\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/134\/2014\/09\/20044827\/220px-MinnieDriverJan2011_cropped.jpg\")
<\/a>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/candimgs\/D3wko5\/220px-MinnieDriverJan2011_cropped.jpg\")
<\/a>\nPortrait of Minnie Driver<\/em>\u00a0by Justin Hoch.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/134\/2014\/09\/20044828\/220px-MinnieDriverJan2011_glamourized.jpg\")
<\/a>\n
<\/a>\nImage with manipulated skin features.<\/div>\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nPhoto manipulation<\/strong>\u00a0(also known as\u00a0airbrushing<\/strong>\u00a0or\u00a0photoshopping<\/strong>) is the application of image editing techniques to photographs in order to create an illusion or deception after the original photographing took place.[1]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0A mere\u00a0enhancement<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0correction<\/em>\u00a0is known as\u00a0retouching<\/strong>.\nTypes of digital photo manipulation<\/h2>\nIn digital editing, photographs are usually taken with a digital camera and input directly into a computer. Transparencies, negatives or printed photographs may also be digitized using a scanner, or images may be obtained from stock photography databases. With the advent of computers, graphics tablets, and digital cameras, the term\u00a0image editing<\/em>\u00a0encompasses everything that can be done to a photo, whether in a darkroom or on a computer. Photo manipulation is often much more explicit than subtle alterations to color balance or contrast and may involve overlaying a head onto a different body or changing a sign's text, for examples. Image editing software can be used to apply effects and warp an image until the desired result is achieved. The resulting image may have little or no resemblance to the photo (or photos in the case of compositing) from which it originated. Today, photo manipulation is widely accepted as an art form.\n\nThere are several subtypes of digital image-retouching:\n\n
Types of digital photo manipulation<\/h2>\nIn digital editing, photographs are usually taken with a digital camera and input directly into a computer. Transparencies, negatives or printed photographs may also be digitized using a scanner, or images may be obtained from stock photography databases. With the advent of computers, graphics tablets, and digital cameras, the term\u00a0image editing<\/em>\u00a0encompasses everything that can be done to a photo, whether in a darkroom or on a computer. Photo manipulation is often much more explicit than subtle alterations to color balance or contrast and may involve overlaying a head onto a different body or changing a sign's text, for examples. Image editing software can be used to apply effects and warp an image until the desired result is achieved. The resulting image may have little or no resemblance to the photo (or photos in the case of compositing) from which it originated. Today, photo manipulation is widely accepted as an art form.\n\nThere are several subtypes of digital image-retouching:\n\n- Technical retouching<\/dt><\/dl>Manipulation for photo restoration or enhancement (adjusting colors \/ contrast \/ white balance (i.e. gradational retouching), sharpness, noise, removing elements or visible flaws on skin or materials, ...)\n\n
- Creative retouching<\/dt><\/dl>Used as an art form or for commercial use to create more sleek and interesting images for advertisements. Creative retouching could be manipulation for fashion, beauty or advertising photography such as pack-shots (which could also be considered inherently technical retouching in regards to package dimensions and wrap-around factors). One of the most prominent disciplines in creative retouching is image compositing. Here, the digital artist uses multiple photos to create a single image. Today, 3D computer graphics are used more and more to add extra elements or even locations and backgrounds. This kind of image composition is widely used when conventional photography would be technically too difficult or impossible to shoot on location or in studio.\n
History<\/span><\/h2>\nBefore computers, photo manipulation was achieved by retouching with ink, paint, double-exposure, piecing photos or negatives together in the darkroom, or scratching Polaroids. Airbrushes were also used, whence the term \"airbrushing\" for manipulation. Darkroom manipulations are sometimes regarded as traditional art rather than job related skill. In the early days of photography, the use of technology was not as advanced and efficient as it is now. Results are similar to digital manipulation but they are harder to create.[2]<\/a><\/sup>\n\nAn early example of tampering was in the early 1860s, when a photo of Abraham Lincoln was altered using the body from a portrait of John C. Calhoun and the head of Lincoln from a famous seated portrait by Mathew Brady \u2013 the same portrait which was the basis for the original Lincoln Five-dollar bill.