Creative Gallery Draft

These are a couple of examples of ethical photo editing. I'll be adding more examples over the next few days, as well as some unethically edited photos.

The first is a picture from the 1970 WVU ID of a family friend, which I've edited to remove the crease lines and general wear that have accumulated over time. I also painted the jacket and background.

The second photo is one I took in California last summer. I added a light to the yacht, deepened the hue of the sky and ocean, and sharpened the image.

Both examples of photo editing are ethical because the pictures are for personal use, and no one is harmed by the alterations.

Clicking on these photos will open the full-sized images:

Question I (1-35)

What tasks/aspects of your academic life are impossible without the Internet?

-- Email:           Notification of class cancellations

                        Questions for professors

                        Corresponding with classmates

                        Explaining class absence due to illness

                       

-- eCampus:     Online quizzes

Reading assignments (also on e-Reserves)

Participating in discussion boards for class

                        Assignment submissions

                        Class Powerpoint slides

                        Class notes

                        Viewing grades

-- Research for homework (library website; EBSCOhost)

-- Online-based classes

-- Watching videos for classes

-- University event updates                  

-- Computer coding classes

-- Accessing library book call numbers

-- Blogging for classes

-- Online textbooks

-- Accessing school accounts

-- General information about college

Creative Gallery

For my creative project, I'm planning to do a practical demonstration of some of the ethical and unethical uses of photo editing software.

Some examples of ethical modifications that I'll apply are:

--minor cosmetic alterations for personal or professional use
--removing obtrusive objects from photos (only if they aren't important to the meaning of the photo)
--photo enhancements like improving lighting, contrast, etc.

Some examples of unethical modifications that I'll apply are:

--major cosmetic alterations for professional use, like extreme thinning of models
--removing or heavily altering photo components that are important to the photo's meaning
--photo enhancements that alter the meaning of the photo's situation

I'll probably ask my friends to donate pictures of themselves or of anything that can be modified.

Google Map -- Parkersburg, WV

View Parkersburg in a larger map

Final Essay -- Positive and Negative Uses of Photo Editing

-

Multimedia Essay -- Google Docs

Multimedia Essay -- PDF Format

Note: The pdf file is much easier to view, as headers and page breaks appear in the appropriate locations.

-

Found Magazine

FOUND magazine is an online archive that anyone can contribute to, after registering an account with the website. Users post notes, photographs, drawings, etc. that they find in random locations. They also write a caption for each submission stating where they found it, and sometimes the date or some background information about the situation that surrounds the note, if they know that information.

This type of site is addictive, since the "More Finds" section appears under each submission, allowing visitors to the site to keep clicking endlessly on more submissions. The variety of types of submissions (they can be anything that is written or drawn on) keeps the site fresh and interesting for a longer amount of time than if there were only notes, or only photos.

The site's format, which allows comments, creates a community of people that can share and interpret random things. The comments are largely humorous interpretations of the notes, or jokes about them. Some people seriously analyze the submissions and become involved in heated debates about their meanings. It's interesting that even with something as informal as these submissions, people can still view them as serious literary works.

The Night of Melvyn's Murder

"The Night of Melvyn's Murder" is an engaging web project that describes the activities of numerous people on the night of a man named Melvyn's homicide. I'm not sure whether the small stories are clues meant to point to the culprit, or if the project is meant to be a brilliant feat to be marveled at rather than solved. In any case, the layout of information--a network of people connected to each other through linked activities--is both dizzying and impressive.

When I read the first bit of story, I was a little bit confused as to what I was meant to do. After clicking on one of the names in the story, though, I quickly discovered both how to interact with the project and exactly how vast it was. It's the sort of thing that makes a person want to create an information web to keep all of the information straight (or maybe I'm just OCD). Every time I started to think that I had nearly read every person's story, five new characters would present themselves.

I do think that this is the sort of project that's far easier to create than it is to read and comprehend, like how a necklace can become impossibly knotted without much effort, then take an hour to fix. The complexity of it is great, and I'm tempted to sit down and actually try to find out whether the murderer can be found, or if Melvyn and the circumstances of his murder are even explained.

