A (fun) question of morality

B

barsbyart

Suspended / Banned
Messages
211
Name
Paul Barsby
Edit My Images
No
Hi All!

DEBSTER (Inspiration, Themes and Challenges) is doing a project on 'hidden truths'; that's opened up a can of worms in my head so here's a question for you... What would you say is a morally acceptable (MA) amount of manipulation in a photograph for (say) a holiday brochure?

The scenario -

You are the tog/ad man/hotelier and you want to show the hotel in the best light. What is MA?

(For instance it would not be MA to drop in a swimming pool that you didn't have but would be MA to drop in a nicer sky 'cos although you're changing the reality of the day the sky does change.)

What about removing a person or vehicle that's in the photo? (I would say that's MA 'cos they're temporary)

But what about removing the rubbish bins beside the hotel? They could be physically removed but in all probability won't be. :shrug:

Or that crane showing behind the hotel? It's temporary but indicative of construction that will permanently affect the environs.

What is MA? What's your opinion? How far would you change reality?

What other examples of what is/is not MA can you think of?
 
Not so much a question of morality as legality for me.

Properties mis-descriptions act forbids us from any photoshop work other than blue skies!
 
Interesting question though.
 
It's difficult to draw any line on this because the whole manipulation thing is so widespread in the commercial sector, with the front page glam godesses who don't exist in reality being a good example. We see very few images these days in advertising which aren't digitally enhanced to some degree.

I suppose I do more image manipulation for other people than most people will be called upon to do, but I wouldn't dream of doing most of it to my own images, beyond slight cloning of unsightly distractions which would be my personal line in the sand.

Opinions will vary so much on this that you're unlikely to come out with any firm conclusion, but for most of us perhaps it comes down to whether ot not the image is deliberately misleading if it's for commercial gain. In the end the only real dishonesty is lying about it - if it's been manipulated don't deny it.
 
i would assume you would be allowed to remove a crane from the background, and probably the bins(say they werent there when you took the photo). but personally, i would rather get it right in the camera and have the crane out of the shot etc in the first place
 
CT said:
you're unlikely to come out with any firm conclusion
Click to expand...

I'm not looking to come to any firm conclusions. Like you I have ny own 'line in the sand'.

Just thought it might be interesting to see what others thought - and so far, very interesting.

Yes morality and legality very much intertwined...

Perhaps this raises other questions -
As enhancement is so widespread (commercially) do people actually believe what they see?
If so, why?
If not, why do it?
 
barsbyart said:
Perhaps this raises other questions -
As enhancement is so widespread (commercially) do people actually believe what they see?
Click to expand...

I think the opposite is often the case, how often do we see images posted on the web followed by a string of comments of "Photoshopped!" when clearly to a discerning eye they're almost certainly genuine. People are very distrusting of images these days I'd have to say.
 
CT said:
I think the opposite is often the case, how often do we see images posted on the web followed by a string of comments of "Photoshopped!" when clearly to a discerning eye they're almost certainly genuine. People are very distrusting of images these days I'd have to say.
Click to expand...

True, true, CT.

So why the continued widespread use if no-one believes it and all it's doing is creating cynicism?

Why the budget for latest series of S** and the City gone through the roof when everyone knows SJP looks like someone's mum?
 
Used to run a hotel in the Lake District. Our web site carried pics and walkrounds of all of our rooms. We upgraded one of our rooms (new soft furnishings) and before we could upload the new shots, got a complaint posted on a website because a chair was a different colour!

This is just a bit of trivia really on what potentially is a serious subject. All hoteliers want to portray their place as best they can. We never intentionally let the camera lie - but some of our competitors were a little less truthful. Its a big issue in the trade.
 
Gandhi said:
Not so much a question of morality as legality for me.

Properties mis-descriptions act forbids us from any photoshop work other than blue skies!
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true now is it :nono:

Correcting exposure, adding some fill light, etc. is also fine, even HDR/tone mapping is allowed.

Shooting with an extreme wide angle and correcting the distortion to make rooms appear bigger isn't. Nor would changing the view from a window be acceptable.

The Act is, like many laws, vague for good reason and falling foul of it is basically down to the opinion of a "reasonable man" so as long as you make reasonable decisions and seek second opinions for other reasonable people you should be fine. It's also worth remembering that the law is designed to prevent blatent deception and not a desire to show a property at its best.

I don't believe the Act applies to pictures in holiday brochures anyway.
 
Whatever the client wanted me / paid me to do ...
 
Interesting. Morality and photography.

May I just direct you to your local newsagent and look at any of the celebrity magazines. They've all been retouched. How many times have we seen models slimmer than they actually are, blemishes removed etc.
 
Byker28i said:
Interesting. Morality and photography.

May I just direct you to your local newsagent and look at any of the celebrity magazines. They've all been retouched. How many times have we seen models slimmer than they actually are, blemishes removed etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Byker!

You know it, I know it and as CT says the public know it; public even seem to expect it to the point they are cynical of really good images that haven't been PS'd

So what's going on? The ad-men think the public won't accept reality but the public know the images are false!

How many times have you looked at the lovely, mouth-watering pic on a supermarket ready meal only to find the contents look like grey mush? (Tasty mush!)

Most people would consider politicians to be liars but who do they vote for? The one who lies least or the one who lies best? (This last bit getting away from my OP)
 
I, for one, don't give a stuff for celeb mags and the like and never touch them.

Nor do I give a hoot for what's in any publicity blurb or similar, for any topic whatsoever, as it is more often than not enhanced to a greater or lesser extent and never depicts the reality ... :suspect:

All of this is just an indication of the vanity and foolishness of modern man (in it's all embracing context of course ... :D) imhgo ... lack of MA is a thoroughly modern disease whatever age you live in and affects us all every day of our lives ... :shrug:


Cynic ... :thinking: ... moi ... ;)


One thing that really should be banned and made illegal though, in my humble opinion and amongst many others that could/should also be, is making fast food like burgers look edible and all plump and tasty when in reality they are flat, tasteless, unhealthy blobs that bear absolutely no resemblance to the advertised product ... now that is totally NOT MA imhgo ... :razz: ... and why we, as supposedly intelligent beings, find this acceptable is totally beyond my comprehension ... :cuckoo:






:p
 
I've removed a crane for a brochure shot and I've parked my car in front of the bin area for the same shoot. The skies didn't need blueing. I also used a 12mm lens to include as much of the room as possible - any apparent increase in size was purely coincidental (and the pic wasn't adjusted to improve the perspective!).

I also waited until the shall we just say "larger" guests were out expanding their waistlines and got my wife and a couple of the slimmer guests (and staff) to occupy the sunbeds for a few minutes while I shot more exteriors.

Careful framing also works wonders - as does judicious cropping.

NONE of the things I did have made us change where we stay - we still use that hotel and have just returned from there after our 18th visit. (And no, that's not because we get special rates, it's because the place suits us and is in a gorgeous setting!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top