Are photomanipulations in art of photography bad or unetical?
Not if they're done for the benefit of making art. They're bad/unethical if they're intentionally used for any nefarious reasons.
Photo manipulation can take many, many forms ranging from adjusting brightness to a completely faked image of someone or something.
Asking if manipulating photos in art is bad or unethical is far too broad of a question. You need to move away from the general and be critically specific.
I'm a pro artist/designer of many years and I go by the "whatever you are holding in your hand" rule. If you can hold it in your hand, it is art. How it came to be is my business.
It's a humorous way of illustration. Obviously one can't hold a Disney movie in their hand but it is certainly art.
- IridflareLv 72 months ago
Since you've mentioned art I'll assume I can ignore things like scientific and forensic photography which have their own rules and standards. Once you're dealing with art though the gloves can come off - there are no rules.
I think a lot of people would argue that it's the nature of the retouching that determines if it's "bad" e.g. cropping's ok but replacing the sky and adding an extra mountain isn't. For me, it's about intent. I assume the backdrop to the aftershave advert has been processed to within an inch of its life - that's fine by me as they're just trying to set a mood. Replacing the sky in an image published in a travel mag would be a very different matter!
- Martin SLv 72 months ago
If it's your photo (taken BY you, not OF you) no, if it's someone elses photo yes.
For the rest general rules of ethic apply. It's not OK if you ridicule someone by altering the picture or the fake documentary facts so the picture has a different meaning.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- RobsteriarkLv 72 months ago
Not for photos taken for artistic purposes.
But absolutely unethical for photos taken for purposes of factual record.