Essay -- First Draft

Photo-editing software, such as Photoshop or GIMP, has achieved popularity and notoriety in recent years. But photo manipulation is not a new phenomenon--pictures have been altered since the 1800s, when photographs were invented. Depending on the way in which it is used, photo editing can be a positive tool that merely creates enhanced photos, or a negative tool that attempts to alter reality either intentionally or unintentionally, leading to the public's distrust of photography as a source of truth.

Since photography began in the 1800s, photos have been altered. An early example of this editing is a photograph of General Ulysses S. Grant during the American Civil War which was revealed to be a composite of three separate images. Grant’s head was taken from one photo, the body and horse from another, and the background image from a third. Manipulation of historical photos is one type of photo editing that is generally dishonest and damaging to the historical record, especially when original copies of the photos in question are not readily available and preserved.

CNN was recently criticized for damaging the historical record when it edited a photo that other news organizations released unaltered. CNN blurred the faces of a group of men behind a news correspondent that was assaulted soon after the photo was taken. Many people criticized CNN for altering the photo, saying that they had "unethically tampered with a historic photographic record." CNN defended its decision, explaining that they blurred the crowd's faces because they had no way of knowing whether the people in the photograph were the same people who assaulted the correspondent.

This type of photo manipulation, done to protect the individuals in the picture, does not harm the historical record since many other news organizations released the unaltered photograph and there is no reason to believe that the original will become unavailable. Also, the blurring of faces was done with good reason, did not change the photo’s meaning, and did not misrepresent the situation within the photograph.

Wikipedia & Wikimedia

The Wikimedia page was surprising to me--I didn't know that there were so many official wikis from the Wikimedia Foundation. I knew about Wikipedia, and had heard about the Wiktionary, but I didn't know about Wikiquote, Wikiversity, or any of the other wikis listed on the page.

Something that I found interesting was the level of distrust that many people, like librarians, seem to have for Wikipedia, versus the apparent reliability of its information, which is comparable to Encyclopædia Britannica. I thought that there was an interesting point made on the Reliability of Wikipedia page: that even if the information on Wikipedia is policed by every person in the world, not every person has a degree in the subject matter that is being edited. That's a good point to make, especially considering Wikipedia's firm stance on not being a place for original thought, which is repeated throughout their policy pages. While it is their strict policy, not everyone who edits Wikipedia is going to read that statement or adhere to it. With so many people accessing Wikipedia every day, the information will likely be cleaned up before many people see it, but the risk is still a constant threat to the site's credibility.

I like that Wikipedia is specific about what it is not, and that they're firm about not being a censored website as long as the content provided is relevant to its article. They're much more reliable and credible if they don't remove information purely because it is offensive to some people.

Overall, I'm still undecided about whether Wikipedia is a credible source of information. While its standards are high, the site is still vast and any false information that is provided may not be caught in a timely manner if very few people visit a page. I wouldn't cite Wikipedia as an academic source or in an argument, but I would go there for a general overview of a topic, and I'd definitely take advantage of its cited sources.

I do use Wikipedia pretty often in general searches for facts about something that isn't terribly important but that I need information about. I use it as a preliminary research source a lot, to get background information before I search more specific websites. Professors generally say not to use it as an academic source, but a few allow it for general information.

People probably write for Wikipedia because a particular topic interests them or because they have some knowledge about it. Since anyone can edit or add information, it creates a collaborative atmosphere where, if people see inaccurate or incomplete information, they can impact the article immediately and directly. I have a friend who is one of their official editors, and he basically reviews articles that have been edited to make sure that the edits are okay. He doesn't get paid for it, but he has special access to information about which articles have been edited recently.

Revised Abstract

Photo-editing software, such as Photoshop or GIMP, has achieved popularity and notoriety in recent years. But photo manipulation is not a new phenomenon--pictures have been altered since the 1800s, when photographs were invented. Depending on the way in which it is used, photo editing can be a positive tool that merely creates enhanced photos, or a negative tool that attempts to alter reality either intentionally or unintentionally, leading to the public's distrust of photography as a source of truth.

This paper includes a brief background of photo editing and explores its various uses throughout history. It also explains some of the ways in which photos can be 'enhanced' or altered with photo editing software. It has an emphasis on the positive and negatives ways in which photo manipulation can be used, including examples of each type for analysis and comparison.

