"Fraud, Lies & PhotoShop"
Journal Entry Question #2
In photojournalism, when is it appropriate to use PhotoShop? When is it not appropriate? Does altering the photograph mean altering the truth?
Consumers demand full disclosure and hard facts about current issues going on in the world. Such high demands send journalists to get the up-to-the-minute, first-hand stories. However, some stories do not turn out to be as exciting or serious or “hard-hitting” as anticipated. Unfortunately, some journalists feel that it is a wasted effort to follow stories that readers might not consider interesting. As a result, they are forced to manipulate facts, stories, interviews, and pictures in order to alter the truth.
Reuters, an international news provider photographed a bombing in Lebanon. However, through PhotoShop, photo-editing software, the photograph was manipulated using the "clone tool" in the billowing smoke over Beirut so that the photograph would be more effective. Manipulating photographs adversely alters the truth and this approach, in my opinion is very unprofessional and unethical.
Photoshop is a very effective software that is widely used for media editing, animation and authoring. It is a key tool for graphic professionals, including photojournalists. However, the use of Photoshop to edit photos should be limited and there should be strict restrictions as to how much a photograph can be manipulated for professional journalists. I personally think that photos are not meant to be perfect and should have as little photo editing done to them as possible because the true essence of truth is captured through the unedited photographs. By altering photographs, journalists might be intentionally, or unintentionally change how people perceive the initial message.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home