[3]<\/a><\/sup>\n\nThe 1980s saw the advent of digital retouching with Quantel computers running Paintbox, and Scitex imaging workstations being used professionally.[citation needed<\/em>]<\/sup>Silicon Graphics computers running Barco Creator became available in the late 1980s which, alongside other contemporary packages, were effectively replaced in the market by Adobe Photoshop.\n- \n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/134\/2014\/09\/20044829\/150px-Episode_after_Battle_of_Zonnebeke_1918_Hurley.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nVintage manipulated photo of World War I battle action including details combined from multiple photos.\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/li>\n\t- \n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/134\/2014\/09\/20044829\/150px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1978-086-03_Joseph_Goebbels_mit_Familie.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nGoebbels family portrait photo in which the visage of the uniformed Harald, who was actually away on military duties, was inserted and retouched.\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/li>\n\t- \n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/134\/2014\/09\/20044830\/114px-Retouche-set.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nRetouching tools from the pre-digital era: gouache paint, kneaded erasers, charcoal sticks, and an airbrush.\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/li>\n<\/ul>Political and ethical issues<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/134\/2014\/09\/20044830\/220px-Voroshilov_Molotov_Stalin_with_Nikolai_Yezhov.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nJoseph Stalin pictured with the \"Vanishing Commissar\" (Nikolai Yezhov) before retouching...<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/134\/2014\/09\/20044831\/220px-The_Commissar_Vanishes_2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n...and after<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nPhoto manipulation is as old as photography itself, contrary to the idea of a photo having inherent verisimilitude.[dubious\u00a0<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0Photo manipulation has been regularly used to deceive or persuade viewers, or for improved storytelling and self-expression. Often even subtle and discreet changes can have profound impacts on how we interpret or judge a photograph[citation needed<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0which is why learning when manipulation has occurred is important. As early as the American Civil War, photographs were published as engravings based on more than one negative.\n\nJoseph Stalin made use of photo retouching for propaganda purposes.[4]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0On May 5, 1920 his predecessor Vladimir Lenin held a speech for Soviet troops that Leon Trotsky attended. Stalin had Trotsky retouched out of a photograph showing Trotsky in attendance.[citation needed<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0In a well known case of\u00a0damnatio memoriae<\/em>\u00a0image manipulation, NKVD leader Nikolai Yezhov (the \"Vanishing Commissar\"), after his execution in 1940, was removed from an official press photo where he was pictured with Stalin.[5]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0(For more information, see Censorship of images in the Soviet Union.)\n\nThe pioneer among journalists distorting photographic images for news value was Bernarr Macfadden: in the mid-1920s, his \"composograph\" process involved reenacting real news events with costumed body doubles and then photographing the dramatized scenes\u2014then pasting faces of the real news-personalities (gathered from unrelated photos) onto his staged images. In the 1930s, artist John Heartfield used a type of photo manipulation known as the photomontage to critique Nazi propaganda.\n\nSome ethical theories have been applied to image manipulation. During a panel on the topic of ethics in image manipulation[6]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Aude Oliva theorized that categorical shifts are necessary in order for an edited image to be viewed as a manipulation. In\u00a0Image Act Theory<\/em>,[7]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Carson Reynolds extended speech act theory by applying it to photo editing and image manipulations. InHow to Do Things with Pictures,<\/em>[8]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0William Mitchell details the long history of photo manipulation and discusses it critically.