Digital photography and truth

It can be said that in the age of digital photography the photographer has more control than ever over the image from capture to finished image.  Unlike film, digital photographs can always be adjusted even after the finished image.  There is also the opening for many interpretations of a single image from a black and white rendering to a colour version.  With access to every pixel in the image the photographer can make changes and alterations that were not possible with film.

This presents us with a new issue - meaning and content in an image.  Images are now open to manipulation and the 'truth' of a photograph is questioned.  The most common perception of this is the airbrushed images of the rich and famous and models in magazines.  I think most anger is about image manipulation is directed at that industry because of the effects it has on people.  However an image where the sky has been replaced or the landscape altered seem to draw less attention.

The reality of digital photography means that there are no longer any clear lines between what it acceptable and what is not.  It is not purely down to ethics.  There is a series of image adjustments from the basic preparation of a digital file to produces a fake image.

Raw files need to be processed.  This can be viewed as a technical matter and are considered normal when shooting digitally.  We look at

• Brightness 
• Contrast
• Black and white points
• White balance

The raw file can be seen as a digital negative not unlike a film negative in an intermediate stage between capture and display.

Departing from the standard normal adjustments or processing of a digital file we have to look at interpretation.  In the previous section of the course we looked at enhancing the image and monochrome conversions.  

I suppose the real departure from what we may refer to as standard and a basic level of interpretation comes about when we look at correcting an image.  

Removing dust marks from the sensor which appear in your image could be considered natural or a necessary part of image processing but what about removing unwanted artefacts?  Or people?  

I'm not 100% sure about where I stand ethically on image manipulation.  I do feel that heavily manipulated images have a tendency towards the fake.  However I haven't quite made up my mind if this is necessarily good or bad.  It would be bad if the photographer produced an imaged to deliberately mislead his/her audience. But would it be wrong to produce an image of a landscape that was enhanced to show the mood the photographer wanted to capture.