Do you think Image Manipulation has gone to far?

HI

I would really love your help!! Im trying to find lots of views and opinions along with examples?
Do you feel image manipulation has gone to far??
Are people losing trust in images with the technology?

i would love a discussion going on this topic......:D

Welcome to TG Zoe,

My first thought is 'no'.

From the moment man first picked up a stick and drew something in the sand he has manipulated (art-iculated) his own expressed view as a graphical representation of reality and how he see's it.
Whether or not other people see, understand (or agree) with what has been created in sand (or any other graphical medium) is largely up to individual interpretation.

Hi Zoe,

Welcome to TG.

From your question I would assume you are referring to some of the images being passed around the internet.

For example an image of a Coast Guard man suspended on a ladder from a helicopter and a shark jumping out of the water as if to devour him.

That image is well executed but there are tell tale discrepancies that indicate it is not an actual photograph. Casual observation may miss the discrepancies but a detailed examination can often find them.

Is this going too far? In my opinion it is not. The purpose of art is to create something that may or may not exist in reality. The image exists in someone's imagination and technology simply allowed them to present it in a manner that others could see.

Oh yes Bill, I loved the Museum of Hoaxes photo test :)

sledge you point was rely interesting people never look that far back your right.. its interesting point to look at and i totally agree with you

would be interesting to see if others do agree to your post too?

I liked the link guys too i did it and and got 7/10 have seen alot of them on the internet! :) so kinda helped!!

please has anyone got any views i would really love some views .......



:D

Maybe there should be a support group for images that have suffered as a result of being manipulated.

Would someone who manipulates images be a 'picturephile'? :eek:>:):D

It has long been said, "believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see." This of course was before Photoshop. I think now it would be, "believe nothing of what you hear or see." Everything is a potential fake and everyone a potential liar. I guess this is the new society.

in the days when all images were hand drawn how accurate were they by and large, how reliable as a source?

at what point in photography did editing become possible - answer: right from the start, but you had to be a tad technical and have the right gear to get it right

ditto computer images

the only real difference now it that we can all do it, and it happens across the board now because it is so easy

so we are back to the days of hand drawn images - don't trust it unless you can see it [the actual thing itself]........

"The camera never lies" - humans are renowned for it ;) Ads have been in the news recently, with this and Olay-Twggy-gate :D It's referred to as 'misleading' [the latter article says: Procter & Gamble, the maker of Olay products, claimed there would “always be differences between uncomplimentary paparazzi shots and professional beauty photographs.”] But it's fraudulent when selling something surely, not just 'misleading'. Though have we ever really believed adverts? As Steve says, manipulation of images is so easy to do now and the corollary of that is we're even less likely to believe because more people are aware of the trickery, so it might actually improve the honesty of ad-persons. [Insert your own image of a pig flying here!:D]

only insofar as the old adage "seeing is believing" holds a little less water than I suppose it ever did...

And what colour was that car that left the proverbial accident?..... some say brown others beige, yellow etc......???