Moral Issues with Photoshop

Ok, lets have a discussion. And please, keep it serious.

A few months ago I read an article in Masthead about photo touch ups and the moral problems it can cause. Is putting a different head on a persons body, or even removing a mole appropriate?

As someone who works for a magazine, once we are in production, I handle every photo thats in the issue and I usually make some sort of changes, whether its colour or some actual touch ups. I am not opposed to minor changes as I like to clean the image up as best as possible. But some people, like this gentleman, are paid to do drastic repairs/changes.

http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/digital.html

What the article said at the end, is something that I agree with. If its not permanent, you can change it (zits, scrapes, etc..) but if it is, it should stay (moles, birthmarks, etc..) But how do we feel about things like wrinkles, skin colour, hair? These things change with the person. Do any of you designers who have been in the field think about this? Are tools like Patch/Heal and the Clone Stamp overused? Were they fun for awhile and now you know better? Is there even a moral issue to be addressed?

Lets here your thoughts.

Yo I'll be serious for one time, I think there is a moral problems with photoshop as well as with other graphic softwares, some people use them to paste celebrity head to a naked body, add stuff on your pictures etc. One time I was chatting with some unknown person online and they shown me their picture and it was a hot girl but right away I knew it was an 60 years old ex-con jail guy :D At first I always thought it was fun to edit photos, retouching, etc. but some people take it to the wrong direction. It you want look pretty get plastic surgery but dont just erase part of yourself to make you feel good. I do support minor changes like digital coloring and photo retouching etc.

Just as long as it's not for commercial use it's okay. It's not like people behind monitors use real pics of themselves unless it's a live webcam. If I said I was a slightly over-weight 16 year old shirtless Japanese guy with long bangs, how many people would believe me?

People take things up the ass too much, you have to loosen up before you get shot or ran over. If you think it's morally correct, then do what you want. Just when people do find it morally incorrect, be ready to support your arguement. This goes for the given topic and any other topic.

People swap heads in PS for humorous reasons. Moles, scars, acne, unwanted hair should all be available to edit unless the owner of the photograph or the subject within says otherwise.

Patch/Clone stamp tool will NEVER be overused. If anything, useless filters are being overused (concerning filtertastic works). Let's not forget about the various other uses of the two tools, such as creating seamless patterns, fixing textures, etc.

Yeah, yeah...I was checking out that guy's work last night, it freaked me out. When I rolled over the images and saw the real girlies under that stuff...aw yuck!

Man, we never know what we're lookin' at anymore, and I seriously think we need to keep the unchangeable as is. Yeah, lighting and tone should be dealt with to match a background or something, but to totally redo someone...man, that's like recoding genetic structure.

So within the lines of morality, I'd also say it's an issue of integrity. I would say integrity on both parts. For the model and the designer. Choppin' up body parts and stuff is really crazy, and also raises a question. Why not just find a model that looks like the way that is necessary to suit the need of an ad, or whatever.

To be honest with you, these issues always cross my mind, which is why I don't put any family pics up on the net, especially of my nieces or nephews. I don't need some sick cat starting a freakin' child porn site and have my precious family's heads on someone else's body. It's amazing how many times we think we have a site and no one will run across it, but I've had some pictures get jacked off of site I never thought would be found.

So I'm with Spectra: "If its not permanent, you can change it..."

These are my two cents.

Cheers!

I think it's the same issue with plastic surgery... should the doctors change a woman's tits? - I didn't hear any of you guys complaining about the morality of big tits - why the other day some of you were saying A PEK's ninja girl has saggy tits.
It's digital art people. As long as the models agree I see no moral issue. Most of them will want to look better. So it's not realistic. Yes! Why don't we hang the cubists for distorting the reality. I agree that the age we live in has a strong penchant for flawless people - flat bellies / strong abs, big dicks, tight vaginas, perfect round tits and asses... I see no harm in it if you don't turn into an anorexic just because it's trendy. I think it would be safer if people only did surgery with Photoshop. Nicer too... you can correct any mistakes

Zerimar3 -

Why not just find a model that looks like the way that is necessary to suit the need of an ad, or whatever.

think about this - it's cheaper to find an "uglier" model. What you are saying - if don't have a nice wallpaper on you room at home, or a nice color onthe walls - will you go buy another house that has them - would you do that? Move your family, take two or three mortgages just because you need your walls painted?