\nUse in journalism<\/span><\/h3>\nSee also: Photojournalism \u00a7 Ethical and legal considerations<\/div>\nA notable case of a controversial photo manipulation was a 1982\u00a0National Geographic<\/em>\u00a0cover in which editors photographically moved two Egyptian pyramids closer together so that they would fit on a vertical cover. This case triggered a debate about the appropriateness of photo manipulation in journalism;[citation needed<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0the argument against editing was that the magazine depicted something that did not exist, and presented it as fact. There were several cases since the\u00a0National Geographic<\/em>\u00a0case of questionable photo manipulation, including editing a photo of Cher on the cover of\u00a0Redbook<\/em>\u00a0to change her smile and her dress. Another example occurred in early 2005, when Martha Stewart's release from prison was featured on the cover of\u00a0Newsweek<\/em>; her face was placed on a slimmer woman's body to suggest that she had lost weight while in prison.[9]<\/a><\/sup>\n\nAnother famous instance of controversy over photo manipulation, this time concerning race, arose in the summer of 1994. After O.J. Simpson was arrested for allegedly murdering his wife and her friend, multiple publications carried his mugshot. Notably,\u00a0Time<\/em>\u00a0published an edition featuring an altered mugshot credited to Matt Mahurin, removing the photograph's color saturation (perhaps inadvertently making Simpson's skin darker),[10]<\/a><\/sup>burning the corners, and reducing the size of the prisoner ID number. This appeared on newsstands right next to an unaltered picture by\u00a0Newsweek<\/em>.\n\nA further noted example is the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy (2006), when the photographer in question retouched war images using the clone tool to increase the size of a smoke plume and to duplicate flares.\n\nPhoto manipulation alters the content of the images in a devious manner. It becomes difficult for the audience to differentiate between a manipulated image and reality. But Photoshop's popularity has proven to be divisive. While some laud it for its ability to allow subjects to look their best in a photograph, others see it as a vehicle for feeding our culture's desire for ultimate perfection. Manipulated images are created to deceive the audiences and form their understanding on how the media presents everything with perfection.[11]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Therefore, with digital democratization[vague<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0increasing at a rapid rate it[vague<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0is creating problems. Since more people have access to technology it[vague<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0creates curiosity in the readers mind when they see an image published in newspapers or magazines. The reader begins to question the ethics of the publication which results in a debate. Photo images were considered as a reliable source and were known as a medium of communication to present the truth to the media.[2]<\/a><\/sup>\n\nThere is a growing body of writings devoted to the ethical use of digital editing in photojournalism. In the United States, for example, the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) have set out a Code of Ethics promoting the accuracy of published images, advising that photographers \"do not manipulate images [...] that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.\"[12]<\/a><\/sup>Infringements of the Code are taken very seriously, especially regarding digital alteration of published photographs, as evidenced by a case in which Pulitzer prize-nominated photographer Allan Detrich resigned his post following the revelation that a number of his photographs had been manipulated.[13]<\/a><\/sup>Use in glamour photography<\/span><\/h3>\nThe photo manipulation industry has often been accused of promoting or inciting a distorted and unrealistic image of self; most specifically in younger people. The world of glamour photography is one specific industry which has been heavily involved with the use of photo manipulation (an obviously concerning element as many people look up to celebrities in search of embodying the 'ideal figure').[14]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Manipulation of a photo to alter a model\u2019s appearance can be used to change features such as skin complexion, hair colour, body shape, and other features. Many of the alterations to skin involve removing blemishes through the use of the healing tool in Photoshop. Photo editors may also alter the colour of hair to remove roots or add shine. Additionally, the model\u2019s teeth and eyes may be made to look whiter than they are in reality. Make up and piercings can even be edited into pictures to look as though the model was wearing them when the photo was taken. Through photo editing, the appearance of a model may be drastically changed to mask imperfections.\u00a0[15]<\/a><\/sup>Celebrities against photo manipulation<\/span><\/h3>\nPhoto manipulation has triggered negative responses from both viewers and celebrities. This has led to celebrities refusing to have their photos retouched in support of The American Medical Association that has decided to \u201ctake a stand against rampant photo retouching, declaring the practice detrimental to your health.\u201d[16]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0These include: Keira Knightley, Brad Pitt, Andy Roddick, Kim Kardashian, and Jessica Simpson.