Thursday, March 8, 2012
Question of the Week (3/8/12)
In thinking about our topic this week of digital manipulation: When is digital manipulation acceptable? When is digital manipulation unacceptable? Under what conditions should viewers or readers be notified that an image has been digitally altered? Answer these questions thoroughly by 3 p.m. on Tuesday. Check out the Media Literacy website for more information on digital manipulation. Don't forget to respond critically to a classmates' response as well. Happy posting!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel that it is acceptable when a company is trying to make a product look better. It is unacceptable when they change a real place so that it looks much better. i think they should be aware that but I don't think the companies should be responsible for warning people. people should have it explained or learn about it at some point though.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. I hate when people think it's okay to digitally manipulate a place to make it more appealing to others. It's a huge disappointment when you go to that place and realize it is not as nice as the picture displayed.
DeleteI would have to disagree, you say you are ok if it is to make a produce to look better but it is unacceptable when they change a real place so that it looks much better. You are disjointed when you go to a place you thought was beautiful and it turns out that the photo was changed. This is the same feeling as when you buy a product and are disjointed when it looks nothing like the ad.
DeleteI agree with alex and disagree with jonathan. Ads will be ads, the people that mak the ads spend hours and hours making their product look the best. That's how advertising is, unfortunately it is not going to change. Knowing this, when you buy a product you should never just go off of how it looks in the ad because that is a terrible way to get an idea of how a product is.
DeleteI think what Jon is talking about is that it's not acceptable for a product to look different or is manipulated to look something that it isn't in real life. I do think it's okay for a product to look to look good and nice though. Making the product look better is fine and acceptable in my opinion
DeleteDigital manipulation is acceptable when it's advertising a product that a company is trying to make people more interested in buying. It's unacceptable when someone manipulates a photo of someone else like a celebrity or someone with higher power, when it's releasing false accusation about that individual. I feel like people shouldn't have to be notified, I feel like people should already know when a picture has been digitally altered.
ReplyDeleteBut a manipulation of a photo in a commercial can be misleading to the consumer, which gives the companies more power. Companies are not to be trusted. Why should the companies be given the ability? why should anyone with power be given the ability?
DeleteMarina-
DeleteFor me, I don't think it's ok to try to manipulate a product because when I look at the ad and say I want to buy this product because it looks nice. But when I go buy the product and see it's not nice and it does not work. It does not want me to buy product.
I think that Photo manipulation is acceptable when people use it for humor. Its ok to laugh. However when the photo is trying to convey information like a picture of a person, then photo manipulation is not aceptable. If it could mislead people than it shouldn't be allowed. If the photo has been manipulated it should always be made clear to the reader, weather that be a small icon in hte corner of a credit at the end of the article.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it can be funny for some digital manipulation, but its to easy to cross a line when it starts to become inappropriate. The persone behind it may think its funny but others may find it disrespectful.
DeleteYes, I'd agree, but I don't really see the harm in advertisements and media that shows, for example, women with clear skin or something like that. On the flip side, yes, it would mislead people, and girls all over would think that a certain product is better than another because of how good the woman in the ad looks. But there is no way to change the ads, just change how we view ourselves because of a certain altered advertisement. So while I would agree that its not necessarily okay to show altered images and portray them as real, the way we see ourselves shouldn't change because of an image people want to portray to you.
DeleteDigital manipulation is not acceptable for products for sale, but it is also ok for models because you want them to look good. On the other hand, some people think it's not good to manipulate a model because they wan't to know how they actually look. Digital manipulation is not acceptable when you manipulate food, resorts, or vacation spots because if you go there and it's not what you think it was in the magazine or ad then you get mad.
ReplyDeleteI agree that you in that digital manipulation is not acceptable when advertising food, resorts or vacation spots, however, I don't think that digital manipulation should be acceptable with models because then some people will believe that this is how they should look when it is impossible because they have been digitally altered to look like that.
DeleteDigital manipulation is acceptable when you are trying to clean up a picture. For example if there is a product for sale and there is something going on in the background then it should be ok to clean it up. Digital manipulation is unacceptable when you take an image of a place and add stuff to it or change it to make it look different then it actually is. People should be notified every time a picture is digitally altered.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. When companies are trying to clean up a picture it is fine but if they change the picture in other ways then that is bad and should not be allowed. When things are added to an ad then it gives people the wrong impressions. Almost all ads now are digitally manipulated so every ad would have to say something about being manipulated which means it wouldn't really affect anybody.
DeleteI agree that digital manipulation should be use to clean up spots you don't want and not use it to change someone's face into a completely different face. It is not ok to manipulate a place that is not exist or look entirely different from the ads.
DeleteI agree with you about digital manipulation not being acceptable if it changes the complete look and feeling of a location because it really just ends up becoming false advertisement or just a big "let down".
DeleteI think digital manipulation is only acceptable when you alter the way a product looks in the photo and not actually change anything about the product its self. I do not think its ok when you ad certain objects to the back-round of a photo, that wasn't present when you took the picture. It is not ok to make something look nothing like it really does in real life, for example models look completely different in potos than in real life, they still look good but they are different.