What about people who are really misfortunate like those forced by illness to sit their entire life in a wheelchair or those that have had their limbs amputated? Would you say it's imoral and it shows lack of integrity if you used photoshop to show an idealistic image of them? One that shows them complete and standing up, running....? Provided of course that they give you their permission and say that they would like it...

which is why I don't put any family pics up on the net, especially of my nieces or nephews. I don't need some sick cat starting a freakin' child porn site and have my precious family's heads on someone else's body.

Would you love your family less if you saw them on a porn site? - I'm not addressing the legal issue here - just morality. Would you say your children or wife have shamed you if you saw their heads on a porn site attached to fornicating bodies? It would be unpleasant of course, it would make you angry with people stealing their images and doing things which you (or them) would not agree to - yes. But would that make them less lovabale?

We all have to pay the price - greater liberty means more sick people will get their way - for a while at least. But would you change that? If you go to an arabian country for instance where control over porn and "missuse" of one's image is strictly under control you will see that there is a price to pay for that too. You would be unable to speak your mind freely and openly. Not to mention that you wouldn't be able to use the internet to voice your opinions on an open forum...
Would you put a cloth over your wife's face lest someone steals her image and uses it for dark purposes?

and finally -

So I'm with Spectra: "If its not permanent, you can change it..."

can you tell me one thing on this earth which is permanent?

work is work man, dont let your feelings get involved.
when i have to shed pounds, re juvinate people, whiten teeth, remove moles/acne i dont question it, work is work, and no one is perfect. But people thinking others are perfect is part of the fantasy, and it all dies when you actually meet the person, now think how many people actually get to look at the people they idolize at 1200% from the 230meg drum scan? none and so it doesnt matter.
I've been even paid to remove hickeys :p, like i said work is work.

The only time im against using PS is when is done for evil. there was that picture during the Iraq pounding on a british paper that was made more dramatic, by adding more people, and a gun clad soldier in front of the whole thing. And even more recently this was pointed out http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2003/08/07/international/07LEGECA01ready.html and on the NYT no less. If you look at the bumper of the white car you can see the cursor still, but it wasnt in the print version. which makes you think "why would the NYT times take screen grabs instead of just saving for web".

truth is all the things you question can and sometimes are fixed by more dangerous and expensive plastic surgery, think about it this way, you're helping people look better, without them going under the knife

Well, lets not focus on models and such then. How about a photo with kids playing, or just a generic photograph of people used in an article somewhere. Forget glamour shots and think about the photography used in everyday, "normal" budget magazines.

Can we alter their appearance here? No one person is a focal point. They just happened to have their picture taken and now its in a magazine. Do we clean up the scientist because he has bad teeth? Do we cover up anything "we" deem unsightly?

I disagree a bit with mihai. Its not all Digital Art. Sometimes a photo is serving a simple function...to show you whats going on. I think the fantasy factor and what not kicks in with glamour shots and profesional photography, but not every picture in a magazine is of that quality or subject.

And mo0, I am talking commercial use. :D Thats the point. I'm not talking about the 16 year olds making wallpapers for their desktop. Im talking about people in the industry that have to deal with this day in and out where potentially thousands if not millions will be seeing the artists "alterations".

re: altering models and icons..
if it portrays a faked perfect image...i can't imagine it will be
saving people from going under the knife..
by creating false gods and icons for the sheeple to follow. people will be herding to perfect their bodies in the only way they know how. (not to mention the occurences of "low self image" compounding)
the age of people going under the knife is getting lower and lower...
if the mass could see the REAL people they are worshipping, maybe they could find a way to be more comfortable with the way they are..rather than striving for something they will never be able to have without a surgical procedure or three.

cleaning up temporary blemishes is far from what i'm adressing.

with the rampant drastic "touch ups" going on in the industry...we are only creating a sh!tty superficial populace..and i already dislike those people...i'm all for not breeding more of them.

editing on light/shadows, coluring etc etc. is nothing but making it more attractive.. thats a must in the commercial business.. as most of you know

im also on the spectra side though..

Originally posted by liquid


with the rampant drastic "touch ups" going on in the industry...we are only creating a ****ty superficial populace..and i already dislike those people...i'm all for not breeding more of them.

yeah but is people's jobs to fix that, you'd be taking out alot of PS users and workers if everyne went natural.