login
|
|
|
|
Getting kids involved- I worked with 7th graders a number of years ago on a project driven by the essential guiding question, "Should there be rules about presenting digitally retouched photos in the media, and if so, what might they be?" What came out of that project was their suggestion that every photo have a number associated with it - 1 through 10, perhaps posted in the lower right hand corner of the photo - that corresponds to the degree to which the photo has been changed. A 1 might be erasing red eye caused by a camera flash, and a 10 might be putting Elvis's head on the Queen's body. Further, they suggested that we should be able to click on the number and be able to read a brief description of the nature of the manipulation. The devil would most certainly be in the details of such a system, but it still sounded reasonable to me. But hey, 7th graders - what do they know? ;-) j -- Dr. Jason Ohler President’s Professor, Educational Technology www.jasonohler.com posted by Jason Ohler |
|||
Photo retouching - What you see is NOT what you get (WYSINWYG)
Do you like this story?
I recommend you read this fascinating LA Times article on digitally retouching photos.
One argument presented here for retouching photos is that it helps compensate for what people lose when going from RL (real life) to photograph. Sound reasonable? Besides, isn't digitally retouching photos just an extension into cyberspace of so many things we do in RL, like wearing makup, or power ties, or our sunday best?
I saw this in action...
I was looking over a pre-service teacher's shoulder one time as she digitally retouched the photo she was going to include in her e-portfolio. With obvious sarcasm in my voice I said, "Hey, you could just click and drag the lower right hand corner of the photo and lose 10 lbs," to which she responded, "Great idea." When she was done she was moleless, thinner, online and ready to be hired as a teacher.
When I questioned her about the ethics of what she had done, she told me in no uncertain terms that she owned her digital representation, and she was free to represent herself however she liked.
When I suggested that this might be like padding her resume with experience that she had never had, she scoffed. "We are just talking about looks here, not substance. In terms of being a teacher, it shouldn't matter how I look."
Okay, I said, but if so, then why change how you look? "To increase my chances of being considered," she responded.
Do you see a circular conversation emerging here?
(image from a paid subscription to clipart.com)
