to be totally flawless. They not only have no wrinkles on their face, but there are no blemishes or other spots at all. I think this should be illegal because it deceives women and makes them think if they buy this product they will have flawless skin as well. Many times digital manipulation does no harm and is only trying to be funny, but when it deceives the public, I think it should be illegal.
ReplyDeleteI think digital manipulation can be beneficial in certain circumstances but should not be used in others. I think that digital manipulation in art and for specific services (like developing images of suspected criminals and missing children) are positive uses of the technology. Both can be beneficial to society and both serve a particular purpose. Meanwhile, I agree with e white and don't think companies should use digital manipulation in advertisements. It gives a false impression of reality and masques the truth with enhanced photos.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with c.j. gerding that manipulating for deceiptful purposes is immoral and should not be tolerated. For entertainment purposes there are also moral questions--when magazines and other media airbrush photographs to make women appear thinner and flawless, they are essentialy creating and contributing to unreasonable expectations for body image, which has recently led to incredibly disturbing statistics of eating disorders and unhealthy behaviors. I'm not sure where the line can be drawn, but really it should be the companies themselves that make the moral decision not to publish these unrealistic images.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that it is immoral and should be illegal. Digital manipulation is apart of technology and just like in senior pictures things were fixed so you looked as perfect as you would hope for. I do agree that magazines and other media produce images that are unreasonable, but because people know that their is digital manipulation why do they compare themselves to it. I know when I see a model and her leg is the size of my arm, I know its not real and airbrush was done.
ReplyDeleteAlso with other things like adds or food commercials images might look really good to enhance the look of the item, but I truly believe that society is smart enough to know that its not going to be that perfect in person.
Something like digital manipulation is harmful in my eyes and I believe that people want to look their best when they are going to be in the public eye so why not be able to fix up some areas to make it more perfect. As long as we are all aware of it, no harm in my eyes.
Sometimes certain things are taken too far when thought about legally. Take that picture for example. Sure you could come up with legal issues like that, but is that really necessary? Someone may have done that for a laugh, not to intentionally manipulate Duke’s property and hurt multiple Duke fan’s feelings. Deception is morally wrong, but it is used in everyday society. It is too idealist to try to prevent every deceptive source, because there are always ways to fool the public, whether it is for fun or serious business.
ReplyDeleteSome aforementioned posts discuss, issues regarding the discernment of photos, images and published material should be the left to the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, every member of the exposed population does not have the available information or previous exposure to realize the extent to which digital manipulation can be used. As a member that presented on the topic of digital manipulation, I often found myself shocked as I researched the vast extent to which digital manipulation is used. I agree with previous posts about the necessity issue when legality is concerned. Digital manipulation used in an inoffensive and generally acceptable manner should be allowed, as it often spurs creativity. When a product is misrepresented or property is 'stolen' and altered via digital manipulation legal issues obviously emerge.
ReplyDeleteI agree that digitial manipulation should be evaluated on a case by case basis. In instances like searching for missing children, sure it is beneficial. There has been some discussion over the controversy of digitially enhanced photographs in the media. While most magazine photos are digitially enhanced, I don' think this necessarily should be something that is a huge ordeal. I agree with katelyn that people should recognize that these images are not meant to be something to compare yourselves to. If people want their personal photographs to look their best, then why not be able to touch them up? I think more discretion should be used when considering digitial manipulations that are meant to harm people. For example, if images are negatively altered and then placed in a magazine, I think this is more of an ethical issue.
ReplyDeleteI do think that digital manipulation has opened a whole new can of worms for ethics. I don't see the problem with the process unless it is taken too far and changed the image/message of the image completely to deceive the audience or for misuse. We all know that digital manipulation occurs. We look at magazine covers and say, "I wish someone could do that to my pictures." Things like the manipulation of Duke's basketball arena, are okay. The public knows that it is used as a farce or to make a point.
ReplyDelete