• @ArbiterXero
    link
    English
    115 months ago

    I think that’s disingenuous…

    There’s a clear difference between a processing mistake and an intentional addition. That’s a fairly clear line. Grain on a photo is not the same as making you look like a human head on a shark’s body.

    Yes, no photo is 100% accurate, just as no statement will ever capture an incident perfectly. That doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as lying.

    There is definitely a line.

    Is the tech trying to make the photo more accurate, or change the narrative?

    Sure, there’s some tech that’s awkwardly in the middle, like skin smoothing, but we don’t NEED that, and it’s not directly changing the narrative of the story, unless you’re selling acne medication.

    • vortic
      link
      English
      45 months ago

      I still disagree that there is a clear line. Yes, it is obvious that photo grain is different from making you look like a human head on a shark’s body. The problem is somewhere in the middle. Determining where that line is drawn is going to be difficult and is only going to become more difficult as this technology advances.

      • @ArbiterXero
        link
        English
        15 months ago

        I think the line (while the details may be certainly difficult) is along “are you making the existing image/story clearer or are you changing the narrative of the media?

        When the story you get from the image changes, then you’ve crossed the line.

        • vortic
          link
          English
          35 months ago

          I generally agree with you but that is still a fuzzy line to draw that is likely very dependent on circumstances. The devil is in the details.

          • @ArbiterXero
            link
            English
            35 months ago

            I can concede to that… there will be some grey area, but the idea that “there is no true photo” or “there is no truth” feels wrong.