\n\nIn April 2010, Britney Spears agreed to release \"un-airbrushed images of herself next to the digitally altered ones\".[14]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The fundamental motive behind her move was to \"highlight the pressure exerted on women to look perfect\".[14]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0In addition, 42-year old Cate Blanchett also appeared on the cover of \"Intelligent Life\u2019s 2012 March\/April\" issue\u00a0; makeup free and without digital retouching for the first time.[17]<\/a><\/sup>Governments against excessive photo manipulation<\/span><\/h3>\nGovernments are exerting pressure on advertisers, and are starting to ban photos that are too airbrushed and edited. In the United Kingdom the Advertising Standards Authority has banned an advertisement by Lanc\u00f4me featuring Julia Roberts for being misleading, stating that the flawless skin seen in the photo was too good to be true.[18]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The US is also moving in the direction of banning excessive photo manipulation where a CoverGirl model's ad was banned because it had exaggerated effects, leading to a misleading representation of the product.[19]<\/a><\/sup>Social and cultural implications<\/span><\/h3>\nThe growing popularity of image manipulation has raised concern as to whether it allows for unrealistic images to be portrayed to the public. In her article \"On Photography\" (1977), Susan Sontag discusses the objectivity, or lack thereof, in photography, concluding that \"photographs, which fiddle with the scale of the world, themselves get reduced, blown up, cropped, retouched, doctored and tricked out\".[20]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0A practice widely used in the magazine industry, the use of photo manipulation on an already subjective photograph, creates a constructed reality for the individual and it can become difficult to differentiate fact from fiction. With the potential to alter body image, debate continues as to whether manipulated images, particularly those in magazines, contribute to self-esteem issues in both men and women.\n\nIn today's world, photo manipulation has a positive impact by developing the creativity of one's mind or maybe a negative one by removing the art and beauty of capturing something so magnificent and natural or the way it should be. According to the Huffington Post, \u201cPhotoshopping and airbrushing, many believe, are now an inherent part of the beauty industry, as are makeup, lighting and styling\u201d. In a way, these image alterations are \u201cselling\u201d actual people to the masses to affect responses, reactions, and emotions toward these cultural icons.[21]<\/a><\/sup>Photoshopping<\/span><\/h2>\nPhotoshopping<\/em>\u00a0is a neologism for the digital editing of photos.[22]<\/a><\/sup>[23]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The term originates from Adobe Photoshop, the image editor most commonly used by professionals for this purpose;[24]<\/a><\/sup>however, any image-editing program could be used, such as Paint Shop Pro, Corel Photopaint, Pixelmator, Paint.NET, or GIMP.[25]<\/a><\/sup>Adobe Systems, the publisher of Adobe Photoshop, discourages use of the term \"photoshop\" as a verb out of concern that it may become a generic trademark, undermining the company's trademark.[26]<\/a><\/sup>\n\nDespite this,\u00a0photoshop<\/em>\u00a0is widely used as a verb, both colloquially and academically, to refer to retouching, compositing (or splicing), and color balancing carried out in the course of graphic design, commercial publishing, and image editing.[27]<\/a><\/sup>[28]<\/a><\/sup>\n\nIn popular culture, the term\u00a0photoshopping<\/em>\u00a0is sometimes associated with montages in the form of visual jokes, such as those published on Fark and in MAD Magazine. Images may be propagated memetically via e-mail as humor or passed as actual news in a form of hoax.[29]<\/a><\/sup>[30]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0An example of the latter category is \"Helicopter Shark,\" which was widely circulated as a so-called \"National Geographic<\/em>\u00a0Photo of the Year\" and was later revealed to be a hoax.[31]<\/a><\/sup>- \n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/134\/2014\/09\/20044831\/180px-Photomontage_Forggensee_Panorama_-2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nPhotomontage of 16 photos which have been digitally manipulated in Photoshop to give the impression that it is a real landscape.\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/li>\n\t- \n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/134\/2014\/09\/20044832\/171px-113th_congress_usa_women_version_altered_by_office_of_House_Minority_Leader.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nBefore its release to news media, congressional staff photoshopped into this 2013 official portrait the heads of four members absent from the original photo shoot.[32]<\/a><\/sup>[33]<\/a><\/sup>[34]<\/a><\/sup>[35]<\/a><\/sup>[36]<\/a><\/sup><\/div>\n<\/div><\/li>\n<\/ul>References<\/span><\/h2>\n\n- ^<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Webster's Dictionary 2006 edition<\/span><\/li>\n\t
