Retouching the Truth: Pro-Edited vs. Pro-Unedited

691 Words2 Pages

The digital age brought along with it the advancement of photography, more specifically the practice of photo manipulation. Photo editing software allows for a photographer to take an untouched, raw picture and turn it into anything they want by manipulating the original. The possibilities are endless. Even though image manipulation has been around as long as photography itself, the difference is due to the advancements made in the technology that has made manipulating a photo easy, that has sparked a debate. On the one side there are the supporters, those who see editing as a way to further express themselves through their photos. On the opposing side there are those who claim image editing is an equivalent to trickery, and do not support editing due to the false illusions it creates. Those for and against bring forth convincing arguments to influence their way of thinking. In this essay I will explore the beliefs and arguments both sides pose on the matter of photo editing and whether or not it is moral or immoral.
Photography is one of many ways people choose to express themselves. It is not only a career path but a hobby for many. Photos can be used to express any type of emotion, thing or event, realistic or not. Therefore, those who are pro-editing believe that the invention of photo editing software has simply made easy a new way to create artistic and unique masterpieces that truly allow them the freedom they desire. Photo editing gives a photographer the option to produce something that has no boundaries, such as realism. The supporters see photo manipulation as an enhancement more so than an illusion. Photo editing is not only used to creatively express something that otherwise would be impossible, but also as a way ...

... middle of paper ...

...ents as to why photo editing should and should not be used. Something that stood out the most to me was the idea of the value of beauty and creativity. Both sides accept that photography is meant to be an outlet for creativity that captures beauty. The difference to me was in the definitions they had for beauty and creativity. The supporters of editing seem to think of beauty and creativity concurrently, as in the creativity put into the photo is what makes it beautiful. Those against editing would probably agree with that statement, however they seem to find that beauty lies in the natural representation and one can capture that creatively without altering it. To explore whether or not you agree with the moral or immoral aspect of photo editing, you have to explore the value you place on aesthetics and ethics in terms of photography and what it means in of itself.

Open Document