To Create this photoshop project, there were a number of different tools I used. I started with my pictures. I had a couple pictures of me jumping (on a horse) but I had to pick one where the position would match up with the bunny. Once I found the right picture and put it into photoshop, I had to select myself with the quick selection tool. This took some time because my boot was a similar colour to the saddle. Once I had done that everything else was pretty straightforward and easy. Getting myself onto the bunny picture was a simple command V, and from my past experience in photoshop, I was able to do most if not all the repositioning with the free transform tool and right click with no problem. Then I had to fix all the lighting and edges issues. There were tabs at the tops labeled "filter" and others that came up with options to fix any problems. I also used colour and saturation options that I had to use to make it look like I was in the same environment as the bunny.
click HERE for the link the bunny picture
click HERE for the link the bunny picture
A picture was taken showing Kim Jung Il's funeral. New agencies were using it for coverage, as well as other sources of news. A separate photo of the same event, taken by a Japanese news agency revealed that the photo had been tampered with. The Japanese photo showed that the picture released by North Korea had a group of people to the side of the crowds removed.The outcome was simply that the photo had to be pulled. Although it was not completely clear why North Korea decided to remove the group of people, I think that it didn't have any bad intentions. The group of people were probably removed just so that there wouldn't be a disruption from the pattern of people. Unless there was some hidden reason that the North Koreans would want to get rid of that certain group of people, I don't think there is anything unethical about what they did. Just because of the uncertainty behind the intentions, I think that it was appropriate to pull the photo from whatever it was put into. It was probably a better idea to be safe and pull the photo, than to be sorry if there was something bad about the photo later.
Yes I think there is a difference between digitally manipulating a photo for advertisement and news. Although it would be better not to manipulate them heavily for either news or advertisements, I think it is a lot more severe to manipulate a photo used for news. This is because news is for showing people what happens in real life. If a photo is digitally manipulated in a news article or news coverage than they are portraying something that didn't actually happen. There is a lot of digital manipulation already happening in advertisements, and even though I think it is wrong and is portraying something that isn't really true, people (for the most part) know that advertisements are usually not giving 100% accurate information. The opposite of a news agency who have people depending on them for and are expected to have accurate information. Context probably does play a small part for advertisements, but for news agencies, I don't think that it should matter. Because if anything isn't real then they shouldn't be using it. However, for advertisements there would be a couple cases where it would be acceptable to use a small amount of digital manipulation. Then again, if they aren't selling products that fulfill what they say it does on their advertisements, then they probably used too much manipulation and at that point the context of why they were using that much of it doesn't really matter if they are outright lying about their product. There are a lot of advertisements that go overboard with digital manipulation, and there can be consequences, so I think that having a set of rules would be helpful. Consequences would be that people (girls especially) are expected to meet the standards at which the models on advertisements are made into. With a set of rules people would be able to know clearly when they've gone too far and what would be acceptable. A set of rules could include things like: the picture has to look like what you are selling (for advertisements), if it wasn't there in the original photo you shouldn't add it in, unless you are doing so for reasons strictly to make the picture more equal (or anything else like that) things shouldn't be taken out. These rules are very loose and would only be applied for pictures that have some weight and importance, and even if they were put into place, I think that there would be a lot of people who would struggle to follow them. I'm sure that there would be a large number of people in the photo industry who would ignore the rules completely. These rules are more of an idea than a likely possibility, but if they were put into place, there could possibly be a lot more realism put into advertisements. Something else it could do is properly inform people about what they are actually looking at, and maybe relive some people of living up to the impossible standards that photo manipulation has set for them. In small amounts digital manipulation can make a photo better and more interesting, but going to far is where it starts to get unethical.
Yes I think there is a difference between digitally manipulating a photo for advertisement and news. Although it would be better not to manipulate them heavily for either news or advertisements, I think it is a lot more severe to manipulate a photo used for news. This is because news is for showing people what happens in real life. If a photo is digitally manipulated in a news article or news coverage than they are portraying something that didn't actually happen. There is a lot of digital manipulation already happening in advertisements, and even though I think it is wrong and is portraying something that isn't really true, people (for the most part) know that advertisements are usually not giving 100% accurate information. The opposite of a news agency who have people depending on them for and are expected to have accurate information. Context probably does play a small part for advertisements, but for news agencies, I don't think that it should matter. Because if anything isn't real then they shouldn't be using it. However, for advertisements there would be a couple cases where it would be acceptable to use a small amount of digital manipulation. Then again, if they aren't selling products that fulfill what they say it does on their advertisements, then they probably used too much manipulation and at that point the context of why they were using that much of it doesn't really matter if they are outright lying about their product. There are a lot of advertisements that go overboard with digital manipulation, and there can be consequences, so I think that having a set of rules would be helpful. Consequences would be that people (girls especially) are expected to meet the standards at which the models on advertisements are made into. With a set of rules people would be able to know clearly when they've gone too far and what would be acceptable. A set of rules could include things like: the picture has to look like what you are selling (for advertisements), if it wasn't there in the original photo you shouldn't add it in, unless you are doing so for reasons strictly to make the picture more equal (or anything else like that) things shouldn't be taken out. These rules are very loose and would only be applied for pictures that have some weight and importance, and even if they were put into place, I think that there would be a lot of people who would struggle to follow them. I'm sure that there would be a large number of people in the photo industry who would ignore the rules completely. These rules are more of an idea than a likely possibility, but if they were put into place, there could possibly be a lot more realism put into advertisements. Something else it could do is properly inform people about what they are actually looking at, and maybe relive some people of living up to the impossible standards that photo manipulation has set for them. In small amounts digital manipulation can make a photo better and more interesting, but going to far is where it starts to get unethical.