Photo editing has received a bad reputation, and with good reasons. This paper talks about not only the ways in which the technology can be abused, but also the ways it can be used to present a more accurate, useful picture.

 --------------------

Annotations can be found on the right side of the page via the 'Annotations' link.

-
-

My Project

This article, which I also linked to on Diigo, discusses CNN's decision to edit a photo that other news organizations released unaltered. CNN blurred the faces of a group of men behind a news correspondent that was assaulted soon after the photo was taken. Many people criticized CNN for altering the photo, saying that they had "unethically tampered with a historic photographic record." CNN defended its decision, explaining that they blurred the crowd's faces because they had no way of knowing whether the people in the photograph were the same people who assaulted the correspondent.

The situation described is only one of the many ways in which changing reality can be subjective; some decisions are viewed positively (astrophotography; smaller edits like editing the hair out of someone's face) and some are seen negatively (making models extremely thin; altering a politically important photo).

Photo editors allow us to create our own reality, for better or worse.

Draft Abstract

I like that my project is something current and controversial. It has a lot of different perspectives that are equally valid, so it should be interesting to research. My biggest issue with the essay so far is deciding whether I want to take a side about whether photo manipulation is generally a good or bad thing.

Abstract

Photo-editing software, such as Photoshop or GIMP, has achieved popularity and notoriety in recent years. But photo manipulation is not a new phenomenon--pictures have been altered since the 1800s, when photographs were invented. Depending on the way in which it is used, photo editing can be a positive tool that merely creates enhanced photos, or a negative tool that attempts to alter reality either intentionally or unintentionally, leading to the public's distrust of photography as a source of truth.

My essay will include a brief background of photo editing and will explore its various uses throughout history. I'll explain some of the ways in which photos can be 'enhanced' or altered with photo editing software. I will also explore the positive and negatives ways in which it can be used, including examples of each type for analysis and comparison.

Photo editing has received a bad reputation, and with good reasons. I will talk about not only the ways in which the technology can be abused, but also the ways it can be used to present a more accurate, useful picture.


(My annotations are on a separate page titled "Annotations" in the right sidebar.)

Photo Editors and Expectations

My main question about my essay is how broad or specific I'm going to be with it. I'd rather not go into the minute details of how Photoshop or other photo-editing software works, but I would like to go into the implications of Photoshop and how editing images can be a positive or negative cultural phenomenon. Astrophotography as a positive aspect vs. professional modeling as a negative aspect.


"Think about a hotel room: at high-quality hotels, there is now fierce
competition to provide extremely high-quality televisions. Why is beyond me."

Lessig is commenting on how digital technology changes consumers' expectations about how often or in how many places they can access information. But from my project's perspective, I'm thinking about why the televisions are so high quality. HD television is expected in almost every location now, whether it's at home or, as Lessig says, in a hotel room. Consumers demand more and more perfection out of images, whether in the form of video or still photographs. Even pictures that accurately represent a person or scene are unsatisfactory--they must be edited to 'perfection,' whether it's accurate or not. Photoshop and other photo editors can be useful when a picture has been damaged, but most people use the software to edit out tiny imperfections, creating a flawless portrayal of themselves meant to match up to airbrushed photos of celebrities.


"There’s a part of culture that we simply consume. We listen to music. We watch a movie. We read a book. With each, we’re not expected to do much more than simply consume."

Here, Lessig reiterates the current way that most people think about culture. With new technologies like Photoshop, however, anyone can take an image found on the Internet and manipulate it until it is almost (or completely) unrecognizable. While this can allow artists to create works of art that would have otherwise been impossible, advertisers can use photo editors to create idyllic representations of both females and males that our society is then compelled to match in beauty. Even though it's now common knowledge that "no one really looks like that," countless people try to live up to society's expectations of 'perfection.'

Astrophotography Trailer Final

Astrophotography Trailer

Astrophotography

http://heritage.stsci.edu/2003/20/index.html

When I was thinking about potential topics for my blog and video, I kept coming back to astronomy. I took an astronomy intro course as an elective a few semesters ago and ended up keeping the textbook because I wanted to be able to learn more about it after the class ended.

