3 ms·
The difference is in what some photographers call “editorial integrity”. There’s nothing wrong with any kind of image manipulation, as long as it’s done knowing
by leephillips 3y ago
The difference is in what some photographers call “editorial integrity”. There’s nothing wrong with any kind of image manipulation, as long as it’s done knowingly and deliberately, and as long as the nature of the manipulation is known to the audience. But the typical iphone consumer is just taking snaps and sharing them around, and almost no one knows what’s really happening. It’s creepy and unethical.
- Toutouxc 3y ago> and almost no one knows what’s really happening And almost no one cares, btw. And what do you even propose? A mandatory “picture might not represent reality” watermark? Because the way I see it, you either take the computational features away from people, and prevent them from taking an entire class of pictures, or you add a big fat warning somewhere that no one will read anyway, or you keep things the way they are. Which one of these is the ethical choice?
- leephillips 3y agoI’m not proposing anything mandatory. I would like it if the biggest corporation in the world would consider the effects of their technology on society, rather than solely on their profits. That they would at least let ethical considerations potentially influence their design decisions. But that’s not how they got to be the biggest company in the world, so I don’t expect this to happen.