- ^\u00a0a<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0b<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a><\/span>\u00a0Peres, Michael (2007).\u00a0The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, Fourth Edition<\/em><\/a>. Focal Press; 4 edition. p.\u00a0880. ISBN\u00a00-240-80740-5.<\/span>[vague<\/em>]<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n\t
- ^<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Farid, Hany.\u00a0\"Photo Tampering Throughout History\"<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
- ^<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0King, D. (1997).\u00a0The Commissar Vanishes: the falsification of photographs and art in Stalin's Russia<\/em>. New York: Metropolitan Books. ISBN\u00a00-8050-5294-1.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
- ^<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0The Newseum (Sep 1, 1999).\u00a0\"\"The Commissar Vanishes\" in The Vanishing Commissar\"<\/a>. Retrieved Sep 30, 2012<\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
- ^<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Carlson, Kathryn; DeLevie, Brian; Oliva, Aude (2006).\u00a0\"Ethics in image manipulation\"<\/a>.\u00a0ACM SIGGRAPH 2006<\/em>. International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. ACM. doi:10.1145\/1179171.1179176<\/a>. ISBN\u00a01-59593-364-6.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
- ^<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Reynolds, C. J. (July 12\u201314, 2007).\u00a0\"Image Act Theory\"<\/a>\u00a0(PDF). Seventh International Conference of Computer Ethics.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
- Creative retouching<\/dt><\/dl>Used as an art form or for commercial use to create more sleek and interesting images for advertisements. Creative retouching could be manipulation for fashion, beauty or advertising photography such as pack-shots (which could also be considered inherently technical retouching in regards to package dimensions and wrap-around factors). One of the most prominent disciplines in creative retouching is image compositing. Here, the digital artist uses multiple photos to create a single image. Today, 3D computer graphics are used more and more to add extra elements or even locations and backgrounds. This kind of image composition is widely used when conventional photography would be technically too difficult or impossible to shoot on location or in studio.\n
History<\/span><\/h2>\nBefore computers, photo manipulation was achieved by retouching with ink, paint, double-exposure, piecing photos or negatives together in the darkroom, or scratching Polaroids. Airbrushes were also used, whence the term \"airbrushing\" for manipulation. Darkroom manipulations are sometimes regarded as traditional art rather than job related skill. In the early days of photography, the use of technology was not as advanced and efficient as it is now. Results are similar to digital manipulation but they are harder to create.[2]<\/a><\/sup>\n\nAn early example of tampering was in the early 1860s, when a photo of Abraham Lincoln was altered using the body from a portrait of John C. Calhoun and the head of Lincoln from a famous seated portrait by Mathew Brady \u2013 the same portrait which was the basis for the original Lincoln Five-dollar bill.[3]<\/a><\/sup>\n\nThe 1980s saw the advent of digital retouching with Quantel computers running Paintbox, and Scitex imaging workstations being used professionally.[citation needed<\/em>]<\/sup>Silicon Graphics computers running Barco Creator became available in the late 1980s which, alongside other contemporary packages, were effectively replaced in the market by Adobe Photoshop.\n
- \n\n\n<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nVintage manipulated photo of World War I battle action including details combined from multiple photos.\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/li>\n\t
- \n
\n\n<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nGoebbels family portrait photo in which the visage of the uniformed Harald, who was actually away on military duties, was inserted and retouched.\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/li>\n\t- \n