I couldn't think of a subtopic that would be interesting and specific enough for this class until I came across the Hubble Heritage Project's website at heritage.stsci.edu. They create colorful, sharp pictures of nebulas, galaxies, and other astronomical features by manipulating images captured by the Hubble Space Telescope. The images are black and white, grainy, and not very impressive before the Heritage Project improves them.

The process of beautifying the images is complex and very interesting, so I researched it and found that astrophotography is done both by professionals and by amateurs with smaller telescopes and cameras. I'm looking forward to learning more about the process of both the photography and editing aspects of the field.

Lessig's "Remix"



http://disquiet.com/2009/03/15/shelf-empowerment-sampling-lessigs-remix


Lawrence Lessig has many seemingly radical ideas about what consitutes copyright infringement versus freedom of expression. He makes a lot of good points in the preface, introduction, and first chapter of Remix, but raises some questions that are likely addressed later in the book.

Some of the case studies that Lessig posits are (to me, at least) clearly scenarios in which copyright law has gone too far--for instance, the story of a mother who shared a video on Youtube of her baby dancing to a Prince song. Lessig's argument was that the audio was unclear and the video obviously not meant to gain a profit or detract from Prince's sales. He's right; if this were a case of common sense, the mother would not be at fault. Unfortunately, the law often seems to serve the interests of corporations rather than subscribing to what most people would view as common sense.

The case in which the exhibit created by John Lennon fans using his songs and their voices was denied permissions by Yoko Ono was a case involving what could be called common decency rather than common sense. It seems as though in this particular instance, allowing the group to display the exhibit, which was garnering no profit, was simply the polite thing to do. It would have not only sent a message to fans that they are always appreciated but would have, very simply, been a kind act. Instead, Ono and her lawyers turned a small matter into a large, laborious, and arguably unnecessary process.

I'm interested to read about how Lessig rationalizes the use of peer-to-peer exchange. He seems to contradict himself during the first part of his book: first he says that we are criminalizing an entire generation of people who will inevitably use P2P websites and programs, but he then goes on to say:

Companies like YouTube are deluged with demands to remove material from their systems. No doubt a significant portion of those demands are fair and justified. If you’re Viacom, funding a new television series with high-priced ads, it is perfectly understandable that when a perfect copy of the latest episode is made available on YouTube, you would be keen to have it taken down. Copyright law gives Viacom that power by giving it a quick and inexpensive way to get the YouTubes of the world to help it protect its rights.

Here, Lessig seems to be on Viacom's side, against the perfect-copy-providers of the world. However, P2P sharing provides HD copies of TV shows, as well as DVD releases, PDFs of books, music, games, software, and an other type of file that could possibly be transmitted and stored electronically. I'm curious to discover Lessig's stand on P2P sharing--is it inevitable but not really harmful and therefore permissible, or damaging and therefore wrong? Or would he propose selective P2P sharing, as websites like Mininova and isoHunt have been forced to adopt, so that only content willfully shared by its creators is allowed to be distributed?

I'll probably continue reading Remix in my spare time to learn about Lessig's proposed course of action.

Letham's "Give All" Philosophy

Letham's view on plagiarism is that artists should be proud of their work and grateful that others wish to adapt, borrow, or build on it in order to create new art. He believes that while the more concrete aspects of a work should belong to the artist, others should be free to use the idea or concept of that work in their own material.

His view is extremely idealistic, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it fails to take into account the very human desire for revenue. Artists and authors want to be recognized for their labors, but many would be upset by the idea that their unique concepts were being used without their consent, particularly if money was being made by using those concepts. As Letham argues, however, even these so-called 'original' ideas contain aspects of others' work--nothing created today is truly original.

The line separating plagiarism from acceptable adaptation is thin and extremely blurred. Copyright law attempts to define the boundary, but realistically, this would require a concrete decision about how 'original' an idea has to be before the creator can consider it to be his/her property. Similarly, a decision must be made as to how much borrowing or adaptation is permissible once a work has been claimed as someone's property.

I suspect that there will never be a clear-cut answer to the questions that Letham raises. Some artists will always wish to own their work, and other artists will always wish to mold that work into their own interpretation.