ReplyDeleteBut what about color alteration that enhances the overall awesomeness of the photo. Or what about removing a bird that photobombed your delightful family photo? is that too unethical and lying. I think that in some cases it is appropriate to "fix" your photo but in others like you said it is lying.
DeleteBut if you digitally manipulate a product picture then the consumer does not really no what they are buying
DeleteDigital manipulations can be a good thing and a bad thing. It is bad when they change a place to make it look even better. Sometimes they change things that don't need to be changed because they are already beautiful. It's also bad when they airbrush people to make them prettier. It's better to show people that not everybody is perfect rather than have the models look amazing. Companies should say when something is modified because it can be misleading and people think that somebody or something looks like that and then it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteI agree, airbrushing models is worse than just leaving them as they are in the picture. Everyone is so used to every ad looking perfect, it starts to become normal, when it's not. If companies put a disclaimer on the ad, people would at least know that it's digitally manipulated.
DeleteI don't thing that manipulation in any way is okay, if advertizing is all based off lying and manipulating the consumers than what kind of world do we live in. I believe that products that are truly good products wont require the advertizing agency's to manipulation them. I think that digital manipulation is a crutch that company's need to stop using.
ReplyDeleteI think that digital manipulation is acceptable when there's something in background of the advertisement/picture that wasn't meant to be there. If the company is manipulating their ad so that the product looks better/different then it is unacceptable. I think that companies should always say when an ad has been digitally manipulated, because otherwise the customers have unrealistic expectations of that product.
ReplyDeleteDigital manipulation is acceptable when the company is trying to make the products look good or try to make models look beautiful to catch consumer's eyes. It is not acceptable when the company uses digital manipulation to create something that is not exist and make it as their product to sell. When people buy the product that is completely different from the ads. Viewers or readers should be notified every time when the pictures have been manipulated.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with advertising at all, I think it is annoying and a waste of money. But I think we just have to accept it for what it is, advertising companies will just keep pushing their limits and keep changing images to make stuff look better. I also think they are not doing anything wrong by changing picture to make them look better. If thats what they want to do to advertise then so be it. We should just have a better understanding of what we are viewing on ads. We need to learn when things are real and when things are fake. You may think i'm contradicting myself with saying i don't agree with it, and then saying they are not doing anything wrong. I will restate my thesis more clearly and simple; I hate advertising, but I do not think it's wrong to manipulate images.
ReplyDeleteI believe that any image can be altered and that every individual to change an image as they see fit. The only time I think they need to explicitly say that the image has been modified is when they plan or try to present it as a factual or real image that has been unaltered. The problem being that you are trying to lie to people and tell them that the image you have created is real and unaltered. In this day and age where it is so easy to alter photos one must almost expect for every image to be altered in some way to make the image more pleasing esthetically. Knowing that I feel that in most cases it is unreasonable for people to freak out about an image bing altered. As I said earlier the only instance I feel there is a case for angst is when the supplier of the photo is lying to you and trying to tell you that the image is unaltered. So I believe it is a fair statement that every image that is altered must state that it has been modified in some way.
ReplyDeleteI think digital manipulation is acceptable in most cases that people use it. If companies are creating a false paradise, then that's not okay. I think that making a woman's complexion clearer or changing the way people look is fine. It is when girls and boys start thinking about these images as real that there is a problem, and then think of themselves as not acceptable. These types of advertisements can highly affect the way men and women, but especially women, view themselves. Viewers and consumers should already have access to the fact that images are changed all the time in the advertisement business, but companies should still give some sort of a hint that it's unreal. Also, just be smart, think smart. Don't always believe what you see; do some investigating on your own to see what's real and what's fake. So to conclude, I think that it is always fine to have digitally altered images, except when the intentions are to portray a fake place and that growing up this day in age, we should be smart and not believe everything we see.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, digital manipulation is acceptable when there is a piece of media which can be positively altered, for effect enhancement, or to change contrast of an image to make certain parts stand out more. I dont believe that digital manipulation should be used to change media to be used against someone, or to make an ad or certain example look bad. For example, the image we looked out where a man's nose was enlarged and face narrowed for a jewish look. I think that on all conditions, viewers and readers should be notified that an image has been digitally changed unless the purpose of the change is for good, such as enhancement.
ReplyDeletedigital manipulation should not happen if a business is advertising something, whether you are advertising a pretty place to go visit, or food it is false advertisement. this should also be true for the news papers there job is to report the unbasist truth. But i think the government should have the right to manipulate pictures if its for public safety purposes
DeleteI feel like it's a acceptable for a product to look good. I don't mind it the image is enhanced but if the product is formed to look different than what it really looks like then I think that's not right. I absolutely hate it when people are manipulated and don't look like that in real life. I want to see people who look like they are in real life. I like seeing natural images. If a product or person has been changed to look completely different than it does in real life then the reader should be informed about it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that image manipulation is acceptable when a product is clearly being blown into fantastical proportions. If an ad contains an image with the intention of conveying honesty or fear, I disagree with image manipulation. When deep emotions are being compelled, maintaining the truth is the purest form of captivation.
ReplyDeleteMonika, I agree. Making a product look different is very different from making a person appear different.