\n\n<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nRetouching tools from the pre-digital era: gouache paint, kneaded erasers, charcoal sticks, and an airbrush.\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/li>\n<\/ul>Political and ethical issues<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n\n\n<\/a><\/div>\nJoseph Stalin pictured with the \"Vanishing Commissar\" (Nikolai Yezhov) before retouching...<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n<\/a><\/div>\n...and after<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nPhoto manipulation is as old as photography itself, contrary to the idea of a photo having inherent verisimilitude.[dubious\u00a0<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0Photo manipulation has been regularly used to deceive or persuade viewers, or for improved storytelling and self-expression. Often even subtle and discreet changes can have profound impacts on how we interpret or judge a photograph[citation needed<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0which is why learning when manipulation has occurred is important. As early as the American Civil War, photographs were published as engravings based on more than one negative.\n\nJoseph Stalin made use of photo retouching for propaganda purposes.[4]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0On May 5, 1920 his predecessor Vladimir Lenin held a speech for Soviet troops that Leon Trotsky attended. Stalin had Trotsky retouched out of a photograph showing Trotsky in attendance.[citation needed<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0In a well known case of\u00a0damnatio memoriae<\/em>\u00a0image manipulation, NKVD leader Nikolai Yezhov (the \"Vanishing Commissar\"), after his execution in 1940, was removed from an official press photo where he was pictured with Stalin.[5]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0(For more information, see Censorship of images in the Soviet Union.)\n\nThe pioneer among journalists distorting photographic images for news value was Bernarr Macfadden: in the mid-1920s, his \"composograph\" process involved reenacting real news events with costumed body doubles and then photographing the dramatized scenes\u2014then pasting faces of the real news-personalities (gathered from unrelated photos) onto his staged images. In the 1930s, artist John Heartfield used a type of photo manipulation known as the photomontage to critique Nazi propaganda.\n\nSome ethical theories have been applied to image manipulation. During a panel on the topic of ethics in image manipulation[6]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Aude Oliva theorized that categorical shifts are necessary in order for an edited image to be viewed as a manipulation. In\u00a0Image Act Theory<\/em>,[7]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Carson Reynolds extended speech act theory by applying it to photo editing and image manipulations. InHow to Do Things with Pictures,<\/em>[8]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0William Mitchell details the long history of photo manipulation and discusses it critically.\nUse in journalism<\/span><\/h3>\n
See also: Photojournalism \u00a7 Ethical and legal considerations<\/div>\nA notable case of a controversial photo manipulation was a 1982\u00a0National Geographic<\/em>\u00a0cover in which editors photographically moved two Egyptian pyramids closer together so that they would fit on a vertical cover. This case triggered a debate about the appropriateness of photo manipulation in journalism;[citation needed<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0the argument against editing was that the magazine depicted something that did not exist, and presented it as fact. There were several cases since the\u00a0National Geographic<\/em>\u00a0case of questionable photo manipulation, including editing a photo of Cher on the cover of\u00a0Redbook<\/em>\u00a0to change her smile and her dress. Another example occurred in early 2005, when Martha Stewart's release from prison was featured on the cover of\u00a0Newsweek<\/em>; her face was placed on a slimmer woman's body to suggest that she had lost weight while in prison.[9]<\/a><\/sup>\n\nAnother famous instance of controversy over photo manipulation, this time concerning race, arose in the summer of 1994. After O.J. Simpson was arrested for allegedly murdering his wife and her friend, multiple publications carried his mugshot. Notably,\u00a0Time<\/em>\u00a0published an edition featuring an altered mugshot credited to Matt Mahurin, removing the photograph's color saturation (perhaps inadvertently making Simpson's skin darker),[10]<\/a><\/sup>burning the corners, and reducing the size of the prisoner ID number. This appeared on newsstands right next to an unaltered picture by\u00a0Newsweek<\/em>.\n\nA further noted example is the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy (2006), when the photographer in question retouched war images using the clone tool to increase the size of a smoke plume and to duplicate flares.\n\nPhoto manipulation alters the content of the images in a devious manner. It becomes difficult for the audience to differentiate between a manipulated image and reality. But Photoshop's popularity has proven to be divisive. While some laud it for its ability to allow subjects to look their best in a photograph, others see it as a vehicle for feeding our culture's desire for ultimate perfection. Manipulated images are created to deceive the audiences and form their understanding on how the media presents everything with perfection.