Manipulated photo (least unethical)

To me, this photo was the least unethical because like I mean so what if they pushed those mountains a bit closer? It didn't hurt anyone and it's not offending anything or anyone. It's not like someone is going to go to the mountains and be all disapointed because the mountains aren't that close to each other in person. These are the kinds of pictures where there isn't no harm behind it and it's okay and understandable to manipulate it. I mean the photographer did this to make the reader want to go there and see some time.

Edited Photos from Photoshop

Ethics and Fashion Photography

1. The girl's neck was enlarged (made it longer and narrow), they also made her eyes bigger as well as make her lips more plump, they also made her hair darker than it was. The girls' eyes were moved down a bit, her cheeks/cheek bones were smaller and her face was narrower than it was.

2. I don't think it's ethically acceptable for people to change somebody elses appearance like they did because they're trying to make her look all pretty and good for the bulletin when in fact she looks like an average person. That kind of thing is what makes teenagers worry about themselves in a way that is negative because you have them starve themselves and get plastic surgery and all those things. It's like when people manipulate with model's bodies to make them look "picture perfect."

3. I think that it's okay to do this for like a yearbook because what if people have really bad acne? What if their face is really oily? Those are the kind of circumstances in which photoshoping is okay.

4. In this video, I think it was okay to change her hair color and maybe the tone of her skin. In other situations, something that would be okay to change would be something like fixing a tooth gap, any discoloring of the teeth, hair color, bad acne, hairs in the way, change a bit of tone in the person's skin, but not to a point where they go from white to black like nothing too crazy and big just a tiny bit, a mole, and tattos I mean minor details like that but really nothing drastics and huge like the person's body like neck position and eyes.

5. To me, the difference is that fashion photography is more like advertising stuff and making the models look pretty so they can convince people to buy the item. Photojournalism is more taking pictures and making sure that if you manipulate something it's for like again bad acne and so that people don't look as bad to as fashion photography, they pretty much manipulate your whole body.

6. In my opinion, all types of photography don't really have much of a relationship because they have a different perspective towards it but they all want their picture to come out good and that it is presentable. It effects the ethical practice to each by them having a different perspective toward their work and what they want to achieve and how good it's going to look. For example, for fashion photography people change the model's whole identity so it makes people buy the item.

Manipulated Photo (most unethical)

In my opinion, I really don't like these photos because these are the kinds of things that make soldiers bad and like they are being unhuman. It was the most unethical in my point of view because the soldiers aren't just there to kill, but to help those people and this is what jerks do. I know people would like to make money off of really good pictures, but they seriously messed this picture up into making it symbolize something way different and bad.

Captions (for print)

Jonathan Hinajosa is concentrating on his assignment by thinking deeply because he wants to get a good grade on it, but was being distrated by his friends during 4th period in Ms. Castling's class. He sat on the far left of the class, which was by the computers so he wasn't tempted to talk to anyone.

Print Evaluation

1. Yes, there is something in focus, not as sharp as I would like it to be but it is.
2. Jonathan (the main subject) is what's in focus. The background is really not in focus, the computers on the table and the chairs pushed in are totally off focus.
3. I think that the main cause why it wasn't in focus was because of the distance between me and the computers.
4. I don't really think that there was a good contrast in my picture and the cause may have been the lighting at the moment when I took the photograph or I just chose a light contrast.
5. My photo is candid because it is showing education, which you can tell by looking at the computers on the background. The photo really doesn't contain much action exept for the fact that Jonathan is thinking/wondering downward. Next time, I would probably take a photo of something with more action such as giggling or laughter. The photograph fills the frame because it's focused on Jonathan and there really isn't much of a white gap and like a lot of people and you don't know what is your subject clearly. In the photograph, it consists of a Rule Of Thirds because Jonathan's head would be in the top left corner if you were to put a grid of 3 by 3 on top of it.
6. Yes, there are 2 spots on my print. They may have been caused by not drying right or when I set it down, somebody elses water spilled on my print or maybe chemicals remained there.
7. Yes, my negatives, contact sheet, test strip, and print are in my folder.
8. There is no print rings in my print.

My first Print