Photo Manipulation and Ethics

A) A main point I read about in the article was that photo manipulation is rendering reality. Even if you don't change much about the picture, it's still not allowing the viewers to have an opinion on the true picture. People seeing the manipulated photo are seeing the altered version, so they are basing their opinion off of someone else's interpretation.

B) The philosophy of major newspapers, like The Washington Post and The New York Times, is  that the photojournalists are required to turn in their proof for the photos they took, as well as their final portfolio if they want their photos to be used.

C) Some things are acceptable to do to an image without being unethical. For example, if there is a great picture in a magazine, and you just want to make a little bit brighter, that's fine because you're just changing the lighting so that people can better see the picture. Another example would be if you crop unnecessary objects out of a picture, like a fire hydrant or bush.

D) I find this photo manipulation to be the most unethical. This is because the CBS photo department thought it was necessary to make the woman look slimmer than she actually is. This is extremely unethical because we shouldn't be worried about the size of other people because everyone's human. Another reason why this is the most unethical is because seeing this alteration probably didn't make the woman in the picture feel good.

E) In my opinion, this photo manipulation is the least unethical. The reason being that no one in the picture was altered in a way to make them "look better" or anything that would bring them down about themselves. The only thing that was done was take already taken photos and put them together. There is nothing unethical about this photo manipulation.