[11]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Therefore, with digital democratization[vague<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0increasing at a rapid rate it[vague<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0is creating problems. Since more people have access to technology it[vague<\/em>]<\/sup>\u00a0creates curiosity in the readers mind when they see an image published in newspapers or magazines. The reader begins to question the ethics of the publication which results in a debate. Photo images were considered as a reliable source and were known as a medium of communication to present the truth to the media.[2]<\/a><\/sup>\n\nThere is a growing body of writings devoted to the ethical use of digital editing in photojournalism. In the United States, for example, the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) have set out a Code of Ethics promoting the accuracy of published images, advising that photographers \"do not manipulate images [...] that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.\"[12]<\/a><\/sup>Infringements of the Code are taken very seriously, especially regarding digital alteration of published photographs, as evidenced by a case in which Pulitzer prize-nominated photographer Allan Detrich resigned his post following the revelation that a number of his photographs had been manipulated.[13]<\/a><\/sup>Use in glamour photography<\/span><\/h3>\nThe photo manipulation industry has often been accused of promoting or inciting a distorted and unrealistic image of self; most specifically in younger people. The world of glamour photography is one specific industry which has been heavily involved with the use of photo manipulation (an obviously concerning element as many people look up to celebrities in search of embodying the 'ideal figure').[14]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Manipulation of a photo to alter a model\u2019s appearance can be used to change features such as skin complexion, hair colour, body shape, and other features. Many of the alterations to skin involve removing blemishes through the use of the healing tool in Photoshop. Photo editors may also alter the colour of hair to remove roots or add shine. Additionally, the model\u2019s teeth and eyes may be made to look whiter than they are in reality. Make up and piercings can even be edited into pictures to look as though the model was wearing them when the photo was taken. Through photo editing, the appearance of a model may be drastically changed to mask imperfections.\u00a0[15]<\/a><\/sup>
Celebrities against photo manipulation<\/span><\/h3>\nPhoto manipulation has triggered negative responses from both viewers and celebrities. This has led to celebrities refusing to have their photos retouched in support of The American Medical Association that has decided to \u201ctake a stand against rampant photo retouching, declaring the practice detrimental to your health.\u201d[16]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0These include: Keira Knightley, Brad Pitt, Andy Roddick, Kim Kardashian, and Jessica Simpson.\n\nIn April 2010, Britney Spears agreed to release \"un-airbrushed images of herself next to the digitally altered ones\".[14]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The fundamental motive behind her move was to \"highlight the pressure exerted on women to look perfect\".[14]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0In addition, 42-year old Cate Blanchett also appeared on the cover of \"Intelligent Life\u2019s 2012 March\/April\" issue\u00a0; makeup free and without digital retouching for the first time.[17]<\/a><\/sup>
Governments against excessive photo manipulation<\/span><\/h3>\nGovernments are exerting pressure on advertisers, and are starting to ban photos that are too airbrushed and edited. In the United Kingdom the Advertising Standards Authority has banned an advertisement by Lanc\u00f4me featuring Julia Roberts for being misleading, stating that the flawless skin seen in the photo was too good to be true.[18]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The US is also moving in the direction of banning excessive photo manipulation where a CoverGirl model's ad was banned because it had exaggerated effects, leading to a misleading representation of the product.[19]<\/a><\/sup>
Social and cultural implications<\/span><\/h3>\nThe growing popularity of image manipulation has raised concern as to whether it allows for unrealistic images to be portrayed to the public. In her article \"On Photography\" (1977), Susan Sontag discusses the objectivity, or lack thereof, in photography, concluding that \"photographs, which fiddle with the scale of the world, themselves get reduced, blown up, cropped, retouched, doctored and tricked out\".[20]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0A practice widely used in the magazine industry, the use of photo manipulation on an already subjective photograph, creates a constructed reality for the individual and it can become difficult to differentiate fact from fiction. With the potential to alter body image, debate continues as to whether manipulated images, particularly those in magazines, contribute to self-esteem issues in both men and women.\n\nIn today's world, photo manipulation has a positive impact by developing the creativity of one's mind or maybe a negative one by removing the art and beauty of capturing something so magnificent and natural or the way it should be. According to the Huffington Post, \u201cPhotoshopping and airbrushing, many believe, are now an inherent part of the beauty industry, as are makeup, lighting and styling\u201d. In a way, these image alterations are \u201cselling\u201d actual people to the masses to affect responses, reactions, and emotions toward these cultural icons.[21]<\/a><\/sup>
