One of the stories we brought to you through our social media channels earlier this year was the case of a modest home in Penshurst NSW, which captured a lot more attention than it bargained for. At first, the thought of a residential home doesn’t sound very controversial, does it? However, the controversy was in the main photo used for the property’s advertising campaign (it was being advertised for sale).
You see, the photo omitted one key feature – or more appropriately, one key eyesore – an enormous water tower located behind the property, which effectively dwarfed it. You would think that such an object would be hard to omit from a shot, given its size and all. As such, the first, and most reasonable, assumption one might make is that the water tower has been photoshopped out of the picture.
Source: News.com.au
What may come as a surprise however, is that Photoshop has (apparently) not been used. Instead, the original photographer has been ‘creative’ in his use of angles and lens’, taking the photo from a position that allows the water tower to ‘hide’ behind the property – something that would hardly appear plausible in real life when viewing the property.
And it is this very point that remains the cause of concern. If a property viewer, inspecting a place on the basic premise that it will look as it does in the picture(s), is confronted with such a confounding difference, is that not an example of misleading conduct? Irrespective of whether another photographer took the photo, to use it for such an illusive purpose is alarming.
By no means is it the first time photographers, designers, publications and the like have edited or retouched photos – unfortunately, it’s common practice in the beauty and fashion industries, and across real estate we’re all too familiar with the emphasis of making rooms appear bigger.
So why then, does the gravity of the offence make it ‘acceptable’ in some instances as opposed to others? Aren’t all of them still misleading the audience by creating a false representation? Generally speaking, each of these examples is being used for the purpose of promoting products or services. What makes it any different to retouch facial blemishes when advertising make-up, yet this doesn’t draw the same ire? Similarly, what about advertisements that edit the appearance of fast food to make it look more appetizing?
Source: The Guardian
The same can be said for photographs that are staged, even if it is more difficult for the audience to question the authenticity of the shots. Recently, after the harrowing scenes of the terrorist attacks in Belgium, we saw a photojournalist directing the movements of a little girl for the purpose of staging a shot. Setting aside the ethical considerations regarding the tragedy itself, and making the obvious exception for photos that require deliberate planning, do staged shots fall into the category of misleading conduct, , or only once the audience is aware the photo has been staged? If a viewer has an expectation that the photo was taken ‘in the moment’, however it was actually doctored for maximum effect, why should this be considered ‘creative’ practice?
On the surface, the line between creative and misleading photography might sound hard to differentiate – and at times, it can be. But in instances where someone is deceiving the audience to promote their own goods or services, it should be a whole lot clearer. What do you think distinguishes a misleading photo from a creative one?
