Exercise 19: Correction

Correction

Dust Correction

I used the image available on Key Resources for this exercise and I found it fairly easy to remove those bits that I thought were dust motes.  What was more difficult was whether was this a speck of dust or not rather than answer an ethical question as to whether I should remove it or not?  If it enhances the image without changing it too much from the original then, yes, I would make those changes.

Dust removal start

Dust removal finish

I feel that I've been rather simplistic with my glib answer about removing dust from the picture.  I know it's only dust in this instance but it could be something much more important at another time. Later on in this project I remove a whole child from a picture (I've read through the whole project and identified which of my images I can use where) and this leads into far more complicated areas.  I remember last year reading in The Guardian that Grazia magazine had digitally altering a controversial cover picture of the Duchess of Cambridge in her wedding dress.  The magazine had wanted a picture of Kate on her own so had removed Prince William and copied her right arm and replaced it as her left, 'inadvertantly' slimming down her waist as they did so. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/11/grazia-admits-digital-slimming-royal-duchess 

The Duchess of Cambridge was not the first to have her image electronically enhanced for a glossy magazine cover.  Kate Winslet, an actor renowned for celebrating a normal figure fell victim to the airbrush on more than one occasion. In 2003, the editor of GQ admitted digitally lengthening and slimming her legs for a raunchy cover shoot in which she posed in a basque and high heels. Winslet protested that she "was pretty proud of how my legs actually looked in the real picture".

So, from small beginnings, greater deceptions happen, where does it all end.

Lens Flare Correction

I found the flare harder to remove satisfactorily as there wasn't that much to grab from to replace the pixels.  It was harder than the dust removel as I had to use the clone tool rather than the spot healing brush.  Again, if you are not trying to conceal something illegal, then I find nothing wrong it improving the image.  At one time Scenes of Crime officers had to produce their rolls of film in court when giving evidence to prove that they had not been tampered with.  How they manage now it is hard to imagine when corrections can be done with the click of a mouse?

Lens flare start

Lens flare finish

I feel there are times when cloning is allowable, but when something is misrepresented by images that have been Photoshop'd then my answer is no, it's not ethical.