Photoshopping<\/span><\/h2>\nPhotoshopping<\/em>\u00a0is a neologism for the digital editing of photos.[22]<\/a><\/sup>[23]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The term originates from Adobe Photoshop, the image editor most commonly used by professionals for this purpose;[24]<\/a><\/sup>however, any image-editing program could be used, such as Paint Shop Pro, Corel Photopaint, Pixelmator, Paint.NET, or GIMP.[25]<\/a><\/sup>Adobe Systems, the publisher of Adobe Photoshop, discourages use of the term \"photoshop\" as a verb out of concern that it may become a generic trademark, undermining the company's trademark.[26]<\/a><\/sup>\n\nDespite this,\u00a0photoshop<\/em>\u00a0is widely used as a verb, both colloquially and academically, to refer to retouching, compositing (or splicing), and color balancing carried out in the course of graphic design, commercial publishing, and image editing.[27]<\/a><\/sup>[28]<\/a><\/sup>\n\nIn popular culture, the term\u00a0photoshopping<\/em>\u00a0is sometimes associated with montages in the form of visual jokes, such as those published on Fark and in MAD Magazine. Images may be propagated memetically via e-mail as humor or passed as actual news in a form of hoax.[29]<\/a><\/sup>[30]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0An example of the latter category is \"Helicopter Shark,\" which was widely circulated as a so-called \"National Geographic<\/em>\u00a0Photo of the Year\" and was later revealed to be a hoax.[31]<\/a><\/sup>
- \n\n\n<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nPhotomontage of 16 photos which have been digitally manipulated in Photoshop to give the impression that it is a real landscape.\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/li>\n\t
- \n
\n\n<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nBefore its release to news media, congressional staff photoshopped into this 2013 official portrait the heads of four members absent from the original photo shoot.[32]<\/a><\/sup>[33]<\/a><\/sup>[34]<\/a><\/sup>[35]<\/a><\/sup>[36]<\/a><\/sup><\/div>\n<\/div><\/li>\n<\/ul>References<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n- ^<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Webster's Dictionary 2006 edition<\/span><\/li>\n\t
- ^\u00a0a<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0b<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a><\/span>\u00a0Peres, Michael (2007).\u00a0The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, Fourth Edition<\/em><\/a>. Focal Press; 4 edition. p.\u00a0880. ISBN\u00a00-240-80740-5.<\/span>[vague<\/em>]<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n\t
- ^<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Farid, Hany.\u00a0\"Photo Tampering Throughout History\"<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
- ^<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0King, D. (1997).\u00a0The Commissar Vanishes: the falsification of photographs and art in Stalin's Russia<\/em>. New York: Metropolitan Books. ISBN\u00a00-8050-5294-1.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
- ^<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0The Newseum (Sep 1, 1999).\u00a0\"\"The Commissar Vanishes\" in The Vanishing Commissar\"<\/a>. Retrieved Sep 30, 2012<\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
- ^<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Carlson, Kathryn; DeLevie, Brian; Oliva, Aude (2006).\u00a0\"Ethics in image manipulation\"<\/a>.\u00a0ACM SIGGRAPH 2006<\/em>. International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. ACM. doi:10.1145\/1179171.1179176<\/a>. ISBN\u00a01-59593-364-6.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
- ^<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Reynolds, C. J. (July 12\u201314, 2007).\u00a0\"Image Act Theory\"<\/a>\u00a0(PDF). Seventh International Conference of Computer Ethics.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
- ^\u00a0a<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0b<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a><\/span>\u00a0Peres, Michael (2007).\u00a0The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, Fourth Edition<\/em><\/a>. Focal Press; 4 edition. p.\u00a0880. ISBN\u00a00-240-80740-5.<\/span>[vague<\/em>]<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n\t
- \n
- \n
- \n